Loading...
Minutes 2007-09-11MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ferrara called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council: Council Members Chuck Fellows, Jim Guthrie, Joe Costello, Mayor Pro Tem Ed Arnold and Mayor Tony Ferrara were present. City Staff Present: City Manager Steven Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Financial Services Angela Kraetsch, Director of Public Works Don Spagnolo, Director of Community Development Rob Strong, and Assistant Planner Ryan Foster. 3. FLAG SALUTE Member of Boy Scout Troop 314 led the Flag Salute. 4. INVOCATION Pastor Randy Ouimette, St. John's Lutheran Church, delivered the invocation. 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 5.a. Mayor's Commendations -Teresa McClish, Associate Planner and Jeremy Kaufman, Public Works Maintenance Worker. Mayor Ferrara presented Mayor's Commendations to Teresa McClish, Associate Planner and Jeremy Kaufman, Public Works Maintenance Worker, in recognition of their membership in the City's Platinum Service Club for service above and beyond the call of duty. 6. AGENDA REVIEW 6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only. Council Member Costello moved, Council Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed unanimously that all ordinances moved for introduction or adoption at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived. 7. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS Jesse Arnold, Cambria, spoke about genetically engineered crops and the need for labeling to protect consumers. He urged the Council to encourage labeling of genetically engineered crops. Shawna Galasi also urged the Council to encourage labeling of genetically engineered crops. 8. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Ferrara invited members of the public who wished to comment on any Consent Agenda Item to do so at this time. Jane Line, President of the South County Historical Society, referred to Item 8.d. concerning consideration of the City's membership in the Historical Society, and urged the Council to consider approving the highest level of membership. Mark Vasouez, representing Tony Janowicz, referred to Item 8.e. and requested the Council continue the item. Minutes: Cify Council Meeting Page 2 Tuesday, September 11, 2007 Tony Janowicz, applicant, referred to Item 8.e. and requested a continuance in order to resolve some issues regarding the proposed project. No further public comments were received. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold pulled Item 8.e. Council Member Fellows pulled Item 8.d. Action: Council Member Fellows moved, and Council Member Guthrie seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through S.c., with the recommended courses of action. The motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Fellows, Guthrie, Costello, Arnold, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period August 16, 2007 through August 31, 2007. 8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved the minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings of July 24, 2007 as submitted. 8.c. Consideration of FY 2006-07/FY 2007-08 Annual Local Sales Tax Allocation Report. Action: Approved the proposed FY 2006-07/FY 2007-08 Annual Local Sales Tax Allocation Report and authorized staff to distribute it to all households and businesses in the City. 8.d. Consideration of Funding for South County Historical Society. Recommended Action: 1) Approve a City Silver Level membership in the South County Historical Society; and 2) Appropriate $1,000 for the membership. Council Member Fellows expressed support for the City joining at the highest level (Platinum) membership in the South County Historical Society. Discussion ensued about the valuable resources the City receives from the South County Historical Society; some concern about the City's ongoing operational expenses and the potential for reviewing a higher level of membership at the end of the fiscal year; and a suggestion to join at the mid-level (Gold) now and move to the highest level (Platinum) membership next fiscal year. Action: Council Member Guthrie moved to approve and appropriate $2,500 for a City Gold Level membership in the South County Historical Society, and to re-evaluate the membership level at the end of the fiscal year. Council Member Fellows seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Guthrie, Fellows, Costello, Arnold, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, September 11, 2007 Page 3 S.e. Consideration of Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-009; Applicant -Tony Janowicz; Location 795 East Cherry Avenue. Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution Upholding an Appeal and Denying Plot Plan Review No. 06-009; 795 East Cherry Avenue; Applied for by Tony Janowicz. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold stated he had met with the applicant to review a revised project plan; explained that the applicant did not understand the development review process as it relates to returning with a revised project; noted that the Planning Commission had approved a larger project and it did not make sense to send a smaller, revised project back through the ARC and Planning Commission; and supported a continuance of the item in order to allow the applicant to return directly to the Council with a revised proposal. Brief discussion ensued in support of the applicant's request for a continuance. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold moved to continue consideration of Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-009, applied for by Tony Janowicz; Location: 795 East Cherry Avenue, to the November 13, 2007 City Council meeting. Council Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Fellows, Costello, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEMS None. 11. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS 11.a. Pre-Application Review 06-006; The Pike and South Elm Street. Assistant Planner Foster presented the staff report and recommended the Council review and comment on the applicant's proposed project to construct five (5) studio apartments, four (4) two- bedroom townhouses and fourteen (14) three-bedroom townhouses on 1.27 acres in the Office Mixed-Use (OMU) zoning district, possibly coordinating with adjacent commercial use to create an integrated mixed-use project. He further recommended the Council provide direction to staff regarding potential Development Code amendments to provide clarification on mixed-use projects as it relates to density. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant or representative to address the Council first. Steve Puglisi, project architect, stated that whether the project was mixed use or residential, the project appears to meet State law requirements as it relates to the proposed density. He stated that the project has been presented twice in concept to the Planning Commission and was redesigned to include the most extensive agricultural buffer that could be created; noted that one Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, September 11, 2007 driveway along Elm Street was removed; however, not all driveways along Elm Street could be removed due to circulation, fire and public safety access requirements; and explained how the proposed residential project ties into the adjacent commercial use to satisfy the properties' mixed use zoning designations. Mr. Puglisi responded to questions from Council concerning total square footage of the property; depth of the pocket park into the agricultural buffer; pedestrian amenities within the project versus the pocket park; and how the water run-off from the project will be handled. Council Member Guthrie provided the following comments: - Prefers the residential design over mixed use noting that the "island" configuration does not provide for a mixed use project; - Is okay with the proposed density and acknowledged State law requirements; - Could go either way with the proposed pocket park; if the landscape buffer is tall enough, the park is probably a reasonable use there; - Agricultural buffer is reasonable as proposed; need to follow City policy. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: - Agreed that he does not support the property as commercial mixed use; - Supports residential; there will not be potential for mixed use on the site; - The proposed density is reasonable and will meet the State's affordable housing requirements; - Would like to see a little more parking; however, he acknowledged the project meets the minimum requirements; - Would rather not see the pocket park in the proposed location within the buffer zone; however, he could support the park since the adjacent property is a cemetery and is not actively used for agriculture and the nearby agriculture use is a pesticide free farm. Council Member Fellows provided the following comments: - Can support higher density; - Agreed that parking should not be in the agriculture buffer; Stated that the park should be eliminated; so that the buffer functions as a buffer; - Did not support gap in the agriculture buffer and suggested that the Elm Street entrance be moved to the far northern end of the property; - If the project is approved; suggested landscaping on the east side of S. Elm adjacent to or in the drainage Swale. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold provided the following comments: - Stated it was a good project; however, he expressed concern about the parking configuration within the project; - Stated that there are organic farming and cemetery uses across the street and that there is justification to require the minimum buffer distance requirement; - Supported the need for a pocket park within the project due to lack of open space behind the units; Expressed concern about creating policy to restrict commercial use from agricultural buffer zones; - Expressed concern about the trash enclosure located behind buildings 8 & 9; Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, September 11, 2007 Page 5 - Supported addition of a bike lane; - Supported pedestrian access to the adjacent 7-11 store; would like to see enhancements to the 7-11 store in order to tie the two properties together; - Wants the design of all residential uriits to be the same regardless of affordability. Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments: - Clarified the revised location of the trash receptacles, which had been relocated pursuant to direction from the Planning Commission; - Agreed with comments regarding the zoning and use of this project; agreed that the 7-11 store is a commercial "island" with no adjacent commercial use; - Sees this project moving forward primarily as a residential project; - With regard to the buffer zone, he said there cannot be a "blanket" buffer type or model and configurations of buffer zones need to be treated on a case by case basis; - Suggested that when staff provides a report on the agricultural buffer issues, that the issue concerning commercial uses within the buffer be addressed; - Acknowledged the adjacent organic farm and additional screening of trees along S. Elm Street; - Does not see any way around eliminating ingress/egress access within the buffer; can support some parking in the buffer and looking at some other driveway configurations; - With regard to the pocket park, he could support some area designated as open space; - Would like to pedestrian amenities added such as picnic benches and barbeques. In response to a request for direction by City Manager Adams, the Council concurred to direct staff to come back with alternate language dealing with a more specific definition of mixed use, and recommendations dealing with the inconsistency of how equivalent density is applied currently in mixed-use zones. Upon conclusion of Council comments, Mayor Ferrara ensured that the applicant had received sufficient feedback and direction with regard to the proposed project. There was no formal action on this item. 11.b. Consideration of Viewshed Review Alternatives. Community Development Director Strong presented the staff report and recommended the Council review the preliminary staff report regarding Viewshed Review (VSR) alternatives and provide comments and direction for a possible Development Code Amendment to be considered at subsequent public hearings. Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter, and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the public comment period. Council Member Fellows provided the following comments: - Explained the reason he brought this issue up for review, stating that the City has gone through lengthy processes on vewshed review applications which have been costly for applicants, neighbors, and the City and stated the issue was worth discussing. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, September 11, 2007 Page 6 Council Member Costello provided the following comments: - Stated that he would support looking at protecting public views only; - Stated that no one has an inherent right to a view; - Did not think there should be a discrepancy between new construction and additions and that they should be evaluated equally; Stated that when someone buys property, there should be some expectation of development around them to the development standards that are in place; - Agreed that any viewshed review must not be subjective; - Should focus on public views from public streets or places. Council Member Guthrie provided the following comments: - Supported the viewshed review process and preferred to leave the existing process in place. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold provided the following comments: - Stated that there has to be some kind of viewshed review process in place; - Believed that the community supports the viewshed review process and that views are a valued commodity; - Suggested strengthening the criteria to measure reasonableness when reviewing viewshed issues; would support conducting community group meetings by neighborhood to let them determine whether D-Overlays regulating height are appropriate; - Not in favor of requiring viewshed review on vacant lots; - Would support refining the viewshed review process, but not eliminating it entirely. Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments: - Agreed that the viewshed review process needs to be refined to make is less subjective; - If considering neighborhood specific design overlays, supports idea of involving the community - Does not want to mix viewshed review issues with other standards relating to floor area ratio, etc. - Believed that viewshed review process is needed and intervention is required; does not want to restrict process for just public views; - Viewshed review should be determined on case-by-case basis or on a neighborhood specific basis. - Suggested involving Cal Poly Urban Planning students to assist in following up on this issue. In response to Council comments, City Manager Adams clarified that the Council's direction to staff was to maintain the current viewshed review process and to propose some minor changes to the viewshed review process to make it less subjective, develop certain criteria, and get the community involved. He further noted that this issue would be included in the status report on remaining Development Code updates required to achieve consistency with the General Plan. 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS None. 13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS None.