Loading...
PC Minutes 2008-12-021 1 1 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Ray presiding; also present were Commissioners Barneich, Keen and Ruth; Commissioner Tait was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planners, Kelly Heffernon and Jim Bergman and Public Works Director, Don Spagnolo. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2008 6:00 P.M. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes requested. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chair Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barneich, to approve the minutes of November 18, 2008 with the following corrections requested by: Barneich: • Page 3, second bullet, clarify language to state ...when residents turn left and "oncoming traffic from Tally Ho" comes around the corner.... • Page 3, second from last bullet, add wording after semi -colon to clarify, she is not in favor of so much stone.... • Page 7, first bullet, replace angels with angles. Ray: • Fifth bullet, delete ...if it gets pushed back... at the end of the sentence. The motion passed on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Tait being absent. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AFTER AGENDA PREPARATION: None. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 08 -003b; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION - HISTORIC CHARACTER DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT D -2.4 Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal to amend the Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic Districts to restrict design features for "Spanish Eclectic" styles applicable to residential development in the Historic Character Design Overlay district D -2.4. as recommended by City Council. Ms. McClish then explained that the ARC at their November 3, 2008 meeting recommended that "no new construction of "Spanish Eclectic" homes be allowed in the HCO residential districts except subject to conditional use permit. In conclusion, Ms. McClish recommended the Commission review the alternatives in the staff report and make recommendations to the City Council for their final decision. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 2008 In reply to Commission questions, Ms. McClish clarified that: • Existing Spanish Eclectic style homes would be allowed to be remodeled through the regular design review process. • The discussion at ARC that lead to requiring a CUP, was to elevate the review of new homes in the Spanish Eclectic style in the D -2.4 zoning rather than prohibiting them given the fact that there are some good examples of these styles reflective of the historic era. • Regarding building colors and remodels, an existing structure in the D -2.4 zoning does have to have design review for a change that affects 10% or more of the building facade. Chair Ray opened the hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. PAGE 2 Commission comments: Ruth: • Homeowners deserve good guidelines so they don't spend a lot of time and energy planning something that's not going to be suitable. • The recommendation is a good middle ground so we're not encouraging Spanish Eclectic, but if someone really wants it and is willing to go through the process to make sure it's going to fit then she can support what staff and the ARC is recommending. Keen: • He also supports staffs recommended language in the resolution, but asked that Exhibit 'A', regarding amendments to the Design Guidelines and Standards, Page 17 &18, "Spanish Eclectic" Style remove the negative language as follows: "ne new construction of Spanish Eclectic homes are allowed in the HCO residential districts except subject to conditional use permit approval" - this will make a better fit. Barneich: • She would like to include photos from Larchmont, Short and Allen Streets in the Design Guidelines and Standards to help applicants when they are coming forward with a proposal. • Even if a CUP is required for a new house there may still may be a disconnect after review. • She has a concern as to whether Spanish Eclectic style homes are appropriate for Arroyo Grande and that if too many new homes are built in this style they will not reflect what the Village is supposed to look like. The changed character would reflect a newer era. Ray: • She agrees with the ARC and some of the Council that it would be better to restrict rather than prohibit this style; she does not like the idea of prohibiting something so specific that is also so subjective and may lead to reactionary code and micro - managing. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 2008 • She is. In favor of requiring the CUP process; she does not believe that most new houses will be of a Spanish Eclectic style, but she would not like to see this style used as a cost cutting tool. • A property owner has the right to design what they want and there are some good examples of well done Spanish Eclectic in the Village. Chair Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruth, to approve Development Code Amendment Case No. 08 -003b, with modifications as follows: 1. Include the changes in the language of the Resolution, as recommended by staff. 2. Require a CUP for a new "Spanish Eclectic" Style house, as recommended by the ARC. 3) Strike the words "no" and "except" in the proposed amendments to the Design Guidelines and Standards in Exhibit 'A ", on Page 17 & 18, as requested by Commission Keen, and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 08 -2074 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 08 -003b TO AMEND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS TO RESTRICT DESIGN FEATURES FOR "SPANISH ECLECTIC" STYLES APPLICABLE TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE HISTORIC CHARACTER DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT D -2.4 The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Ray, Commissioners Ruth, Barneich and Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tait the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2 nd day of December 2008. 7:15 pm The Commission took a 10- minute break. PAGE 3 III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 08 -005; APPLICANT — ESTHER EDWARDS; REPRESENTATIVE — JEFFREY EMERICK; LOCATION — 1407 CHILTON STREET Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal to subdivide a 0.5 -acre property into two (2) residential Tots, subject to Planned Unit Development and Parcel Map application approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 2008 PAGE 4 In describing the property Ms. Heffernon stated staff's concerns which included the steeply sloping site, potential impacts to the four Coast Live oak trees existing on the back portion of the property where the applicant proposes to construct a new residence, and density requirements. The minimum lot size for Residential Suburban (RS) is 12,000 sq. ft. and the applicant is proposing lot sizes of 11,100 and 10,680 sq. ft. which would require approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), assuming the necessary findings could be met; however the property is too small to meet the performance standards that are normally required to approve a PUD, especially regarding open space requirements. The existing neighborhood resembles the Single Family zoning district more than the Residential Suburban district; approximately 59% of the properties in the area are less than the minimum lot size. Ms. Heffernon then explained how the new residence could be built into the slope using stem walls, which would require only one oak tree to be removed and no grading. Whether a PUD is appropriate, or the land use and zoning should change from RS to SF, are issues the Planning Commission might want to discuss. It is staff's opinion that a Variance is not appropriate in this case because it is not likely that all of the variance findings can be made, as required per the Development Code. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed project and provide suggestions to the applicant. Direction regarding the type of formal application is also requested. In reply to questions from the Commission, staff explained that: • The driveway width must be 18 feet to meet Fire Department requirements. • It would be possible to design a hammerhead turnaround for a Fire truck at this site — it would be a condition of approval. • Maintenance of any open space has not been discussed, but the upper portion of the lot with the oak trees could remain in a natural state and might be able to fulfill the open space requirement. It is uncertain given lack of technical data. • Whenever a subdivision is created the Ordinance allows slopes to be calculated as an average over the entire property versus calculating slope for each proposed lot with the Commission having discretion. • Regarding the sidewalk in -lieu fee for this property, there have never been sidewalks on this street due to steep slopes and if there were sidewalks it would probably have to preclude on- street parking. • Stem walls can be used to avoid a grading permit. • The City strongly discourages variances due to the difficulty of making the findings. Chair Ray opened the non - public hearing, but hearing no comment and the Applicant not being present she closed it. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 2008 PAGE 5 Commission comments: Barneich: • She expressed concern with not knowing the percent of the slope on site. • She agrees with all the concerns expressed by the SAC for fire issues, etc. • She is in favor of the idea of the open space encompassing the oak trees. • She is not comfortable about making both lots substandard in the RS zoning district. • It seems there are too many obstructions to try to make a good fit and make a safe house for someone to live in. Keen: • He is in agreement with splitting this lot as the City has allowed this on Chilton Street several times in the past and they should be afforded the same privileges as others. • He is adamantly against starting PUD's on a two -lot subdivision as this is not what the PUD was designed for; he would rather have a variance. • The house could be designed around the trees and the slope by conditioning the project; there is a similar situation on a lot that has been developed just down the street from this one. • Regarding Commission Barneich's concern with Fire safety, it's mandatory that all flag lot houses have to be sprinklered so it would not need a hammerhead turn around (which would be a big waste of land). Ruth: • She agrees with Commissioner Keen that the owner should be allowed to subdivide. • She looked over the findings for a variance and did not think all of them could be met; however, after looking at the neighborhood there may be a problem with the way it is zoned versus what it really looks like so the zoning does need to be looked at. • This could be conditioned for what would be suitable and it would be up to the owner to resolve the problems that have been brought forth. Ray: • We do not have a lot of information to be able to comment on with this pre - application. • She agrees with Commissioner Keen and Ruth's comments; the subdivision should go forward and the applicant will have to deal with the requirements, which could be a re -zone from RS to Single Family (SF), a variance or a PUD - that they may not be able to make the findings for. Without a slope analysis or a building design it is difficult for the Commission to comment further. Staff and the Commission then discussed the possibility of rezoning to make the lots conforming. Ms. Heffernon stated that the applicant would have to initiate the zone change request. Director Strong explained the history of the lots in this area and how this situation transpired and that there were many lots remaining for development. Case No App. Address- = Description ` .� '`�'_, ; ' Action ' i'Planner v 1. TUP 08 -023 St. Patrick's Catholic School 900 W. Branch Street Christmas Tree Fundraiser A. J. Bergman PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 2008 The Commission had no further comments. NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: SINCE NOVEMBER 18, 2008: The Commission had no concern with this temporary use permit. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. on a motion by Chair Ray, seconded by Commissioner Keen. ATTEST: LYN REARDON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELO MENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of December 16, 2008) PAGE 6 1