Loading...
PC Minutes 2008-05-201 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2008 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Ray presiding; also present were Commissioners Barneich, Keen and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, Planning Intern, Jimmy Paulding and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes requested. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Barneich made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve the minutes of May 6, 2008 with the following corrections: • Page 4, Commissioner Barneich, 3rd bullet, strike "reason to allow this house on this lot ", and replace with "reason to allow the Variance ". • Page 6, 3rd paragraph, Mr. Devens comment, replace "in respect with building these houses" with "with respect to building these houses. " • Page 9, Commissioner Barneich, 2 bullet, first sentence, should read "She is struggling to approve this project, but she knows that some homes will be built here ". • Page 9, last 2 bullets, Commissioner Barneich comments should state: • She does not like the filling in of the gulley, she is not confident that this is the right thing to do and what impact it will have in the future; lot 2 is still in the riparian habitat so maybe this needs to go away. • She does not like the removal of the large and extremely healthy oak trees in the gulley. • Page 5, 2 paragraph from bottom, John Rickenbach, last sentence, replace "litigation" with "mitigation. The motion was approved by a 3/0 voice vote, Chair Ray abstaining due to her being absent from the May 6, 2008 meeting. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PREPARATION: 1. Letter dated May 20, 2008 from Tim Hutchinson, regarding Item III.A., addressing scale, bulk, and mass of residential homes in the vicinity of the Village. 2. Email dated May 20, 2008 from Mark Vasquez, regarding item III.A addressing scale, bulk and mass of residential homes in the vicinity of the Village. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 07 -001, AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITY WIDE (Continued from April 15, 2008 meeting) Mr. Bergman presented the staff report for consideration of staff recommended changes to section 16.68.050 of the Municipal Code related to requirements for placement of utilities underground or the payment of in -lieu fees. Mr. Bergman explained the changes that had been incorporated after Commission comments (received at the prior meeting), and recommended that the Commission adopt the Resolution recommending City Council amend Municipal Code Section 16.68.050 regarding undergrounding utilities. In reply to questions from Commissioners Tait and Chair Ray, Mr. Bergman clarified items from the staff report regarding Page 4, C, and Page 3, Item 2.B.4. Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. The Commission had no further comments or questions. Commissioner Barneich made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to adopt the Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 16.68.050 related to underground utilities. RESOLUTION NO. 08 -2065 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 16.68.050 (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 07 -001) REGARDING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Barneich, Ray, Keen and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20 day of May, 2008. PAGE 2 III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 08 -005, REGARDING SCALE, BULK, AND MASS OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN THE VILLAGE; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — THE VILLAGE D -2.4 HISTORIC CHARACTER OVERLAY DISTRICT 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 PAGE 3 Planning Intern, Jimmy Paulding, presented the staff report for Planning Commission for consideration of staff recommended alternatives for Development Code amendments or amendments to The Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic Districts to address the issue of scale, bulk, mass, and character of residential homes in the Village D -2.4 Historic Character Overlay District. Mr. Paulding then gave a recap on the Public Workshop held on April 29, 2008 and summarized the results of the alternatives presented at that time and also the results of the questionnaires circulated to the D -2.4 neighborhood to address the issue. He explained specific alternatives that were preferred by each group at the workshop including changes to lot coverage requirements, height limits, the Design Guidelines & Standards, and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. In conclusion, Mr. Paulding explained how staff was proposing to address each of the proposed alternatives. Commission questions: Ray: • How would the proposed second story setback affect the design of Victorian houses? Mr. Paulding: This alternative would need to incorporate some discretion for certain types of architecture and there would need to be more discussion related to the specifics of this alternative. • Alternative B 1 -4: Requiring a Conditional Use Permit would be expensive so what purpose would this be for? Mr. Paulding: This is staff's least favorite alternative, but It would provide more discretion decision making related to the issue. • C1 -2 FAR bonus: In the staff report it was difficult to define the reality of how additional design features would affect the bonus system. Barneich: • C 1 -2 FAR bonus: She agreed with Chair Ray that the numbers may need to be tweaked down to make it work. Mr. Paulding agreed that the numbers could be changed and a maximum threshold could also be used. • Did staff consider including the garage in FAR calculations? Mr. Paulding: After discussion, it was decided to include the provision that starts out at 500 sq. ft. and any additional garage space would count toward the total floor area of the house; however, the specifics of this alternative would need further discussion. • Could the alternative CUP requirement for the non - conforming lots be used in conjunction with current Code requirement? Mr. Paulding stated it could be. Tait: • Alternatives A -1 & A -2: He expressed concern about the increase in the number of non - conforming parcels that would result from further restriction. Mr. Strong agreed that the establishment of criteria that creates a larger number of nonconforming parcels is not a good indicator of the character of the Village. If 40 - 60% of the Village is nonconforming with a more restrictive standard, the standard should be higher [more relaxed]. It is a concern to try to establish a reasonable standard and it may still be difficult to quantify everything. Barniech: • She agrees with the concerns expressed by Commissioner Tait and she disagrees with a statement in the staff report page 4, Alt. A -1, that states by PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 Tait: PAGE 4 reducing the lot coverage standard to 30% from 40 %, the resulting "32% nonconformity would make it difficult to find the reduced coverage a consistent characteristic of the 0-2.4 HCOD residential areas", but she believes it would show a trend and that we are being proactive; there would still be 68% of the lots conforming. Mr. Paulding explained how gathering more data could be done to see the trend, but that time constraints and cost make it difficult (at this time). • C -1: Would the FAR bonus system allow larger homes than are currently allowed if the bonus points keep adding up? Mr. Paulding: The bonus system is a system of rewards. A property owner who is willing to incorporate design features that we value (and would not take away from the character of the Village, but add to it) should be given an actual bonus; if the apparent scale, bulk , and mass of the structure was reduced, then the bonus system could potentially exceed 40 %. All of the actual bonus system values should be fine -tuned and discussed • Alt. B -3 Low Impact Development (LID): This may have to be initiated in the future with State mandated water quality requirements. Mr. Paulding stated that he thought it could be proactive to address this pending requirement in a smaller area of the City prior to adoption City -wide. Keen: • Alt. B -1: Why was the usable open space criteria left out of the post -1991 Development Code, wouldn't it help restrict the square footage of the lot coverage? Mr. Strong explained that the provision was left out as it referred back to prior zoning ordinances (prior to 1991). Ms. McClish explained that it would provide a restriction to reduce the footprint, but enforcing it over the long -term could be a problem. It also is more restrictive for smaller lots — is not a proportional requirement. • It should be a goal of the Commission to implement this even if it is difficult to enforce. Barniech: • Alt. B -3 LID: Could someone design a big house and still have the water diverted on site? Ms. McClish: It could be done, although it would be more difficult to implement with a larger house as it affects site design; this needs to be kept in the forefront of discussions. Keen: • Was there a percentage of open space in the Code in respect to building on a larger lot? He agreed that as the lots get larger the percentage for open space should go up - this is the only way this will work. Ms. McClish: She could not recall any previous specific percentages for usable open space for residential lots; there are current standards connected to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process and they are in percentages. Chair Ray opened the public hearing although this was not a public hearing item. Dameon Mavis, stated concern that part of their approved project (Cherry Creek) is in the Historic Overlay District (a PUD) and asked if this would be affected by any of the 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 PAGE 5 proposed changes in the future. Ms. McClish explained that an approved project and vesting map is not subject to new Code amendments. Mark Vasquez, stated that regarding the Alternatives, part of the bonus system might be a positive; lot coverage and FAR should include all structures that are there as this would police the issue better than anything else in addressing the mass itself; the open area requirement is a benefit to the current residents and future residents of the Village. Regarding height, a two -story house with standard ceiling heights could definitely be built with 25 feet and maybe most of them with 22 feet; the wall height is important as it could be imposing; an exception for a Victorian could be allowed, but the house may have to be setback from street. He agrees with Ms. McClish that LID needs further discussion, especially to make people aware when designing. In reply to a question from Commissioner Keen, Mr. Vasquez stated that the D -2.4 Historic Overlay District addresses a variety of properties, not just the Village in the flat area, but up in some of the hilly areas, where specific requirements may have to be different for them. Commissioner Keen then addressed Mr. Vasquez's letter regarding Alternative C -2 and garage square footage. Mr. Vasquez explained that FAR should be looked at as a total of the structure and not as proposed in the staff report. In reply to Chair Ray, Mr. Vasquez stated he had a concern that proposed projects in the Village should be noticed before the ARC's review so neighbors will have the opportunity to review before approval. Staff and the Commission discussed the additional cost that this could incur and how the noticing provision works. Commission comments: Barneich: • She is in favor of having two zones, Multi Family (MF) and Village Residential (VR) instead of three Single Family (SF) zones, as long as the Code is modified to address mansionization. • Tim Hutchinson's letter states that bad design would be eliminated during design review if it didn't incorporate the spirit of the Village to begin with - unfortunately this is not true and that is why we are here. • She is in favor of the FAR reduction, the lot coverage reduction, the second story setback and including the garage in the FAR if it is over a certain square footage. She really likes Mr. Vasquez's idea to count the covered porches in the FAR and lot coverage and maybe the garage as well. • She likes the idea of the bonus system as it addresses bulk, mass, and scale; the percentages may need to be tweaked down so as not to go over the maximum FAR. • She is in favor of reducing the maximum height to possibly 25 ft. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 PAGE 6 • She likes the LID approach; this will help our creeks and it's important to be proactive. • The CUP is too expensive and may not be necessary. • She approves of the alternative for the second -story setback (helps with mass and scale). • Amendments to the Design Guidelines & Standards for Historic Districts; this may not make a huge difference as it can be looked at in different ways. • She was surprised that In the survey, on question No. 7, regarding restricting the size of the homes in the Village that 63% said yes - this was refreshing. Keen: • At this time we are giving direction for a public hearing process to implement this proposal and we may get a lot of different ideas that will be studied and discussed through public hearing. • He would like to see the proposed lot coverage requirement go down to 35 %, but he has a concern about getting more than that as he would not want to create too many non - conforming houses. • He has a real concern about losing the open space requirement and he would like to have another alternative to consider (for a percentage to cover larger lots) when this comes back for discussion. • On the staff report on page 11 & 12, regarding the second story setback, it shows no setback on one side so this could impact the house next door; setbacks should be required on all sides. • He has a concern about including the LID in this document now; when we get the final requirements it would have to be changed anyway so it makes extra work to do this now. • The FAR bonus system is a deal- breaker for him; it causes too many calculations and too many interpretations and disagreements; some of them are really great but giving bonuses for them could cause great confusion. • He is in favor of the 25 ft building height. Tait: • A -1 & A -2 lot coverage and FAR: He agrees with Mr. Vasquez that all structures should be included. • He is also in favor of the 25 -foot height restriction with some exceptions for Victorians and on hillsides too. • Open space: A setback of 10 -foot for side yards makes more sense for usable open space, even though it may be a problem to enforce. • He is in favor of the second story setback. • He is not sure if we need to deal LID now although we will have to deal with it in the future. • On the FAR bonus system, he is in agreement with Commissioner Keen that it could be problematic, although some parts of it are good. • C -2, garage square footage: He agrees with what Mr. Vasquez says on this - that the garage needs to be included with the FAR. 1 Case No. A dd ress ` Description ' ; , vAction 1Pl a nn e r ;; 1. VSR 08 -002 Bill Love 275 Hillcrest Ave. Construction of a two -story 1,883 sq. ft. house. A J. Bergman 2. ARCH 08 - 002 Gennaro Rosato 132 Bridge St. New decorative wall with stone and wrought iron. A J. Bergman 3. TUP 08 -009 Gospel Lighthouse Church Huasna Rd /E Grand/W. Branch Fundraiser Cherry Sales. A J. Bergman 4. VSR 08 -004 Steve & Terri Davis 469 Campana PI. Modification and expansion of existing decks. A J. Bergman 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 PAGE 7 Ray: • She agrees that lot coverage and FAR needs to be included. • She is in favor of the height restriction of 25 -foot, especially after looking at the height restrictions in the rest of the County. • The community is in favor of the lot coverage requirement for usable open space so she would like to see this included. • B -2 & B -3, the second story setback and LID: She would like to see this as discretionary rather than as a requirement (i.e. Victorian design); exceptions should go to ARC rather than a standard; the same with LID as it's too soon — it should be a suggestion or guideline at this time. • She is against the CUP just for cost alone as this will not offset the benefit we gain as a discretionary body. • She thinks the FAR bonus is a great idea, but it will need some tweaking; mass, bulk, and scale are subjective (a feeling) and it's difficult to quantify; the more an architect adheres to the guidelines the less it will feel bulky and massive; there should be a bonus for good design that follows the guidelines; for example, if the entire garage is added in and it gets too restrictive then we can add bonuses later to offset this. It would be good to look at the non - conforming Tots to see how many of them would have got bonuses and there may not be so many. • On the height restriction regarding wall height — the ARC should review this. • There should be further discussion on the need to review usable open space. The Commission had no further comments and thanked Mr. Paulding for all his hard work. IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION/ NISTRATIVE DECISIONS: SINCE MAY 6, 2008: Chair Ray asked if any neighbors had expressed concern when noticed for item No. 1, Mr. Strong stated that the only affected neighbor was now satisfied after design revision. Mr. Keen said it looked like a lot of fill was being used. Mr. Strong stated he would check out the grading, but the foundation had already been laid so he didn't think the floor height would be affected. In reply to a question from Commissioner Barneich, regarding item No. 2, Mr. Strong stated that the stone had been eliminated where it would conflict with the neighbors possible plans for parking in the future. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 The Commission had no further concerns on the other items. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Mr. Strong gave the following updates in reply to Commission questions: • There is no grading going at a property on Hwy 227, but there's soil testing for a preliminary proposal that has been submitted and evaluated for application completion. • The James Way resurfacing is progressing and will probably be another month before fully completed. • The two -hour parking restriction in some areas of the Village, instituted by the Downtown Parking Board, has always been in existence, but not enforced; one of the problems has been employers and employees have been parking next to the businesses; the Board is looking for the correct balance to allocate parking for employees further away from the businesses; it was intended that courtesy notices would be issued for a few months so this will be reviewed. • The June 3 and 17, 2008 meetings of the Planning Commission have been cancelled due to lack of projects and lack of a quorum. • The July 8, 2008 City Council meeting may be cancelled also. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. on a motion by Chair Ray, seconded by Commissioner Keen. ATTEST: LYN REARDON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION .ILS TO CO TENT: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR PAGE 8 1