Loading...
PC Minutes 2007-06-191 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2007 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 Marshall; Commissioner Tait was absent. Staff members in attendance were Acting Community Development Director, Kelly Heffernon and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. AGENDA REVIEW: Chair Ray announced that a Discussion Item regarding a retaining wall /fence height on Brisco Road, PUD, Phase II, had been added to the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barneich to approve the minutes of June 5, 2007 as written. The motion was approved on a 3/0 voice vote, Commissioner Marshall being absent the meeting of June 5,2007 and Commissioner Tait being absent this meeting. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Email received June 19, 2007 from Molly McClanahan regarding Plot Plan Review Case No. 06 -009 — Agenda Item II.A. 2. Letter received June 19, 2007 from Colleen Martin regarding Plot Plan Review Case No. 06 -009 — Agenda Item II.A. 3. A letter from Lyn Titus mailed separately to the Commission before the meeting regarding Plot Plan Review Case No. 06 -009 — Agenda Item II.A. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 06 -009; APPLICANT — TONY JANOWICZ; LOCATION — 795 EAST CHERRY AVENUE, ARROYO GRANDE (NOTICE PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED 5/25/07 AND CONTINUED FROM THE 6/05/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal to remove an existing house and accessory structures and to construct a new home and garage further back on the lot. The project was reviewed at four prior Planning Commission meetings; at the last meeting on April 17, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project to City Council. However, it was since determined that the project did not require City Council approval. Modifications to the Conditions of Approval (recommended by the Planning Commission) have been made to the Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 19, 2007 PAGE 2 In summary, Ms. Heffernon stated that issues involving acquisition of portions of "Dirt Cherry" are being handled separately from the project; the project will improve the current situation since the residence is proposed to be located further away from the adjacent agricultural operations; it will provide an opportunity to widen both East Cherry Avenue and Lierly Lane (which would not possible with the residence in its current configuration) and the new structure meets all Development Code requirements for the Residential Rural zoning district. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon recommended the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the project or choose one of the suggested alternatives provided in the staff report. Commissioner Barneich asked why the project was being considered before the Neighborhood Plan for this area had been approved by City Council? Ms. Heffernon explained that this was a legal lot that should be considered by itself; approval of the Neighborhood Plan would not impose anything different on this project. The Commission had no further questions. Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment. Mark Vasquez, representative for the applicant, had no comment, but offered to answer any questions the Commission had. The Commission had no questions. Nora Looney, 444 Lierly Lane, stated that the property is currently a shack and an eyesore; the applicant has worked very carefully with the adjoining neighbors to replace this home with a new home and in the best location; she urged the Commission to approve the project. Tony Janowicz, 795 Cherry Avenue, owner /applicant, thanked the Commission for their consideration and asked the Commission for their approval of the project. Chair Ray closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission comments: Barneich: • The density transfer for this project should be pursued; she urged the Commission, City, and applicant to think "outside the box" in consideration of this proposal; it is an opportunity to implement the City's General Plan Ag policy; all the options have not been considered and the Ag buffer policy is too important to the community not to do so; she believed the City Council would be open to the idea of the density transfer; the Neighborhood Plan needs to be approved by City Council before the project is further considered; given the choice of a larger house in the middle of a small Ag buffer or an extra house in the area behind the 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 19, 2007 PAGE 3 Janowicz home, coupled with a real complete Ag buffer the decision is an easy one; therefore, denying the Plot Plan Review is the only action she could support. Keen: • The Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal several times and recommended approval to City Council. • He is ready to support the project. Marshall: • It is more than a year since the Commission first considered this project and he commends everyone involved for their perseverance. • He agrees with Commissioner Keen - his concerns have been adequately addressed. • He is ready to support the project. Ray: • The Ag buffer issue has been dealt with. • She likes the density transfer idea, but at the last meeting believed they had been given some direction from Council regarding Sub area 2; the issue of the density transfer had been discussed, but they had not received any comment from Council since the last meeting; this is not a sub division, so we do not have the same latitude to hold this property to that standard. • Nothing has changed since the last hearing and all modifications the Commission asked for have been included; therefore she approves this project as proposed. Barneich: • The density transfer has not been investigated at all; staff needs to bring this forward and it may work and might be a better idea. Chair Ray stated that if this is the case then it can be appealed and Council can discuss this. Chair Ray requested that Conditions of approval 13 and 14 should match Conditions of Approval 44 and 45 regarding the applicant having the option of bonding. Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by Chair Ray, to approve Plot Plan Review Case No. 06 -009 and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 07 -2034 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 06- 009, LOCATED AT 795 EAST CHERRY AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY TONY JANOWICZ AYES: Commissioner Marshall, Chair Ray, Commissioner Keen NOES: Commissioner Barneich ABSENT: Commissioner Tait PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 19, 2007 the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19 day of June 2007. III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION/ NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE JUNE 5, 2007. PAGE 4 CaseNo 1. VSR 07 - 006 e pp Charles & B'Ann Smith ddress 548 Crown Hill 'escription Construction of a 1 and 2 floor deck totaling 672 sq. ft. Action A. Planner.= J. Bergman Administrative Item No. 1 Commissioner Barneich asked if the ARC had approved this item? Ms. Heffernon replied that the ARC had recommended some modifications, but the Director approved without the modifications. The Commission had no further questions. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1 Retaining WaII /Fence Height; Brisco Road PUD, Phase II - Staff Report — Ryan Foster. Acting Director, Heffernon, presented the staff report explaining that after review of the improvement plans for the Brisco Road PUD, Phase II, located at 189 Brisco Road, it was discovered that due to grade differences between the project site and the adjacent property (San Luis Ambulance), the required retaining wall will have a finish height of 11' above grade with a 6' fence, for an overall height of 17 feet. This is an increase of 2.8' above what was shown on the tentative plans. It should be noted that normally, issues such as this are addressed by offsetting the fence from the face of the retaining wall; however in this instance that solution would effectively reduce the size of already small backyards. Staff conducted a site visit of the project site and based on the location of the highest point of the wall at the rear of the project, determined that the increase in retaining wall height does not constitute a significant change to the approved project due to the topographical constraints of the site and the limited visibility of the finished wall /fence combination from public rights of way. In reply to a question from Commissioner Keen, Mr. Devens explained that it is only a 2' 5" increase over the original approved wall height. Chair Ray stated that she saw no problem with the proposed height as it was for safety reasons. After further discussion the Commission agreed that the height was acceptable, but they would prefer to see the wall have some textural finish or vines to soften it. Mr. Devens stated that he believed that the wall was proposed to be split -faced block. The Commission had no further comments. 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 19, 2007 VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Ms. Heffernon stated there would be no Planning Commission meeting on July 3, 2007. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. on a motion by Chair Ray, seconded by Commissioner Marshall. ATTEST: n LYN REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: KELLY H FERN ACTIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of July 17, 2007) PAGE 5