PC Minutes 2007-05-011
1
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 1, 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, Marshall
and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob
Strong, Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, and
Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
AGENDA REVIEW: No changes made to the agenda order.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Keen to approve the minutes of April 17, 2007 with the following
modifications:
• Pg. 7, second to last bullet under Barneich, change to "She noted that flashing
and animated signs and electronic reader boards are prohibited, but she wonders
if the electronic signs around town fall under
the category of electronic reader boards."
• Pg. 8, second bullet under Ray, change to "Additional changes can be proposed
at future workshops, as additional business, community and staff input is
necessary."
The motion passed on a 5/0 voice vote.
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Richard Rojas, SLOCOG staff member, invited Commissioners to the Community 2050
workshop on May 19 at the Pismo Vets Hall from 9am -1 pm, which is for local
community leaders to discuss and learn about smart growth implementation.
Kristen Barneich, 212 Canyon Way, Tree Guild of Arroyo Grande Chair, thanked 34
volunteers who planted 27 trees on April 28 along Traffic Way, Station Way and Fair
Oaks Avenue. In addition, she thanked JJ's Market and the Eclair Bakery for their
generous donations of sandwiches and dessert for volunteers.
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Vacation schedule request memo.
2. Memo dated May 1, 2007 regarding fence height minor exception for
Transitions at 113 Bell Street.
3. Memo dated May 1, 2007 regarding additional administrative item approval
for Temporary Use Permit Case No. 07 -006, applied for by Gospel
Lighthouse Church, for annual cherry sales fundraiser.
4. Letter received April 30, 2007 from Peter Hunt regarding Item II.A.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 1, 2007
Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment.
PAGE 2
5. Letter dated April 30, 2007 from Heidi Stockton, Evan Stockton and Cyrus
Joseph regarding Item II.A.
6. Minutes from previous City meetings regarding Item II.A. including: Planning
Commission minutes of May 17, 2005; Planning Commission minutes of June
21, 2005; City Council minutes of August 23, 2005; and Planning Commission
minutes of April 4, 2006.
7. Letter dated May 1, 2007 from Belsher and Becker regarding Item IIA.
8. Invitation to Countywide Historic Preservation Tools Workshop on June 1,
2007 from 8:30am to 4:30pm at the SLO City- County Library.
II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. VARIANCE CASE NO. 07 -001; ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 07 -001;
VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 07 -003; APPLICANT — PACE BROTHER'S
CONSTRUCTION; LOCATION —123 WHITELEY.
Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman presented the proposal to construct a 1,868 square
foot, two -story house with attached two -car tandem garage. The structure is proposed
to be located 25 -feet from top of bank of the Arroyo Grande Creek. A Variance is
requested to deviate from the front yard setback standard of 20' (5' is requested) and
from the side yard setback standard of 5' (3' is requested). Project grading and a small
foundationless wall /fence will direct storm runoff to the street. Riparian and native
landscaping is proposed adjacent to the creek. He discussed a brief history of the
project as previously reviewed by Planning Commission and City Council, General Plan
policies as they related to the creek and environmental review procedures.
John Shoals, representative for Pace Brothers Construction, spoke in support of the
project. They've been working on this project since December 2004, and hope the
changes (such as those suggested in the May 9, 2006 City Council resolution) will
address City concerns. These changes include the 25' setback, reduction of house size
to 1816 sf, tandem parking, and picket fence. He discussed reasons to make each of
the findings.
Greg Soto, architect, discussed the picket fence, ARC conditions, parking, one -hour
overhang construction, the architecture next -door, and height compared to next -door.
Scott Pace, applicant, and John Belsher, attorney, were present to answer questions.
Gary Scherquist, 228 Short Street, expressed strong concern about the front yard
setback variance, mainly because it blocks public and neighbors' views of the creek.
Heidi Stockton, 129 Whiteley, also expressed concern about the front yard setback, due
to the parking problem and loss of views.
1
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 1, 2007
PAGE 3
John Shoals appreciated public comments, noting the project does meet parking
requirements and neighbors will have additional creek views from the rear of their
property. In regards to creek views for pedestrians and drivers, this isn't a heavily
traveled street.
Chair Ray closed the public hearing for public comment.
Staff answered questions from the Commission for clarification on: necessity for
Viewshed Review processing; City parking standards; enforcement to keep construction
out of the creek setback; onsite storage and staging areas during construction (to keep
out of the creek setback); building code allowing overhangs into setbacks with
appropriate materials (one -hour construction); legality of parking across public
sidewalks; timing of previous grading work; timing of application being submitted before
the creek moratorium went into effect; the City's lack of a mechanism to force Council's
suggestion of bundling this parcel with the neighboring one; multiple questions on
appropriateness of analysis behind the draft initial study and mitigated negative
declaration (MND); addition of wording to prohibit construction vehicles from driving or
parking in the creek setback; purpose and necessity of berm and additional grading to
direct onsite runoff to the drop inlet filter; prohibition of fueling or maintaining equipment
in the creek setback; code specifically not considering a fence a "structure" as defined;
enforceability of mitigation measure wording "substantial conformance "; function of
fossil filter to remove debris, sediment and hydrocarbons (but not all pesticides nor
fertilizers); prevention and monitoring of future homeowners' (non)compliance with
creek setback conditions and mitigation measures; and if any migratory birds onsite are
considered "special species ".
Commission comments and questions:
Tait
• He appreciated that this proposal honors the 25' setback.
• What happens on this site affects the creek. Many things can be mitigated to
less than significant impacts, but there are problems with some issues in terms of
the Tong -term and enforceability. Some examples are the nesting issues of
migratory birds and the effects of pesticide and fertilizer use. Therefore, he can't
adopt the current MND, as it doesn't mitigate all issues to less than significant.
• The applicant wouldn't have had to request the variance, if they had done a Lot
Line Adjustment before building adjacent homes and planned this one first in
order to expose potential problems. He can't make variance findings 1, 2 and 3.
Marshall
• This is about finding a balance between competing priorities between the front
setback and the creek setback. Project history demonstrates that the applicant
incrementally worked the house away from the creek to the point where it's now
fully in compliance with the creek setback, but now the proposal is at the
expense of the standard front yard setback. While he's a little uncomfortable with
the tradeoff, it's not enough to deny the project. With site constraints, something
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 1, 2007
PAGE 4
has to give. The property location - at the end of a dead end street — seems like
a reasonable place to adjust the front yard setback as proposed.
• Although he's Tess than comfortable with tandem garage parking, it's a necessary
compromise.
• He appreciated Commissioner Tait's concerns, but doesn't share them. The
necessary analysis on the MND has been done. The basic function of operating
a City is to establish requirements, but if they imagined every possible scenario
that could go wrong, they would never approve any project. Instead, they need
to find a balance of what's reasonable.
Keen
• He agreed with Commissioner Marshall on many things. Since Commissioners
have recognized the 25' creek setback and this project proposes that, the
reduction of the front setback is justified.
• He's always had a problem with parking space in front of garages and he's not
fan of tandem garages, but there are several tandem garages in town that have
been approved. This particular project is conducive to that. Parking in front of
the garage across the sidewalk is not an option; instead, park on the street in
front of the driveway.
• One of the problems with grading is there are two references: one says there
should be no grading in the 25' creek setback, the other says grading needs to
be done so water drains toward the street. If they want it to drain to the street,
they will have to grade in the setback. The solution is to have a minimal amount
of grading to drain to the street to the drop inlet filter.
• He suggested (acknowledging it may not be possible and /or may not look right)
that the overhang into the sideyard setback stop where the adjacent house stops
in front and back to make it less a nuisance.
Barneich
• She liked the architecture presented, the carriage style garage door, and most
importantly - the 25' creek setback.
• The tandem garage is ok. Most people use the garage as storage. She prefers
a single car garage moved back on the lot to make a functional driveway for
parking.
• Parking is tight on the street due to the fire hydrant.
• Some cars will fit in the driveway, but will hang over the sidewalk unless the front
yard is increased.
• She suggested moving the fence from the top of the earth berm closer to the
house (out of the setback), to keep occupants out (and fertilizers and pesticides).
• While she recognized lot constraints due to the creek setback, the applicant
could still consider a smaller home. With the proposed variance to the front and
side yard setbacks, it won't look right, and it will cut off the view of the creek.
• She appreciated the second story setback as suggested by ARC, but it's still an
imposing structure.
• She asked for other Commissioners' input on the sideyard setback and a single
car garage.
1
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 1, 2007
Ray
PAGE 5
• At the last Planning Commission meeting, she was the most agreeable one to
this project, requesting nothing less than a 20' creek setback and allowing a
reduction in the sideyard setback, but the variance for the front yard is huge at a
75% reduction to City standards. She suggested splitting the difference — 10'
instead of 20' front yard setback.
• Eliminating the tandem garage is okay and she trusts the applicant with the
necessary redesign.
• In regards to driveway parking, it's not good policy to approve a project that
requires non - compliance with City Code (parking in front of the garage but
blocking the sidewalk).
• In response to Commissioner Marshall, she clarified that her intent is for the
driveway (between the sidewalk and garage face) to be increased from 10' to 15'.
Her suggestion to change the front yard setback is meant to compress the house
and not move the rear of the house any further back. She would like to keep the
second floor setback from the first, as proposed by ARC.
• Commissioner Ray requested that the applicant or his representatives respond to
Commissioner Barneich's suggestion to move the patio from the creek side to the
rear of the property in order to keep the creek more natural and encourage
recreation outside the setback.
• John Shoals responded to Commissioner comments, noting their dedication to
work with staff and reaching the goal of what they felt was strong Commission
and Council direction to a creek setback of 25': They scaled back the house size
from 2600 to 1800 sf. They still needed a balance in creating a house that the
applicant could sell. There were three legal lots in existence since 1887, and
typically a landowner wouldn't try to bundle them. They're okay with adding
wording that the landscaping "shall be consistent with landscaping plans" and
moving the fence from 5' to 10'. Mr. Soto can address suggested floorplan
changes and /or request a continuance for further design proposal time.
• Mr. Soto responded to Commissioner Barneich's question why the patio was
located as proposed. It was so the homeowners would be able to enjoy the
creek. They probably can't stop people from entering the 25' setback, but they
would change the patio to the rear of the house.
Commission comments and questions (cont.):
• Commissioner Barneich suggested a single car garage and making the driveway
fully functioning at 18' (with a 13' front yard setback), so cars parked in the
driveway won't hang over the sidewalk.
• Commissioner Marshall was okay with that suggestion, but undecided about
moving the fence, since there's not much useable yard space to begin with.
• Commissioner Ray didn't want to move the fence, because it creates a
constricting aesthetic for the homeowner. Her issues with the creek setback are
not kids and dogs playing in it, but major pedestrian and vehicle access.
• Commissioner Tait noted the earthen berm below the fence was to direct runoff
toward the street.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 1, 2007
PAGE 6
• Commissioner Keen agreed the 25' creek setback is to keep out structures — not
the homeowners. The original creek setback concept was not for preservation,
but to add a creek path from Strother Park to Traffic Way.
• Consensus was to leave the fence as proposed, but add more useable outdoor
area by moving the patio to the rear of the house.
• In response to Commissioner Ray's invitation, Mr. Soto talked about the
possibility of moving the house back 5 or 8'. 5' could be done, but 8' is almost
impossible. 5' takes away from the two -car garage, which the applicant doesn't
favor. To move the garage back would destroy the back room. Upstairs there's
a possibility that the bathroom could be decreased to a standard bathroom and
the walk -in closet turn into a standard closet.
• Commissioner Keen felt people need two -car garages, but if they could keep it at
1.5, then he would be willing to accept that.
• In response to Commissioner Marshall, Mr. Strong replied that code requires a
two -car garage, but exceptions have been made in the Village. This could be
covered by the variance request (no further permit request would be necessary).
• Commissioner Ray felt comfortable with losing the back "dining den ", since
there's a nook near the kitchen.
7:50 p.m.
Commissioners took a 5- minute break.
Commission comments and questions (cont.):
• Commissioner Tait expressed further concern about the environment, particularly
that if they don't mitigate potential nesting sites of migratory and "special status"
birds, then they're violating the Endangered Species Act.
o Commissioner Marshall felt that Rincon did the study and must have
incorporated their concerns into the negative declaration and conditions of
approval. If there's no mitigation measure specific to it, it probably wasn't
necessary.
o Commissioner Tait suggested adding wording that if there are potential
nesting sites, they should be mitigated so they're not affected during
construction.
o Commissioner Keen noted they're not cutting down or pruning trees, so
the habitat shouldn't be disturbed that way.
Commissioner Ray made a motion to approve Architectural Review 07 -001, Viewshed
Review 07 -003, and Variance 07 -001 with the following modifications:
• The creek setback shall not be reduced and the proposed front setback should
be increased 8 feet to the northeast: This setback reduction provides for a single
car garage and storage area to be located 18 feet from the back of sidewalk and
the front of the house to be sixteen feet from the back of sidewalk, with a side
yard of 3 feet rather than 5 feet.
• The staggered front facade with second story setback as approved by ARC shall
be maintained.
1
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 1, 2007
RESOLUTION NO. 07-2032
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 07 -001,
VIEWSHED REVIEW 07 -003 AND VARIANCE 07 -001; 123 WHITELEY;
APPLIED FOR BY PACE BROTHER'S CONSTRUCTION
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Ray, Commissioners Keen, Barneich, and Marshall.
ABSENT: None.
NOES: Commissioner Tait.
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1 day of May 2007.
III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None.
IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION/
NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE APRIL 17, 2007:
PAGE 7
• The applicant shall submit a plan for approval by the Community Development
Director for the construction staging and storage of building supplies and
materials in order to minimize impacts to the creek and creek setback area.
Commissioner Keen seconded the motion and after additional discussion, the following
modifications were added with approval of Chair Ray and Commissioner Keen:
• The applicant shall move the creekside patio to the rear of the property to
encourage that area for residents' recreational use.
• The applicant shall add wording to the transfer disclosure statement acceptable
to the Community Development Director indicating that all owners of the property
shall minimally use pesticides and fertilizers due to the proximity of the Arroyo
Grande Creek.
• The applicant shall add wording to the transfer disclosure statement acceptable
to the Community Development Director indicating that the approved landscape
plan including plant species cannot be changed without the approval of the City
of Arroyo Grande.
: ase
1. TUP 07 -006
2. LFDC 07 -001
App.
Gospel
Lighthouse
Church
Transitions
Address
Multiple locations citywide
113 Bell Street
e .. i
Annual Cherry Sales
Fence height minor exception
Action
A.
A.
Plannere ;;.
J. Bergman
R. Strong
Administrative Items:
1. The Commission had no questions or comments on this item.
2. In response to Commissioner Ray, Mr. Strong explained that no action was
necessary on this item as in his opinion, the fence height being added achieves
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 1, 2007
the intent of the 8' fence on the residential adjacent lots to the north and
west. The resolution was included with tonight's memo for clarifications.
There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners.
Both items were approved as presented.
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 8:05 p.m.
ATTEST:
17 iltio
KATHY M DOZA for LYN R DON - SMITH, TEN AIR
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO + NTE T:
ROB TRONG,
COMMUNITY DEVEL
PMENT DIRECTOR
(Minutes approved at the PC meeting of 2007)
PAGE 8
1