Loading...
PC Minutes 2007-04-03MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2007 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chair Keen presiding; also present were Chair Ray, Commissioners Barneich, Keen and Marshall; Commissioner Tait was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. AGENDA REVIEW: Chair Ray explained that she was not presiding over the meeting due to laryngitis and that she was present to provide a quorum for Discussion Item V.B. She requested Item V.B. be considered first and that she be excused from the meeting after consideration of this. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barneich to approve the minutes of March 20, 2007, with a correction to Page 4, first bullet, under Commissioner Barneich's comments should state: "People with mental illnesses already live in our neighborhood ". The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Barneich, Marshall, and Chair Ray NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tait I . A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: A memo from Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, with an announcement that SLO Green Build would be holding a dedication on April 10, 2007 to place the first Informational Kiosk in Arroyo Grande due to the fact that they were the first municipality to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with them. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Mr. Strong gave an over view of the staff report prepared by Ryan Foster, regarding Minor Exception Case No. 07 -001, located at 202 Canyon Way, applied for by Gary Scherquist for a second residential unit setback exception. Commissioner Barneich recused herself from the meeting due to potential a conflict of living within ,500 feet of the proposed project. Mr. Strong presented the proposed project, explaining the setback requirements and reason for sidewalks being waived in this instance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3, 2007 Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment. Gary Scherquist, applicant, explained that the setbacks are consistent with neighboring properties. Chair Ray closed the public hearing. Commissioner Keen asked for further clarification regarding the property line and where the setback is measured from. He stated a concern that there would not be sufficient setback for future sidewalks. Mr. Strong explained that the property line is defined as exclusive of the 7 -foot offer of dedication (offer of dedication not accepted by the City). The Commission had no further questions or comments. Chair Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to make the interpretation that front yard setbacks along Canyon Way be calculated from the original property line and not the subsequent 7 -foot dedication, and approve Minor Exception Case No. 07 -001. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Ray, Commissioners Marshall and Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tait ABSTAIN: Commissioner Barneich Commissioner Barneich returned to the meeting. Chair Ray recused herself from the meeting due to her illness. PAGE 2 1 1 11. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. (Continued Item) DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 07 -001, AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented _ the staff report for consideration of staff recommended changes to Section 16.68.050 of the Municipal Code, related to requirements for the placement of utilities underground, projects allowed to pay an in -lieu fee, and projects exempt from placing utilities underground or paying an in -lieu fee. Mr. Bergman then described each section of the proposed Municipal Code changes. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3, 2007 Commission comments and questions: PAGE 3 Marshall — Re New Code Sections: • Section B: Should the use of in -lieu fees and the requirement for undergrounding utilities being applicable to lot mergers? Mr. Bergman: This was included in the existing code, but then the following sections of the Development Code specify projects that would be exempt from this. • Section C: Mentions discretionary residential development as including additions or remodeling — are they discretionary actions? Mr. Bergman: The definition in the Development Code includes additions and remodeling that may need to come to the Community Development Department (includes viewshed review /architectural reviews etc.). • Section E: He recommended changing the word "should" to "shall ". Marshall - Re Existing Code Sections: • Section B — Exceptions: There are three items in this section that are not being carried forward in the new language, why is this? Mr. Bergman: Staff felt that these were archaic and that the definition of the utilities spoke for themselves. • Section C, a) b) & c) are not being carried forward, why? Mr. Bergman: These sections were really difficult to define, so the new language makes it more clear that in respect to residential projects most cases would be eligible for in -lieu fees. • Section D has not been carried forward, so is this not needed? In addition, should we say something about existing non - conforming structures? Mr. Bergman: During the clean, in the new Code, there was an effort to limit the size of the project by giving more options to pay the fee or be exempted from the fee; we can keep non - conforming structure language, but we would need to take a closer look at the instances for this. Barneich: • Are schools exempt from these regulations? Mr. Bergman: Generally they're exempt from City regulations. • With the new code could some small developments be exempted from the fees? Mr. Bergman: The new Code gives better guidelines and in some cases some small modifications could be exempt, but Public Works would really like the service drops (to houses), in most cases, to be undergrounded; he would like to have language clarifying this. • D.3, related to exemption of both undergrounding and in -lieu fees, she would prefer to have this calculated between 25 -50% of the proposed project (not 50 %). Mr. Bergman: The 50% is for cases where a proposed project was to be waived from both undergrounding and in -lieu fees, hence the greater hurdle. Vice Chair Keen opened the public hearing for public comment. Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, asked if undergrounding would be required in cases where a cable line on one side of the street was taken across and dropped down to a house. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3, 2007 PAGE 4 Mr. Bergman replied that in most of these residential projects where just one cable is involved just a fee would be required. Commissioner Keen agreed that for a small, single addition on a house it should not be required to underground and if the resident changed to satellite then the cable could be removed. Vice Chair Keen closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission comments: Barneich: • On D.3 she would like 50% changed to 40 %. • She likes the addition of D.4. (City initiated economic development and streetscape enhancement). Marshall: • He agrees with Commissioner Barneich request to change the 50% to 40 %. • E.1: He would like to change the "should" to "shall" • Staff should take a further look at the language for non - conforming structures to see if any of it should be carried forward. • Enhance the language in regard to service drops based on the recommendation from Public Works. Keen: • South Halcyon should be designated as an "undergrounding district ". • He would like to see in -lieu fees stay in the area from which they are taken; it is not fair to use them elsewhere. • B.2: He is not in favor of having an in -lieu service fee for cable drops to a house for a small project. • Onsite service lines need to be undergrounded (not have a blanket statement saying in lieu fees will be required, as this will never happen). • D.4 /D5: Undergrounding of utilities is such a visual problem in the City that it should override these considerations; he would like to see some more specific language. Mr. Strong stated that the discretionary decision would normally rest with the Commission so the intent is to provide some criteria without tying hands. Marshall: • He appreciated Commissioner Keen's view that the in -lieu fees collected should be spent on that specific street, but this might result in never having enough money to do anything. If improvements were done in places where most activity occurs then this would benefit the whole community. Commissioner Keen clarified that what he meant was that in these cases he would rather not require any in -lieu fee if a person was not going to see any benefits in his lifetime, then the in -lieu fee would not be viewed as an unfair tax. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3, 2007 After further Commission discussion Commissioner Marshall stated that he supported the proposed revisions to 40% requested by Commissioner Barneich; E.1 — firm up the language to change should to shall; staff should look further at non - conforming structures; enhance the language regarding service drops. Commissioner Barneich made a motion to approve the proposed Municipal Code amendments with the following modifications: • B.2: Delete "payment of an in -lieu fee ". • No. 6. should be added to C. to state: "Service lines entirely within a property shall be undergrounded and not subject to payment of an in -lieu fee ". • D3: Change language to state "...the cost of undergrounding or the calculated in- lieu fee will exceed 40 %...." • E.1: Change should to shall. • Staff should work with the City attorney regarding non - conforming structures and carry a recommendation forward to City Council. • B.1: Delete "lot mergers" from this item. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion to adopt: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RESOLUTION 07 -2029 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 07 -001) REGARDING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: Commissioners Barneich, Marshall and Keen None Chair Ray and Commissioner Tait the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 3rd day of April 2007. III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION/ NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE MARCH 20, 2007: PAGE 5 ase No. 1. VSR 07 -004 2. PPR 07 -002 Douglas Jones Jimi Breazele Ad 551 S. Traffic Way 995 E. Grand Ave. escription Remodel and expansion of an existing residence including the addition of a second residential unit. To allow a consignment furniture store to be located in the building that formerly housed Grand Estate Furniture. Action A A P1 an ner J. Bergman J. Bergman PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3, 2007 Administrative Items: Viewshed Review Case No. 07 -004, applied for by Douglas Jones, located at 551 S. Traffic Way: Commissioner Keen asked if there had been any public comment. Mr. Bergman stated that so far there had been none, but the appeal period would not close for seven days. The Commission had no further concerns. Plot Plan Review Case No. 07 -002, applied for by Jimi Breazele, located at 995 E. Grand Avenue: Commissioner Barneich asked if this would be a temporary situation. Mr. Bergman replied that the intention was to use the building for a consignment store until the store is sold. The Commission had no further concerns. III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: In reply to a question from Commissioner Marshall, Mr. Strong stated Viewshed Review Case No. 06 -006, located at 190 Fair View Drive and approved by the Commission at their March 20, 2007 meeting was being appealed by Mr. & Mrs. Tennant; it would probably be considered by City Council during the next few weeks. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Mr. Strong informed the Commission that the Historical Resources Committee was calling a special workshop /meeting on Wednesday, April 11, 2007; they would be discussing "Consideration of Criteria to Designate Historical Places ". VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Marshall. ATTEST: LYN REARDON- SMIT1i SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION ST• i rprONEW - • B STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVEL • PMENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of April 17, 2007) N KEEN SCE CHAIR PAGE 6 1 1 1