Loading...
PC Minutes 2007-01-161 1 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Parker and Ray. Commissioner Tait was absent and former Chair, Chuck Fellows, had vacated his seat due to his being elected to serve on City Council. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planners, Kelly Heffernon and Teresa McClish, and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 2007 6:00 P.M. AGENDA REVIEW: The Commission agreed to revise the Agenda to be heard in the following order: Discussion Item IV/TUP 06 -022 & V, Public Hearing items II.D, II.C, II.A, & II.B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Brown, to approve the minutes of November 6 & 21, 2006: The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Ray and Vice Chair Brown None Commissioner Tait Commissioner Parker Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to approve the minutes of December 5, 2006, with Commissioner Parker requesting a correction on page 6, 4 bullet — replace "become angry' with "not understand"; the motion passed on a 3/0 voice vote. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, stated that tonight was Commissioner Parker and Brown's last meeting and she wanted to thank them for their commitment and dedicated service to the community. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. A memo from staff regarding modified conditions of approval for item II.A. PPR 06 -009, based on review and comment by the City Attorney (inadvertently not submitted to the Commission until just before the item was discussed). (Revised Agenda order) IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None. C as.eR,No: _Ap Address Description., Action Planner No. 1: TUP 06 -022 Five Cities Keichu -Do 1532 W. Branch Karate Studio A J. Bergman PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2007 NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE DECEMBER 5, 2006: PAGE 2 V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Administrative Item No. 1: Studios are allowed in all the Mixed Use districts, but they were excluded in the Development Code from Regional Commercial districts. Initiation of a Development Code Amendment would allow the Regional Commercial district to be more business friendly. A Temporary Use Permit (TUP) was issued to allow this application to be considered by the Commission, and if approved staff would then proceed with the DCA. Vice Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve the TUP Case No. 06 -022 and recommend that a DCA proceed to City Council for their approval. The motion was approved on a 3/0 roll call vote, Commissioner Tait being absent. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: D. STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 07 -001; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — BARNETT STREET & EL CAMINO REAL Community Development Director, Rob Strong, presented the staff report for consideration of renaming the two block long Barnett Street to El Camino Real, between East Grand Avenue and north of Cornwall Avenue, where it curves and joins El Camino Real. The Commission had no questions: Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. After a short discussion the Commission stated they approved of the proposed street name change and understood that doing so would not compromise any historical value. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to approve the Staff Project 07 -001 recommending that City Council approve the street name change from Barnett Street to El Camino Real and adopt: RESOLUTION 07 -2022 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 07 -001, TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE TWO -BLOCK LONG BARNETT STREET TO EL CAMINO REAL 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2007 AYES: Commissioner Ray, Parker, and Vice Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tait the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16 day of January 2007. The Commission had no questions or comments. RESOLUTION 07 -2023 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06 -004 TO REVISE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY TO MIXED USE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1110 SUNSET DRIVE The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Parker, Ray, and Vice Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tait the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16 day of January 2007. PAGE 3 C. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06 -004; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION —1110 SUNSET DRIVE Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, presented the staff report for consideration of redesignation of a property located at 1110 Sunset Drive contiguous to other Mixed Use designated property to Mixed -Use, allowing for the existing density. Concurrent rezoning is in process that would restrict any future development to residential use for structures that front and access Sunset Drive. In conclusion, Ms. McClish stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment Land Use Map from Multiple Family - Residential High Density to Mixed Use. On January 9, 2007, the City Council introduced an ordinance that included the proposed rezoning for the subject property. If the Commission recommends approval of the resolution, the City Council will consider the General Plan Amendment at the same time as the Zoning Ordinance adoption on February 13, 2007. Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to recommend to the City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment 06 -004, and adopt: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2007 Mr. Strong recused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest on Public Hearing items II.A. & II.B. He thanked Commissioner's Parker and Brown for their service to the City. A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 06 -009; APPLICANT — TONY JANOWICZ; LOCATION — 795 E. CHERRY STREET Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for the continued consideration of a proposal to demolish an existing house and accessory structures on the subject property, and construct a new home and garage further back on the legally, non - conforming lot in the Residential Rural zoning district and Ag -Buffer Overlay district. The Planning Commission previously considered this project at their December 5, 2006 meeting, but continued the item pending consideration of the following: • A Resolution outlining findings and conditions of approval. • Move the access driveway from East Cherry Avenue to Lierly Lane. • Provide a landscape plan and building elevations. • Push the residence as far back from the agricultural property as the zoning will allow. • Show active yard areas to the west and north portion of the property. Ms. Heffernon then read additional revised conditions of approval for the project based on review and comment by the City Attorney. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon explained that because the project involved a proposed road dedication and condemnation of a portion of "Dirt Cherry", the City Council must make the final decision on the project. Staff answered Commission questions for clarification on information contained in the staff report. Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 4 Mark Vasquez, representative, stated his concerns that many of the conditions of approval placed on this Plot Plan Review may be inappropriate and were related more to a subdivision and they should be related specifically to Ag Buffer Overlay; conditions requiring dedication should be included, but conditions for improvements are premature (especially as utilities would have to be removed); he agreed that a proportional share should be paid for future improvements. He then addressed the specific conditions that he considered inappropriate or that should be amended. Tony Janowicz, property owner, thanked Commissioner's Parker and Brown for their years of service to the City and stated he had no comment at this time. Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, expressed concern with the way this project was being considered and stated that it should not trigger the same conditions as a larger development would. He asked if this property was being singled out and stated that if a 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2007 PAGE 5 house were to be built on East Cherry near Traffic Way next to an ag overlay, the City would not require undergrounding of utilities - this is not a dedicated City street and an individual owner should not be required to do this. Colleen Martin stated that utilities and sidewalks had been required for other similar projects, although some of the conditions did seem premature because Sub -area 2 may be rezoned. Regarding onsite drainage, there had been no discussion on the incredible increase in impermeable surfaces that this project would cause. East Cherry should be 32 -feet wide to allow parking (parking is needed on either East Cherry or Lierly Lane). The City requirements for improvements are reasonable; Mr. Janowicz is the sole owner of Lierly Lane. Kristen Barneich, Canyon Way, member of the Tree Guild, stated that the landscaping should be looked at by an expert landscape architect before the Ag buffer is put in place; two trees are proposed fronting the residence, but there should be trees every 20 -25 feet apart (approx. 6 trees total) such as Brisbane Box, Redwoods, Canary Pines — trees that grow taller and faster; information should be in place and signs posted to inform future owners that the Ag buffer cannot be altered. Ruel Estes, property owner next to the Janowicz property, stated sidewalks are not always required in front of new houses; Mr. Janowicz should not have to do all these improvements now; he'd like to see the area kept rural and the roadway narrow to slow traffic down; an ag overlay will only aggravate people and not accomplish anything. Vice Chair Brown closed the public hearing for public comment. 7:50 p.m. The Commission took a 10- minute break. Commission comments: Ray: • After further review and consideration of the new information received since the last Commission meeting she felt the same about the project. • Agreed with Mr. Vasquez that this project is not a subdivision; they should not have to do typical requirements such as curb, gutter, undergrounding etc. • To require East Cherry and Lierly Lane to be improved now is way too premature. • A street tree easement will allow trees to be added in the future to help maintain the Ag buffer. • The sidewalk should be required to connect to where the sidewalk is coming in from Sub -area 1, as this will be a transitional area; sidewalk should be required on the E. Cherry side (curb, gutter and sidewalks should not be required on Lierly Lane). • Agrees with others that the landscape plan should be looked at by an expert landscape architect. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2007 PAGE 6 • All conditions for future improvements should have language that requires a proportional share payment (in -lieu fees). Parker: • Considers this proposal the same as a new home in an Ag buffer, but building the residence further back and the reasoning that building a larger house will give people more space to be indoors - she could agree with this. • Future owners need to be made aware that they are purchasing property in an Ag buffer zone and of the right -to farm; the Ag buffer should be looked at by an expert landscape architect; re the street trees, she would rather see more effort put into an Ag buffer plan (more trees included); a requirement for a 130 -foot buffer should be made specific. • All demolition should be complete before grading is approved. • Due to the potential increase in impervious surfaces, drainage plans are critical, must be approved by the City, and language added to reflect that when drainage plans for the rest of the neighbors are prepared this project should be conditioned to be included. • Conditions of approval throughout the resolution should reflect that this project must be responsible for a proportional share of all future improvements. • Even with a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), allowing a building in the Ag buffer zone does not necessarily mean it will be mitigated; she could not support the Resolution as it is now — it needs more mitigation to lessen the impacts. Brown: • He could not make the necessary findings required to approve the Plot Plan Review, specifically finding No. 2 and maybe No. 3. • He would like to review this project from an Ag buffer perspective; not to consider what Sub Area 1 went through for approval would be clearly inequitable; he does not understand 'why this was put forward for review before Sub -area 2 as this project is clearly part of that. • This is a precedent setting project and he cannot support the current Resolution. • The Ag buffer plan and the drainage issue need to be addressed. • He suggested that it go forward to City Council with the Commission's recommendations and let them decide whether it should come back to them or not. Commission Parker did not agree with Vice Chair Brown; after further discussion he recommended that the project come back to the Planning Commission with a MND, an Ag buffer landscape plan, and a drainage plan for their approval before going forward to City Council. Commissioner Ray stated that the Commission had already considered the issues and suggested that they recommend approval of the project to City Council with a request that the MND, an Ag buffer plan, and a drainage plan, be considered by City Council. 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2007 PAGE 7 Vice Chair Brown again stated that to ask anything Tess than what Sub area 1 required would be wrong; a MND should be prepared for Commission review for this project. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Brown, to continue consideration of the project to a date uncertain, and request that a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a drainage plan, and a Ag buffer plan, prepared by a design landscape architect, be brought forward to the Commission. Discussion: Commissioner Ray stated that she was having difficulty with requiring a MND, as that would be adding time to a process that the Commission had already dealt with on this project. The reason she requested a MND was to maintain clarity on the City's position, the process itself regarding the Ag buffer and why Janowicz was allowed to build within the buffer, so there would be no ambiguity with sub -area 2. Vice Chair Brown stated environmental impacts are determined by CEQA and governing bodies; any decision made on this project would be precedent setting for Sub -area 2. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Brown, and Ray NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tait 8:40 p.m. The Commission took a 10- minute break. B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06 -004; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — 13 ACRES NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION (SUB -AREA 2 OF THE EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN) Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for continued consideration of a proposal to amend the Zoning Map to designate the subject property from Residential Rural to Single - Family Residential (SF) consistent with the General Plan. Ms. Heffernon explained that the Planning Commission continued this item to allow time for further analysis on whether a low density residential zoning could be implemented and adequate findings made given state law regarding regional housing needs and affordable housing requirements. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council introduce an ordinance amending the Development Code to change the zoning designation of the subject property from Rural Residential to Single - Family or one of the other alternatives suggested in the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2007 Staff answered Commission questions on the staff report. Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 8 Mr. Vasquez, agent for the Sub -area 2 property owners, described the proposal and the project constraints. He explained that the conceptual design was based on input from the neighborhood meetings, a 100 -foot Ag buffer, and would have a rural feel to it. He stated that all the owners had seen the conceptual plan and were in approval of it. Ruel Estes, East Cherry, stated his concern at the requirement for an Ag buffer; he would like to use his property as he pleases and does not want to see it downgraded; hopes the Commission does not have a pre- conceived idea of what is going to happen here. Colleen Martin stated the plan is really nice and she likes it; why not zone as proposed and what is appropriate instead of zoning for 4.5 units per acre, which could cause an additional 57 units in this area in the future. Nora Looney, Lierly Lane, urged the Commission to designate Sub -area 2 to Single - Family zoning consistent with the General Plan and requested the Commission to not downzone the area. Speaking for all the property owners in Sub -area 2, she stated Mr. Vasquez had designed a good neighborhood plan and all owners of Sub -area 2 have seen the conceptual plan and the consensus has been positive. She understands the concern about PUD's, but they are just asking for a change in the zoning. Vice Chair Brown closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission comments: Ray: • "No net loss" is not possible here, but we do have the best -case scenario. If we can't downzone we end up functionally downzoning anyway and end up with the paper density. We will actually protect rural communities by changing it to SF to meet the General Plan and protect the personal property rights of those people who would be losing opportunity if we downgrade; this is going to be a transitional area because of the environmental constraints. Parker: • The property dictates the zoning; considering the map it almost fits into the City's RS zoning and maybe there could be an overlay allowing for 3.2 units. Brown: • Does not agree with staff's analysis that the density cannot be made up elsewhere; when the General Plan was adopted this area went from a Specific Plan to a Neighborhood Plan and many hours were spent on sub area 1, and in effect they ended up with a Specific Plan; Sub -area 2 has no less of a burden to climb than Cherry Creek, but the process could be speeded up if issues could be resolved up front. 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2007 PAGE 9 • He proposed that a solution for all parties would be to keep the densities the same, call it a Specific Plan area and it would then be equitable to all owners; he could support zoning for 4.5 units per acre and recommend to City Council that Sub -area 2 have a specific plan /general plan amendment. Commissioner Parker stated that some owners may not want to have a specific plan at this time and may not be prepared to do this. Commissioner Ray asked how a specific plan would protect 11 different owners. In reply to Commissioner Parker's questions Ms. Heffernon explained that a specific plan would be regulated by State law and could be a long process; an overlay already exists as a neighborhood plan. Mr. Vasquez stated that RRM Design Group had done a layout for Sub -area 2 in their neighborhood plan and this could be amended and recommended to City Council to be incorporated into the neighborhood plan. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to recommend that City Council amend the zoning map to change the zoning from Residential Rural (RR) to Single Family (SF) consistent with the General Plan, and adopt: RESOLUTION 07 -2024 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL RURAL (RR) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF) CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 06 -004) The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ray and Parker NOES: Vice Chair Brown ABSENT: Commissioner Tait the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16 day of January 2007. III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Parker stated she had really enjoyed her time serving on the Planning Commission and working with staff. Commissioner Brown concurred. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2007 VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. on a motion by Vice Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Parker. ATTEST: 4 LYN'REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO C • NTENT• R TRONG COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of February 20, 2007) TIM BROWN, VICE CHAI PAGE 10 1 1