Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-03-21MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2006 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Parker, Ray and Tait; Commissioner Fellows was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Assistant Planner Jim Bergman, and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Request for the public to turn off their cell phones during the meeting. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes to the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of March 7, 2006 were approved with the following amendments requested: � Commissioner Tait: • Page 6, first line, should state: "Does agree...", remove "noY'. • Page 6, sixth bullet, MM 14.4 should read, "the project plans shall include methods and appropriate best management practices; end of same sentence should read, "California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbool�'. • Page 7, No. 4, should be MM 14.4 (not MM 4.4). Commissioner Ray: • Page 4, second paragraph, delete language at the end of the sentence, "... as this will be the primary entrance for access into Longs". • Page 5, 4 bullet, remove complete sentence (it was not Commissioner Ray's comment). Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve the minutes as amended; the motion passed on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Fellows being absent. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Drawing showing the grade section thru existing garage/driveway: item II.A. on the Agenda. 2. Letter from Carey James, 285 Miller Way, requesting the City adopt an ordinance to address the issue of trees blocking ocean views. C. NOMINATION � ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Chair Brown nominated Commissioner Fellows for Chair and made a motion to this effect; Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 21, 2006 The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Brown, Parker, Ray and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fellows Commissioner Parker made a motion to nominate Chair Brown for Vice Chair; Commissioner Tait seconded the motion. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Parker, Brown, Ray and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fellows D. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. VIEWSHED REVIEW INTERPRETATION: VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 05- 021; 1238 MONTEGO STREET; APPLICANT — STACY HARMON Mr. Bergman presented the staff report for review of pertinent Municipal Code sections related to requirements, standards, and definitions for Viewshed Reviews and to determine if a Viewshed Review application is required in this case. Mr. Bergman stated there had been numerous height restrictions on this hill site in Arroyo Grande since 1973; there is a height restriction on the south side of Montego Street as well as on parts of Ruth Ann Way and Newport Avenue and Hillcrest Drive. Mr. Bergman explained that an interpretation is required as there are two equally concerned property owners who both have convincing arguments related to interpretation of the Municipal Code, especially as it relates to definition of a basement or story. He asked the Commission to consider two questions: 1. Is the proposed project a single story house with a basement, garage, workshop, and game room or a two-story house, if so 2. Based upon the previous history of this project, past City policies related to protection of views (overlay zones), and the Residential Site Development Standards of the single-family zone, could the viewshed review process apply to a single story house that would have impacts similar to a two-story house? In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that staff recommends that the Commission determine if a viewshed review is required, and make specific findings for approval or denial. Commissioners Ray, Tait, and Brown asked staff for clarification on some of the information contained in the staff report: Director Strong explained that the D-Overlay for the western six lots on the north side of Montego Street had not yet been accomplished by staff. There is a concern that if the PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 21, 2006 PAGE 3 D-Overiay had been in place then even a single story house would be subject to viewshed review. Commissioner Ray asked why the applicant had originally applied for a viewshed review (Planning Commission notes of August 5, 2005) when it was not required? Mr. Bergman stated that the applicant had consulted with the Community Development Department as a courtesy; however, if the applicant had gone to the Building Department first they may in any case have requested the Community Development consider the viewshed first. Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. Mark Vasquez, applicant agent, spoke at length discussing why this proposal should be considered a one-story, described the project and gave the history of it. He stated that it is very clear in the Uniform Building Code that as proposed the garage and space below is a basement. The only ambiguity is that the City Ordinance refers to the space below as a basement, states that a basement must be sub-grade, but does not clearly define what sub-grade means in relation to the property. The proposed space below the house is sub-grade and the only place that does not meet the definition is the garage door which is not sub-grade. If the basement were considered a story, then staff would not have accepted the previous application as it would have been considered a three-story house. He gave examples of other existing residences in the neighborhood that were exactly like what they were proposing. Mr. Vasquez stated that the design meets the requirements for a one-story design and is not out of character with the neighborhood. A one-story house should not be subject to a viewshed review and they believe that anything they do on this property that affects the view will not be accepted by Mr. Mankins. This proposal would affect the view not take it away. In conclusion, Mr. Vasquez stated that by tearing down the existing house and redesigning for a one- story house the applicant has made considerable compromises. In reply to a question from Commissioner Ray regarding the height, Mr. Vasquez stated that it would be six feet higher than the existing residence. In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker, Mr. Vasquez stated they could not make the driveway level with the street due to the existing grade of the house. In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait regarding redesigning with a lower roof, Mr. Vasquez stated that this would not be the design or style that the applicant would like, neighboring houses have similar roof heights, and in order to not affect the viewshed it would probably have to be a flat roof. Commissioner Parker asked if a compromise could be made to look at a roof that would have a lower pitch. Mr. Vasquez explained that if they go below the proposed pitch there would be a significant cost increase. Chair Brown opened the public hearing to public comment: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARC H 21, 2006 PAGE 4 Ray Biering, attorney representing Mr. & Mrs. Mankins, introduced Mr. Garing, engineer and Ms. Smith, architect. Mr. Biering stated that the proposed development should be, 1) subject to the viewshed ordinance, and 2) be consistent with the required findings. He then explained the definition of a basement (below ground on all sides) and stated that this development consists of two stories, a first story with large workshop, game room, an additional large area (use not stated) and is therefore subject to viewshed review and the required findings. Mr. Biering then stated that he did not think the Commission could make these findings based on the proposed project. Mr. Garing, Garing Taylor & Associates, gave a presentation, stated the roof lines to east are higher in part as the street is higher; the proposed new roof pitch is legal height for a tiled roof, slightly less than Mr. Vasquez stated — 5'/z feet; they believed that with a serious design effort the roof could be lower by 4-feet or more. He showed some pictures of a superimposed roof and the impact it would have on the view from the Mankins property stating it would block the view of the City lights at night. Mr. Mankins, 200 Hillcrest Drive, read from a letter he had submitted to the City which addressed his fear of losing the view from his property; stating that some years ago the property owners on the north side of Montego Street asked the City to restrict the heights of the houses on the south side to 11 feet; there are four flat roofed houses on the south side of Montego Street (contrary to what has been stated); his property will lose its value if his view is taken; he enjoys the view from his home from all areas of his property, not just from one direction; if this passes it will set a precedent and there will be other neighbors who will want to do the same. In conclusion, Mr. Mankins asked that the City not allow his view to be taken and stated that the roofline on this proposal could be lowered. There is an opportunity for my neighbor to have what he wants and still not interFere with my view, at least not to the extent proposed. Chair Brown asked Mr. Mankins if it was correct that he was not prepared to negotiate at all if his view will be blocked? Mr. Mankins stated that after discussion with the architect (hired by himself for review of the proposal) there might be some things that could happen that could change it. Gerald Weaver, attorney for the applicant, discussed examples of other similar designs existing on Montego Street and how this would have been considered a three-story house if the basement was to be included as a story, reiterating the definitions contained in the Building Code and the viewshed review ordinance related to basements. He showed pictures of the view from the applicant's backyard at the time of the application for the original viewshed review and another picture showing someone cutting the Mankins bushes down lower (previously blocking some of the view from the Mankins property). Larry K. Harlan, 1315 Hillcrest Drive fsouth side), stated concern that the applicant was trying to circumvent the previous decision that the Commission had made; if the D- Overlays had been put in place we would not be here today; if this is approved today then residents on the south side could also put in basements. Having the 16 ft PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 21, 2006 PAGE 5 restriction only on the south side is not equal protection. He asked the Commission to not consider this a basement and that they reinforce their previous decision. Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Beckham, 220 Hillcrest Drive, stated concern that this proposal would dramatically affect their viewshed; this would set precedence and there has been talk of others wanting to do the same; going up six foot more would greatly affect the value of their home. Tom Butch, 1542 Hillcrest Drive, stated that there is a definite need for the D-override in this area as this situation will occur over and over. Tom Parsons, 1219 Monteqo Street, (basement home, south side), concern that he cannot build up, but that people can plant trees and block views. He has trees that his neighbors planted that block his view taking away thousands of dollars in value. He urged the City to do some kind of overlay/ordinance to protect views of properties all along Montego Street. Mr. Vasquez, stated that the photographs shown of the views from Mr. Mankins property had been taken in front of his garage not from his living room window (where his panoramic view is). Mr. Mankins stated he could split his property into four lots, but in future these could block others views, so if we are to look at height restrictions on Montego Street we need to look at the whole area (including the Mankins property); a D-overlay should be consistent with what is here. Chair Brown closed the hearing to public comment. 7:50 PM The Commission took a 5-minute break. Planning Commission comments: Ray: • When there is ambiguity we need to take a cautious route and use common sense and this tells me in this case we should require a viewshed review. • I feel that the applicant has made a good faith effort to compromise with Mr. Mankins. • This proposal is a different project as they have changed the minimum garage height to 8' and they cannot go lower than that; they have also changed the roofline to help protect the view. • The viewshed review process is intended to be where neighbors can come together each giving and taking a little; however, it appears that one side has done significantly less than the other. • A reasonable compromise at this point may be to go from a 4/12 point pitch roof to a 3/12 point pitch roof, or change the material of the roof, but she would not be willing to ask the applicant to do more at this point. • It is clearly not the case that 50% of the view is being taken away as claimed by Mr. Mankins. • The history on the south side of Montego Street shows very clearly that you could not have a height restriction that related to both sides of the street, as they are entirely different. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 21, 2006 PAGE 6 • The City needs to take look at the overlay and also at the issue of trees with respect to viewshed and as a community we can act like good neighbors and compromise. Parker: • There has been good and valid arguments from everyone that commented; she appreciated Commissioner Ray's comments. • After trying to decide if this is a basement it became very overwhelming; so rather than get into specifics it is better to go with the intent of this. The intent (of 16.16.110) is that we do not want to remove someone's viewshed in order to build what we want. • There needs to be a compromise between the two neighbors and this can be done. With compromise the house can be moderately re-designed and built; with compromise she cannot support this. Tait: • He believes this is a single story, but that a viewshed should be required because the impacts are similar to a two-story. • The overlay is required for the north side of Montego Street; it may have been an oversight that this was not included at the time; some equity is needed here. • He does not like to see a good home demolished, but this is not his decision. • Both parties are reading the same words (for the intent of the viewshed process), but coming with quite different interpretations. • Viewshed Review findings 1, 2, and 3 cannot be made with the proposed project; however, the findings could be made if the applicant can show a design that will allow them to enlarge their living space and at the same time preserve the neighbor's view. Brown: • He does not like the subjectivity of the process. A view is not a right but a privilege and the community is charged with protection; he has struggled with the equities of both parties. • He would have voted for this if in fact digging into the hillside would have caused the roofline to be reduced. • He believes findings No. 2& 3 cannot be made. Chair Brown put forward a motion to make the interpretation that a viewshed review would be required and that findings Nos. 2 and 3 could not be made: Commissioner Parker suggested that finding No. 1 could not be made either. Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to make the interpretation that a viewshed review would be required and findings number 1, 2, and 3 could not be made. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed structure is not consistent with the intent of this section. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 21, 2006 PAGE 7 2. The proposed structure is not consistent with the established scale and character of the neighborhood and will not unreasonably or unnecessarily affect views of surrounding properties. 3. The proposed structure will unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with the scenic view from any other property, judged in light of permitting reasonable use and development of the property on which the proposed structure or expansion is to occu r. Commission discussion followed: Commissioner Parker asked staff if the project could come back for consideration to the Planning Commission if the project was revised to the satisfaction of both parties? Director Strong explained that if the project was revised with the agreement of both parties, then a building permit could be pursued without necessarily achieving a viewshed review. However, if they wait until the D-Overlay is established then it would have to come back as a viewshed review. Commissioner Ray asked for clarification on the motion: In approving this motion does it also mean that the Commission is saying that it is acceptable for the parties to sit down and perhaps come to a compromise without restarting the entire process? Chair Brown confirmed that this was the intent. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: � AYES: Chair Brown, Commissioner Parker, Ray and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fellows Mr. Strong stated that this decision is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten working days. The Commission had no further discussion. III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 05-013; APPLICANT — TIERRA PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION, LLC; LOCATION — 224 S. HALCYON Mr. Bergman presented the staff report for review of a mixed-use project consisting of nine (9) townhouse units and a three-story building with retail, office, and apartment uses. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that Staff Advisory Committee (SAC) had reviewed the project November 3, 2005 and issued discussed in included required infrastructure, building and accessibility regulations, vehicle access and street tree requirements. The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) considered the project January 18, 2006 and their comments included: Proposed street trees and existing trees on site; Height, setbacks and privacy screening; the mixed-use building's visual proportions and massing; the size, layout and massing of the town homes. The applicant has modified the current plans based upon SAC & ARC comments. In PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 21, 2006 PAGE 8 conclusion, Mr. Bergman asked the Commission to review the proposed project and give direction to the applicant. Commissioner Parker commented that the ADA parking looked some distance from the office building and asked if this was within the City code and standards. Mr. Bergman explained that this would be determined by the Building Department in the formal application Commissioner Tait asked if there was any affordable housing included in this project? Mr. Bergman replied that the applicant will be required to include some affordable units. Commissioner Ray asked Mr. Grant, the architect, to address the open space in his presentation as there did not seem to be much of it. Lenny Grant, project architect, stated that there are several constraints at this site; they had relocated the ADA parking space because of the concern at the ARC meeting regarding the proposed removal of the oak tree. Chair Brown requested Mr. Grant to include the open space calculations when they return to the Commission. He stated common open should be 10% and there is none and usable open space should be a minimum of 45% and there is only 28%. Mr. Grant pointed out the private open space (yards) and the common open space and explained that they had moved all the residential units over so as not to lose commercial space. Commissioner Brown asked if they had talked to the neighbors about the height of the proposal. Mr. Grant stated the neighbors had been noticed of the proposal, but fhey had not talked personally to them. Commissioner Brown asked about the double detector fire valve. Mr. Grant said they had not reached that point in the project yet. They are working on trying to get the allowed density, required parking, the private outdoor spaces (as big as possible) and trying to balance out the project. Most of the common open space has been given to the oak tree. He commented that it is difficult to meet the City standards and that the City Ordinance does not add up. Commissioner Parker her major problem with density is that they have been looking at projects that have condominiums that are 2-3,000 square feet in size; this project does not have that so she does not have a problem with it. Commissioner Parker asked if there would be reciprocal parking with the dental office round the corner? Mr. Grant stated they have not yet come to an agreement, but if they do not have an agreement it will be signed to let people know where they are allowed to park. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 21, 2006 PAGE 9 Commissioner Parker asked how would someone could get around the stairwell on the office that leads up to the apartment. Mr. Grant agreed that this was not feasible and said he wou/d check fhis out. Commissioner Tait commented that he did not think many people would actually use the common open space fronting Halcyon Road. Mr. Grant stated it wou/d probab/y be more usab/e for the commercial office space. Commissioner Tait asked if it would still be a problem to park in front of the garages due to blocking the fire lane. Mr. Grant said they cou/d only park in front of the garage on lot 5 or on the front of Ha/cyon Road. Commissioner Tait asked if the zero setback on Halcyon Road could be increased as the proposed commercial building is so tall to be right on the street? Mr. Grant said they cou/d, but it wou/d decrease the commercial space. Commissioner Tait stated he appreciated that they had designed around the oak tree and asked if there would be pathways from the parking lot to the mixed-use building. Mr. Grant replied that at this time they do not have separate pedestrian wa/kways; to do this they would lose some square footage on lot 10; there is a paved area from the commercial to the units. In answer to comments from Commissioner Tait, Mr. Grant stated that he would let the clients know that the Commission are interested in seeing some sustainable materials used in this project. Mr. Devens stated that undergrounding of the utility poles would be a standard requirement for this project. During discussion on the drainage the project engineer explained that all drainage will be retained on site with an underground retention basin (50 year storm) and the overflow would be filtered down-line. Commission comments: Ray: • She likes the size of the units (smaller and more affordable) and stated in order to get smaller units we do need to give up some things. • Likes that there will also be an affordable component. • The parking is acceptable (including the parking on the street), but there are still some oddities with it. • It seems that logically there should be an entrance at the southwest corner, but there isn't. Parker: • She loves the one-bedroom apartments above the offices. • Has concern with 5-ft. setbacks in three-story homes with neighboring one-story homes. • The western elevation of the office with stairwell needs to be reconfigured. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 10 MINUTES MARCH 21, 2006 • Regarding the lack of common open space, she is fine with this as the units are small and there is private space provided. • Likes the open front and shape of the building. • She is okay with the avers as open pavers (pervious) may not be taken care of. Tait: • He was glad to see experts present to answer questions. • The common open space is okay for the mixed-use, but not for the residents. • Thanked the architect for saving oak tree. • The neighbors should be consulted as their viewshed may be affected. Brown: • Also has a concern with neighbors and viewshed. • Concern with the retail office building as one corner looks close to street. • Suggest that the applicant explore with the City on the street trees regarding the long-term viability so they will not become a maintenance issue. • The fire department check valve should be screened or located out of site if possible. The Commission took a 5-minute break. IV. A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE MARCH 7, 2006: PPR 05-027 VSR 05-020 F#ir�11�Z:��I�� Pace Bros Construction Pepsi Bottling Co 123 Whiteley St. 1168 W. Branch St. Construction of a single-family house 15 feet from the top of bank of the Arroyo Grande Creek. Pepsi promotion for grand re- ooenina of Wal A J. Bergman A J. Bergman Administrative Item No. 1: PPR 05-027; 123 Whiteley Street: Commissioner Parker requested that this item be pulled for consideration as a Public Hearing for the following two reasons: 1. This requires a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. This was originally a Public Hearing because of the sensitive biological issue and the public should be noticed with an Initial Study. Mr. Bergman explained that this item was noticed as a Negative Declaration twenty days ago. Yesterday was the end of the period of review and he had not received any comments and the Director then approved it. Chair Brown agreed with Commissioner Parker and stated that given the sensitivity of this project it should have a Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 21, 2006 PAGE 11 Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Chair Brown to appeal the decision of the Director on the approval of Plot Plan Review Case No. 05-027 & Viewshed Review Case No. 05-027. The motion was approved on the following roll call: AYES: Commissioner Parker, Chair Brown, Commissioners Ray and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fellows The Commission had no concerns with Administrative item No. 2. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Chair Brown asked if the Cherry Creek project could be re-scheduled as he was unable to make the April 4, 2006 Planning Commission meeting; he would like to be present when this project was considered. Director Strong stated staff would try to re-schedule for April 3 or 10, 2006. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: None. V.III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. ATTEST: „ n L REARDON-SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO COMMUNITY DEVELO�MENT DIRECTOR TIM ROW , CHAIR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of April 4, 2006)' \ ,