Loading...
PC Minutes 2005-12-061 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows, Parker, Ray and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner Teresa McClish, Assistant Planners, Ryan Foster and Jim Bergman. ANNOUNCEMENT: None. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes requested. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Ray stated that the minutes of November 15, 2005, did not correctly reflect why items II.A. & II.C. were removed from the Agenda and that it appeared that the City was granting time extensions when in fact they were not required in these specific cases. Mr. Strong explained that both items were on file, had been reviewed by the Public Works Department, plan checked by an engineering consultant and they had concurred that the maps could be deemed substantially complete; staff concurred that the applicant could pursue completion of the maps before the end of 2005. He further stated that to ensure this does not happen again staff is making an extended effort to process all maps prior to expiration or request a time extension from the developer (although the City does not have an obligation to do this). Commissioner Ray made a motion to approve the minutes of November 15, 2005, seconded by Commission Parker; the motion passed by a 5/0 voice vote. I. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Patricia Lala, 360 Tiger Tail Drive, representative for the Golden West Home Owners Association and other residents in the area of the park on Valley Road and Via Los Berrios (approximately 100) stated that they wanted to keep their park; they are circulating a petition to support this request; many of the local residents, especially the elderly, use this park on a regular basis to exercise and take their dogs for a walk. Karen Eagleson, 809 Valley Road, stated that in the past they had made numerous requests to the City to fix their little park, but recently they had been informed by the City that there is a plan to build over it; during the last six years not much maintenance had been done to it; many residents use the park on a daily basis; we are requesting the City to keep our park. Adrea Vergne, 820 Valley Road, stated the City passed Resolution 1269, January 11, 1977 naming the park "La Mesa Park "; the park is used by many of the residents in the area; she was not opposing Habitat for Humanity's desire to build homes, but wanted it noted that "Habitat for Humanity" has a mission statement that states that they "work with God and people to build decent homes ". PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 PAGE 2 Chair Brown requested that the comments made be brought to the workshop that was to take place tomorrow evening. Mr. Strong explained that the neighborhood meeting was being sponsored by 'Habitat for Humanity "; the City would only be monitoring the meeting; the application for a Tentative Parcel Map for consideration of the proposal is tentatively scheduled for the December 20, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Lala spoke again, stating that none of her community had received notice of the Habitat for Humanity neighborhood meeting. Chair Brown passed a copy of the notice to Ms. Lala to circulate to her neighborhood. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Public Hearing Item II.A., ACUP 05 -002: An additional condition of approval to be included in Exhibit "A" of the Resolution. 2. Re Pre - Application Review 05 -010, 573 Crown Hill. 3. Plan of a Tentative Parcel Map for item III.A. C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05 -002; APPLICANT — SOUTH COUNTY ALANO CLUB; LOCATION —134 NELSON STREET Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report to amend an existing use permit for a meeting facility regarding maximum occupancy and hours of operation. Mr. Foster explained that the proposed amendment to the use permit would increase the maximum occupancy from twenty -five to thirty -five and limit the hours of operation from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Monday through Saturday and from 10:00 am to 7:00 pm on Sunday. Mr. Foster's in reply to Commission comments and questions: • Exhibit "A" first paragraph, language is incorrect and will be corrected. • There have been no complaints during the last year regarding this facility. • The applicant is requesting the limited hours of operation. • The applicant is agreeable to all the conditions including the handicap ramp. • The parking is sufficient. Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to approve the Amended Conditional Use Permit with a correction to the language on Exhibit "A" and the addition of Condition No. 6 regarding the handicap ramp, and adopt: 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1980 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05 -002, LOCATED AT 134 NELSON STREET, APPLIED FOR BY THE SOUTH COUNTY ALANO CLUB The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Ray, Parker, Tait and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was approved on this 6 day of December 2005. The Commission had no further comments. RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1981 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE -YEAR TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 05 -005 FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 03 -004; LOCATED AT 154 PINE STREET; APPLIED FOR BY ROBERT DEL CAMPO The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Ray, Fellows, Tait and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None PAGE 3 III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 05 -005; APPLICANT — ROBERT DEL CAMPO; LOCATION —154 PINE STREET Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report for a one -year Time Extension for Tentative Parcel Map 03 -004, originally approved on October 7, 2005. Mr. Bergman, in reply to the Commission's comments and questions. • The request for a time extension was received by staff before the map expired. • He noted the typo under "Recommendation ". Although this was not a public hearing, Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. • Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray to approve a one -year Time Extension for Tentative Parcel Map 03 -004, and adopt: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 the foregoing Resolution was approved on this 6 day of December 2005. PAGE 4 B. PUBLIC WORKSHOP TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES FOR THE MODIFICATION OF DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICTS D -2.3, D -2.9 AND D -2.10 (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04 -005); LOCATION — IN THE VICINITY OF MILLER WAY AND VIA LA BARRANCA Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, presented the staff report and stated that as part of the City's Development Code Update, several Design Overlays would be discussed in the next few months; some overlay districts had been put in place by the City well over 20 years ago and had been appended to the City's Development Code. The three overlay districts D -2.3, D -2.9 and D -2.10, being examined first concerned neighborhoods in the vicinity of Miller Way and Via La Barranca. The current Rural Residential (RR) zoning allows for 40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot sizes and one (1) dwelling unit per acre. In addition, the subject overlay districts involve properties in a hilly region of the City so discussion will also include the City's provisions regarding development on slopes exceeding 7 %. Ms. McClish further explained the history of the overlay districts and described the open space overlay. Ms. McClish then described the subject design overlays, RR -D -2.10, RR -D -2.3 and RR- D -2.9, in detail. She stated RR -D -2.9 is the most complicated design overlay and it appears that the optional design and improvement standards were put in place by Resolution 1885, before the map was approved, restricting the tract to no more than 27 lots; the subdivision is built out; there may also be CC &R's in effect for this tract; it appears that the overlay could be removed; there may be deed restrictions placed on these properties which would restrict any further subdivision, but it is unknown whether each and everyone of these properties has a deed restriction. Ms. McClish further stated that staff is also considering a change in the RR districts in the City to reduce the minimum lot size from 40,000 to 20,000 square feet without changing the density (this would allow clustering without going through any more Planned Unit Developments (PUD); this would also change many non - conforming parcels to become conforming as a large portion of the properties in this neighborhood are already less than the 40,000 square feet. Slope provisions would still prevail, but not exceed 25% and could be clustered to avoid the slopes. If the RR zoning were changed there would be some potential subdivisions available and in many cases these would only be with a provision of a density bonus (consistent with the City's Housing Element) and would be restricted to affordable housing. In conclusion, Ms. McClish explained that if the overlays were removed and the RR district changed to 20,000 square foot lot sizes, there could be up to six lots that may be subdivided into two in the three different neighborhoods combined. Any ordinance with proposed zoning changes would have to be accompanied by environmental review as it appears there could be some significant impacts associated with this proposal. At this time we are just looking at these neighborhoods and are seeking to find out, 1) if the property owners in these districts are interested in having the overlays lifted and, 2) if 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 PAGE 5 they are interested in changing the underlying zoning to indicate a 20,000 square foot lot size. In some cases, if the overlay was removed it could change the status in some properties from conforming to potentially legal non - conforming zoning. However, if a property owner wanted to make changes staff would just need to make sure that they were in conformance with the existing zoning setbacks etc. and not in conflict with the RR zoning. Chair Brown wanted clarification that the changes were being brought forward to clean up the Development Code and make it easier to get through the maze of regulations. Ms. McClish agreed and stated that there are overlays all over the City and staff is proposing to remove them where it is appropriate and it will make it easier over time to administer the ordinance. Chair Brown questioned that if the overlay for RR -D -2.9 is removed (making some conforming lots into non - conforming) are we making the process more arduous? Ms. McClish replied that lot size really does not matter unless you want to subdivide or have a structure close to a lot line. In reply to concerns from Commissioner Parker, Ms. McClish clarified how this proposal would move forward if approved; explained in more detail how the modifications to standards in the RR district would work and what the environmental review would involve. Commissioner Fellows asked for clarification on the "Alternatives" listed in the staff report and noted that the APN number at the top of Page 4 was incorrect. Ms. McClish clarified: • Alternative No. 4, last sentence, meant that six lots could come in with subdivision applications and if all of them were approved at the maximum number of residential units, it could be as many as 15 lots. • The table on page 5 shows four total lots so there could be three additional units. In reply to questions from Commissioner Ray, Ms. McClish stated: • If the lots are legal non - conforming now, but with the proposed changes become conforming, it would not make much difference to an owner when they apply for an addition etc., but would make it easier for staff to review requested to changes; staff would just have to make sure that that they would be complying with the setbacks and standards set forth in the code. • Alternative 1: Potentially, only one lot in the RR -D2.10 (a 4 -acre lot) could be subdivided without the overlay being removed. Chair Brown opened the hearing to the Public. Terri Fowler, 212 Miller Way, stated as this was a workshop she wanted to address her neighbors that were present; after review of the staff report she had strong concerns that if the development overlay were to be removed (and their properties became PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 PAGE 6 "existing non - conforming use ") and a property owner wanted to make changes they would be required to go before the ARC and Planning Commission; the subdivision was initiated in 1976 and the development overlay was used as the same tool as a PUD is today. The staff report states, "that the development overlay districts were placed to ensure that the particular requirements or characteristics for the neighborhood remain over time ". With regard to doing environmental review, is the City going to pay for an EIR on a piece of property that is totally developed? There is a requirement for our subdivision that says that Tract 577 should have no more than 27 Tots and to have this condition removed we would have to go before the Planning Commission for approval (and there would have to be 100% owner agreement to do this). The one parcel on Tract 599 that has adequate area to do a second unit is currently designated as an "open space" area, so they cannot build. Ms. Fowler asked who initiated the request for the removal of the overlays? Chair Brown stated that this was a public hearing and Ms. Fowler had now spoken for approximately 10 minutes; would like to give someone else time to speak, but requested that they not repeat Ms. Fowler. He then asked the audience for a show of hands on who agreed with Ms. Fowler's comments that lifting of the overlay goes against it's original intent and that it would cause homeowners in the future to have to come before Planning Commission for any changes in their property and cause more complications. A majority of the audience agreed with Ms. Fowler. Ms. Fowler then spoke again asking if this proposal was initiated so that the City could help meet the State's affordable housing requirements? If so, she advised it would be better to go for secondary units (as allowed by the State). Doug LeSage, 297 Miller Way, stated his confusion as to why this proposal was being pursued; he would like to get a copy of the hearing as it would be helpful to anyone planning a subdivision (so that they could do it legally); asked how it would affect the rest of the Tots in the City to remove overlays and are we the test case; what are the RR standards to get a second unit? He stated that some time ago there was a land survey going on in the area and wondered who ordered the survey, who paid the bill and what lots were being surveyed? Ms. McClish stated that the City has now completed the commercial update, is beginning the residential update and this is being done for consistency purposes with the General Plan; each zoning district is being examined to make sure there are no other items to be taken care of whilst we are looking at these districts. This is the first of several workshops that the City will be holding to determine what potential changes might come forward in the future in the form of an ordinance. In reply to a question from Chair Brown, Ms. McClish stated that we now have provisions in place in the Development Code such as slope provisions etc., which make the necessity for the overlays ambiguous. 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 PAGE 7 In reply to a question from Commissioner Ray, Ms. McClish explained that if the non- conforming lots were changed to conforming (except in the case of some Tots in the RR- D-2.9) it would not make it more difficult for an owner to come forward with changes. John Runels, 213 Miller Way; stated concerns that there was a non - conforming property presently being built right below his property and wondered how this came about? Mr. Strong explained in detail that this was done through a Lot Line Adjustment application and that it has nothing to do with the overlay. Terri Fowler spoke again to clarify that currently the lots in their district were conforming; they were approved under the development overlay and if the overlay is removed we would have eight non - conforming lots and would have to return to the City in order to change this. Ms. Fowler then spoke at length regarding the development that John Runels had referred to, stating that what was taking place was illegal and should not have been allowed. Chair Brown stated that given the level of concern expressed by the public this evening this proposal should be further discussed at another workshop. Ms. McClish stated that staff would bring forward example projects in each overlay and how it would be treated with and without the overlay and the changes. In reply to a question from Ms. Fowler, Mr. Strong stated that it was the City that had initiated Development Code Update; it had been on the Department's work program for 2005 -06 and is being done in a systematic manner. The City is proposing more workshops to get input from the public before going forward to make any decisions. The City's Development Code should be consistent with the 2001 General Plan. Mr. Strong then described in some detail why the development standards do not work in many cases and cause extremely complicated administration. Discussion on RR -D -2.3 Overlay: Commissioner Fellows requested to be excused from this discussion as he lived within approximately 300 feet of this district. Tait: At this time he had no specific comments on the proposed changes; he would like to have a lot more information before doing so; he appreciated staffs comments that the City is just trying to achieve consistency. Parker: • Her understanding of the proposal was not the same as the publics. If she understood correctly (re Page 4 of the staff report) having a second unit on a lot would not require affordable housing. • Suggested the changes be put in a direct form with examples to show how they would affect the individual lot owners rather than how they would affect the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 General Plan; show the difference as it is now and what would happen with the proposed change. She believed the public was confused at this point. Ray: • Sited that there was a great example in the table on page 4 & 5 of the staff report to show what the changes would do; she would like to see more information like this available, even in public notice to the related neighborhood. Brown: • Asked for clarification on comments in the staff report for this overlay. After clarification from Ms. McClish he stated that this overlay appears fairly simple in nature and he believed that lifting of it would not cause a material effect on the property owners; he would still like to see it in chart form showing the differences and believed he could then approve of this overlay. Mr. Strong spoke at length explaining that it was not the D -2.3 overlay that was the basic problem, but the RR designation; he urged the Commission to discuss in future public hearings a change of the RR zone to a more appropriate lot size and to eliminate the D -2.3 completely. A Development Code Amendment to make the majority of the lots conforming would simplify the administration. Ms. Fowler spoke again, asking why the City was not hiring a consultant to prepare this evaluation as it would be in everyone's best interest and asked why the planning staff is doing this? Chair Brown stated that the Planning Department has been charged to do this and if after going through the process the City Council decides a consultant is required then they will decide this. Ms. Fowler replied that if this update is not going to be done by a consultant then it should be done by a committee. Discussion on Overlay RR -D.2.9 Commissioner Ray asked to be excused from this discussion as she lived within 300 feet of this district. Commissioner Fellows returned to the meeting. The Commission took a 10- minute break. Commissioner Fellows and Parker agreed with Commissioner Brown. PAGE 8 Commissioner Brown stated that this overlay is more complicated than D -2.3 and he would like to have a chart to show optional design and improvement standards before giving direction on this. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 PAGE 9 Ryan Kelly, 296 Miller Way, asked for more information on Attachment I, of the staff report. Ms. McClish gave a detailed explanation of Attachment I, General Plan Land Use designation, Conservation /Open Space Overlay. and in conclusion stated that it's purpose is to protect areas that should remain in open space and was so designated to preserve the steep slope areas in this particular canyon. Mr. Strong explained that the 2001 General Plan shows a conservation overlay in this specific area, but the Development Code does not reflect this intent; he stated he would like the Commission to decide where the boundary of the overlay should be after being provided with more information about the area. Ms. McClish then described the areas that the General Plan presently encompasses. Chair Brown asked Ms. McClish to prepare an overhead to show this. In reply to further comments from Ms. Fowler, Ms. McClish stated that one of the findings that has to be made with every subdivision is that it must be consistent with the General Plan; if a particular project included homes in the steepest portions of a lot and was clearly included in the Conservation Overlay area land use, then this finding would not be able to made. Marina Pitkyanen, 312 Miller Way, stated that previously it had been said that the only parcel in this district that could be subdivided was her parcel; it was a big surprise when she learned that her house was put in the open space in the General Plan; she understands what open space is, but she has a big problem with the fire department and how this area it has to be taken care of. Chair Brown stated that when this proposal gets into more detail they would be able to deal with this. Ms. McClish stated that this discussion would be continued to the January 17, 2006 meeting. Ms. Fowler requested that the staff report be given to the public two weeks before the next meeting so the neighbors could get together to discuss this. Ms. McClish stated she would have the staff report ready by January 3, 2006 for distribution to the property owners. Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows, to continue the hearing to the meeting of January 17, 2005 with the staff report prepared for distribution to property owners by January 3, 2005. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Brown, Commissioner Fellows, Parker, Ray and Tait NOES: None. ABSENT: None. PAGE 10 IV. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE NOVEMBER 15, 2005: A public hearing is not required for the following items unless an administrative decision is appealed or called up for review by the Planning Commission through a majority vote: Mr. Strong stated that Administrative Decision No. 4: Case No. Conditional Use Permit 04 -008 was not listed on the original Agenda, but had been approved; the interpretation is to clarify condition No. 14; and that it was to correct the word "and” to "or ". Commissioner Parker asked for clarification on Administration Item No. 1, Plot Plan Review Case No. 05 -025. Mr. Strong explained that a Plot Plan Review is required to accommodate exceptions to the Development Code and why these exceptions were required in this case. Commissioner Parker asked if the neighbors were agreeable to this addition and asked if the deck would hang out over the neighbor's deck? Mr. Strong circulated a copy of the site plan to the Commission to clarify what was proposed and stated that after sending out the notice to neighbors within 300 feet they had not received any letters back. The Commission had no further questions on the Administrative Items and Mr. Strong stated that there was a 10 -day appeal period on all the items approved. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Fellows stated that an Olive tree had been cut down from the front of Midstate Bank and also a half dozen Pear trees had been removed from Poor Richards (a few doors away) some time ago; he asked what action the City is taking with Midstate 1 Case „Noy � . y 'App.. Add ress_- - Description D crip Action Plann 1. PPR 05 -025 Charles Sauerbier 602 Cornwall Permit approval for existing secondary dwelling on non- conforming lot. A R. Foster 2. VSR 05 -019 Robert Moore 536 Woodland Second -floor addition to single - family home A R. Foster 3. TUP 05 -026 EOC Health Services 1152 E. Grand Ave. Fundraiser /dance. A T. Richard 4. CUP 04 -008 Joe Timmons 136 Bridge Street Interpretation of Condition No. 14 (in- lieu parking fee and future access. A Rob Strong PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Brown, Commissioner Fellows, Parker, Ray and Tait NOES: None. ABSENT: None. PAGE 10 IV. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE NOVEMBER 15, 2005: A public hearing is not required for the following items unless an administrative decision is appealed or called up for review by the Planning Commission through a majority vote: Mr. Strong stated that Administrative Decision No. 4: Case No. Conditional Use Permit 04 -008 was not listed on the original Agenda, but had been approved; the interpretation is to clarify condition No. 14; and that it was to correct the word "and” to "or ". Commissioner Parker asked for clarification on Administration Item No. 1, Plot Plan Review Case No. 05 -025. Mr. Strong explained that a Plot Plan Review is required to accommodate exceptions to the Development Code and why these exceptions were required in this case. Commissioner Parker asked if the neighbors were agreeable to this addition and asked if the deck would hang out over the neighbor's deck? Mr. Strong circulated a copy of the site plan to the Commission to clarify what was proposed and stated that after sending out the notice to neighbors within 300 feet they had not received any letters back. The Commission had no further questions on the Administrative Items and Mr. Strong stated that there was a 10 -day appeal period on all the items approved. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Fellows stated that an Olive tree had been cut down from the front of Midstate Bank and also a half dozen Pear trees had been removed from Poor Richards (a few doors away) some time ago; he asked what action the City is taking with Midstate 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 Bank in Tight of the new tree ordinance and what if any action for removal of the Pear trees? Mr. Strong clarified that Midstate Bank eventually obtained a tree removal permit, a penalty was imposed and there will be some determination by Midstate Bank on how the planter will be reoccupied after the Christmas tree is taken down. However, Midstate Bank was in existence long before the ARC so there were no landscape plans. Re the Pear trees he was not aware if they had sought a tree removal permit (Parks and Recreation would be aware of this). Commissioner Fellows stated his concern that the tree ordinance should be adhered to. After further discussion Mr. Strong stated that tree removal permits are not issued easily and they could ask the Parks and Recreation Director to confer with Community Development to see if the tree was originally required as part of a landscape plan and they would then be even more reluctant to issue one. Commissioner Parker asked if the problem with the Midstate Bank tree removal was because the bank was unaware of the tree ordinance? Mr. Strong said the City is planning on mailing out public information regarding this new ordinance and it will probably be included in other mail outs from the City. Commissioner Fellows stated he would be absent the meeting of December 20, 2006. Commissioner Tait stated he would be absent the meeting of January 3, 2006. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. X. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. ATTEST: AS TO R C N REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION NTEN COMMUNITY DEVELO MENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of January 3, 2006) PAGE 11