Loading...
PC Minutes 2005-08-16Case No !App -- Address D escription r , .,, Action Planner 1. VSR 05- 013 Jerry Berg 555 Palos Secos 1 & 2nd Floor addition A R. Foster 2. VSR 05- 012 Mark Vigil 315 S. Elm Remodel of 810 sq. ft. house into a two- story house with a 2 unit & four two -car garages. R J. Bergman 3. ASP 05- 018 Kathy Essen 611 E. Grand New sign and facade grant with specific conditions of approval. A J. Bergman 4. PPR 05- 008 Robert Anderson 201 Station Way Addition of two (2) second -floor apartments in existing two -story office building A R. Foster 5. PPR 05- 013 Linda Buttell 1010 E. Grand Conversion in use of an existing building from office to personal services — massage therapist A R. Foster CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Brown presiding. Also present were Commissioners Keen, Parker and Tait. Commissioner Fellows was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director Strong, and Associate Planners Foster and Bergman. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of August 2, 2005 were approved on a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Parker, with requested corrections: • Pages 4 and 7, change spelling from " ballards" to "bollards ". • Page 6, after the "Mr. Strong invited members of the audience to speak even though this was not a public hearing" add the words "and the Commission recognized them." The motion was approved on a 3/0 voice vote. Chair Brown abstained due to his absence at that meeting. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2005 6:00 P.M. I.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. A letter dated August 14, 2005, from Twila Martin regarding ACUP 05 -001 at 212 Miller Way. 2. A letter dated August 16, 2005, from Robert and Pam Tarvin regarding ACUP 05- 001 at 212 Miller Way. 3. A letter dated August 12, 2005, from Wendy and Joseph Beckham regarding APL 04 -008 at 1238 Montego Street. II.A. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE JULY 19, 2005 Case No App. :Ad dress_ 9,Des�cription b " _.._' �' ction Planner 6. TUP St. 959 Valley Use of a temporary trailer for office and A A. Bursan 05- John's Road meeting space during construction 013 Lutheran Church 7. MEX Ben 224 Short Demolition of a non - conforming single- A A. Bursan 05- 009 Rothstein Street car garage and allow the reconstruction of same. 8. PPR Suzanne 1526 W. Opening of Dry Cleaning Service A J. 05- 014 DeAman d Branch St. Bergman PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 Chair Brown noted he would step down for item 7 due to proximity and requested it be pulled. Commissioner Tait requested that items 2, 4 and 8 be pulled. Commissioner Parker requested that items 3 and 7 be pulled. Consent items No. 1, 5, and 6: Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to approve Consent Items No. 1, 5 and 6. The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote. Consent item No. 2: Viewshed Review 05 -012, 315 S. Elm Mr. Strong stated this was an approval dilemma for staff, because the house is a substantial and it's clear from the floorplan that it could be abused with installation of a kitchen and additional units created. Deed restrictions or other ways to preclude potential abuse could be imposed as conditions of approval. It does appear to meet development code standards as is, but it really invites a potential conversion violation code enforcement issue. If the Commission feels this is a potential loophole, instead of letting it pass by, it can be discussed in greater detail and scheduled for a hearing if they feel it is an inappropriate and unacceptable use of the property. Chair Brown asked if the applicant was present for comment, but he was absent. PAGE 2 Consensus was that it does need further review, so the project will be scheduled for a public hearing. Commissioners were interested in getting additional information presented and in hearing directly from the applicant about the project. Consent item No. 3: Administrative Sign Permit 05 -018, 611 E. Grand Mr. Keen and Ms. Parker both felt that a year is too long to allow the old roof sign to be removed. There was extensive discussion about code, ARC's approval intent, and whether it was a prerequisite to remove the old sign before allowing the new one. Chair Brown opened the hearing to public comment, and seeing none, closed it again. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, to approve Consent Item No. 3 with the conditions that: 1. the old roof sign be removed in six months or less, and 2. that a bond be posted to cover the removal costs before the new sign is installed. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3 AUGUST 16, 2005 The motion was passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Keen, Tait and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fellows Consent item No. 4: Plot Plan Review 05 -008, 230 Station Way Commissioner Parker corrected the noticed address (from 201, applicant's business address, to actual project address at 230 Station Way). She expressed concern about parking. Commissioner Tait was concerned about parking and possible Health Department requirements to allow living space over a future dialysis center. Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to continue Consent Item No. 4 to the next meeting for a public hearing, to allow for corrected noticing and for the applicant to comment on the parking situation. The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote. Consent item No. 7: Minor Exception 05 -009, 224 Short Street (Chair Brown stepped down for this item due to living within 500' of the address.) Some commissioners were concerned that the demo had already been completed before the project was approved. Mr. Strong explained that there was no requirement in the code for the project to be approved before a demo can be performed. The applicant had applied for a demo permit and it was reported to the Commission with no appeal being requested. He added that the new garage will be attached to the house. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve Consent Item No. 7. The motion was approved on a 3/0 voice vote; Chair Brown abstaining. Consent item No. 8: Plot Plan Review 05 -014, 1526 West Branch Street (Chair Brown returned for this item.) Commissioners noted environmental concerns, but staff clarified that the actual cleaning was done at a site in Santa Maria and this is a dropoff business only. Jason DeArmond, applicant, also stated that there are no chemicals on this site. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, to approve Consent Item No. 8. The motion was passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Keen, Tait and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Fellows PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 AUGUST 16, 2005 III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 05 -005 — NAMING OF A PRIVATE DRIVE; APPLICANT - S & S HOMES OF THE CENTRAL COAST; LOCATION — TRACT 2310 (PARKSIDE); FARROLL AVENUE. Mr. Foster presented the staff report regarding naming the unnamed private drive located in Tract 2310 (Parkside) as "Glenbrook Way ". Normally private drives are named at approval of the tract map. This was an oversight found when addresses were being assigned. The developer (S &S Homes) submitted several street names and the Fire Chief found Glenbrook Way to be satisfactory. There were no questions from commissioners. Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment. John Kilpelainen, S & S Homes, said he wants to ensure clear addressing for the new homebuyers and he supports staffs proposal. Chair Brown closed the hearing to public comment. There were no further Commission comments. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to recommend approval of STAFF 05 -005 and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1972 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE NAMING THE PRIVATE DRIVE LOCATED IN TRACT 2310 (PARKSIDE) AS "GLENBROOK WAY" The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote. AYES: Commissioners Keen, Tait, Parker and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Chuck Fellows B. APPEAL CASE NO. 04 -008 OF VIEWSHED CASE NO. 04 -016 & MINOR EXCEPTION CASE NO. 04 -030; APPLICANT — STACEY HARMON; LOCATION 1238 MONTEGO. Mr. Bergman presented the appeal of the denied proposal to allow an addition of a second story to an existing single story house and to vary from the floor area ratio (FAR) standards. He described the addition, garage and workshop area. There are three design overlays nearby, but not on the north side of Montego Street. Letters have been received both for and against the project. There were no Commission questions. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5 AUGUST 16, 2005 Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment. Mark Vasquez, Architect and representative for the applicant, spoke in favor of the appeal, describing the Viewshed Review not as an encompassing standard, but a process to work out issues between neighbors. He tried to both meet standards and compromise with neighbors. Height has been an issue in the surrounding area with several nearby Design (D) Overlay Districts (with varying standards). They're below the height limits and pulled in the sides to allow view corridors. In consideration of Mr. Mankins, they placed part of the addition behind an oak tree (which will grow to block the view anyways.) Mr. Harmon met with Mr. Mankins several times, but Mr. Mankins doesn't want any 2 -story additions. While trying to be sensitive, the applicant also wants reasonable use of his property. The immediate neighbors support the project; the required findings can be made; and this would be a significant neighborhood upgrade. • Will the second story be 18' above the highest grade? Yes. • Are the "D" overlays 10 -15'? Across the street it's 11', Hillcrest is 15', and Ruthann is 18 or 22' from the highest point along the curb. • Of the people who signed the petition, how many are directly affected by the proposal in terms of their viewshed? The two adjacent neighbors and Mr. Mankins are affected in terms of privacy /view. Howard Mankins, 200 Hillcrest Drive, spoke against the appeal, reading the Beckham letter aloud (on file at the Community Development Department) and reading from the staff report. If all the houses on his property line (7 total on that side) were to build a second story, he'd have a wall of houses blocking his view. If approved, this would set a precedent. He shared additional photos showing how the view is blocked and the neighbors' elevations. There are three issues for his objection: 1) It's inverse condemnation, 2) discrimination of property use, and 3) not a hardship for the applicant. In speaking with the neighbors, the petition shows a trend of concern for views being taken away. He cited a Tribune article titled "County leads in View Protection ", and an LA article about the Laguna landslide titled "But they have a View ". The neighbors who signed the petition supporting the project don't have their views affected. • Will the project block views from other parts of the property? Yes, of course. It blocks 50% in front and all in back. • In the past, Mr. Mankins has mentioned on numerous occasions with great concern the issue of property rights and has chided Planning Commission for too much intervention, so how is this appropriate? About 45 years ago, the Bandusi brothers developed houses on Montego. He asked if they could keep them low and they did. If it was a vacant lot, it would be different, but since they're both existing houses, you can't add on for profit of one at the other's expense. He would have little to say if it was a vacant lot. Larry Harlan, 1315 Hillcrest, felt the house with the new addition isn't in keeping with the size of the neighborhood. Planning Commission could set a precedent by approving it, which could enable others to add second stories along Montego, and that would be wrong. Ocean views are prized entities, but also an economic benefit. He requested Planning Commission protect their properties. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6 AUGUST 16, 2005 Kathy Destefani, 1242 Montego, stated that Mr. Mankins has no view because of bushes in her and the Harmons' backyards (showed photos). He chopped a bunch of bushes at the chain link fence line to make it look like he has a view. Stacey Harmon, 1238 Montego, said he approached Mr. Mankins a couple times with the intent to work this out, but Mr. Mankins didn't want him to build up at all. There is no height limit on Mr. Mankins' side of the street, and he could build a 30' single -story house with no hearing before Planning Commission. There are five 2 -story homes on Mr. Harmon's side of the street, so precedent has already been set. The real issue is his specific home and Mr. Mankins view. There wouldn't be views from the entire property if there were a solid fence at the property line. He understands Mr. Mankins' position and would like to come to a compromise. • If the four neighbors across the street from you applied to build 2 -story houses, wouldn't you have a problem? He wouldn't like it, but if it were legal, he hoped they would work with him. • Why did you pass the petition? He did so to ensure everyone was okay with his project. Some people signed it and some abstained. • Where are the other 2 -story homes on Montego? There are two close to the school, one with a second story over a large RV- garage, his neighbor Scott Adams' house, and the house on the corner of Hillcrest and Montego. Although they don't block anyone's views now, there's potential. Ultimately, the view issue is really with Mr. Mankins. Edward Grover, 260 Ruthann Way, spoke in support of protecting the viewshed, as it's important for the value of the house and the value of the lifestyle in the house. Scott Adams, 1222 Montego Street, spoke in favor of the project. It will improve the street. While it would partially block his view, he would rather work with the applicant on compromise instead of obscuring the entire property line. Precedent isn't the issue, rather how much will it obscure the viewshed (less than 50 %). When he added his second story, he talked to the Beckhams, and while it blocked their view, they did not have a problem at that time. Tom Parsons, 1219 Montego, spoke against the project on the principal of viewsheds. His house and quality of life is being destroyed because of non - native vegetation below them that will block the view. You can't put a dollar value on a great view or be otherwise compensated. The five 2- stories don't block anything. Anything that degrades the view, degrades the house's net worth. Mark Vasquez returned in agreement that the real issue is between Mr. Mankins and Mr. Harmon coming up with an effective solution to satisfy both their needs. Anything could impair his view, even a new roof. They tried to build where no windows are facing it and where the tree will grow - that's what the viewshed process is about. • Although you say precedent doesn't have anything to do with this, what would happen if the Ms. Destefani builds up? (Ms. Destefani left the room requesting the Commission not make her house as an example). That's what this process is for - to mitigate those things. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7 AUGUST 16, 2005 • Do you think it's fair to use the high point of that lot as a measuring point, since it's on the top of an unused retaining wall? That was used as a reference to tie into other developments. Mr. Mankins reminded Planning Commission they're not a mediator and he needs their protection. He read the stated intent of the viewshed review process. Chair Brown closed the hearing to public comment. Commission Comments: Keen • This will devalue his property, and he's inclined to deny the appeal. Parker • Mr. Vasquez has been very sensitive in trying to understand the situation, and she appreciated his being upfront and honest in trying to work something out. However there are a lot more issues. • Mr. Mankins does have protection through the development code, which states "It is the intent of the city, by requiring minor use permits for the viewshed review process, to preserve the existing scope and character of established single - family neighborhoods and to protect views and aesthetics and other property values in such neighborhoods in a manner that is compatible with reasonable expansion on existing developed lots and /or a new development on existing undeveloped lots." This takes away from Mr. Mankins' great views. • We see precedent as a huge problem. • It was an oversight that this area wasn't included in an overlay district, and she would like it to be rezoned. • This is a large home and does go over the maximum square footage as proposed. They can improve the property, but it's not warranted at the expense of another person. Tait • He also appreciated Mr. Vasquez's efforts to minimize view obstructions. He visited Mr. Mankins yesterday and their fabulous view would be blocked. • He disagreed that it was just between two neighbors, and felt it is a neighborhood issue. • If there were a neighbor's request to build a 2 -story on the south side, those on north Montego would protest just as Mr. Mankins did tonight. He agreed with Ms. Parker there should be a design overlay for the north side. • He can't recommend approval. All the neighbors need viewshed protection. Brown • It is absolutely inappropriate for anyone to assail someone's personal character at the Planning Commission or City Council, and it's unacceptable. • A viewshed isn't a right - it's a privilege. That being said, the community has determined, and rightly so, that views are to be protected. He's been frustrated time and again in the subjective nature of viewshed reviews. People have even argued that sunlight for their animals is being blocked and he's amazed. This is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8 AUGUST 16, 2005 a clear case of a view being affected — it can be argued to what degree — but it's clearly affected. • In looking at the required findings, they have not been met, particularly #2, as it does affect a view and in a large enough degree. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to recommend upholding the denial and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1973 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING VIEWSHED REVIEW 04 -016 AND MINOR EXCEPTION 04 -030; LOCATED AT 1238 MONTEGO; APPLIED FOR BY STACY HARMON The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Tait, Keen and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fellows Mr. Strong noted this action is final unless appealed in 10 days with the City Clerk. 8:20p.m. The Commission took a five - minute break. C. AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05 -001; APPLICANT TERRI FOWLER; LOCATION — 212 MILLER WAY. Mr. Bergman presented the proposal to remove a deed restriction and allow a secondary dwelling unit on the second floor of an existing carriage house. The garage and carriage house were developed in 1991 with a condition to restrict plumbing and conversion to living space. Since then, rules have changed on secondary units and the applicant wants to legitimize conversions to living space, which were completed without building permits. The project appears to comply with the Municipal Code, except for being 100 sf over the maximum floor area and utilization of a separate gas meter. Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval to City Council. Commission questions: Tait • What is the average slope where the secondary unit is? Staff isn't sure, but it has been terraced and leveled, including a flat area for parking. • Code doesn't allow secondary dwellings above garages without going through the Minor Use Permit process. Has that taken place? No, the deed restriction did not allow for interior plumbing, so a MUP wouldn't have been approved. This Amended Conditional Use Permit could release the deed restriction and would allow for the secondary dwelling since it's considered a major project. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9 AUGUST 16, 2005 • What is the primary residence square footage? Although not supplied with plans for that, it appears to be a large residence of about 2400 s.f. Parker • What does the City generally do when a citizen doesn't follow conditions? It becomes a code enforcement issue and there are different options for different projects. • When placing conditions of approval, we expect them to be followed, and they're worthless if not adhered to. As a Commission, how can we make sure conditions are met when penalty provisions from the Code aren't used (like "fine, imprisonment, County jail or cost of removing structure, whichever is greater ")? Staff takes the duty to enforce conditions very seriously. This shows a success - that there was a complaint, staff is now aware of it, and the applicant is trying to come into compliance with Commission input on how to handle it. • At this point, the applicant could be allowed to proceed, but could she still be fined for not following agreed to conditions? It's an option, but it takes some tact and evaluation of when to use certain options. • Are there seven parking spaces? Yes, the applicant has three clearly striped spaces for the B &B. A fourth space is proposed next to those (between the spaces and the single car garage). Two other are in the garage and the seventh is in front of the garage (where there is a car under cover currently). Brown • In regards to being up to code, is there a firewall between the living space and garage area? Staff doesn't know, but conditions require compliance with building code, so Building Department would make sure these conditions are met. • Does the toilet vent inside the building? According to the Neighborhood Services Coordinator, yes. • In regards to enforcement issues, the staff report refers to a method from the building code that says penalties can include doubling of fees. Is that correct and why wasn't it used on the 567 Crown Hill enforcement issue? Mr. Strong explained there are two types of processes: the City does have the ability to assess fines, which could still happen for tearing down the house at 567 Crown Hill, but an alternative was suggested and the project will be re- presented to Planning Commission in the future, so it's not a closed issue. In this case, there was a deed restriction and work was intentionally done without permits. If they want to levy a fine and collect fees, they can place those conditions. Keen • Was the deed restriction ever recorded? Staff hasn't reviewed the title report, but believes it has been recorded. Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment. Terri Fowler, 212 Miller (applicant), spoke in favor of the project. She built the Victorian style home and plans to stay there. It's been in the Christmas home tour twice. Her long -term goal was to secure rent and have a bed and breakfast, but she realized that would require her to give up a lot of personal space to live in the same facility as the guests. She would like the secondary unit for herself to live in upstairs and use the downstairs as an office. She wouldn't rent it out. When the deed restriction was placed, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 10 AUGUST 16, 2005 it didn't matter to her at that time, but now she needs it removed. She did submit photos of the parking and circulation, and has signed the entrance and exit. She does restoration of antique cars (the car parked under cover is a 1957 Chevy). Construction had started, but everything stopped when she was issued a stop work notice. There is a firewall between the office and garage. Commission Questions: Parker • What do you want to do with the property — both the B &B and secondary unit? She has the approved CUP for the B &B and would still like to start it. In addition, she would like to utilize the living quarters above the garage for her own use. • Why are there so many cars parked on the street? It's not rented. Her daughter lives there and friends come and go. It's not red striped and neighbors have also had guests park there for parties. • Have you used it as a B &B yet? No. • If the work is up to code, why don't the photos indicate that? She had to stop work when the stop work order was issued. • Have you used the secondary unit? She has, personally. • Has anybody used the garage as living quarters? She and her kids have used it, but she hasn't rented it out. She's used it as a shop and for the walk -in closet. • Did you understand when you signed the papers that you weren't supposed to do this? It wasn't part of the B &B — that was completely separate. • What about the plumbing prohibition part that you signed? There were a number of issues, one of which was with Doreen Liberto- Blanc, the Planning Director. After trying to get permits for eight months, she was ready to sign anything with a construction loans and four daughters. She wasn't even thinking about a secondary unit, but since then, the state has allowed for them. Tait • Can two cars be parked in the garage (after modifications)? Yes, it was very large to start out with. • Is the restored car parked on the side? Yes. • With the slant and driveway, space 3 seems okay, but 4 seems difficult. He'd like to see a staff survey. Staff shared file photos from the applicant. She can't say what the slope was, but the grading plan ensured driveway slope consistency. • Does staff accept parking as is? Yes, it looks feasible from the plan presented. • Do you plan to move into the upstairs of the secondary unit? Yes. • Is the B &B about 2400 sf? Yes. It looks larger because of the veranda porch. Brown • Have you reviewed the Martin and Tarvin comment letters? No. She would like to resolve any issues they may have, but can't if not brought to her attention. • When dealing with the B &B, if there are 7 cars in the driveway, they may need to back out onto the street to exit. No, she had to prove that when she applied for the B &B. Everyone else on the street has to back out and none of them have circulation driveways. Chair Brown closed the hearing to public comment. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 11 AUGUST 16, 2005 Commission Comments: Keen • Planning Commission can't vote on the project until City Council discusses removal of the deed restriction, which he's not sure he would support. Brown • Commissioners can separate out issues and make a recommendation to Council. Mr. Strong replied that Planning Commission would normally decide on secondary dwellings. If they recommend approval for this special case, it won't be final until Council approves removing the deed restriction. If Commissioners wait for Council's decision first, they can do so, should provide some direction. Tait • He's leaning toward recommendation not to remove the deed restriction. • Since the secondary unit is over the 50% maximum (1300 instead of 1200sf), why isn't the applicant going through a MUP? The reason is that an ACUP is more than a MUP, so Commissioners could approve the secondary dwelling unit as part of the ACUP. Mr. Strong added that if the downstairs is intended as office, it could be treated separately for calculations, but since it's a single doorway, instead of inviting future violation, it would be best to include it. • Is the gas meter also something we could allow though it's not to code? Yes. • Other building department issues that aren't to code should be corrected. o Ms. Payne tried to comment that it's actually only 900 s.f. o Staff calculates 1300 s.f from the given dimensions on plans submitted. • He would like to add the optional condition of approval from page 3 of the staff report, which adds a penalty for illegal construction. Parker • Don't separate office from living space in the same building for calculations. • She has a problem with the fact the secondary unit was developed to begin with. • The code is very clear about the secondary unit not exceeding 50% of the area of the primary residence and not having separate utility meters. • By allowing a primary residence, B &B, and a secondary unit, the high number of uses is an intrusion to the residential community. The applicant needs to make a choice, because there is the possibility it could become a rental and she has a problem with the parking. The car restoration affects the number of parking spaces — not allowing enough for intended uses. She recommends that Council not remove the deed restriction unless the applicant wants to revoke the B &B . • The second gas meter should be removed and construction brought up to code. • The applicant should be inspected annually if she wants to continue the B &B. Brown • He reminded the Commissioners of the importance to make required findings. • When an applicant knowingly disregards a condition of approval (as with Crown Hill), they should be penalized in some reasonable fashion, so that these kinds of issues don't become an enforcement nightmare. • Although the applicant says the deed restriction was added by the former Director, the minutes shows is was voted on by City Council (minutes 1991). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 12 AUGUST 16, 2005 • Intensity of use is a big issue on this property and there were many concerns previously be neighbors. He, personally, didn't vote for it then due to problems with parking and circulation, and feels those problems still exist. It could help if the restored cars weren't taking up spaces, but wouldn't be a complete solution. • Findings 3 and 5 can't be made. #5 due to parking and #3 based on what he's heard tonight and an overall sense that a lot is going on at this property. • He can't support the second unit as configured, but possibly could with some modifications and at this point he can't vote for removal of the deed restriction. Ms. Fowler responded to some of the Commissioner comments: • The gas meter is the original location of the lateral. It was more convenient to add another one at the top, so it wouldn't cross the driveway. They could use electric at the primary residence, but gas is more economical. To tie in wouldn't be cost effective. • The 1300 sf calculation counts the stairway twice, which is open space and shouldn't be added in. Commissioner Tait made a motion to recommend to City Council not to remove the deed restriction and not to allow the secondary unit in the carriage house. Commissioner Parker requested adding to the motion that code enforcement take effect and the carriage house be returned to its originally permitted condition. Commissioner Tait agreed to the addition and added a penalty in the form of the double permit fee. There was discussion over whether fees would be assessed on work done without permits or future permit requests. Mr. Strong suggested that if the Commission wishes to recommend a penalty be imposed because of violations (construction without permits), its within their prerogative and the City Attorney could check the conditions under which to do that (from jail to fines) depending on how serious he considers the case and how firm a case it is. Staff requested that unmade findings be noted as part of the motion, and Commissioner Tait stated that findings 2, 3 and 5 can't be made. Commissioner Tait restated the motion and Commissioner Parker seconded that a recommendation be made to City Council not to remove the deed restriction, not to allow the secondary unit and return it to its original state, and to recommend a penalty as deemed fit by the City Attorney, based on the above unmet findings. Discussion: Chair Brown was uncomfortable that the Crown Hill penalty was more of a positive outcome for the applicant and the City (as a donation to the Historical Resource Committee). Mr. Strong noted in that instance there was an offer of contribution to a historic preservation purpose and it wasn't similar to this in many respects. A complete demo had occurred beyond the original intent of a partial demo. There was rationale that it may not have been totally intentional and the PUD will be reconsidered with a new application, so it's not completely resolved. Keen noted his suggestion was a $500 fine and five weekends in jail. Parker also felt it was entirely different. Chair Brown 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 13 AUGUST 16, 2005 commented he wanted to reflect equitable treatment of projects across the board in the future. The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote. AYES: Commissioners Tait, Parker, Keen and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fellows Rob noted that since this was originally established by City Council, it won't require an appeal. It will go to City Council automatically as a recommendation. D. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 05 -006; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE. Staff requested the Planning Commission continue this item to the next regular meeting of September 6, 2005. Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, to continue DCA 05- 006. The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote. At 10:00 p.m., Commissioner Parker moved and Commissioner Tait seconded to continue the meeting to 11:00 p.m. The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote. IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 05 -008; APPLICANT — BILL SADEK; LOCATION — 1136 E. GRAND AVE. Mr. Foster presented the staff report for a proposal to convert an existing structure to office use and construct nine (9) PUD single - family homes with one or two -way access from East Grand Avenue to Linda Drive. In discussion, staff prefers the 2 -way access plus a one -way access to Brisco. There are some parking challenges. There was a typo in the staff report in regards to the affordable housing requirements — it's 12.5 units (not 13.5 units). Commission questions: • Will they round up the number of units? No. • How many commercial parking spaces are there? Six. o Is that adequate? 6 spaces would be 1500 sf, and they have 1540, but there's provision for a mixed use reduction or shared parking. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 14 AUGUST 16, 2005 • Is the width of the emergency access driveway wide enough without removing the trees? It would be 14' wide (without removing trees), and the applicant already has the tree removal permit, so it should be adequate. • Will cars travel on the pedestrian path (as well as for emergency access)? Yes. • Why was he granted a permit removal for the cypress trees? The Fire Chief felt they were a hazard (so need to be trimmed and /or removed). • Is there any ADA requirement for the walkway? If it's publicly accessible, yes. • Who will maintain the pedestrian path? The HOA or there would be a maintenance agreement, but not the City. Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment. Mark Burns, 791 Price Street, Pismo Beach, principal partner in the project, spoke in support of the project. He's a Planning Commissioner in the City of Pismo Beach. He hope to bring the project in without any variances to keep everything in compliance with the character of this part of town. Bill Sadek, applicant, spoke in support of the project and read from a prepared statement (on file at the Community Development Department). He handed out photos taken today. They want to make an aesthetically pleasing project to revitalize the area. Chair Brown closed the hearing to public comment. Commission Comments: Keen • Parker Is there only one tree to be cut down? One or two, as it bottlenecks at that exit. • Would it more likely be the 24" or 36" tree? Probably the 36" one. When Parks and Recreation reviewed the site, they noted they're very dense and visually won't have an impact, as there are quite a few along that site. • Is there a functioning well that the City could get water from? It's not functioning, and per staff's recommendation, we will properly cap off and take care of it. • The setback from existing Linda residential properties look closer than the setbacks to existing commercial properties. Maybe that could be reversed to protect the residents. • A second concern is parking in front of garages. There's only 25' between the two properties, so if someone parks in front of the garage (instead of pulling in), the person on the other side can't get out of their garage. It becomes a big bottleneck. • He's concerned that this doesn't seem to meet requirements for common open space. This is the kind of thing he'll want to review when the project comes back. • Greg Soto, project architect, further described the distance between garages. He added that no matter what they design for (even with red curbs), people still might stop there. • Bill Sadek added that in the CC &R's they can provide for illegally parked cars to be towed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 15 AUGUST 16, 2005 • There's not enough parking as is. There should be driveway space in front of garages to at least accommodate one car length. Attachment two doesn't show enough parking spaces. • Green space is very important to her. PUD's can have houses close together, since not everyone can afford or wants a SFR, but there may be families and kids who need space to play, so they don't run out onto Grand. If it were restricted senior living, it would be okay with a small park area, but it's not. • It's great that pedestrian access goes through to Linda, especially since the school is there. • What do they plan for the 2' space next to the 4' walkway? Landscaping. • Is the other side of the plaster wall like a backyard? Its' a fence for the private patio and could be wrought iron (semi - private). o If it's a 6' privacy wall, it creates a tunnel effect, which could make it unsafe and trashed, so lower (4 -5') is better for pedestrian access. However, then owners would lose their privacy. With vines or flowers, the could still be some privacy. Also, the wall doesn't go the total distance. o Do they have backyards? No, they have private patios. It's a PUD. • There needs to be more public green space. • Chair Brown agreed with possible safety concerns. • Higher density is possible here, and the 760 and 1060 sf plus garage houses are fine, but 1600 sf is a big house. Connected to the other houses with no yards, it seems pretty large and doesn't win her over. The open space calculations fall within code parameters and were designed accordingly. They worked hard to meet the guidelines. o What you consider open space, Planning Commission may see differently. It will be reviewed further, but she doesn't see any open space as is. • There's a zero lot line house next to the pedestrian pathway, but there needs to be space between the house and the line. • The same goes for the commercial space. There's 9' between houses and commercial space. She would like to see more space in between. • There should be more than 7' on the bottom commercial area between buildings and the edge of the lot. It's open parking space. • She would love to keep the mature cypress trees. Mr. Burns agreed they would love to keep them, too, as it makes the project more marketable, but it may end up a safety issue. • Make sure garbage collection is well - planned. • When there's two -way access onto Grand, it's confusing if there's only a one -way turnaround through commercial. Tait • He's concerned with cars exiting onto Linda, as residents may not want that, but it's also difficult exiting onto Grand. • He appreciates the pedestrian friendly access. • Mailboxes should be located more in the center of the project. • He's glad that the trees aren't cut down yet, and requested an arborist to check the hazardous condition. • Most of his other comments have been addressed already. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 16 AUGUST 16, 2005 • Passive solar heating would be a good addition and he recommends incorporate green building materials. • He appreciates using the rain retention system. Brown • We had a situation where someone had a permit and cut down trees before the project was approved, which created a lot of animosity. so go a long way if wait until have to be done. With respect to fire chief, a hot button is trees in the city right now. • Based on different project seen that way, consider height, massing of buildings, and view from Grand as look toward project. • Pedestrian issue is a huge issue and important that can traverse project safely. It's okay as is. He wonders if 4' across is appropriate and if it's uncomfortable next to someone's living space. • The less traffic directly onto Grand, the better. His perception is to keep as few driveways onto Grand as possible, so not as much confusion on Grand. • Open space is an issue. No motion was made, as this was a pre - application review only. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Keen requested staff to agendize a discussion item regarding tandem parking, specifically to discount the second parking space for lack of utility in the real world. Chair Brown concurred. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: 1. The Planning Commission will start being filmed for live broadcast on the local public TV channel 20 starting with the September 6, 2005 meeting. 2. There will be a workshop for Commissioners on August 29 from 2 -5 p.m. in the Council Chambers. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 MEETING: No discussion. IX. ADJOURNMENT: At 11:00 p.m., there being no further business before the Planning Commission, Commissioner Keen moved and Commissioner Tait seconded adjournment to the next meeting on August 29, 2005 at 2:00 p.m. The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote. ATTEST: KATHY M • DOZA SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION TIM BROWN, CHAIR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 17 AUGUST 16, 2005 AS TO CONTENT: RO :Sr'ONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPM T DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of September 6, 2005)