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)