Loading...
PC Minutes 2005-07-19CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows and Tait; Commissioners Keen and Parker were absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster and Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2005 6:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to approve the minutes of July 5, 2005 with one correction: on page 8, change the end of the first paragraph to "one foot or more." The motion was approved on a 3/0 voice vote. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. I.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 2. Correspondence (General) 1) Letter from Mark Vasquez, dated July 15, 2005, regarding APL 04 -008. 2) Notice of cancellation of Parks and Recreation meeting on July 13, 2005. 3) Letter from Castlerock dated July 1, 2005, regarding VTTM /PUD 01 -001. 4) Memo from City Manager Steve Adams, dated July 8, 2005, regarding East Village Plaza creek bank setback. (Chair Brown noted concern about grading done in the setback, stating the setback should be better defined. Mr. Adams replied that this has been requested to be discussed at Council level and will also be presented for Planning Commission discussion.) 5) Letter from Dave Sturges, dated July 17, 2005, regarding LLA 05 -001. 1. Memo from Steve Adams, City Manager, regarding consideration of a workshop on Agenda Management. City Manager Steve Adams explained this would be a good opportunity to discuss how staff and Commissioners can work together to improve the overall operation. For this to be effective, we have to get past trying to solve a "problem ". There's been a change in Commissioners, along with changes in philosophy, goals and purpose. There are still adjustments to make in order to work together as effectively as possible, which is the goal. He discussed the recommended agenda format, suggesting speaker /facilitators for each of the topics. It's not to insinuate that Commissioners need education in these areas, and some is certainly repetitive, basic information, but it's important to provide information to stimulate discussion. It's proposed for an afternoon in late August, once the full Commission is available, and separate from a regular meeting day. He hopes it results in positive feedback and better team spirit. The Commissioners agreed that they could attend an afternoon meeting with sufficient notice. Commissioner Tait stated Mondays work best for him. It would be publicly noticed, however it's not really a forum for public input. us No ._.. .. wm +•s __ ". .�., App Ad dress = 1'e sc iptiori ' 1 VV - _.� �3� Action ,,,..... _ Planne " d3 .,. ,,,,,,,. - 1. ARCH Mex 05 -010 05 -007 125 Allen St Move existing garage and add family room. A J Bergman 2. ARCH 05 -009 130 Short St Exterior modifications to existing single - family house. A J Bergman 3. DEMO 224 Short St Demolition of single -car garage; to be replaced with a 2 -car tandem garage. A R Strong 4. TUP 05 -012 Dixon St Five (5) model homes for Tract 2310 A R Foster 5. MEX 05 -005 200 Spruce Allow two -car carport in -lieu of the two -car garage. A R Foster PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 19, 2005 Page 2 Chair Brown requested that the workshop be kept as focused as possible, so it doesn't turn into something it doesn't need to. Both Commissioner and staff time is valuable. He thanked Mr. Adams for attending this meeting and making his presentation. II.A. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE JUNE 21, 2005 Item 1: Chair Brown noted he would have to step down on items 1 and 3, which would leave them without a quorum. Item 1 was continued to the next meeting on consensus of the remaining two Commissioners. Item 2: Mr. Strong briefly described the project, noting it's the same address as Item B and may be better discussed in terms of the entire project. Commissioners agreed. Item 3: Mr. Strong clarified that item 3 is actually a reported item only (no action necessary). Commissioners had no questions or comments. Item 4: Commissioners had no questions or comments. (See approval motion below.) Item 5: Commissioner Fellows expressed concern for setting a precedent in approving garage conversions. Mr. Strong explained the City is in the process of working on garage conversions, which has been an ongoing citywide problem. This does seem to be a "special case" (and therefore would not set a blanket standard) due to the following: 1. It was done by a prior owner; 2. It would be extremely difficult to return to prior setback due to existing site configuration; 3. It's been like this for at least a decade; and 4. It was noticed and no comments were received from neighbors. Commissioner Tait made a motion to approve items 4 and 5, seconded by Commissioner Fellows; the motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Tait, Fellows and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Parker and Keen 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 19, 2005 Page 3 III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. APPEAL CASE NO. 04 -008 OF VIEWSHED CASE NO. 04 -016; APPLICANT — STACEY HARMON; LOCATION 1238 MONTEGO. Assistant Planner Jim Bergman requested continuation of this item, explaining that additional time was needed for re- noticing. In addition, the applicant's representative has requested that it be heard first on the next agenda, due to the delay. The Commission agreed to continue the public hearing of this item. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to continue consideration of Appeal Case No. 04 -008 to the August 2, 2005 Planning Commission meeting; the motion passed on a 3/0 voice vote. B. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 05 -001; APPLICANT — DAVE STURGESS; LOCATION —130 & 132 SHORT STREET. Assistant Planner Jim Bergman presented the staff report for consideration of a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) to reconfigure a lot and a portion of a lot into two (2) Village Mixed - Use parcels. The original LLA proposal that staff reviewed created two new lots (both under 5,000 net sf each). Staff recommends denial, as they believe findings 5 and 7 can't be made (detailed in the staff report). Mr. Bergman answered technical questions from Commissioners. Mr. Strong added that in this zone, calculations should be based on net square footage, not gross. Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment. Dave Sturges, applicant, spoke in favor of the LLA. He said he didn't see why he couldn't do this project with a LLA (as opposed to the PUD suggested by staff), since the result is the same. His objection to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is that it's more expensive and time consuming, which would cause him a financial loss. Terri Fowler- Payne, applicant's representative, spoke extensively in support of the LLA detailing points as written in the letter dated July 17, 2005 (on file in the Community Development Department). Otis Page, 606 Myrtle Street, was not familiar with the specifics of the project but spoke in support of the applicant and expressed hope for reconciling the disparity between staff and applicant. Chair Brown closed the hearing to public comment. Commission Comments: Brown: • What's the difference between doing this project with a LLA vs. PUD? Mr. Strong replied they're quite different, including the process outline and necessary findings. Staff feels a PUD would be an appropriate vehicle for this project, whereas the necessary LLA findings can't be made. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 19, 2005 • Please comment on the time concern. Mr. Strong replied that for a PUD, the applicant would want to do a Pre - application first, submit additional details, and it would take longer to process. Tait • He appreciated Mr. Sturges' and Ms. Fowler - Payne's comments, but he hasn't even had time to fully study the packet submitted with the July 17 letter, let alone staff. To evaluate it well would take additional time. Fellows • It is an important site in terms of the schoolhouse and barn, but the site can be fixed up even without a LLA or PUD. • It's usually prudent to open escrow, find out from the City what can be done, and then close escrow. Unfortunately, this happens (where escrow is closed before the buyer has an approved project), and it's unpleasant for both the owner and City staff. • In regard to the statement on top of page three of the letter about staffs disregard for the Village, he considers it untrue - he knows staff to be honest, above - board, well- trained and well- experienced. • He also wouldn't want three units on the property. Brown • Although torn on the question of process vs. outcome, if they approve this project without following the proper procedure, it would set a bad precedent. • In the difference of opinion between applicant and staff, he believes staff is correct (the calculation is based on net, not gross, square footage). • He appreciated the packet and new information, but they're legally here to discuss the original application. However, they still may not be able to make findings for the new proposal. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to deny Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 05 -001 and adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1969 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 05 -001; LOCATED AT 130 AND 132 SHORT STREET The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Tait and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Keen and Parker the foregoing resolution was adopted this 19 day of July 2005. Mr. Strong noted for the record that this action is final unless appealed in 10 days. Page 4 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 19, 2005 Page 5 Consent Agenda Item 2. Commissioner Tait asked about the conditions applied by ARC. Mr. Strong replied that the building permit has yet to be processed, but those conditions would be adhered to. In addition, Mr. Bergman clarified the front porch setbacks condition and the overhang condition. Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows, to approve Consent Agenda Item 2; the motion passed on a 3/0 voice vote. C. PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 04 -001; APPLICANT — ROBERT ANDERSON; LOCATION — 200 -290 STATION WAY. Assistant Planner Jim Bergman presented the staff report for consideration of a Planned Sign Program (PSP) for a portion of the existing Village Creek Promenade. Generally, a PSP is approved prior to building a project, but this will give consistency to existing as well as future signs. The PSP appears consistent with the municipal code. He described the types of allowable signs. The PSP doesn't allow signs on the lattice structures. The PSP proposes one wall sign per tenant per wall. There's also a monument sign in the right -of -way, but staff believes it doesn't pose a threat to safety, so it's okay to leave it, so long as the applicant obtains an encroachment permit. ARC has approved the project with some modifications (detailed in draft notes). Commissioner comments: Tait • In response to questions about ARC's conditions, Mr. Bergman replied that two minor changes were made by ARC. In one place designated for signage, there's no longer a wall — it's now a utility closet. The other change is for consistent placement of signs on the building. Fellows • This is consistent with what he remembers requesting as a prior ARC member. Brown • In response to monument sign questions, Mr. Devens replied that it falls on the City's side of the property line separating what the City maintains vs. private property. He noted that Public Works Director Don Spagnolo doesn't have a problem with it, so long as it's approved by Planning Commission. There are no current plans to use that space. The street is fully developed. Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows to approve Planned Sign Program Case No. 04 -001, with the condition that the applicant apply for an encroachment permit and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 05-1970 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 04 -001, APPLIED FOR BY ROBERT ANDERSON, LOCATED AT 200, 230, 260 AND 290 STATION WAY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 19, 2005 The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Tait, Fellows and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Keen and Parker the foregoing resolution was adopted this 19 day of July 2005. There was a five minute break at 7:40 p.m. Upon return, Chair Brown noted that a public hearing was not formally announced for Item C, so he opened the floor to anyone who wanted to comment. Seeing nobody, he moved on to the next item. Page 6 D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05 -008; APPLICANT — DR. CRUZ; LOCATION — 107 NELSON STREET. Assistant Planner Jim Bergman presented the staff report to allow an existing building to convert from a retail use (Chameleon fabric store) to a medical office and retail use. Although started by Dr. DaSilva as a CUP, Dr. Cruz is now on the escrow with a very similar project. SAC's main concerns were fire safety and parking. Mr. Bergman and Mr. Strong answered Commissioner questions about technical details. Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment. Mark Vasquez, architect and representative for applicant, was present to answer questions. Dr. Cruz, applicant, answered Commissioner questions and stated he felt confident that although challenging, there would not be any unsolvable problems with parking. Tom Bonds, 517 Launa Lane (property owner), ran an auto parts store on Dr. Cruz's property and had no parking problems. Chair Brown closed the hearing to public comment. Commission comments: • It seems an exorbitant expense to the applicant to require a new fire hydrant, when there's one across the street already. • Although somewhat concerned about the parking situation, they felt ready to approve the project. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve Conditional Use Permit Case No. 05 -008, and adopt: 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 19, 2005 RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1971 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05 -008; LOCATED AT 107 NELSON STREET; APPLIED FOR BY DR. CRUZ The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Tait and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Keen and Parker the foregoing resolution was adopted this 19 day of July 2005. IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PRE - APPLICATION CASE NO. 04 -009; APPLICANT — JIM MOTTER/MARK LONDON; LOCATION — 1200 EAST GRAND AVENUE. Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report and answered technical questions from Commissioners. Chair Brown opened the hearing to public comment. Page 7 Mark London, applicant, spoke in favor of the project and described it further with a large photo and a grading plan. He also answered questions from Commissioners. Colleen Martin, 404 Lierly Lane, commented that it's silly to present a Pre - application without a full Commission. She had concerns about traffic, circulation and density. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: • Parking seems to be a problem in that it's over - parked, and there should be more amenities. • They want to further review the retaining walls, as normally they don't like massive retaining walls, but if they won't be visible, that may be okay. • They're also concerned about tandem parking. • They liked the solar panels and water cisterns for landscape watering, and they suggested using green building materials. • They also want a three - dimensional, physical model. • They suggested more trees, play areas, tot lots and public yard space. • It's important to have pedestrian access through the entire project. • They would like to see different architectural design for the commercial site (check out Santa Lucia Bank and the new Longs center). • There should be more street trees along East Grand Avenue and maybe a parkway along Brisco. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 19, 2005 No motion required, as this is a pre - application review only. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Cherry Creek revised subdivision and neighborhood plan. (Mr. Strong recused himself for this item and left the meeting.) Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon presented this discussion item. She described the changes from the previous lot layout to this new site plan, new drainage solution (in the form of a bio- swale) and a proposed 130' agriculture buffer (instead of 100'). The reason for presenting this tonight is to update the Commissioners on the new site plan ideas and get comments before moving forward with final plans. Commissioner comments: Brown • Tait • • Page 8 • Circulation was discussed in the commercial area. • There was concern about density. • There was concern about massing. • They would like to see more affordable units. • There was concern about "stacking" at the intersection of Grand and Brisco for left -hand turns. • He expressed strong discomfort with the way this item was • Comments on a very minimal amount of new information tacit approval. A "Discussion Item" was not an appropriate method to deal presented. shouldn't be seen as with these issues. He agreed with Brown that there wasn't much material provided for discussion. In response to his question about the Wallace Group's review of the bioswale, Ms. Heffernon answered that she had not received comments back yet, but will provide that information once received. She further discussed its location and function requesting the applicant to provide additional technical details. o John Knight, RRM Design Group /applicant's representative, stated this is more of an informational item than a discussion item. It's been a long time since they came before Planning Commission, so they wanted to give Commissioners an update, but don't expect many comments in return. Damien Mavis and Brad Vernon are still involved and one -third owners, but they have brought onboard new partners - Cliff Branch owns a third and Peter Keith owns a third. In addition, they have brought Alan Little of Alan Little Custom Homes on board as the builder for the entire site. He further described the bioswale, new site plan, smaller lot sizes, affordable housing requirement, ag buffer, and emergency access plans. The architectural styles would remain the same. They're hoping for some of the environmental studies to become available soon (which would address the bioswale's adequacy in terms of a 100 -year storm). In lieu of the increased ag buffer distance, they would like to decrease the height of the fence from 8' to the standard 6'. They would still utilize mature landscaping such as coastal 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 19, 2005 Page 9 redwoods and possibly oaks, and the landscaping would be maintained by a HOA. Fellows • He was okay with being kept apprised and welcomed the comment opportunity. • It's a "must" to refurbish and reuse the Stillwell house, as promised in the past. • The pedestrian bridge over the creek should be worked out. There wouldn't be a traffic nightmare as some contend. • Myrtle Street should be extended. • They need a Neighborhood Plan before continuing further. • Adequate floodwater retention basins are needed, perhaps located at the end of the buffer. • A bioswale is a much better alternative than two 6' pipes, and it's an excellent solution. It must be designed and maintained by a specialist (not just any landscape architect). • The ag buffer (landscaping) needs to be laid out per the Queensland (Australia) report. It has to have a strip of noncombustible materials on either side, and it shouldn't have the two breaks. It should be maintained, pruned, replaced, etc. by experts for maximum filtration of pesticides and particulates. • Several speakers have faulted the traffic study at Cherry - not including a signal at the intersection of Cherry and Traffic Way is a problem with this proposal. • The Vandeveer house must be visible by the public, not hidden by a bioswale, (which could be remedied by extending Myrtle Street in front of the house). • Another benefit of extending Myrtle is the public would have access to the greenbelt along the creek, and they should have access to it. • An EIR could still be required. Brown • Applicants have already been tasked with work to do. • They should be clear with Commissioner concerns. • There has been a large amount of public comments (previously). • In response to what was said tonight, he's not in favor of a height- reduction in the wall at the ag buffer. • Density is an issue in relationship to the ag buffer. • He reiterated that he didn't think this was appropriate as a discussion item, and while they already had public comment previously, he noted a number of people in the audience wanting to speak and opened the item to further public comment: Otis Page, 606 Myrtle Street, was disappointed in what he saw tonight, as the neighborhood was not notified and they're concerned this is a major change. This has the potential of being a "political event" in the City of Arroyo Grande. The density noted in the staff report/diagram of 4.2 houses /acre should actually be 8 houses /acre, which has implications as far as traffic and identity of existing neighborhoods. Based on the concern that density is too high, he objected to continuing this as a Pre - application at SAC and ARC. He also asked if Cherry will become a major access road or retained as a dirt road. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 19, 2005 Larry Turner, 323 Noguera, stated one of the main issues he's concerned about is drainage. He'd like answers to some questions: 1. Where do pipes go that bring water across Dixson Ranch? 2. They're building dams again in terms of the buffer (berm at bottom of fence). 3. What does a 100 -year storm do over the bioswale? 4. He would like to know finished floor elevations of house pads in terms of .street level (his house) on Noguera. Colleen Martin, 404 Lierly Lane, stated there needs to be an adequate Neighborhood Plan and there's nothing positive in this project for people who live there now. It might be that the developer doesn't want to deal with dirt Cherry, but the City needs to "take it by the horns and deal with it." It's a difficult project, with environmentally sensitive issues being adjacent to ag land and the creek. Her biggest concern is density - parcels should be bigger as they work out from the Village toward the country (similar to Coker Ellsworth's project or bigger). Carol Hoffmeier, 765 Branch Mill Road. She was also disappointed that she wasn't notified of the hearing, as it affects her land tremendously. She felt the wall (2' berm) could be like a dam. She wants to keep it at 8' for pesticide, noise, dust and lights from tractors. She wants to work together, so the buffer can be the best it can be. Chair Brown closed public comment. He also closed the item, since Commissioners had already made their comments. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR AUGUST 2, 2005 MEETING: No discussion. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Planning Commission, at 9:50 p.m. Chair Brown adjourned the meeting. ATTEST: G KATHY ME DOZA SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS ' C s ► Tj "NNW ROBS ON , COMMUNITY DEVEL MENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of August 2, 2005) Page 10 IPA.& TIM BRO C AIR