PC Minutes 2005-07-051
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JULY 5, 2005 .
6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session
with Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows and Tait;
Commissioner Keen was absent and Commissioner Parker was arriving late. Staff
members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Assistant
Planner, Jim Bergman, and Planning Intern, Aaron Brownwood.
AGENDA REVIEW: No Changes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Tait to approve the minutes of June 7, 2005 with one correction on page
2: the street name should be Asilo not Aselmo; the motion passed on a 3/0 voice vote.
Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows to approve the
minutes of June 21, 2005 with the following requested corrections:
• Page 2, first bullet, clarify by adding in parenthesis, after the second sentence,
(site inspection clarified that root removal did occur closer than 10').
• Page 10, third bullet, third sentence, under Commissioner Fellows comments
correct to state ...educate property owneFs city officials on the fact that the
Historic Code was more lenient and therefore they could give more latitude for
repairs on historic buildings...
• Page 11, Item VI, third sentence, change Magnolia tree to Maple tree and add
address number "210" to Tally Ho.
The motion was approved on a 3/0 voice vote.
I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
I.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Letter from Department of Housing and Community Development, dated June 22,
2005, finding Arroyo Grande's adopted Housing Element in compliance with State
housing element law.
Mr. Strong stated that this is the first time in history that the State has certified the City's
Housing Element. Chair Brown thanked staff, particularly Associate Planner, Kelly
Heffernon and Director, Rob Strong for all their hard work
II.A. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE JUNE 21
2005
CaseNo
Appal
/�cldress,3,„Descriptio"n,,,,,,'
3
a3
A'ctio''n
w 3m
t�lan7'ner
�aa•3m
1. VSR
05-010
559S.
Add second story master bedroom and
A
Andy Bursan
Halcyon
stairwell to existing single-family house.
2. PPR
05-010
504 E.
Change of use from restaurant to retail
A
J. Bergman
Grand Ave
furniture in the Hwy Mixed -Use zone.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 5, 2005
Page 2
Mr. Strong requested an additional consent item be considered: A demolition permit for
a garage located at 224 Short Street (item No. 3).
Commissioner Fellows asked if Consent item No. 1 was going to the ARC? Mr. Strong
explained that this would not normally go to the ARC as it was a single-family house
outside of the design review area.
Commissioner Fellows made a motion to approve Consent item No.1; seconded by
Commissioner Tait; the motion passed with a 3/0 voice vote.
Commissioner Tait made a motion to approve Consent item No.2, seconded by
Commissioner Fellows; the motion passed with a 3/0 voice vote.
Mr. Strong presented Consent item No. 3, explaining that the applicant was replacing a
legally non -conforming detached, single car garage (almost falling over) and that it
would be replaced with a tandem garage (color and materials to be similar to the
existing house).
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve
Consent item No.3; the motion passed with a 3/0 voice vote.
III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. (Continued from the meeting of June 213, 2005) Vesting Tentative Tract
Map/Planned Unit Development Case Nos. 01-001 & Lot Line Adjustment
Case No. 01-002; Applicant — Castlerock Development, LLC; Location —
James Way & La Canada.
Mr. Strong presented the item to continue consideration of a 21 -lot subdivision and
clustered residential development on approximately 26.9 acres, including a 22 -acre
open space parcel, and review an addendum to the project's certified Revised Final
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (RFSEIR), but explained that since the
meeting of June 21, 2005 the applicant had requested further consideration of the item
be continued to a meeting where all the Commissioners would be present.
After a short discussion the Commission agreed to continue the public hearing of this
item to allow all Commissioners to be present.
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to continue
consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 01-001 to the September 20, 2005
Planning Commission meeting.
The motion was passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Tait and Chair Brown
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Parker and Keen
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 5, 2005
Page 3
Chair Brown requested a change in the order of the Agenda and requested Item III.C.
be heard next so that Commissioner Parker would be present for item III.B.
(Commissioner Fellows would be stepping down from item III.B.) this would enable a
quorum. The Commission unanimously agreed to the change.
C. Development Code Amendment Case No. 05-009, Formula Businesses;
Applicant — City Of Arroyo Grande; Location — Citywide.
In the absence of Associate Planner, Ms. McClish, Mr. Strong, Community
Development Director, presented the staff report for consideration of the Ordinance
amending Title 16 (Development Code) for regulating formula businesses in the Village
Downtown Core.
Commission questions:
Tait:
• Asked for clarification on the definition of "Visitor Serving Uses". Mr. Strong
stated this could be a country inn, bed & breakfast or motel; banks and title
companies would not fit the definition because they are not a retail trade nor a
restaurant.
• Asked for confirmation that the definition for formula businesses should be more
than six and not six. Mr. Strong replied it should be more than six.
• Asked for clarification on the Alternatives and how they related to businesses that
were not storefront. Mr. Strong explained how the Alternatives would work.
Fellows:
• Which cities did the bulk of proposed Ordinance come from? Mr. Strong
explained that he could not state precisely as Ms. McClish did the research, but
he knew they were from a substantial range of community sizes, most of them
with unique character, whether historical or architectural.
Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment.
Steve Ross, Board of Directors, Arroyo Grande Chamber of Commerce, stated they do
not support excluding formula businesses from the Arroyo Grande business mix; they
understand the importance of the Downtown Village Core to the City; if any restrictions
are to be made the area fronting Branch Street would be appropriate. In their opinion;
including the Village Mixed Use (VMU) in this Ordinance would be extremely confining
and could potentially harm the downtown businesses; many of the businesses are
rented and property owner's rights are involved here. They would prefer to see
permitting used rather than the "six" units. It appeared that this all started with the
potential of "Starbucks" wanting to locate in the Village area. The Chamber
understands the concerns of the City, but they are not in favor of this Ordinance.
Kristen Barneich, 212 Canyon Way, spoke in favor of the formula business restrictions
in the Village; stated that it would help keep the Village unique and charming and in turn
this would keep the Village economically viable for the merchants; it would help tourism;
restricting formula businesses is not a new concept and other cities have similar
ordinances in place which have been very successful; the Village is the hub of a close
knit community.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 5, 2005
7:35 p.m. Commissioner Parker arrived.
Page 4
Erin O'Connor, resident, spoke in favor of the formula business ordinance; stated he
would like to see the charm and character of the Village preserved and this could be
quickly and easily lost; the Village is the City's greatest asset.
Kimo Pankey, business owner of the Village Centre, stated he was not in favor of the
formula business ordinance; he supported all the comments made by Steve Ross.
John Guttierreiz Branch Street Deli, strongly recommended the City not pass the
ordinance for many reasons; asked what was the matter with a little competition as it
could improve a landlords ability to get more rent for their businesses; what about all the
other type businesses such as title companies and banks; the Village has grown and
there is a need to evaluate this ordinance, maybe it would be better to condition or get
more public input.
Mick Bondello, 207 McKinley, he would prefer to see formula businesses not come into
the Village, as this is the most important and unique part of the City.
Chair Brown closed the hearing to public comment.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker, Mr. Strong explained that a title
company, a bank or office use would not be considered a formula business (not a retail
business).
Commission Comments:
Tait:
• Page 1, staff report, second paragraph, suggested add language to state: ... due
to formula businesses having to absorb larger startup costs...
• He shared the concerns of John Guttierrez (that business owners might not get
top dollar).
• Would more locals shop in the Village if there were more chain businesses?
Would mixing chain stores with "Mom & Pop" stores be good for the economy?
• The Village is a unique area and the reason why most live here.
• He could support the recommendation from the staff as it stands.
Fellows:
• Believes the Ordinance as proposed by staff is not quite strict enough; the City
survey in 1999 concluded that 87% wanted to maintain the Village as is; the
Commissioner needs to reflect what the majority prefers; the VMU district should
be included to preserve the character and charm of the Village.
• If he were against this Ordinance he would be against small family businesses
and this is something he did not want to be.
• The recommendation from staff should be expanded to include the VMU district
and he suggested language to read: Planning Commission recommends City
Council introduce an Ordinance to amend Title 16, defining and regulating
formula businesses in the Village Core Downtown (VCD) and the Village Mixed -
Use (VMU) districts; some areas could be excluded such as the south part of
Nelson Street, Station Way area and the Bank of America area.
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 5, 2005
Page 5
•
Seven is too large a number for formula business definition, five or six would be
preferable.
•
This Ordinance does not include the rest of the City so that leaves plenty of
areas for formula businesses to locate.
•
He believed Alternative 4 would be the way to go, as it is very clear-cut.
•
Referred to the "WHEREAS" in the Ordinance (number six), which states the
City's responsibility to adhere to the General Plan etc. and in his opinion the
modified Ordinance should include the VCD and VMU districts in order to uphold
the General Plan.
Parker:
•
Agreed with Commissioners Tait and Fellows; she was favoring Alternative 3 or
4.
•
Businesses in the Village are more successful because they are located in the
Village.
•
Formula businesses would cause loss of character.
•
We need to look at business usage to see where it fits in Arroyo Grande; if we
don't preserve the Village we loose our character.
•
She had concern with stopping at Tally Ho Creek with the Ordinance; suggested
that it needs to run through the Village (including Creekside); in the past it has
been discussed to continue the Village character along Traffic Way and
suggested a tree planting down the middle of this street.
•
She would like to make sure that the language for the Ordinance had been
carefully reviewed, that there were no loopholes and that it be made really clear
so as not to cause misunderstanding in the future.
Brown:
•
We are not reinventing the wheel, this is a business friendly Ordinance already
proven to protect unique areas.
•
VMU allows other uses than residential and over time some residential may
convert to a higher use. If this takes place, the Village could be extended from its
current boundaries as long as formula businesses are not allowed; he agreed
with Commissioner Fellows to extend the area to include VMU and VCD or
alternatively a permit process in VMU that would be highly restrictive.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait, Mr. Strong clarified that the VCD and
VMU areas would not include local businesses such as Miner's Ace and Lemos.
Mr. Strong clarified language for the Commission in Alternative 4, stating that this
alternative would not create legal non -conforming stores (incorrectly stated in the staff
report) as these specific stores are within the VMU, but outside of D-2.4 area.
After a short discussion the Commission agreed that the language stating "six or more"
was acceptable.
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to
recommend that the City Council amend Title 16, as provided in Alternative 4, which
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
J U LY 5, 2005
Page 6
includes the Village Core Downtown and the Village Mixed Use districts, and adding
language to the Ordinance to include the VCD and VMU districts to reflect this.
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Parker, Tait and Chair Brown
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Keen
B. (Continued from the meeting of June 21, 2005) Viewshed Review Case No.
05-007; Applicant — Kevin Stevenson; Location — 585 May Street.
Planning Intern, Aaron Brownwood presented the staff report for consideration of an
appeal of the viewshed review project for construction of a two-story house.
Commissioner Fellows stepped down from this item due to potential conflict.
Aaron Brownwood presented the staff report, stated that two letters in opposition to the
project had been received by staff and a rebuttal letter received from the architect; the
findings conform; the project does not contain unnecessary architectural features; would
not impede all views from neighboring properties; the applicant has revised plans to
reduce the height of the proposal; the oak trees would still be seen from May Street and
skyline viewshed preserved. In conclusion, Mr. Brownwood stated that staff
recommends approval of the viewshed review.
In reply to questions from the Commission, staff clarified:
• The plans have been revised to show the lowering of the height.
• The grading is caused by the natural slope.
• Finding re the "focused view"; this house would have panoramic views and only
loses view in one site area.
• This project is not required to go to the ARC.
Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment.
Kevin Stevenson, applicant, answered Commission questions:
• The building pad is similar to the neighboring height and the ground scraped to
lower the house into the hill.
• Their architect said they could possibly lower the house by one foot.
• Agreed the house is large as they have six children; there are other large houses
in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Parker stated that she was glad to see they were preserving the oaks.
Mr. Stevenson then showed pictures of the lot and neighboring houses to the
Commission and answered further questions from the Commission:
• Re the driveways on the corner of McKinley and May Streets and concern for
traffic safety, part of their plan is to widen the road to eight feet to match road
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 5, 2005
Page 7
down below, adding curb gutter and sidewalk on May Street and continue
sidewalk around the corner.
• The second story bedroom/office will not have a direct line of site to the house on
the northeast.
Staff noted that the address was wrong on the conditions of approval, but stated that the
conditions were correct.
Erin O'Connor, 1564 Bee Canyon, owner's of property to the east and will be moving
back into the property, stated his concern with the size and scale of the proposal at the
crest of the hill; does not fit with the neighborhood character; thought it should be a one
story home; concern with traffic and safety; would be precedent setting; with the zoning
he had not understood this lot could be split; he thought the project should have been
renoticed when the project was continued to a date certain.
Mick Bondello, 207 McKinley, not in favor of this proposal; stated this house does
resemble a care facility at the corner of Paseo and May Street; disagreed with Mr.
O'Connor in that 580 May Street is massive and took my view when it was built and
intrudes on seven backyards; he would like to see this proposal be similar in size to the
houses on either side; from his home the tree line will not be visible when this is built.
Mr. Stevenson, applicant, wondered whose view they would be blocking; stated their
garage will be built as low as possible and the house will step up; two story houses
have already been built in the area.
Sherry Stevenson, applicant, stated they are also very concerned about the driveways
and would like to work out how they could be made safer, but their driveway is high up
and there is a good of view of the street when they are backing out onto the street.
Commission comments:
• The structure will be considerably higher than the surrounding neighborhood, but
the layering effect of the proposed house will help.
• They asked that the design to be lowered one foot if feasible to lesson the height
impact and to alleviate the concern of neighbors.
• They appreciated that the safety issues were being addressed.
• The letters from concerned neighbors has all been reviewed by the Commission;
neighborhood concerns are important and need to be heard.
• They believed the applicant had listened to the concerns of the neighbors and
been compassionate in making changes where feasible.
• No concern re the view in back as there is such a thick canopy of trees.
• The home falls under the guidelines and they are allowed to build.
• Advised the applicant to look at privacy issues with the windows.
• Suggested vegetation be planted along the side and that it be tall to help with
privacy issues.
• The neighborhood is eclectic with lots of vegetation and once the vegetation
grows this house should blend in.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 5, 2005
Page 8
In reply to a question from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Stevenson stated that to lower the
height would be costly because of the grade of the lot, but they would explore lowering
the height by one foot or more.
Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to approve
Viewshed Review 05-007, with the recommendations that the applicant explore lowering
the height of the house a foot or more and adopt:
RESOLUTION 05-1968
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-007; 585
MAY STREET, LOT 8 OF THE LE POINT ADDITION; APPLIED FOR BY
KEVIN STEVENSON
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tait, Parker and Chair Brown
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Fellows
ABSENT: Commissioner Keen
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 5th day of July 2005.
IV. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS:
Commissioner Fellows stated a concern that the sign ordinance did not address rotating
billboards. Mr. Strong explained that billboards are prohibited and are not permitted in
the City; present billboards are legally non -conforming.
Commissioner Parker asked if a date had been scheduled for the proposed meeting to
discuss Agenda management. Commissioner Brown explained that after discussion
with Steve Adams, City Manager the meeting would be scheduled for September.
Commissioner Fellows asked for an update on the 25 -foot setback that DeBlauw had
started on building within. Mr. Strong stated that the building is at the 25 -foot setback,
about 6 feet higher than it would have been on original topography and in accordance
with the East Village Plaza finished floor callout. Mr. Strong stated he understood the
Commission concern and in future staff will have the applicant identify if it is different
from the physical break in grade; the grading was not clear at the time of lot line
adjustment; experience will teach for the future.
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 5, 2005
Page 9
Commissioner Tait asked for an update on the meeting with Parks and Recreation . re
discussion on trees. Mr. Strong stated ARC and Planning Commission have been
invited to attend the next meeting on July 13, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. and the Commission
could adjourn to that meeting if more than two members plan on attending.
VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP:
None.
VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR JULY 19, 2005 MEETING: No discussion.
IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Planning
Commission, at 8:45 p.m. Chair Brown adjourned the meeting to the Parks &
Recreation meeting of July 13, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
ATTEST:
z "
L N REARDON-SMITH
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO QONTE
ROB -STRONG;
COMMUNITY DEVEL, PMENT DIRECTOR
(Minutes approved at the PC meeting of July 19, 2005)
TIM BROWN, CHAIR
1
1
1