Loading...
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