Loading...
PC Minutes 2004-10-05Case;No Applicant A; ., S Address , : Description Planne = 6 1. PPR 04 -016 Longs Drugs 1435 E. Grand Ave Placement of two (2) exterior vending machines R. Foster 2. ARC 04 -009 Evan Larsen 309 Le Point St Porch Modification. R. Foster 1 1 1 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 2004 - 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Guthrie presiding; also present were Commissioners Arnold, Brown and Keen; Commissioner Fowler was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planner Ryan Foster and Public Works Associate Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: The Commission agreed that Item III.B should be heard last. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of September 21, 2004, were approved with one correction on page 4 (a typo), on a motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and by a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Fowler being absent. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter from Arnold Schwarzenegger re Assembly Bill 2702, 2 unit housing in California, stating reasons for the bill not being signed. 2. Memo from Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster re approval by Community Development Director of Architectural Review 04 -009, porch modification at 309 Le Point Street. 3. Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 04 -003, The Parable Group, located 1570 West Branch re one change and one addition to the conditions of approval. II.A. MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 - SUBJECT TO 10 -DAY APPEAL: Mr. Strong explained that the above MUP, PPR 04 -016, was not approved at the October 4, 2004, ARC meeting and he suggested that the Planning Commission discuss whether vending machines should be discouraged or prohibited and if so regulations should be developed as part of Development Code Amendments in progress. Commissioner Keen said he did not think vending machines were attractive or appropriate for the Gateway area. He thought it could get out of hand, but maybe just water vending would be acceptable. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 2004 PAGE 2 In reply to a question from Commissioner Guthrie, Mr. Strong stated that the Mixed Use zones for Grand Avenue had been continued at the last Council meeting and there were some additional concerns that may be referred back to the Commission for reconsideration; if so vending machines could be considered at the same time. Commissioner Brown stated that visually, vending machines were an issue. Chair Guthrie said the Commission would be open to taking a look at this. Mr. Strong said it could be brought back as an amendment to the Development Code Amendment 03 -008, or if necessary a subsequent, separate amendment. III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04 -003; APPLICANT — THE PARABLE GROUP; LOCATION —1570 W. BRANCH STREET Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for revisions to exterior elevations of approved Conditional Use Permit Case No. 02 -009 as follows: 1. To change the exterior character of the previously approved architectural design. Specifically, the applicant proposes to replace the brick, glass block and marble tile with a smooth plaster finish, and replace the barrel -style roof with a pitched roof. The site and floor plans remain the same as approved with CUP 02 -009. 2. Proposed signage modifications with cumulative square footage to decrease from 137 square feet to 113 square feet; the applicant proposes to install four (4) wall signs and one monument sign. Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommended that a new condition of approval be added that limits the coffee dispensing area to 700 square feet and that language be added to condition No. 3 to clarify that the conditions for the amended CUP would prevail over the conditions for the original CUP. The original CUP will expire in February 2005 so this amended CUP would serve as a time extension. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that the ARC approved both the proposed signage and the proposed exterior modifications at their meeting on September 13, 2004, with the request that the final landscape plan be reviewed by them prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure adequate screening of the west side of the building. In reply to Commission questions Ms. Heffernon stated: • The coffee shop area was to be 225 square feet for the prep and storage area and 700 square feet for the public self - service area. • Language added by the City Attorney at the City Council re the traffic signalization should be included in the Resolution. Victor Devens stated that once the design for the signalization has been approved by CALTRANS, due to issues with prevailing wage, all related projects will pay normal traffic fees through the building permit process. Mr. Strong explained that before 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 2004 permits are issued the City and Caltrans must approve the design, and before occupancy the signal must be installed and operational. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public. PAGE 3 Kim Hatch, Pults & Associates: • Re the traffic signal: His client had been actively involved in the design of the traffic signal. • The amendment to the CUP was being requested due to the fact that cost of materials in the last year were 50 -60% above when the project was first designed and they had been asked by the client to bring the cost down. • In reply to a question from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Pults said that The Parable Group was proposing to offer a franchise system with a consistent architecture that could be used and the original design would not be marketable or feasible. Commissioner Brown stated he would like to see more of a justification for changing the design and he was concerned that they were being asked to consider a long -term corporate plan as a reason to change the community design character of Arroyo Grande. Mr. Hatch said that this amended project was still a nice project and he did not feel they were degrading the architecture of the center. Mr. Hatch confirmed that the coffee shop would be open some different hours than the bookshop. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing for public comment. Commission Comments: Arnold: • He had denied the project before and would still deny it. • Not an appropriate use for the location. • The hours will conflict with the Quarterdeck Restaurant. • The original design was beautiful, but this one would probably blend better in this area. Brown: • The original design was for a beautiful building and would have been a good contrast to the buildings around it. • People that want to locate in Arroyo Grande need to fit into the design character to blend into our community. • He believed ultimately they would come into Arroyo Grande. • He could not vote for the changes. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 2004 AYES: Commissioners Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: Commissioner Arnold and Commissioner Brown ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler PAGE 4 Keen: • He had no problem with the change in the architecture; it blends in better with the other buildings. Guthrie: • He agreed with Commissioner Keen and had no problem with the change in the architecture. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Chair Guthrie, recommending that the City Council approve the Amended Conditional Use Permit with language added to clarify that the traffic signal should be designed, installed and operable before final approval of the project, as previously conditioned. Mr. Strong said that with the split vote the proposal would still go forward to City Council for consideration. C. APPEAL CASE NO. 04 -006; APPELLANTS — HENRY AND SONJA BERNARD; LOCATION — 1470 SIERRA DRIVE. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster. Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report to consider an appeal of the Community Development Director's decision to approve Viewshed Review 04 -014, to construct a second -story addition at 1470 Sierra Drive. Mr. Foster explained that the appellants state that their opposition to the project was based on the view from their front room being altered by the project and that it would "unreasonably affect their existing view of the sky" as seen from their front room window and door; the garage is visible from the front room of 1480 Sierra Drive, and therefore any addition above the garage would be visible as well. In addition, an animated model was created by Community Development Department staff using 3D computer software that depicts the shadows that would be cast by the addition to 1470 Sierra Drive onto 1480 Sierra Drive. Because the appellant's letter dated September 7, 2004 referenced winter sun being most important to them, December 21 (winter solstice) was used as a parameter for the model. Based on the model, it appears that the addition would not significantly affect the amount of shadows that are currently cast on the residence at 1480 Sierra Drive during this time of year. The model does not address scenic views to or from either property. In conclusion, Mr. Foster said the original Viewshed review was approved as it met all required findings and that staff had only received one letter in opposition to the project. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 2004 PAGE 5 In answer to a question from Commissioner Arnold, Mr. Strong stated that in some instances for new construction viewshed review was not required, but it should be consistent with the neighborhood. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public. Sonja Bernard, appellant, stated they only see rays of sun from their house between 8:00 and 10:00 a.m. in the morning and if this building goes up on top of the garage it would block this view; she suggested they put the second story further back. Bob & Ruth Montano, 1470 Sierra Drive, Viewshed Reviews applicants stated they wanted to have a large bedroom and extra room to take care of their aging parents if necessary; their architect advised them that this would be the best way to not affect upper hillside neighbors; there are 18 two story houses on their block. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing for public comment. Commission Comments: Brown: • He respected the process of appeal. • Viewshed Reviews are very difficult. • He felt the findings for approval of the project were correct. • The area of view blockage was not large. Keen: • Agreed staff made the right decision. • The viewshed review process was enacted for ocean and scenic views and not sky views. • He agreed this would impact the neighbor, but a tree planted would have done the same thing. • The findings were made and he would have to deny the appeal. Arnold: • This is a two -story neighborhood and this is an existing home. • He suggested the appellants could ask for trees to be planted to improve the visual impact. • He would deny the appeal. Guthrie: • Concur that staff made the right decision. • The house is not completely enclosed by houses on either side and so this is not an unreasonable change to the house next door. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, denying the appeal and adopting: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 2004 RESOLUTION NO. 04 -1936 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPEAL 04 -006; APPLIED FOR BY HENRY AND SONJA BERNARD AND APPROVING VIEWSHED REVIEW 04 -014; APPLIED FOR BY BOB AND RUTH MOTANO The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5 day of October 2004. PAGE 6 IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 04 -008; APPLICANT — BRUCE SOMMERS; LOCATION — 1470 NEWPORT AVENUE. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster. Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report to consider a one -year time extension for TPM 99 -002. Mr. Foster explained that the applicant submitted a written request for a one (1) year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map 99 -002 on August 19, 2004, which automatically extended expiration of the parcel map by sixty (60) days, from September 7, 2004 to November 6, 2004; the applicant had already received three (3) one -year time extensions for the parcel map, which is the maximum allowed by the City's Development Code, unless otherwise permitted by law; the Subdivision Map Act allows a maximum of five (5) one -year time extensions to be granted for tentatively approved parcel maps; the Planning Commission may grant a maximum of two (2) more one -year time extensions. In conclusion, Mr. Foster stated that this discrepancy has been identified as needing to be resolved during the Development Code update process. In reply to a question from Commissioner Arnold, Victor Devens stated that the final map and driveway maintenance agreement was submitted by August 19, 2004, but there was not time to review and record before the September 7 deadline. It will go on the October 28 City Council agenda. Although this was not a public hearing Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public and hearing no comments closed it. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, recommending that the City Council approve Time Extension 04 -008 for TPM 99 -002, and adopt: 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 2004 RESOLUTION NO. 04 -1937 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TIME EXTENSION 04 -008 FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 99 -002; LOCATED AT 1470 NEWPORT AVENUE; APPLIED FOR BY BRUCE SUMMERS The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5 day of October 2004. PAGE 7 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.B. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 03-001; APPLICANT — S & S HOMES; LOCATION — SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COURTLAND STREET AND EAST GRAND AVENUE. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster. Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report to consider an amendment to the Berry Gardens Specific Plan, Sub areas 3 & 4, (both under separate ownership) creating mixed -use development standards for approximately six (6) acres of vacant land; currently zoned General Commercial; the 2001 General Plan designated the area Mixed - Use with Specific Plan Overlay and pending DCA 03 -008 would rezone the area Gateway Mixed -Use (GMU) with Specific Plan Overlay. Approval of the Specific Plan Amendment does not grant entitlements, the applicant will still have to come forward with CUP's for each phase of the project area; there is an exception for the maximum building height included in the SPA proposals. In conclusion, he stated this is a master concept plan that transitions the uses from Grand Avenue back to the single - family homes in Berry Gardens and he gave some detailed descriptions of the highlights of the plan and staff recommended revisions of the language of the amendment. Mr. Foster answered Commission questions: • The text that is in the Specific Plan was based on the Gateway Mixed Use and the only significant deviation is the language re maximum height. • The conceptual plan does not give entitlement; it is a "mini development code" for the two sub - areas, but to build any of the phases the applicants will have to come back for CUP review with ARC and Planning Commission approval and would have to conform to all SPA development standards. Mr. Strong explained the process of the specific plan amendment and that what Ruth Dea (property owner of sub -area 3) is requesting in her letter dated September 30, 2004, would require another specific plan amendment. He indicated that staff would not support the increase in residential and reduction of mixed -use. Further, such SPA would require MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 2004 PAGE 8 separate application, environmental determination and evaluation of issues such as required parking, access and other land use and design details. Mr. Foster answered further Commission questions: • The verbiage for the Specific Plan Amendment was drafted by S & S Homes including some staff recommended revisions incorporated: There are further staff recommended revisions outlined in the staff report. • The City is still formulating how to deal with inclusionary housing, but the applicant is suggesting 25% inclusionary and 10% of the total as low- income; the Commission can suggest alternatives with this specific plan amendment. Mr. Strong gave the history of the former owners of the sub -areas and stated that there are issues that need to be resolved cooperatively between the two owners; the application was prepared with the mutual consent of both owners (but the City has since received a request for changes); if consent cannot be obtained from all owners, it is the City's prerogative to establish a specific plan. Commission Questions: Arnold: • Page 53, B.1: We should not be looking for any subdivision of the residential component in a scenario such as this. • Mr. Foster clarified the height of Building B (with underground parking) with a drawing and explained that from Grand Avenue the building would appear no greater than 35 feet . • Asked for clarification on the request to have reduced parking for the commercial component. Mr. Strong said this would come back to the Commission for specific discussion as part of subsequent CUP. • The residential parking: 10% guest parking seemed low. Mr. Strong said no standard was yet developed for guest parking in mixed -use multi - family; there is a need to deal with a parking reduction Tess than the normal current parking standard. Mr. Arnold suggested some shared use could be considered, but this still seems a little low. • 20 -foot wide access easement for the apartments — is this proposed to be one - way? Mr. Strong stated it would function as a one -way, but there are specific Fire Department turn radiuses that would need to be reviewed. Mr. Strong confirmed that this is a concept plan and not an entitlement and more detailed use permits will come back for each phase. Guthrie: • His questions had already been answered. Keen: • Re the Page 53.B.1 "Purposes and Objectives ", Mixed -Use Residential Components: Numbers should total 100% not 115% with landscape and building coverages combined. • Re the building materials: He did not think wood was the only material for siding and that composite siding would be very appropriate in commercial buildings. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 2004 • PAGE 9 • Has concern with Ruth Dea's letter until it was clarified that the City does not intend to support the request, without subsequent SPA: He would also oppose reduced commercial. Guthrie: • Asked what the FAR was for the commercial based on the square footage. Mr. Foster explained and gave approximate figures. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public. John Mack, architect for S & S Homes, stated negotiations with the adjacent owner have been ongoing for one year; they have met with the owner and have had positive discussions; this is not a specific plan but a general plan; they had great acceptance from ARC on their CUP proposal; they were surprised by the letter from Ruth Dea, but she can have more residential on the second floor of the commercial and she has at least 1/3 residential and 2/3 commercial. Mr. Mack then described the lot coverages, the residential layout, parking and the apartments; re affordable units, they have rental apartments and they are not opposed to very-low cost housing, but they would need help from the City to include help pay cost of the land. In conclusion, Mr. Mack stated they could do a 24 -foot drive aisle; they concurred with staff revisions except for: • Page 6, re easements: Requested that "all easements for access utilities and drainage shall be recorded before the City approves any discretionary development permits for sub -area 3" be struck, and below that, • Easements, second sentence: Asked that this be modified to state "all easements for access utilities and drainage shall be recorded before the City considers any discretionary development permits for sub -area 3 and remove "and 4 ". • Grading, halfway down the page: Asked for clarification and stated they hoped this does not mean S & S would have to grade the adjoining property without the owner's permission. In answer to questions from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Mack stated: • Ruth Dea is not in a hurry, but S & S would like to start their building and start grading January 2005. • Re the concept master plan: There will be a grading plan before you when we bring the project forward. Mr. Strong then clarified the difference between a General Plan and a Specific Plan at the request of Commissioner Brown (he had a concern re the inclusionary housing). Keen: • Asked if the units were all rental? Mr. Mack said they were and there are no individual property lines proposed. Arnold: • Requested that they be assured that the apartments could not be changed to condominiums. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 2004 PAGE 10 Mr. Strong suggested that this be stated for the specific plan In reply to a question from Commissioner Keen, Mr. Mack stated that he did not sense animosity between owners, but more of a timing issue and Subarea 4 can work on its own. Bob Mack, 576 Woodland, representing ownership of three properties in the Brambles, gave a background and history on the drainage issues for the area and submitted a letter for the record. He stated he had great concern that the City had not kept up with the 100 year flood control for the area and further described where he believes the flood waters would runoff to. He recommended that before adoption of the EIR amendment mitigation measures should be considered. Mr. Strong gave additional detailed clarification to the Commission on the drainage for the area, explaining that the drainage for Zone 'A' is much larger than the total Berry Gardens area and was designed to drain into Soto Sports Elm Street under worse case flood conditions and stated that all basins in the area are designed for a 100 year flood. He also explained pending proposals for possible storm drainage maintenance district formation to relieve Brambles, including recent tracts (e.g. Jasmine Place and nine single - family lots in Berry Gardens.) Chair Guthrie closed the hearing for public comment. Commission Comments: Arnold: • The conceptual plan is a good idea and is a good transitional project. • Need to clarify some of the numbers such as the minimum building site for the residential component (raise to 40,000 square feet), and clarify the percentages of maximum lot coverage. • Change the 10% parking for guest stalls to 25% and later change it back if required. There was further discussion on the distress between the two owners and Mr. Strong said the easements need to be resolved and cooperation to take place before SPA approval. He also noted that the City Manager does not want the City Council to approve the project until access easements are resolved and in conclusion asked S & S Homes if they would consider binding arbitration. S & S Homes replied that they would not agree to binding arbitration (they later agreed to appraisal and arbitration if necessary). Jack Hardy, S &S Homes:' • Gave history of negotiations with Ruth Dea. • This is a property rights State. • S & S Homes have tried to work with Ruth Dea. • They have a letter of intent to purchase the property from Ruth Dea. • They had had mediation with the Mayor and would still like to try to make it work. 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 2004 • This is an absentee owner that is not being cooperative. PAGE 11 Commissioner Guthrie asked Mr. Hardy if S & S Homes would you agree to arbitration. Mr. Hardy said they would. Commissioner Guthrie then suggested that arbitration take place in a short a time as possible. Mr. Strong said he would like to have one more meeting to see if this could be resolved with the City acting as mediator and he would like to set the meeting for October 15, 2004. Commissioner Keen stated that the properties need to be developed and that he believes S &S Homes have the rights to develop their land; Ruth Dea needs to step up and make a decision; she needs the easements and if we hold up S & S over these easements this should be her problem. Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Chair Guthrie, recommending that the Specific Plan Amendment be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 19, 2004, after further negtiations have taken place between S & S Homes and Ruth Dea. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Arnold, Chair Guthrie, Commissioners Brown and Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Mr. Strong stated that Council did not adopt the Housing Element and it has been referred back to the Commission for reconsideration and that DCA 03 -008, Grand Avenue Mixed -Use was also deferred by Council and will probably be referred back to the Commission for consideration of a change in the Commission's recommendations. Mr. Strong asked the Commission if they could approve MUP Architectural Review 04- 009, (under Written Communications) as this had been passed over at the beginning of the Agenda. The Commission agreed they could approve this. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Arnold and Commissioner Keen reported that a house is being constructed at Leanne Drive (formerly a Viewshed Review that was denied) which appears to be extending more into the Ag Buffer and although single story is almost as high as the denied proposal. Mr. Strong said he would talk to the City Attorney and the Building Department to determine if permits were issued in error. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 2004 The Commission unanimously agreed to • cancel the November 2, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting. It was also noted that Commissioner Brown and Commission Fowler would be absent the meeting of October 19, 2004. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Mr. Strong stated that Council would like the Commission to consider the Water Conservation Measures and Landscape Design Guidelines soon and a meeting with Parks and Recreation and Public Works in attendance would be arranged early in 2005. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR OCTOBER 5, 2004 MEETING: IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. on a motion by Commis -ioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Arnold. ATTEST: S„.16 LILIV REARDON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO C • NTENT: RO = S ' RONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOP . ENT DIRECTOR (Approved at PC meeting of October 19, 2004) PAGE 12 AMES GU ' ' IE, CHAIR