Loading...
PC Minutes 2004-09-211 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Guthrie presiding; also present were Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Fowler and Keen. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon and Assistant Planner Jim Bergman. AGENDA REVIEW: Chair Guthrie announced that Item III.A had been postponed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of September 7, 2004, were approved on a motion by Commissioner Arnold, seconded by Commissioner Brown and on a 5/0 voice vote. Commissioner Keen requested a correction to page 8, under Discussion Items, paragraph 5, re the two trees, they were at the corner of Court land and Grand Avenue and he had since found out that they were former street trees that had not been replanted as there was nowhere to plant them at the time. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 - 6:00 P.M. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Memo from Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, re appeal of Viewshed Review 04 -014. 2. Memo from Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, re Minor Exception 04 -008, recently denied by Community Development. 3. Email from M. Lee re Interpretation Ag Buffer provision. 4. Letter from Russell A. Reed, 795 E. Cherry re Ag Buffers. 5. Letter re: Approval of MUP, Viewshed Review 04 -001, 1231 Russ Court. ILA. MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - SUBJECT TO 10 -DAY APPEAL: aSe 1 2 TUP 04 -022 PPR 04 -015 Applicant Cen. Coast Salmon Enhancement Gill's Market Idress ' ' Nelson Street Park 1490 E. Grand Ave. ascription, Creek Day Cleanup and Education Fair Bldg. Facade, new canvas awning, new fuel island canopy, new monument sign at corner, new trash encl; 2 driveways removed from s. side (replaced with landscaping & block wall). : lanner Bergman Bergman Community Development Director, Rob Strong, stated that items 1, 2, & 5, under Written Communications were additions to the MUP's for approval. Commissioner Keen requested that the canopy for Gill's Market, (MUP, Plot Plan Review 04 -015), be reviewed by the ARC before approval by the Planning Commission. Mr. Strong said the Commission could refer this to ARC and it could then be returned to the Commission for approval. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 PAGE 2 Commissioner Arnold stated he would like to have more information on Viewshed Review 04 -001 before approval. Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman stated he would bring the plans to Commissioner Arnold for review before approval. Mr. Strong explained why Minor Exception 04 -008, was recently denied by the Community Development Department and stated that the applicant feels he is being penalized for requesting permission for structural support that would abut one foot into the 10 -foot setback and that the covered patio had been previously approved for S & S Homes, but not constructed. After discussion the Commission agreed to reinstate the Minor Exception and approve it as long as there were no objections from the neighborhood after noticing within 300 feet. Mr. Strong stated that the remainder of the Minor Use Permits would be approved, if there were no appeals, after a ten -day appeal period. III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. REVISED FINAL SEIR FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 01 -001 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 01 -001 (Previously known as Tract 1998); APPLICANT — CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC; LOCATION — NORTHEAST CORNER OF JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA WITHIN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1.2 ZONING DISTRICT. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Teresa McClish. Mr. Strong informed the Commission that due to correspondence dated September 14, 2004, received from the applicant, no action would be taken on the clustered single - family residential subdivision consisting of a 36 -lot site; the applicant is proposing to revise this application to consist of 21 units and it will be brought forward at a future date when the application and addendum are completed. B. AGRICULTURE BUFFER INTERPRETATION; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION - CITYWIDE. Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, explained that the purpose of discussing this item is to clarify how the buffer requirements will be applied and what level of flexibility will be allowed. Ms. Heffernon then sited the specific objectives, policy statements and implementing polices of the Agricultural Conservation and Open Space Element of the 2001 General Plan that needed to be clarified; explained that as a result of the Agricultural Conservation Study initiated by City Council Ordinance No. 536 during 2003, the Planning Commission and City Council considered buffers in more detail. The study suggested a buffer ordinance and proposal for a minimum buffer of 100 -foot, including a 20 -foot landscaped strip. City Council Ordinance 550, approved December 2003, established farmland preservation buffers and created an Ag Preservation Overlay District (placing a 100 -foot perimeter around Ag zoned properties) that also incorporated regulations for new development proposed adjacent to Agricultural districts. Ms. Heffernon then described the issues that had risen since adoption of Ordinance 550: 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION • SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 PAGE 3 • Allowable uses in the buffer area: Are residential backyards (and associated accessory structures such as sheds and garages) an allowable use in the Agricultural buffer overlay district? What exactly is considered "storage" (currently listed as an allowable use)? • Location of landscape strip within the buffer: Must the 20 -foot landscape strip be immediately adjacent to an 80 -foot buffer area adjoining the Agriculture district, or can it be placed anywhere within the 100 -foot buffer? In reply to questions from the Commission Ms. Heffernon stated: • Associate Planner, Ms. McClish was not present for the discussion as the questions on the Ag buffer were brought up in connection to a project that she was handling, but that the issues had been resolved in relation to that project. • Re the email, under Written Comments, this was received from Marsha Lee, County Planner and also a resident of Arroyo Grande (not the Agricultural Commissioner). • We do not have specific information from the County regarding the above issues; the County has Ag buffers with respect to control of pesticide application, but not regarding these land use interpretation issues. In reply to a question from Commissioner Guthrie, Mr. Strong gave an update on State law regarding secondary structures and accessory structures and that the State is still allowing for local discretion if there are established criteria. Proximity to ag does not appear to be one of the criteria preempted by the pending State law changes. Mr. Strong concluded by stating that he would further check into this, but the City would not approve secondary dwelling building permits within the 100 -foot Ag buffer. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public. Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, stated in a couple of areas the buffer zone overlaps into existing housing, if someone wanted to add onto their house and further encroach into that buffer would that be allowed and would it be more expensive if it were in the buffer zone? Ms. Heffernon said these are non - conforming homes and the Development Code states that you cannot make something "more" non - conforming. Mr. Ross asked if homes that are now non - conforming, (especially on Cherry Lane and Greenwood area) have now lost their rights to improve their residential properties. Mr. Strong stated that the interpretation was that you could maintain, repair and /or replace a residential structure but not move closer towards the agricultural use nor add new units that would increase the non - conforming use; the City does not want to unreasonably restrict legally non - conforming properties. Molly Dixson McClanahan, Co- Trustee Dixson Ranch, 769 Branch Mill Road, for the record read a presentation of some principles of "Planning Guidelines for Buffer Areas "; the Commission each received a copy of these guidelines. In answer to a question from Commissioner Brown, Ms. Dixson stated that in the "Queensland Report" it states that 40 meters (which is approximately 130 feet) should be sufficient if there is a landscaped buffer within that area (at least 20 -30 feet that has MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 PAGE 4 different heights to allow air to go through) and if there is a road that would also be part of that buffer. Jack Hoffmeier, 765 Branch Mill Road, read a letter from Sarah Dickens, Co- Trustee of the Dixson Ranch, stating reasons why they could not support the minimum 100 -foot buffer requirement, recommending at least a 150 foot buffer which includes 30 feet of vegetation. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fowler why not 200 to 500 foot buffers, Jim Dickens, 769 Branch Mill Road stated that within the City limits, when we address the buffer issues, unlike the County, we will most likely have elements such as vegetation, walls, natural landscapes part of the buffer which will address many of the conflicts that exist. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing for public comment. Commission Comments: Brown: • Re No. 4, page 3 of the staff report, he would interpret this as meaning residential uses that would include garages, backyards etc. where there is human interface between on a fairly regular basis the people living in the homes and ag use nearby. • Re the storage issue: He thought the storage use should be severely limited to such things as utility boxes, but not storage that creates common use interface with the buffer. • Re the 20 -foot vegetation at the edge of the 80 -foot he would like more information on this before he could make a decision on appropriate alternative locations. Keen: • Re Attach 3 of the staff report, asked where this came from? Ms. Heffernon said it was from the Ag Conservation Study. • Re the buffer zone: He interpreted this as starting at the ag property line and nearest habitable dwelling, so he could approve a detached garage within the 100 -foot buffer as long as did not interfere with the 20 -foot landscaped area. • The landscaped area should not have to be on the edge of the buffer. Arnold: • He could not see where the 20 -foot vegetation buffer should be placed at the edge only and would like to see more logic for why this should be. • He would consider backyards and attached garages as part of the residence and they should not be in the 100 -foot buffer (he could make an exception for detached garages such as a higher density residential) as he would like to see as much protection as possible for agricultural lands. Guthrie: • Re the 20 -foot buffer: This is part of the overall design of the buffer and will give protection for both farming operations and residents. • He would like to see as much protection as possible farm operations whilst still being reasonable. 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 PAGE 5 • Distinction should be made between a legally non - conforming lot and a new subdivision and not further complicate the issue by having structures that are direct accessories to residential units included in the buffer measurement, including backyards and garages. • Re storage: It would have to be a separate area (could be a detached garage that could not be converted to a residential unit. Ms. Heffernon explained that staff did not require resolution for a recommendation to City Council, but would like to forward the Commission's comments. Ms. Heffernon asked the Commission if they would like Ordinance 550 to be amended so that it is more flexible. Chair Guthrie said it could be amended to allow that the landscaped element may be placed within the buffer as long as the entire buffer achieves its purpose. Commissioner Arnold said it should be a "minimum" of 20 feet landscaped buffer. Chair Guthrie asked the Commission if they would be in favor of allowing more flexibility on the 20 -foot landscaped buffer than is indicated by the Development Code? The Commission agreed, by a 4/1 "show of hands" (Commissioner Brown dissenting) that they would like Ordinance 550 to be more flexible. There were no further concerns. IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. DOWNTOWN PARKING BOARD (DTPB) AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID) REFORMATION; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — VILLAGE OF ARROYO GRANDE. Members of the DPAB present: Ira Hughes, Chair Eddie El Helou, Vice Chair Greg Moore, Member Gary Andrieni, Member Absent: Bob Lund, Member Mr. Strong presented the staff report stating that this was an informal discussion and that staff was recommending that the Public Hearings be deferred until early next year, after the holidays. Mr. Strong explained that basically there were three sets of recommendations and gave details of them: • History and Settlement Proposal regarding Parking Credits (1) • Parking Exceptions and Parking Reductions (2) • Parking In -Lieu Fees(3) Mr. Strong further stated that if all three of the recommendations are resolved, the DPAB recommends a reformation of the District to enlarge the Parking and Business Improvement Area. He concluded by stating that this had been a very difficult task for the DPAB and gave them credit for coming up with the consensus of recommendations. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 PAGE 6 Ira Hughes, Chair DPAB, stated concern for Recommendation No. 3, Parking In -Lieu Fees: How can we best serve the Village; how can we let the Village grow and still be viable; parking is a requirement and important to the Village businesses; we need to clean up Recommendation No. 2; we are trying to balance very old rules. In reply to Commissioner Guthrie, Mr. Hughes stated he thought $12,000 was an inadequate in lieu -fee for today's property values. Commissioner Keen asked at what point do new fees start to deter new businesses away from the Village area? Mr. Hughes stated he did not believe property owners would be deterred. Commissioner Arnold stated it may help cap prices if parking has to be included. Are all the businesses that are operating today in compliance with their parking needs? Mr. Hughes stated from staff studies done for DPAB, the parking district now has adequate parking for the existing businesses, although many properties are legally non- conforming to individual parking requirements. Greg Moore, DPAB, owner of Willis & Bennett, stated if these recommendations had been in place it would have had no impact on their decision to come into the Village; he explained the safeguards that are in place, such as for changes in existing buildings there are no fees; customers are able to park close to stores as compared to San Luis Obispo; he could not see negative impacts with this; parking really can effect the viability of the Village. Mr. Strong clarified that if the change in existing buildings was from an office or retail use to a restaurant (generating additional parking requirement) there would have to be revision or payment of in -lieu fees; previous change of use has been allowed, but an increase that triggered different parking requirements would require in -lieu fee after these amendments. There was further detailed discussion on parking fees with Commissioner Brown asking if the collection potential for the District being created would be sufficient? Mr. Strong stated that studies revealed that there is not a major parking deficiency with the existing square footage (counting on- street as well as off - street). The expanded district had lower parking utilization than the existing core area. Eddie EI -Helou stated that businesses in the Village are thriving; that there are small remedies that can be done now without spending a lot of money; he would like to get the parking credits resolved first; he suggested that all employers and employees of businesses in the Village park away from their own business; they are occupying many spaces and this would save 30% of the parking spaces at no cost; he would like to see a study done for diagonal on- street parking for Branch Street with maybe parking garages as well, as there is enough land. In reply to questions from Chair Guthrie, Mr. Strong said on a mixed -use project we are trying to provide an incentive for shared parking reduction; the parking studies for the expanded areas of the Village did not find the parking utilization problems as obvious as in the Village Core. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 Arnold: • Very supportive of the recommendations. Keen: • He was also very supportive. • Would like to see the recommendations move forward as fast as they can. After discussion the DPAB agreed to the following motion: PAGE 7 Mr. Strong said the current in -lieu fee ($4,000) does not compensate the cost of acquiring property and constructing a space. In staffs opinion it should be between $10,000 - 14,000. Fowler: • Commended the DPAB on doing a great job. • She would like to see the parking credits cleared up. • In -lieu fee for small businesses are difficult and may chase them away from the area. • Supportive of the rest of the document. Brown: • He was also supportive, but stated in -lieu fees are only part of the problem. Guthrie: • He would like to see the parking credits cleared up. • Before going to the business community harder numbers will have to be presented for the in -lieu fee per space; $12,000 may be too low. • He cautioned re diagonal parking for Branch Street as there is a lot of traffic. In reply to Chair Guthrie re diagonal parking, Mr. EI -Helou stated the "need of the many outweigh the need of the few"; the center lane goes nowhere and loading and unloading of delivery trucks could be via the access in back of the businesses; eliminating the center turn lane could create space for the diagonal parking. Mr. Strong stated that Branch Street is a State Highway and the City is precluded from changing this. In conclusion, he suggested that this be further studied between now and January 2005, to find out the number of spaces that might be created; the Planning Commission and Council could then consider this. Mr. Strong then asked the Members of the DPAB to consider action on using $6,000 of their funds to pay for a stamped asphalt demonstration decorative brick walk pattern down the center of Olahan Alley (not the full cost, but the portion that the contractor has requested be reimbursed from the City). In addition, he stated that there was a change in the cost estimates for the lighting system from PG &E which had not been resolved; donations for the hardware had already been collected, but he would like action taken on the DPAB for $10,000 for the lighting system installation and conversion adjoining Olohan Alley parking lot. Greg Moore stated that the decorative walk pattern would benefit the whole Village; he would also like to see trees planted along Branch Street. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 Eddie El Helou made a motion, seconded by Ira Hughes, that the DPAB not assist with payment for the decorative walk on Olohan Alley, but that they pay $10,000 from the DPAB funds to assist with the lighting with the condition that an effort be made to reimburse the fund from additional donations or from the General Fund. The motion was unanimously approved by a 4/0 voice vote, Bob Lund being absent. The Commission had no further comments or concerns. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR OCTOBER 5, 2004 MEETING: No discussion. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Fowler. ATTEST: ,P LYN REARDON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CO TE eov ROBS RO COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT DIRECTOR (Approved at PC meeting of October 5, 2004) PAGE 8 JAN(ES GUTHRIE, CHAIR 1