Loading...
PC Minutes 2004-06-01ase No ,�_ Appl Addres wa_q � LL Description ' - Planer'" 1. TUP 04 -008 S & S Homes Berry Gardens Model homes K. Heffernon 2. TUP 04 -009 St. Patricks School 501 Fair Oaks Ave Annual Fundraiser A. Koch 3. TUP 04 -010 Lighthouse Christian School 497 Fair Oaks Ave Non - profit fund raiser — sell cherries A. Koch 4. MEX 04 -005 Josh Blair 266 Aspen Contd. use of one -car garage R. Foster 5. VRS 04 -008 Josh Blair 266 Aspen Addition master bedroom & bath, + 1 /2 story over garage for bonus storage room R. Foster 1 1 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, Planning Intern, Andrea Koch, Administrative Intern, Jon Ansolabehere and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: No Changes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of May 18, 2004 were approved with a request from Commissioner Brown to amend language (Page 3, paragraph 5) from "that this was a bait and switch deaf' to "that this had the feel of a bait and switch deal ", on a motion by Commissioner Arnold, seconded by Chair Guthrie. The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Fowler abstaining. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 - 6:00 P.M. 1. Letter dated June 1, 2004 to Tom Ramones re Minor Use Permit and Viewshed Review for 505 Hawkins Court. 2. Letter dated May 26, 2004 to Jim Dotson re Temporary Use Permit 04 -011, Lot 4 of Tract 2275. 3. Letter from Scott Wages, dated June 1, 2004 re — Agenda Item IIIC. 4. Letter from John Dome, dated June 1, 2004 re — Agenda Item IIIC. 5. Letter from Lynn Ankeny, dated June 1, 2004 re — Agenda Item IIIC. 6. Email from Gee Gee Soto, dated June 1, 2004 re — Agenda Item IIIC. II.A. MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE MAY 18, 2004 - SUBJECT TO 10- DAY APPEAL: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 PAGE 2 Mr. Strong presented the two following additional minor use permits for consideration by the Commission: 1. Andy Dodson for Jim Dotson, TUP 04 -011 (Lot 4 in Tract 2275) wants to establish one model home; staff has approved this. 2. Viewshed Review Case No. 04 -002, 505 Hawkins Court; this is consistent with the neighborhood and staff has no concerns and their were no neighborhood concerns. The Commission asked for clarification on the MUP for 266 Aspen. In answer to questions from the Commission, Victor Devens explained that the bonds had been posted for the Dotson project and the model home cannot be sole until the final map is recorded. The Commission had no other concerns. Mr. Strong stated the Minor Use Permits would be approved after a ten -day appeal period. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. CONTINUED ITEM: RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS CASE NOS. 98 -572, 98 -573 & 01 -005; APPLICANTS — RUSS SHEPPEL & KEVIN KENNEDY; LOCATION — 1299 JAMES WAY (Continued from February 3, 2004). Staff report prepared and presented by Rob Strong, Community Development Director. Mr. Strong gave an update on the prior meetings conducted to address reconsideration of revocation of the Conditional Use Permits and /or modification of Conditions of Approval due to non - compliance. Steve Orosz,Traffic Engineer for the Kennedy /Sheppel parking and circulation study, gave an overview of their report and in conclusion he made the following recommendations: • Employees should be required to park in the overflow area (to the south) and additional lighting should be provided for safety. • The driveway to the west should be opened up for inbound traffic and the present driveway kept as two -way. • Separation of the in and out driveway should have the addition of 50 feet of double yellow line. • Eight parking spaces should be removed to area 'C', when the driveway is opened to avoid congestion. • A second survey should be done to see how the changes are functioning and to gather more data. Commissioner Fowler thought it might be confusing to have one driveway in and one driveway in and out. Mr. Orosz stated that Public Works were being cautious and did 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 PAGE 3 not want to have one drive in and one out until they see how this works first and that they would prefer to take baby steps. Commissioner Brown agreed with Commissioner Fowler that it might be confusing to have the driveways set up in this manner. Commissioner Arnold agreed with Commissioner Fowler and Brown stating he thought it could cause confusion to drivers to have one driveway in and one driveway in and out. Commissioner Keen suggested that if the driveway is opened up it should be for right turns only. Victor Devens stated Public Works recommended that the driveway only be opened up if it would solve the parking problem, but it seemed from the report that it was more of a management problem than a flow problem and asked if widening of the driveway had been considered. Mr. Orosz stated that the eight spaces were being removed to solve the problem of circulation and he did not believe widening the driveway would solve the problem. Mr. Strong stated that it is the preference of the two property owners to have one entry and one exit driveway and that a center two -way left turn lane would be required (James Way) for turning in and out. Mr. Orosz gave a brief overview of the Sheppel 3 mixed -use proposal. Mr. Strong stated details needed to be worked out between Kennedy and Sheppel about where employees park and the relocation of the trash containers; that the Sheppel 3 project would be coming forward in a few weeks and that definition of the slope bank issue will become a critical issue; that the City is suggesting biological and hydraulic study and additional engineering should be submitted to Public Works and the Community Development to define a theoretical "top of bank ". Commission Comments: Arnold • Concern for traffic stacking up on James Way. • Asked if moving the exit further toward the creek had been considered. • Re Sheppel 3, there is a need to resolve how to get current traffic out safely before this is reviewed; he suggested delay of units closest to James Way to enable drive relocation further east. • Asked for clarification on the design of the carports. Kim Hatch, Pultz and Associates, described the open space configuration for the carports and the topography of the site for the mixed -use proposal for Sheppel 3. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 PAGE 4 Arnold • The trash enclosure positioning is contingent on the driveway openings and traffic flow needs to be resolved before a decision is made. • Asked if the parking situation is working since the employee parking has been moved. • He would like to see a more formal Pre -app before he could discuss Sheppel 3. Russ Sheppel, Owner, stated: • Re employee parking, the problem has now been resolved. • Class times for Kennedy Fitness have been altered and they have acquired extra parking offsite. • He would like to see further monitoring and consideration at a later date. • He would like to see the trash situation addressed right away. • He would prefer to see a single entrance in and out. Fowler: • Why not have a provisional trial for one in and out driveway. • She thanked Mr. Orosz for the eye- opening report. • Agreed that the trash enclosure should be relocated to the area suggested by Mr. Sheppel. Brown: • Agreed with Nan on the parking issue. • The applicants should work out placement of trash enclosures. Keen: • If the driveway were opened up would the interim solution provide angled or 90 degree parking? At this point, Mr. Strong explained that the City is requiring insurance (City to be held harmless) to be provided by the property owners before the driveways are altered. Steve Orosz stated that they were trying to keep the interim solution simple so use of signage would be used rather than angle the parking at this time. Keen: • Recommended right turn only if opening the drive for in only. • Agreed with relocating the eight parking spaces. • Re the one -way in and out on the drive nearest the creek, the City engineer should make the decision after first seeing if the interim idea works. • The trash container could be moved to the other corner to be more accessible to the trash pickup trucks. Arnold: • He would only agree with the changes to driveways if the City gets the required insurance. 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 • The applicants should each provide their own trash containers, both should be relocated at the same time and the responsibility should be shared. Guthrie: • It takes aggressive parking management to make parking work out. • He agreed with Public Works that there may be significant conflict with the two driveways being so close and it may not work; he was agreeable to the interim measure but with significant review. • He could only support the one way in and out. • The owners should be encouraged to deal with the trash enclosure. Commissioner Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to recommend, as an interim measure for a period of six months, that the parking lot be reconfigured for a single drive in on the west side and single out on the east side including the insurance requirement and the proviso that this measure could be changed overnight if it is perceived as being unsafe, and continue the review of all issues to the December 7, 2004 meeting. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Guthrie, Commissioners Fowler, Arnold, Brown and Keen NOES: None ABSENT: None Sheppel 3 - Commission Comments: Brown: • Making the creek bank less than 25 feet- he would need clear -cut and strong reasoning to approve this. • He could not comment on the parking issue re the Pre -App at this time. Guthrie: • The creek bank issue would be driven by biology not the project. • He had serious concerns with the traffic congestion re Sheppel 3. • At this time he could not give much feedback as there was not enough on the plans they had been given to review. The Commission had no other concerns or comments. B. CONTINUED ITEM: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04 -001; APPLICANT — CAMINO MERCADO PARTNERS, LP; LOCATION — 579 CAMINO MERCADO. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon. Ms. Heffernon briefly described the project proposal to review a condominium tract map for a previously approved 60 -unit senior apartment complex and summarized the issues MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 PAGE 6 brought up by the Commission at the meeting of May 18, 2004. In conclusion Ms. Heffernon stated that additional conditions had been added as follows: • One covered parking space be designated per unit located within 100 feet of the respective unit. • 200 cubic feet of storage space be added per unit. In addition staff recommends: • 15 moderate income restricted units be divided into nine moderate and 6 low income housing units. • Financial assistance be offered to the applicant up to difference between the moderate and low income units (this recommendation is taken directly from Goal `C' of the Housing Element). In reply to questions from Commissioner Fowler, (Commissioner Fowler was absent the last meeting), Ms. Heffernon stated: • The applicant did have permits to cut the trees down and the applicants will have to mitigate the removal. • The footprint and number of units remain unchanged. • The senior center is still included and the 55 and older requirement is still in place. Commissioner Arnold stated the permits to cut down the trees were issued with the understanding that apartments would be built. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing for public comment. Gary Young, applicant: • Asked to re- address comments later that did not relate specifically to the Subdivision Map Act or the Resolution being made. • Re the comment "bait and switch" from Commissioner Brown at the last meeting - he took offence to this. • Commission Arnold had stated that he had not seen stakes at the site- he had taken pictures of the stakes to show the Commission. • He advised the Commission to deliver their comments carefully. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to public comment. Commission Comments: Keen: • The additional information did not change his opinion. Arnold: • He also would not change his opinion, but apologized for his comment on the stakes. • He believed the trees were taken incorrectly and that findings could be made to deny this project. 1 1 1 MINUTES PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 Fowler: • Staff, Commission, City Council and ARC all looked at and approved the tree removal and she did not see that this was a different issue. • This project is going to meet a need for housing for seniors in this area. • The applicant has followed the rules and therefore she could approve this project. Brown: • He stands by all his comments previously made. • This project has gone through incremental changes. • The trees were cut down- which is not the applicant's fault but the Commission's; the applicant pulled permits with entitlement. • This is now a new application and from a legal standpoint not proven based on finding #4; he did not believe that the other aspects stated by the City for denial apply in this issue, but he believed that the applicant did cause environmental damage. • Based on experience with this project he would take a much more cynical view of proposals in the future. • He could not support the project. Guthrie: • Stated that the change from apartment to condos is not a bookkeeping issue as apartments are encouraged by the Development Code; the Commission looked at apartments and agreed that the oak trees be removed. • If this project came forward today as a condominium project, with senior center and with 25% affordable housing I would vote for it. • He recommended the City not pay down ownership condominiums between the low and moderate - income units. Chair Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, to recommend that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04 -001, and strike Condition of Approval No. 20 relating to financial assistance from the City's Affordable Housing In- Lieu Fund and adopt: RESOLUTION 04 -1926 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04 -001, LOCATED AT 579 CAMINO MERCADO, APPLIED FOR BY CAMINO MERCADO PARTNERS The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Guthrie, Commissioners Keen and Fowler NOES: Commissioners Arnold and Brown ABSENT: None MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1 day of June 2004. The Commissioner took a 10- minute break. PAGE 8 C. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT & GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NOS. 04 -001; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — 295, 279 AND 265 ALDER STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon. Ms. Heffernon gave an overview of the proposal for a change in zoning from Single Family (SF) to Senior Residential (SR) and General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Planned Development overlay. The applicant is proposing to remove the two existing single - family residences and construct a new two -story facility to blend with the existing neighborhood. All of the issues related to the proposal will be reviewed in more detail when the Conditional Use Permit is processed. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the resolution recommending that the City Council approve the City initiated Development Code Amendment (DCA) and General Plan Amendment (GPA). In answer to Commission questions staff clarified the zoning and the PD designation, gave some history on the zoning designations and explained that the City wants to make all three lots Senior Residential. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public. Jo Ann Bazer Tose, 295 Alder House (owner), stated that many of the residents are local and want to remain in the neighborhood and they (Alder House) need to expand; their business is a locally owned, family run, small business; they are sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors; they have never removed any oak trees and do not intend to even with the expansion. Commissioner Brown stated that because they had received a number of letters with concerns about the proposal he would recommend that their concerns re the scale of the proposed building and the parking be addressed ahead of time. Ms. Bazer Tose agreed with Commission Brown and stated that she wanted the building to blend in with the neighborhood and had asked the neighbors to come to a meeting, but only one had come forward. David Mann, 270 Alder Street, stated they had enjoyed a good relationship with Alder House, but he now had concerns with the change of zoning and that it was not just a remodel but a large, two story development; he had concern with density and parking and that traffic flow restrictions on residential streets would result. John Austin, 300 Alder Street, had concerns with the parking, especially with employees that might park on street if this expansion takes place. 1 1 MINUTES PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 Chris Skolater, Alder Street, asked if people living in the two existing homes would have to relocate because of this expansion and if they would get any compensation. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to the public. Commission Comments: Fowler: • Agreed with General Plan Amendment when it was approved. • The applicant needs to talk more to the neighbors. • The Commission will be reviewing this project carefully when it comes forward. • She agreed to the zone change. Brown: • He agreed to zone change. • Parking is a huge issue. • Mass and scale is a huge issue. • The building would need to blend in with the neighborhood. • Setback from the street with two stories is important. • Good neighborhood relations are very important. Keen: • He approved of the zone change. • Concerns of neighbors will be addressed when it comes back for consideration in a Single Family neighborhood. • He also had concerns with the parking. Arnold: • He had concern with the density /parking requirements. Ms. Heffernon stated the parking requirements for Senior Housing and said employee parking areas would be addressed. Guthrie: • This was considered in the General Plan as a location for the expansion of this kind of service (Senior Housing). • He would prefer to have the PD zoning remain and designate the zoning when required. Commissioner Keen recommended the General Plan Amendment be approved and conditioned that it would not go into effect until the three lots are merged. Mr. Strong said they could recommend this. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to recommend that the City Council approve GPA and DCA 04 -001 and that the Amendments would not go into effect until the merger of the lots is recorded and adopt: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 RESOLUTION 04 -1927 The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Keen, Arnold, Brown, Fowler and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1 day of June 2004. PAGE 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 04 -001 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 265, 275 AND 295 ALDER STREET, APPLIED FOR BY THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE D. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04 -003; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE. Staff report prepared and presented Administrative Intern, Jon Ansolabehere. Jon Ansolabehere presented the staff report regarding a proposal to provide undergrounding utility in -lieu fees in order to allocate and concentrate undergrounding utility efforts in areas designated as Undergrounding Districts, and to provide an option to the underground utility requirement in instances where immediate undergrounding of utilities is determined to be inappropriate. He stated that the undergrounding utility requirement is not intended to discourage small residential redevelopment; the undergrounding utility fee will appropriately deal with problematic situations while still holding developers financially responsible for the requirement; commercial, industrial and large residential developments have more financial ability and should be held to a more strict standard, but they may be eligible for an in -lieu fee if the Planning Commission or City Council deems it appropriate on a case -by -case basis. In conclusion, Mr. Ansolabehere stated that the Development Code Amendment was prepared based on a request from the Planning Commission. In reply to a question from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Strong explained that there are areas that will achieve full commitment to undergrounding and in -lieu funds could be used to augment these areas and entire neighborhoods will be aesthetically improved. Commission Comments: Keen: • It is important to verify for new projects that the onsite shall be undergrounded. • Section 3, F: An in -lieu fee should still be paid even if the requirement to underground is entirely infeasible. Mr. Strong stated presently the Planning Commission can waive the fee if it is deemed infeasible, but suggested this could be decided by City Council; the only instance where staff could waive the requirement is where we collect a fee. 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 PAGE 11 Arnold: • Due to escalating costs the "per foot" cost can be increased when necessary and implemented administratively. • He was in support of the Ordinance. Mr. Strong explained that staff would gather cost estimates from the utility companies and prepare information to take forward to City Council to enable a predetermined fee; the fee could be adjusted each year based upon engineering cost records. Fowler: • Asked for clarification on Section 2, C. 2. that states "each side of the property' does this mean all four sides? Mr. Strong explained that it is based on where the utilities exist and "with overhead utilities" should be added to clarify this. • Asked for clarification: If person is just upgrading their house could an in -lieu fee be waived for this? Chair Guthrie explained that if the undergrounding cost is more than 25% of the improvement then it would not be required. Mr. Strong added that is why staff added Section 3, F. Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen to recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance amending the Municipal Code Section 16.68.050 (Development Code) to establish an underground utility in -lieu fee with clarification of Section 2, C.2. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Arnold, Keen, Brown, Fowler and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None Commission and Staff thanked Jon Ansolabehere for his presentation. IV. NON PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. STAFF PROJECT 04 -006 - HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMITTEE; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE. Staff report prepared and presented by Planning Intern, Andrea Koch. Ms. Koch gave an overview of her report on the establishment of a Historic Resources Committee and a Historic Designation Process for the City of Arroyo Grande explaining that a Historic Resources Committee (HRC) would oversee and conduct the initial expansion and update of the Historic Resource Survey (HRS) as well as any additional broad - sweeping survey efforts. She described how the designation process could work and how the ARC and Planning Commission would be involved. In conclusion, Ms. Koch stated that historic resource nomination should first be made to the ARC and the Community Development Department and then to the Planning Commission. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 PAGE 12 Commission Comments: Keen: • Concern that the City would be making a decision for a homeowner who may not want to be on a register. • He disagreed with trying to enforce views on someone not inside City limits. • Where the document states "encourage" it seems more like a mandate, and property owners should have some rights. • Criteria should be set up before a committee is appointed. • Someone may want to abide by requirements but not be on the list; they should have the option to not be on the list. • Alternative 3: Concern that someone disagreeing with historic preservation mandates for their property would have to pay appeal fees; what would the appeal fees be? Ms. Koch suggested that if someone does not want to be listed they could voluntarily comply with recommendations. Mr. Strong said he would like to see a committee independent of the ARC, composed of historians and Architects; the review could then be done by ARC, CDD and Planning Commission. If a property is listed without the owner's consent it would take City Council action to designate it historic; we want to follow the intent of CEQA and City Council's interest; being on the list should be considered beneficial. Arnold: • He was not comfortable with Alternative 3 and not clear on why a homeowner would want to be on a list unless there was some solid benefit. • There could be some substantial cost involved for the City if it undertakes an historic preservation ordinance. Mr. Strong said it could be quite expensive to do a full - fledged evaluation on an individual historic property, but if we have the right personnel on the Committee we could end up with predominantly citizen nominations with a definitive list. Commissioner Keen stated historic structures like the Swinging Bridge could be nominated. Commissioner Arnold suggested that there be a hurdle set, that the documentation needs to meet, to avoid unlimited cost and extensive research that no one would want to undertake. Mr. Strong explained that the process for reviewing nominations of the historic resources to the local register was based on the Town of Danville's ordinance (as explained in the staff report). 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 PAGE 13 Fowler: • Does the Arroyo Grande Historical Society have any recommendations for nominations? Mr. Strong replied that they do have a lot of human resources who could identify structures that are historic • Should the list be compiled by using State criteria and not local criteria to make listing of historic structures more restrictive? • The HRC should not be a formal review body at first, but maybe start out as an advisory board. • Owner consent is an important issue. Brown: • Only considering what the State deems historically significant instead of establishing local criteria for designation misses the point of why we started this process. • He did not think ARC /HRC should be responsible for making CEQA decisions, but they should be made by Planning Commission or City Council to keep a historical perspective • He did not think the ordinance should be strictly voluntary, but based on specific criteria with objectives that can be tested to take out the emotional response. • He agreed with Commissioner Arnold that if a property is listed the owner should be given some benefit (financial) because the level of responsibility that would be put on the owner would be arduous and should be rewarded. In reply to a question from Chair Guthrie, staff replied that in other cities if City Council makes the determination it is mandatory,, but they do provide benefits: Guthrie: • Thinks it has to be mandatory to work. • Once a property has been nominated by HRC, ARC or PC could make design decisions based on this. • He sees the HRC making the nominations and thereafter being out of the process; HRC could have additional nominations annually (sees them as a mini CEQA review). • Under mandatory issues he would like to see other City examples of mandatory versus not mandatory. • Any advantage we can give to an owner of an historic building should be given, and any property owner could appeal their decision and ultimately City Council would make the decision. The Commission thanked Ms. Koch for her work and stated she did a good job. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Appeal Case No. 04 -001; Applicant — S & S Homes; Representative — John Mack; Location — Jasmine Place. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 PAGE 14 Mr. Strong said this is not a situation where they would normally recommend a waiver, but he would like to allow the applicant to make a presentation. John Mack, representative for S & S Homes, stated it was not until "Plan Check" for offsite improvements (after going through all the Committees for approval) that the interpretation of the undergrounding came to light; he believed that the Subdivision Map Act is the project boundaries; they appealed staffs decision to require utilities for 350 feet plus beyond their project to the corner of Spruce and Ash Streets; they did not see how staff is getting their interpretation from Conditions of Approval and he discussed the Condition of Approval language, Development Code language and subdivision map act language (to take improvement beyond project boundaries should require reimbursement to the developer for such costs); it is a multi utility line and could cost in excess of $250,000. Mr. Devens stated that staff discussions had taken place prior to plan check informing the applicant of the requirement to underground to corner of Spruce and Ash Streets; that the developer was intending to place a new pole set just outside their project, but on neighboring property; that he did not recall seeing any service drops coming from the pole and that these line do directly serve his project; that PG &E could install conduit adjacent to gutter, under pavement to save cost; that Stonecrest and the Santa Lucia Project had been required to go beyond their property boundaries. Mr. Strong stated he was sympathetic to both sides; that he was disturbed with this as he had sat through the Dotson subdivision pole appeal; that he would like to see a written explanation for the cost without the placement of a new pole; that he would like to see a compromise and that reimbursement could be considered. Mr. Strong gave an explanation of "unreasonable" to the Commission as included in the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Devens asked Mr. Mack if they would be expecting reimbursement to tie into the storm drain lines to a City system that go beyond the Jasmine property? Mr. Mack said he believed that the lines had already been extended when they did the Berry Gardens project. Commission Comments: Keen: • He agreed that the City should give some reimbursement, but it does need to be done because there is nothing left on that street that would trigger undergrounding. • He then suggested a number of ways to design and lower the costs. Arnold: • It would be unfair to put a pole on the adjacent property owner. • There are examples where the City has required the developer to go to next pole with the undergrounding. 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 Mr. Mack said they could put a pole within their own setback. PAGE 15 • It sounds as though there may be more affordable ways to do this, but there should be some compromise; he suggested further negotiation. Fowler: • There should be some compromise. Brown: • He agreed with Commissioner Keen's comments. Guthrie: • There should be compromise, but if it comes down to a pole being placed it should be terminated on your own property. Mr. Strong summarized by stating that some compromise should be sought; seek Tess expensive alternatives; create some form of reimbursement provision for offsite aspects of this; if no resolution can be reached we can return with the request for a full waiver as staff is not going to administratively waive it. If we do not get a definitive answer the fee protest mechanism (bonding) can be in place and it could go all the way to Council; we do not want to hold the project hostage. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Brown asked that the mitigation of Oak trees for City projects be put on an agenda. Mr. Strong stated he would like to defer this item until September as there are special projects scheduled for the next few months. Commissioner Keen stated that he was disappointed on the decision that the Council made in regard to the Code Enforcement Officer, surprised that the captains on the Fire Department were going to do code enforcement in their spare time; when it comes to Development Code and signs etc. he did not believe that they (captains) would have time to deal with this; after all the years that the Planning Commission had been trying to get a Code Enforcement Officer; he was disappointed that when we did get a full time Officer he was not able to go out and originate the complaint; he had talked to the Grover Beach City Manager and learned that removing the Code Enforcement Officer has not been considered. Mr. Strong stated the proposal had come from discussion with Grover Beach; he was in process of preparing for the June 8 Council meeting and a program is being outlined for a part time Code Enforcement specialist, plus a Fire Department and other department specialists to enforce the City code. He stated the meeting of June 22 would be the next significant hearing on this; he had not been aware that the Planning Commission had prior input on the code enforcement function; the Commission could place this on the July agenda for discussion if they wished. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR JUNE 15, 2004: No Discussion. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Arnold, seconded by Commissioner Keen. ATTEST: ARDON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: 0 0 .E ROB STRON COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT DIRECTOR (Approved at PC meeting of June 15, 2004) PAGE 16 AMES GUTHRIE, CHAIR 1 1