Loading...
PC Minutes 2004-04-061 1 1 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 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, Fowler, and Keen. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Assistant Planners, Ryan Foster and Jim Bergman, Planning Intern, Andrea Koch and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Chair Guthrie opened the floor for nominations. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to nominate Jim Guthrie as Chair. The motion was approved on a 5/0 roll call vote. Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to nominate Tim Brown as Vice Chair. The motion was approved on a 5/0 roll call vote. AGENDA REVIEW: The Commission agreed to hear Item IV.B. first, Time Extension Case No. 04 -003, a short item at the end of the Agenda, as applicant was present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of March 16 and March 26, 2004 were approved in one motion on a 4/0 and 5/0 voice vote, respectively, with Commissioner Arnold abstaining from the March 16 minutes, as he was not in attendance. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter from Department of Housing and Community Development re: Review of the City of Arroyo Grande's Adopted Housing Element. II.A. MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE MARCH 16. 2004 - SUBJECT TO 10 -DAY APPEAL: Case Nc TEX 04 -002 Applicant Thomas Thompson ►ddress 203 Station Way )escripton" Request to extend time for MEX 03- 003 (allowing an 8% increase in building height) as still in process of completing plans. Planner A. Koch Commissioner Brown requested a brief overview from staff, in particular with regards to the applicant and the actual height of the building. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 PAGE 2 Ms. Koch explained the applicant was Dr. Thomas Thompson, DDS, and the final building height was 32' 4 ", which was an increase of 2' 4" over the 30' standard. IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARINGS: B. TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. TEX 04 -003; APPLICANT — RRM DESIGN GROUP; REPRESENTATIVE — TERRY FOWLER - PAYNE; LOCATION — 1260 AND 1270 POPLAR STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Planning Intern, Andrea Koch. Ms. Koch gave an overview of the staff report. The applicant requests this time extension in order to complete the affordable housing deed restriction condition of project approval. There were no staff questions or comments. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to approve the time extension and adopt: RESOLUTION 04 -1921 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 04 -003 FOR A ONE -YEAR TIME EXTENSION OF VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 01 -003 AND VARIANCE 01 -002 LOCATED AT 1260 AND 1270 POPLAR STREET, APPLIED FOR BY SANDRA HOGAN The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Arnold, Brown, Fowler, and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of April, 2004. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. VARIANCE CASE NO. 04 -002; APPLICANT — SAMUEL GILSTRAP; LOCATION — PASEO STREET, LOT 24. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster. Mr. Foster presented an overview of the staff report. At the March 16 meeting, there was consensus among commissioners for approval of the Paseo Street Design Standards variance, but consensus was not reached in regard to the side yard setbacks, particularly to the garage under the structure. Mr. Gilstrap has since 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 submitted a new compromise plan, which increases the side yard setback to the garage doors to 10 feet (half of the standard setback, which is 20 feet). Chair Guthrie opened the public hearing. PAGE 3 Sam Gilstrap, applicant, asked for comments from the Commission. He hopes new plan addresses commission's concerns. It's an improvement to the home in that it will be more attractive, provide better parking, and more storage. Mr. Gilstrap has met with Mayor Ferrara, Councilman Costello, Chair Guthrie, and several neighbors to discuss the plan. (Copy of neighborhood petition in support presented to staff for project file). • In response to questions from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Gilstrap noted he tried to speak with all councilmembers, but the Mayor and Joe Costello were the only ones he was able to meet with. It provides onsite parking without more excavation or retaining walls. In meeting with Chair Guthrie, it was decided to maintain the retaining wall at 4' for better visibility in exiting the garage. • In response to questions from Commissioner Fowler, Mr. Gilstrap noted he had met with the neighbors (the Jensens) and they seem interested in participating. He's comfortable with them — while it's not a done deal, they're very cooperative. He is preparing an outline of work for which his general construction company will bear all costs, including utilities, as a measure of good faith. Chair Guthrie asked if the City would have to abandon the right of way in the sidewalk area to make this work. Mr. Strong answered no, the City retains the right of way, and in this instance, it's not really an issue, since the sidewalk ends right at the driveway. • Mr. Gilstrap noted the home was designed so visitors wouldn't have to cross the driveway, because the path of travel leads straight to the front door. • Mr. Strong noted (per Victor Devens) no encroachment permit is being pursued, and City could either enforce no parking in what would be the sidewalk and /or require an encroachment permit of the applicant for permission to park in that area. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing for public comment. Commission discussion: Keen: • Felt parking should be in front of garage and not over sidewalk/apron; house could be cantilevered over garage and is not an impossibility • 5' setback for home would be acceptable, only if parking issue was resolved. Arnold: • Felt cost (of retaining walls and placement of garage cantilevered under the house) should not be reason for granting a variance • Also did not have problem with 5' setback, only if parking issue was resolved. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 Fowler: • Saw applicant has made an effort toward compromise and would accept as proposed. Brown: • Could not make the variance for findings number 3 and 6. Guthrie • Was okay with finding number 6; this plan was much better than previous submittal; • Noted other homes on street had 5' garage setbacks; he would accept plan. Victor Devens requested clarification on some items. In response, Chair Guthrie noted they would require double loop water line and hook up off Paseo Street. They would not want an encroachment permit pursued for parking, in order to keep options open and to deal with if it becomes an issue. For the record, condition of approval #8 is not a Public Works condition of approval (it was Rob Strong's.) Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to deny Variance Case No. 04 -002, based on not being able to make variance findings 3 or 6, and adopt: RESOLUTION 04 -1922 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY VARIANCE 04 -002; PASEO STREET, LOT 24; APPLIED FOR BY SAMUEL GILSTRAP The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold and Keen NOES: Commissioner Fowler and Chair Guthrie ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of April, 2004. PAGE 4 B. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 04 -001 AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 04- 001; APPLICANT- LORENE NEFF; LOCATION — 509 BENNETT. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. Mr. Bergman gave an overview of the staff report. Applicant would like to rearrange underlying antiquated parcels from two narrow lots and portions of two additional Tots to a flag lot configuration (keeping current home as is). Stem width of flag is 16' (consistent with driveway); sideyards would be 5' on each side (instead of 5' and 10'); 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 PAGE 5 rear setback would be 10' (instead of 15'), and front yard could be a 10', 15' or 20' setback at the Commission's discretion. In answer to Commission questions, Mr. Bergman stated the Fire Department was okay with the 16' stem width, so long as both residences are sprinklered. (The current home has already been sprinklered.) Chair Guthrie opened the hearing for public comment. Kelvin Gould, representative for applicant, answered Commission questions. Keen: • Will they incorporate garage into new building? No, it's too narrow. They're moving it out of the way and for use as extra parking for existing house. It will be destroyed when new house is built, but slab will remain for new structure. Fowler: • Does applicant have any preference over 10, 15 or 20' front yard setback on rear lot? He thought it would automatically be 20' and just wants to do what's legal. Guthrie: • Does applicant realize the building will only be 30' deep? It would be a two story building, so good size. Debra Sauerbrer, resident at 602 Cornwall Street, asked if objective of Neff family is to build a second unit? Chair Guthrie replied the Commission will assume yes. Gould replied it wouldn't be in the next two -five years. She also asked if there are any limitations — if a two story would be a variance. Mr. Bergman replied they would have to go through the Viewshed Review process, but there are already two story residences in the surrounding neighborhood. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to public comment. Commissioner comments: Arnold: • While not a fan of flag lots, that's not a good reason to tear down an existing home. He doesn't have a problem with narrow homes, and felt this would probably be the exception on the block. Rear lot should have 20' front yard setback, so it wouldn't deviate more than necessary, and at least one of items is conforming, but he'll go with consensus vote. Guthrie: • Asked staff if easement will be required to provide guest parking for rear lot. Mr. Bergman replied that staff assumes their visitors could park in front of rear garage. The proposed guest parking would be for front house visitors. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 Keen: • Concerned about having no yard or open space for kids to play, so he is in favor of approving project with 20' front yard setback. Fowler: • Thought it's a cute neighborhood and this project meets many needs. She had no problem with setbacks at any distance. It's a good use of the property. Brown: • Felt it was a good use and agrees with 20' front yard setback. Guthrie: • Had no addional comments, other than he expects a 10' front yard setback request later, but 20' is okay for now. Keen: • In reviewing the resolution, he found no written description of variance items. Jim Bergman will add wording to resolution regarding variance items and setbacks. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to approve Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 04 -001 and Variance Case No. 04 -001, 1) with the inclusion of a description of variances added to the resolution, and 2) with a 20' front yard setback for the rear lot, and adopt: RESOLUTION 04 -1923 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 04 -001 AND VARIANCE 04 -001 LOCATED AT 509 BENNETT STREET, APPLIED FOR BY LORENE NEFF The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Fowler, Arnold, Brown and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6 day of April, 2004. PAGE 6 IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 04 -006; APPLICANT — JOHN ROBASCIOTTI; LOCATION — 101 TRAFFIC WAY. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 PAGE 7 Mr. Bergman gave an overview of the staff report. This project would include three buildings, each with downstairs commercial and upstairs office or residential. It's in the Historic District and has been made to look like an adaptively reused historic mansion. Victor Devens, of Public Works, presented some concerns: • They question compliance of handicap access. • Public Works will require and encroachment permit and a maintenance agreement for parking lot and other facilities. It could address costs for removing improvements if and when Traffic Way is widened. • Owner /tenant would have to maintain landscaping proposed in right of way. • Do Commissioners want decorative lights that match what's going in on Branch Street and Traffic Way bridge? Commission questions: Arnold: • How much land is being dedicated? Rob Strong believes it's 40'x6' triangle, so about 120 square feet. Brown: • Asked if it was "normal" to make private improvements in the right of way. Mr. Devens noted there are instances where if there's been excess right of way behind the sidewalk, tenants have made improvements. Mr. Bergman noted there are no current plans to expand Traffic Way and an in lieu fee could be used to replace the parking spaces there, if removal was required in the future. • Asked if it was "normal" to use public right of way to calculate density calculations. Mr. Bergman compared it to calculations for SFR, where acreage is calculated from the middle of the street. Mr. Strong added he wouldn't describe it as the "norm", as typically they take lot area and calculate what acreage is involved, therefore, a net acre is conventionally used in prior zoning. However, in terms of the General Plan and new VDC district, gross area is used. In a mixed -use project, it is interpretative as part of the CUP or PUD. What is proposed is a high density mixed use project, and applicant is looking for Commission's pre- application comments. • He considers this project very high density and asked applicant if he couldn't get the same square footage with two lots, instead of three, so they wouldn't need a variance for lot size. • He had no problem with residential feel of buildings. • Concerned with safety of cars leaving parking lot onto Traffic Way. Guthrie: • Is there anywhere the City has a formal agreement for private use of public right of way? Mr. Devens replied yes, Farm Supply has one, because part of their front parking lot is in right of way. If applicant wanted one, they would have to MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 PAGE 8 come forward with an encroachment permit, so City could condition applicant to remove improvements if they ever needed the street right of way at a future date. Keen: • At one time, Traffic Way bridge was on a Cal Trans list for replacement to be widened, with sidewalks, etc. What effects will that have? Mr. Devens replied he had reviewed an aerial photo of the area, and any future widening would have to occur on the project side of the bridge. He had discussed this with Don Spagnolo, Public Works Director, and he's not aware of any schedule, and he does expect it to happen sometime in the future, but not soon. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing for public comment, even though not a public item, in order to receive comments. Mark Vasquez, representative for the applicant, presented an overview of the project, detailing some of the specific difficulties of this lot, and their efforts to create a good image for this important entrance to the Village. • He noted this is a cornerstone for the Village, and for such an important site, it is extremely difficult to design, due to both the small site and the exposure on all sides seen from both Branch Street and Traffic Way. • Village Design Guidelines state buildings should be pedestrian oriented to Branch Street, which he designed for. • Physical property is only about 5,000 square feet, which also made it difficult to design parking. His efforts were to provide some on -site and contribute to off - site pubic parking needs and develop consistent with the Mixed Use designation, while still being economically viable. • With commercial space on the ground floor, it was thought the second stories could be either residential or offices, depending on the market. The key to allowing office space upstairs would be annexation into the parking district, so additional off -site in lieu parking spaces could be purchased. • Having three lots (instead of two) would increase ability of more people to become a part of the Village. Square footage would be the same either way, and this also makes it possible for someone to work below and live upstairs. It would be less likely for an individual to be financially able to purchase the property as a live -work unit if they were larger (two units instead of three). Most people can't find in an ownership situation in this area. • Parking was proposed this way, in part due to the needs of location, but also in part to needs of Village as a whole. He's proposed two regular and 1 handicapped parking space in the right of way. The handicapped space would probably rarely be used, which would help with visibility. If they weren't allowed the two regular spaces, it would be more a loss to the city, as they would otherwise be future in lieu payment to the parking district. If the bridge was widened, it could be an issue, but they could buy additional spaces in the 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 PAGE 9 Parking District to replace them. This property and adjacent Tots are going to have problems with parking, no matter what goes in. • He asked for direction on this project, including parking issues, access, general design, etc., in order that they could proceed with a formal application. Applicant questions and Commission comments: Fowler: • The left side elevation shows an outline of the existing billboard sign. The building is huge /tall. Won't it be even taller than the Village Center? Mr. Vasquez didn't measure Village Center, but thinks Village Center is taller. This is tall — two stories from street grade, but it won't appear as large and massive as Village Center. For instance, Village Center's stairway element is considerably larger. • Parking is also an issue with her, but she does like the idea of something being bulit there. Brown: • He thinks they are pushing the limits of the development code and three lots are too many here. Because of density, it's just adding difficulty to an already difficult to design site. • Parking is an issue, but will probably be fine if they join the Parking District. He wondered if owners will object in the future to pay for additional parking expense if City needs to widen the bridge. Arnold: • He's not if favor of making small site into three smaller sites (or splitting lot at all). He champions consolidation, and if they make three small lots, it's harder to get owners to agree to consolidate later. • He's not in favor of having living quarters on this property. He likes this project, but not on this site. He's thinks it's a good transitional project, and would blend better from residential home area to the Village. • This is a retail corner — not an office building corner. Clients would walk from off -site parking spaces for retail, but not for services (like a doctor, lawyer, etc.) • He would be comfortable if they're in the Parking District, to not have any parking on this property at all (unless that's not allowed). Parking and exit/entry is very difficult on this site. • For a live -work situation, there's no requirement that the person(s) staying in upstairs unit is actually the owner, so there could still be a parking problem. • This is a very important corner and he would like to see more of a landmark type building. This is nice, but not a landmark. Keen: • When he first looked at project, he was hesitant about it not looking more commercial, but with Mr. Vasquez's explanation of making it look like a readapted building, he doesn't have a problem. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 PAGE 10 • He's concerned about ADA access for second story. Mr. Vasquez replied they don't have to provide wheelchair access, but do have to incorporate other things such as special stair widths. • Code encourages placement of residential units upstairs over commercial units in the Village, and this accomplishes that end. • He does think this project tries to get too much on too small an area. If it was all one ownership, and not divided, it would work better as rental units, but he's not sure how to divide lot toward that end. If they were all offices and workers went home at night with residents returning, parking would probably work out, but there's no guarantee. • He likes looks of building. With whole trend of mixed use, they've started another trend - putting residential first. He thinks commercial comes first and residential is secondary on this site. • This is a gateway to the Village and they do need an attractive building there, meeting all guidelines of the Village Design Guidelines and Standards. • At ARC, they discussed the Village Creek Promenade development (by Miner's), which was designed without any place to put signs. They need a specific plan for location of signage if a building is commercial. Guthrie: • From Branch Street to low point (middle of lot/concrete drive), what is difference in grading? Mark Vasquez said it's about 4 feet. • He agrees with comments on lot size and would like to keep a single lot, instead of three Tots. • He's concerned with parking, especially if bridge were widened. He was thinking it seemed a natural site for underground parking, but if only 4' maybe not. Mark Vasquez replied he had researched that and it would create an ADA access nightmare. Chuck Fellows, 202 Canyon Way, commented he had further ideas after initial proposal at ARC, where he voted against this project. • He felt somebody in the past has made a real effort to plan landscaping in the Village (flowering vine at Shell station; Chevron station has some landscaping; Bank of America prunes too much, but has redwoods, pines, etc.; Title Company is very nicely landscaped; Triangle with geraniums is very nice.) He would like to see landscaping continued with this project. • He feels what is proposed is too large for this site. Building should be pulled back, so there's space for landscaping even if street is widened. Buildings across street are stucco monstrosities, but include front plazas and this project should match or at least complement them. • It's a mistake to put residential looking buildings there. It should be one icon commercial building. • All parking should be off site. 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 PAGE 11 • It's a plus that this project would totally block billboard. Mark has checked and can do that. • The new building should face west, similar to flower shop. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to public comment. Chair Guthrie closed by stating this should be a signature building. It's possible, but unlikely they could make it look like a mansion, given what's already there. Maybe it could be split into two Tots - one over and one undersized, but three is too many (too small). They could only achieve maybe 4 parking spaces onsite without using any right of way, which could create future problems. Idea is interesting of having all off site parking, but it may be tough to find tenants. Maybe it could be a brick commercial building. Residential should be a secondary use, with commercial use as primary. No motion was made, as this is only a pre - application. The Commission took a 5 minute break. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Request for interpretation of secondary residence requirements: • Rob Strong presented a letter from Mark Vasquez. • The Commissioners asked questions and made comments. Consensus was to maintain the owner residency requirement for secondary dwellings. Changing the requirement to allow for owner to live next door (or somewhere else) could create problems in both scope and enforcement. 1 Letter from Department of Housing and Community Development re: Review of the City of Arroyo Grande's Adopted Housing Element:. • Rob Strong presented this letter, stating that staff is currently working to provide a response to the State in a timely fashion. In order to present a more accurate and complete response, and to gain certification of the Housing Element by the State, Mr. Strong has scheduled a meeting to clarify the State's concerns. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: • Commissioner Keen is concerned that there is no policy on cutting down oak trees in the City, unless a project happens to come before Planning Commission. He requested that Rob Strong follow up on this issue. • Commissioner Brown noted there was a signature, mature oak tree just cut down by the City on Pine Street. He's also concerned about the inconsistency of applicants having to make large accomodations for oak trees on projects that are presented to the Commission, whereas the City and other residents can cut them MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 down with no apparent regulatory policies in place. He also requested Rob Strong to follow up on this issue. • Chair Guthrie asked about combining the Mixed Use district planning into a single process (instead of studying them separately). Rob Strong replied the workshop on April 7, 2004 will be an initial workshop with property owners and businesses along East Grand Avenue, El Camino Real, and Halcyon. It will depend in part on the workshop turnout and feedback, as to whether each section will be studied separately or altogether. o Chair Guthrie also inquired as to Chamber of Commerce participation, and Rob Strong replied he has scheduled a meeting with Chamber officials to obtain their input and will bring feedback to the Commission meeting in May. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: • Four members of City Council will discuss the SEIR for PUD 01 -001 (previously Tract 1998) at the next City Council meeting on Tuesday, April 13, 2004. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR APRIL 20, 2004: 1. Sense of Community survey 2. DCA 03 -008. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. ATTEST: KATHY M DOZA, SECRETA TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CO TENT: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOP (Approved at PC meeting of April 20, 2004) ENT DIRECTOR PAGE 12 /GUTHRIE, CHAIR 1 1 1