Loading...
PC Minutes 2004-02-17MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 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 and Keen. Commissioner Fowler arrived at 6:20 p.m. and Commissioner Brown was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: The Commission requested Item IV.A to be heard at 7:00 p.m. due to the meeting being posted as starting at that time in one area of the City's website. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of February 3, 2004 were unanimously approved on a 3/0 voice vote, Commissioner Brown being absent and Commissioner Fowler arriving late. 1. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter from Michael Titus, re Agenda Item III.A, Conditional Use Permit 03 -002, 447 Lierly Lane. 2. Email from Russell Reed, re Agenda Item III.A, Conditional Use Permit 03 -002, 447 Lierly Lane. 3. Letter from George Lowe, re Agenda Item IV.A, Tract 1998 — Oak Hills. 4. Letter from Lester White, re Agenda Item IV.A, Tract 1998 — Oak Hills. 5. Letter from Mr. & Mrs. James Hale, re Agenda Item IV.A, Tract 1998 — Oak Hills. II. MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE FEBRUARY 3, 2004 - SUBJECT TO 10 -DAY APPEAL: None to report. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 03 -002; APPLICANT — TONY JANOWITZ; LOCATION — 447 LIERLY LANE (Continued from December 16, 2003.) Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman presented the staff report and stated that the following information was requested by the Commission at the December 16, 2003 meeting: • The true size of the house (measured by the applicant and the architect) is 1,463 square feet of habitable space. • The attic and cellar included in the house are considered non - habitable space per the building code. • The applicant proposes to remove the rear bedroom, bath and laundry room, eliminate the cellar (leaving just a crawl space), the attic will remain as non - habitable space; this will bring the house down to 1,012 square feet, in line with the Development Code requirements for secondary dwelling units. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2004 PAGE 2 • The applicant has submitted an accurate site plan, which clarifies the setbacks and there is adequate room for parking. • The applicant has discussed obtaining a 20 -foot access easement on Lierly Lane with mixed reviews and discussion is still continuing. • The applicant still wishes to have separate utility meters (due to distance from secondary unit and not knowing if the main house would be able to support both). In conclusion, Mr. Bergman recommended that the Commission continue the hearing to a date uncertain (when the Neighborhood Plan is received and scheduled for Planning Commission recommendation); this would allow additional time for the applicant and neighbors to negotiate for alternative access easement improvements; if not resolved within one additional year, staff would recommend demolition of the existing non- conforming structure. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public. Mark Vasquez, representative, stated the area is in transition; they would like time to continue the neighborhood meetings to resolve the access issue, as it would be beneficial in some ways to everyone. Ed Harrison, 441 Lierly Lane (next door), stated his concerns: the existing house was not up to code and unsafe and this issue has still not been addressed in the plans; the road is a big problem; he does not want to see a paved road in front of his house and likes the dirt road; does not want his views obstructed. 6:20 p.m. Commissioner Fowler arrived. Mike Titus, applicant, stated he was confused on the size of the house as the stated size varies from the applicant, the Agenda and the staff report; the "uninhabitable" upstairs bedroom as been used for ten years; the attic is proposed to have some kind of access that could easily be used by a tenant. Mark Vasquez, addressed the neighbors concerns: • The house will be brought up to code once it is decided that the house will remain. • The Fire Chief is not requiring a paved road, but an "all weather road ". • He had measured the building himself and verified his measurements as being correct. • The attic is substandard, not a habitable space and the request is to use it as a storage space only. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to the public. Commission Comments: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2004 PAGE 3 Keen: • The new General Plan encourages secondary dwelling units to increase inventory of rental units and he strongly objected to the recommendation that the house be torn down. If there is no agreement after a year, it should be brought into conformance; he could have approved this tonight, but would agree to continue to a date uncertain to give some time to reach agreement on the access road. Arnold: • Agreed with Commissioner Keen on all points; the size of the house should be brought into conformance as shown; the attic is not being proposed to be used as a legal space and not to be inhabited. Fowler: • After speaking to three of the families involved, thought that there was a chance of resolution for the access street; the house should not be demolished and a year was too long; recommended that the date uncertain be brought forward; agreed with Mrs. Titus that the lane could be made meandering around some of the trees. Guthrie: • Agreed with the other Commissioners points and believed the problems could be resolved given some time; he would like it to come back to the Commission for resolution within six months. Chair Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to continue the proposal to a date uncertain; if no consensus about the CC &R's is made within six months it should be brought back to the Commission for further discussion. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Guthrie, Commissioner Arnold, Fowler and Keen. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Brown IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARINGS: B. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 04 -003 (CREEKSIDE COMPLEX); APPLICANT — D. B. & M., L.L.C.; LOCATION — NORTHSIDE OF EAST BRANCH STREET, NEAR CROWN HILL STREET. Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, gave an overview of the proposed mixed -use development composed of 12 duplexes, in two separate plan areas, a 12,000 square foot commercial /office building, and possible conversion of the existing residences to some other commercial use. Ms. Heffernon further stated that the project did not include the existing office building and associated storage structures located adjacent to the creek, but there will be shared access and parking associated with that property. She described the circulation design: two access points proposed on East Branch Street and one on Le Point Street; in addition a controlled entry gate was being proposed between the residential and commercial uses to alleviate traffic concerns. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2004 PAGE 4 Ms. Heffernon then described Residential Plans A and B in some detail; explained that the project is subject to the development standards for the Village Mixed Use District and to the existing requirements for parking; the project also complies with density requirements, setbacks, lot coverage and height limits; inclusionary housing requirements are based on the 2003 Housing Element. In reply to a question from Commissioner Guthrie Ms. Heffernon stated that the intent of the applicant is to sell the units as duplexes and not as individual units. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public. Joe Boud, representative, identified the onsite constraints and gave details of Plan A and Plan B; stated the Maud House was identified as being a potential historical resource and the Loomis Barn was considered a contributing feature to the setting of the house so the developers had decided to proceed with a truly mixed use project that retained all existing structures. He explained that the property containing the existing office buildings and sheds had been conveyed to different ownership and are not part of the project. Mr. Boud concluded by asking the Commission for their questions and comments on the proposal. Commission Comments: • Asked for clarification re the parking off Crown Terrace. • Asked if the floor area ratio would be adequate for the lots. • Asked for clarification on access to the garages for the units. • Questioned why the upper level of the parking structure was not extended out further to gain more parking. Mr. Boud replied that they wanted to keep the massing the same and did not want the building to look like a parking garage. • Asked if the studios end up as the inclusionary housing units. • Asked if a shared parking agreement would be executed between the commercial and residential properties. Mr. Boud replied that this would be worked out before final application. • Asked if the proposed abandonment of Le Point Street along the property frontage would be in the City's best interest. • The project could end up with three accesses. Chair Guthrie stated that even though this was not a Public Hearing item he would open the hearing to the public. Chuck Fellows, 202 Canyon Way, asked where the remnant of the railroad as mentioned in the EIR was and if a provision could be made to point this out. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to the public. Further Commission Comments: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2004 PAGE 5 Fowler: • Appreciated the efforts that had been made to change and meet codes and address requests and she looked forward to this mixed use proposal in the Village and the repair of "Hilde's house" to enhance that area. Arnold: • Agreed with all Commissioner Fowler's comments. • If the alternative driveway location had to be used he would be concerned with having three driveways so close to one another. • He would be open to the abandonment of Le Point with inclusion of a pedestrian crossing. • He would be open to a bridge for vehicle access, although he did not see this happening. • Overall he liked the project, but he would like to see more commercial building separating the residential. Keen: • He asked Public Works to comment on the proposed bridge and street abandonment and what it would cost to build a bridge across the creek. Victor Devens, Public Works: • The Public Works Engineer is not in favor of the street abandonment. The City would still require a public utility easement which means that construction over it would be restricted. • The cost to build a bridge would be high and the environmental constraints would be problematic. Further Commission Comments: Keen: • He did like the idea of the street abandonment and stated a number of reasons. • He thought the developers had done a wonderful job on trying to meet everyone's concerns on this new proposal even though he had also approved of the previous proposal. Guthrie: • Thought this a very good mixed use project and creative use of this space and slope; having the residential use on the backside made a lot of sense. Duane DeBlauw, DeBlauw Builders. • If access does not become available on the site he was not sure two accesses in the commercial area would be absolutely necessary; we would still have a functioning parking area with the ingress and egress still going out of the driveway. 7:20 p.m. IV.A REVISED DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01 -001 (TRACT MAP 1998); APPLICANT - CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT; LOCATION - JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2004 PAGE 6 Chair Guthrie stated that the consultants were not present; they had not had time to respond to public comments and were not ready for the public hearing. He requested that any public wishing to comment should wait until the public hearing at the next meeting of March 2, 2004, unless they would be unable to attend that meeting. Chair Guthrie then opened the hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. Community Development Director, Rob Strong stated that the meeting would be duly advertised, noticed and therefore need not be continued. C. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 03 -018; APPLICANT — RICK PURVIS; LOCATION — WEST END OF LE POINT STREET. Community Development Director, Rob Strong, introduced the staff report prepared by Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster (Mr. Foster was absent). He described the proposal to subdivide a parcel to create six (6) lots for residential and mixed -use development, stating that it was outside of the Village Parking and Business Improvement area and also in the alignment of the proposed Le Point extension; this subdivision would enable the two upper lots to be residential and lower four lots to be mixed use; the concept drawing shows parking configuration that would allow garages for parking at the residential units and open parking that could function as both residential, office or commercial spaces. Commissioner Keen stated the description on Attachment 2, and Attachment 3 was confusing as it related to the staff report. Commissioner Fowler suggested that they would be Tess confusing if the Attachments had the dates on them. In answer to a question from Commissioner Guthrie, Mr. Strong clarified that there is currently a secondary access through the Lambert property to the Methodist Campground property. Mr. Devens, stated that Public Works recommended that: 1. Re the drainage, they would like the water be kept onsite or drained to the back of the Village Centre due to flooding problems on Branch and Nevada Streets that currently exist. 2. The through- connection on Le Point Street be pursued so no parking spots would be backing out onto the alley. Mr. Strong discussed the parking for the mixed -use project and offsite solutions for the drainage and stated that the applicant did address this with the pervious pavement, ponding and /or piped inlets and outlets. Mark Vasquez, representative, stated this proposal would fit into the mixed use zoning; the residential fits in on the slope better than commercial, the roadway alley access and allowing parking to back up into the alley would provide a lot more parking for the whole general area; the drainage does need to be addressed. 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2004 PAGE 7 Commissioner Guthrie questioned why the driveway had not been proposed on the west property line? Mr. Vasquez explained that it was to provide some potential for the connection to the Methodist Campground and provide opportunity for smaller structures that could be individually owned; the street would be flatter running up the middle allowing more flexibility for parking and individual lot ownership. Commission Comments: Keen: • Was glad to see the grade lines on the site plan as it shows what little grading needs to be done. • Thought that the project would work and mixed use would be good. • Parking access from the alley would be appropriate as this would not be a main street. Arnold: • Like to see parcel 1 & 3 stay commercial; parcel 2 & 4 a two -story building might be appropriate with possible work/live quarters above. • The Methodist connection- maybe could use part of the land for a turn around. • Backing out onto Le -Point alley: this will be used to get to the traffic light (he suggested some parallel parking here) and stated it is very important to put this access through. • He liked the project a lot. Fowler: • Liked the mixed -use project. • Believed on keeping it open to Le Point. • Was not so concerned about backing out onto alley. Guthrie: • He liked the project. • On Price Street (very busy street) in Pismo Beach, the backing out is working very well so think it would work here. • The drainage is a big issue, but the City should be able to help resolve this. • He recommended keeping the front of the project commercial and the back residential with mixed -use potential in between. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. East Grand Avenue Plus Places Workshop and Development Code Amendment Schedule: Mr. Strong stated that the Places program may be ready late March or early April and staff has deferred the Grand Ave workshop until then and expanded the study area to include Halcyon Road and portions of the El Camino Real corridor. At the second meeting in March staff could come forward with a preview of the proposed Development Code Amendments (DCA) and get the Commission feedback and direction. After discussion with the Commission, Mr. Strong stated that staff would get the Development Code outline prepared by the March 16, 2004 meeting for the Grand Ave corridor, defer the El Camino Real and Halcyon corridors. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2004 VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Mr. Strong gave an update on the Elm Street & Pike senior housing project approved by the Commission at their last meeting, stating that the project may now be for sale. Commissioner Arnold had a concern that if the project were sold it would still have to return to the ARC for approval as conditioned. Mr. Strong replied that it would be subject to the same conditions. Commissioner Guthrie had a concern that the City may not be ready with an affordable housing covenant. Mr. Strong replied that the City has a model previously done as a deed restriction, but in addition staff is preparing a draft affordable housing ordinance amendment to reflect the new Housing Element. In reply to Commission questions, Mr. Strong gave an update on the appeal of the denial Scotto's Viewshed Review, stating that the Council had supported the Commission's decision, but had recommended that it could come back as a Planned Development Amendment. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR MARCH 2, 2004: No discussion. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Arnold, seconded by Commissioner Fowler on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Brown being absent. LY'N REARDON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO C NTENT: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVEL (Approved at PC meeting 3/2/04) MENT DIRECTOR PAGE 8 GUTHRIE, CHAIR