Loading...
PC Minutes 2003-12-161 1 1 AGENDA REVIEW: No Changes. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2003 CALL TO ORDER — The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Guthrie presiding; also present were Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Keen and Fowler. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, Planning Intern, Andrea Koch and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of December 2, 2003 were unanimously approved as written on a 5/0 voice vote. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Memo from Ryan Foster re: Preliminary meeting with representatives of the Bridge Street group. 2. Letter from Milton Hayes, dated December 15, 2003, re his driveway in respect to item III.A. 3. Memo from Fire Chief, Terry Fibich re: Janowitz Access Easement, item III.C. 4. An additional list of names in support of Viewshed Review for 363 Spanish Moss Lane, item I I I. B. II.A. MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE NOVEMBER 18, 2003 - SUBJECT TO 10 -DAY APPEAL. Applicant ase Minor Exception 03 -012 John Olsen Address 856 Forest Glen Dr. Description,., Fence construction on new deck 7.5 ft. high. anner A. Koch The Commission agreed on a 5/0 voice vote to approve Minor Exception 03 -012. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM III.A: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 03 -004; APPLICANT — CINGULAR WIRELESS; LOCATION — CITY RESERVIOR NO. 4 OFF BRANCH MILL ROAD. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon. Ms. Heffernon gave an overview of the proposal to install eight (8) cellular communication antennas, approximately 8 -feet in height, on top of City water tank Reservoir No. 4 and place an equipment shelter in a 504 square foot lease area. The Commission had questions regarding the requirements of the Telecommunication Facilities Siting and Permit Submittal Requirements and had a concern that information required had not been submitted. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2003 PAGE 2 Tricia Knight, SBA Network Services, Inc. representative for Cingular Wireless, stated that she handled the land use entitlement for Cingular and could answer Commission questions. In answer to Commission questions Ms. Knight stated: • The information on the 500 -foot map regarding residences was not included, but was discussed with staff as there was only one residence of concern. • The radio frequency report that goes to the FCC was included and does comply. • Photo simulations were provided showing four different views from various public roads and on the site plans provided a vicinity map and directions to the site. • The paint color will match the water tank color and the existing antennas. • Total antenna capacity on the water tank is up to the Commission's discretion. A lot of antennas could be installed before FCC limit would be reached to ensure zero radio frequency conflict between carriers. • The site serves as both coverage and capacity for Cingular Wireless. Eight antennas are necessary for capacity, and the height of the tank serves as the coverage. The site serves these dual purposes and eliminates the need for two sites. • The limits of co- location depends on the carrier, and requirements can vary. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing and hearing no comments closed public comment. Commission Comments: • The aesthetics of the project were acceptable. • Condition 19: Like to make sure that total height of the structure for the antenna should be no higher than the existing antennas. • Language on the color requirement should include that the cable tray next to the ladder should match the color of the tank. • Make sure the shrubs look like those shown on the plans because the existing landscaping does not look good and existing enclosures can be seen from the church parking lot near Trinity Avenue. • Mr. Hayes concerns for traffic speed on the private access road should be addressed. • Request that staff require consistency regarding the requirements of the guidelines and the information to be submitted. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to approve Conditional Use Permit Case No. 03 -004, to mount eight (8) cellular communication antennas on top of City Reservoir No. 4, and place an equipment shelter on a 504 square foot lease area with the following additional conditions: 1. Speed limit and private road sign shall be erected. 2. Total height of the structure for the antenna to be no higher than existing antenna. 3. Paint color of the cable on the side of the tank to match the tank paint color. and adopt: 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2003 RESOLUTION 03 -1912 PAGE 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 03-004, APPLIED FOR BY CINGULAR WIRELESS The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Fowler, Arnold, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 16 day of December 2003. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM III.B: VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 03 -008; APPLICANT — DOUG & KIM SCOTTO; LOCATION — 363 SPANISH MOSS LANE. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman and Planning Intern, Andrea Koch. Ms. Koch gave an overview of the proposal for a 502 square foot second floor addition above the existing garage. Ms. Koch explained that three letters of opposition from neighbors had been received by the Community Development Department; one of these neighbors had since signed a petition in support of the project after further reviewing the project. The project property is located within the P.D. 1.3 district in an area consisting of single story "patio homes" on relatively small lots and setbacks. The CC &R's for the P.D. 1.3 district state there are no height restrictions for this patio home portion except as imposed by the City. The required findings for viewshed approval cannot be made. An option for the applicant is to apply for a Planned Development Amendment within Royal Oaks to allow second story additions for everyone in the patio home portion of P.D.1.3. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Doug Scotto, applicant gave a power point presentation and stated: • He wished to expand due to size of family and the fact that he wished to remain in the same neighborhood. • He did not believe the addition of the room over the garage would block anyone's view. • The ARC did not think that the addition would obstruct anyone's view. • He did not think the CC &R's were still in existence, nor preclude second story additions. Paul Davis, Construction Contractor, in reply to Commissioner Arnold stated that it would not be feasible in this case to further expand the second story due to the existing structure, cost of remodeling and inadequate room to get equipment in and out of side and rear yards. Commission Comments: • Respect the argument that the applicant needs more room and wants to remain in the neighborhood. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2003 PAGE 4 • Viewshed requirements of City Code provide that any alterations to these homes be in harmony with the existing homes and this project does not meet this finding. • Allowing a second story for the patio homes may set a precedent. • In this neighborhood of single story patio homes the expectation is probably that these homes will remain like this. • Allowing this expansion may take affordable stock out of the neighborhood for the future. • Would there be room to still accommodate two cars in the garage with the addition of the staircase? • The addition looks like a box built onto the garage, does not look attractive and is not consistent with the neighborhood. • The option to get a DCA would allow greater notice (all of Royal Oaks) and allow the whole neighborhood to decide if they want this change to P.D. 1.3. Mike McAustin, 341 Mesquite Lane, in favor of the proposal: • The project will not affect the view of anyone in immediate neighborhood due to the topography; such an addition would not be feasible in some situations, but each situation should be reviewed on a case -by -case situation. • We are part of the Royal Oaks development and there are many second stories in this district. Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. Further Commission Comments: • This proposed second story addition would set a bad precedent, encouraging other such additions that could transform the single -story character of the patio homes neighborhood. • This should not be approved without going through the DCA process. • The lots are too small and two stories would change the character of neighborhood. • To allow this could feasibly enable others to add second stories over the whole house. • This is not a viewshed issue. • The findings cannot be made. • Concern that the CC &R's are not in place. • The viewshed should be denied due to lack of the findings and compatibility with the neighborhood issue. Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen denying approval of the Viewshed Review as it was not consistent with the findings and adopting: RESOLUTION 03 -1913 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPROVAL OF VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 03 -008, LOCATED AT 363 SPANISH MOSS, APPLIED FOR BY DOUG AND KIM SCOTTO 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2003 The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Arnold, Keen, Brown, Fowler and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 16 day of December 2003. PAGE 5 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM III.C: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 03 -002; APPLICANT — TONY JANOWICZ; LOCATION — 447 LIERLY LANE. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. Mr. Bergman gave an overview of the proposal to convert an existing 1504 square foot, single - family residence into a secondary dwelling unit. Currently the site is developed with a 2,156 square foot home, recently built, and a 1504 square foot house. There was an understanding that when the new house was built the smaller house would be demolished. Since that time the City has changed policy on 2 residential dwelling units allowing larger units and the applicant has now filed for a Conditional Use Permit to keep the 1504 square foot house as a 2 residential dwelling unit. Access to this property is off Cherry Ave (unimproved dirt road) and access then off Lierly Lane (private road). Mr. Bergman then stated outlined the exceptions requested to recent criteria: • Maximum size of the secondary residence should be no more than 1200 square feet, but no more than 50% of the primary residence (for this proposal no more than 1,078 square feet). • Driveway access is dependent on a substandard non - public street. • The primary residence and secondary unit should share the same utility meters (these residences have separate meters and no sewer). • The Development Code requires the minimum interior sideyard setback should be 21 feet (in this case it is only 6 feet from the adjacent property. • Development Code also requires the secondary unit should architecturally match the primary residence. The applicant intends to make modifications to make it match the primary residence. Finally, Mr. Bergman emphasized the important conditions: • Improvement to onsite access via the private roads for public safety reasons. • Staff would like the applicant to provide a 20 -foot utility, drainage and access easement from the property line, across his property to the next property. • Would like the applicant to extend the right -of -way to 20 feet on Lierly Lane, if possible with the cooperation of neighboring parcel owners. Commission Questions: • Has the size of the secondary unit and it's current building code compliance been verified; it is substandard, would conformity be required? Mr. Bergman said the size of the unit had not been verified, but would have to be and it would be up to the Building Department to address code issues. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2003 Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. PAGE 6 • For public safety issue should the house be demolished if the access could not be widened? Mr. Bergman said such a decision would affect all of the seven properties that use Lierly Lane and they would also not be able to make similar changes nor subdivide until acceptable access is provided. • Could the applicant be required to reduce the size of the house? Mr. Bergman said this would be a Commission choice, but this is a relatively unique existing situation. • The map shows Myrtle Street going through and this is not correct. (The creek occupies the east end of the right -of -way.) • If the applicant were unable to deliver the easement would the City have to step in? • Mr. Devens, Public Works, replied that the City should be required to assist by eminent domain, but this is not usually done. Mark Vasquez, representative, gave the history explaining how the situation had evolved and stating the many unresolved issues (a conceptual neighborhood plan had not been agreed upon) and how difficult it was for the applicant. Tony Janowicz, applicant, also explained the history and the improvements they had made: driveway access with turnaround paved for safety; demolished an old shed and other structures; installed a City water main system; added a total of 10,000 sq ft landscape. Mike Titus, 404 Lierly Lane, opposed to the granting of secondary unit status and stating: • The actual square footage of 1,720 greatly exceeds the allowable maximum. • The unit has separate meters. • The secondary unit only has a 5 -foot setback. • The widening of Lierly Lane to East Cherry would require acquisition of 12 feet (possibly 6 foot on each side), which could require the destruction of two 50 foot, 50 year old trees. • He could support the conversion of the building if it were brought into conformance with the current building codes and secondary dwelling criteria. Karen Estes, 811 E. Cherry, stated that the map shows from the west property to the Janowitz garage as being 36 feet and this does not appear to be that wide. Mr. Vasquez, replied that the setback on drawing is wider than existing access (16 feet wide). He further stated that the applicant is trying to save an existing house and understands the concerns of meeting the secondary dwelling ordinance requirement. If the concern is with the access they would prefer to continue the proposal so negotiations with neighbors could be made. With regard to building code issues everything new would have to be to code and life safety issues would also be addressed. In answer to Commission questions, Mr. Bergman said: • When the General Plan rezoning takes place the sideyard setbacks for single family residential would be 5ft on one side and 10 ft on the other. 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2003 • The General Plan mentions creating a neighborhood plan before any subdivisions are allowed in this area. • The neighborhood plan in this case has concerns with regard to flooding, sewer, utilities and circulation issues in this area. Commission Comments: • No problem with the concept, like the proposed changes on the house • Problem with not being sure on the size of the second residential unit, if over 1500 sq ft it would be a real concern; cannot approve without verification of this information. • Like to see the size of the secondary house reduced. • The easement needs to be dedicated on this property. • Like to see a real attempt to get the rest of the easement at least to Cherry Avenue alignment. • This will become a non - conforming secondary unit. • Like to see the applicant consider downsizing the second unit and conform to size criteria. • If this is not safe for fire code then it is not safe for the other existing homes. • It would be nice if the neighborhood could get together to make the neighborhood safer for everyone. • Like to see consistency with easements around the City from a safety standpoint. • Like to see complete and accurate description when the project comes forward. • Concern with long term sewer and circulation issues; the burden for infrastructure needs to be shared. • If approved the secondary unit should meet the current criteria where possible: under 1200 sq ft; has to be single meter; owner should agree to tie in with the sewer when it comes to the area; 5 foot setback acceptable. • Access issue — two sprinkled buildings would be safer than it has been to date. After further discussion the Commission recommended that the item be continued to allow the applicant time to come back with an alternative plan for the design of the house taking into consideration a possible reduction in size to comply; have conditions for the meters, sewer and consider how the lot and house would comply with potential Single Family zoning. Chair Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown to continue the item to the meeting of February 17, 2004 for clarification and decision. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Guthrie, Brown, Arnold, Keen and Fowler. NOES: None ABSENT: None The Commission took a 5 minute break. PAGE 7 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2003 PAGE 8 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM III.D: RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS CASE NOS. 98 -572, 98 -573 & 01 -005; APPLICANTS — RUSS SHEPPEL & KEVIN KENNEDY; LOCATION —1299 JAMES WAY. Staff report prepared and presented by Rob Strong, Community Development Director. Mr. Strong gave an update on the proposed revocation of the Conditional Use Permits and /or modification of Conditions of Approval due to non - compliance with the Conditions of Approval. Due to a request that several tenants of the Sheppel building were waiting to testify and due to the late hour, Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Chuck Cochran, 860 Oak Park Blvd., (Sheppel building) tenant: • Has a problem with parking in the area, but it is affected by time of day and at times has had to park across the street. He is usually at work six days a week, 12 hours day. He noticed the peak problem seems to be 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. In reply to Commission questions Mr. Cochran said: • Sometimes customers and patients have to park all the way down the hill • He had reviewed the proposed parking solutions and if there were posted parking for their building with specific times it would cover his needs. • 25 parking spaces would be adequate only if employees parked elsewhere. Russ Barrett, Chief Engineer for a business at 860 Oak Park Blvd., stated that the problem was not same for him, they only have four employees and they come in to work really early, but they are sympathetic with the surgeons. If he comes in later than 8:30 a.m. there is a problem with parking; he had not seen many people from Fitness center parking in our area, but he believed the employees did; patients also try to park in the Fitness Center. 25 spaces would ease the situation temporarily. Mr. Strong then described the intent of the staff recommendations contained in the staff report stating that one key recommendation he would like addressed is that the allowance for parking reductions be revoked and that the uses be calculated on the basis of operating hours and City requirements. Russ Sheppel, property owner, handed the Commission a parking study done by him a year ago and then one done by him in the last three weeks, which shows the increase between the hours of 8:30 am — 11:00 am; the parking plan could work but would need to be monitored; 25 spaces would be acceptable with some additional employee parking; it would also work for our other building with 22 spaces if employees park elsewhere. Commission Questions: • With these proposals in place where will this situation be in 6 months? Mr. Sheppel said it depends on the health club and the scheduling. • Should there be an enforcement mechanism? Mr. Sheppel said he had discussed this with Mr. Kennedy and signage and tow away was an option and he would like this to take place immediately. 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2003 PAGE 9 • Could employee parking be elsewhere? Mr. Sheppel said they had an agreement to utilize an area for employee parking and scheduling will make this all work. Mr. Belsher, attorney, stated he thought they could come to an agreement on the parking and the details should be worked out by February 3. Using a site plan he then described the proposed parking areas that had been agreed upon. Mr. Belsher said that Mr. Sheppel would like to apply the parking signage immediately with tow away sign and scheduled parking time. Kevin Kennedy, Kennedy Club Fitness, stated they wanted to maintain good relationship with tenants in the buildings and have sympathy for doctors and patients; we need to restrip the parking lot and put up definite signs with specific hours. The real issue has been with the easements; we would like to have a flow through and would like the City to consider opening up the blocked entrance; the parking study recommends this. We are opposed to putting up gates as this blocks the flow through. Commission Brown asked where traffic will go if after an agreement takes place the membership increases? Mr. Kennedy said he thought the membership would level off and if not they would consider price increases. Commission Arnold had a concern that the health club was the problem and that other options should be considered to alleviate this problem for the future. Mr. Strong outlined the proposal: • 20 spaces in the Sheppel I vicinity, weekday office use only. • 25 spaces in the Sheppel II vicinity, weekday office use only. • 19 spaces in driveway will become an interim shared parking arrangement. • The designs for the parking should be developed and bid out by the February meeting or the occupancy and use permits will be revoked. • The driveway opening cannot be considered until the City has seen the parking study and traffic study and an agreement that the City will not be liable. • The City will monitor the parking and access situation once it is installed before it becomes permanent. • The shared parking agreement with enforcement is due prior to January 17, 2004. Chair Guthrie said he believed the enforcement of the parking would be the answer and could make the parking work. Brent Weaver, Manager Kennedy Club, agreed that they have a parking problem mainly 9 — 10:30 Monday through Friday. The tenants from the other buildings use the club also. He believed the parking could work. Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Fowler left the meeting due to not feeling well. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 2003 Chair Guthrie clarified that a parking agreement should be signed by January 17 (the Commission will reconsider at the February 3, 2004 meeting) that is a commitment to the plan and that the towing will be implemented immediately; monitoring will take place through May to make sure it is working. Chair Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to continue the reconsideration of the Conditional Use Permits to the meeting of February 3, 2004 to enable both owners to submit plans and supporting information needed to resolve interim CUP amendments. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Guthrie, Arnold, Brown and Keen. NOES: None ABSENT: Fowler NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. DISCUSSION ITEMS: The Commission agreed to cancel the meetings of January 6, and January 20, 2004. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ATTEST: Ate.. e-(, � - LY REARDON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: ROB S RONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT DIRECTOR 7 ,9 pp ,w1/4zGaF Fc y alM PAGE 10 AMES GUTHRIE, CHAIR