Loading...
PC Minutes 2003-10-071 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 Planners, Kelly Heffernon and Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW — No changes in the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The minutes of September 16, 2003 were unanimously approved as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Letter dated October 6, from M.J. Sanderson, regarding Item II.B. - Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 03 -004 and Variance Case No. 03 -004, located at 154 Pine Street. 2. Letter, dated October 6, from Bruce & Michelle Berlin, re Item II.E. — Development Code Amendment Case No. 02 -001 & Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 02 -005. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.A - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 03- 010 /STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 03 -019; APPLICANT — WAL -MART; LOCATION — 1168 W. BRANCH ST. Staff report prepared and presented by Community Development Director, Rob Strong. Mr. Strong gave an overview of the proposed project for a Planned Development revision for the Wal -Mart loading and trash enclosure modifications. After hearing public comment the Commission made the following motion: Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to recommend that the City Council approve the proposal for a Planned Development revision for the WaI -Mart loading and trash enclosure modifications. The motion was unanimously approved on a 5/0 voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS II.B - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 03 -004 & VARIANCE CASE NO. 03 -004; APPLICANT — ROBERT A. DEL CAMPO; LOCATION — 154 PINE STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. Mr. Bergman gave an overview and a power point presentation of the proposal to divide a 24,000+ square foot single - family parcel into three single - family lots. Commission Brown stated that in this instance sidewalk should be installed and asked if it could be installed adjacent to the property? Mr. Bergman replied that it could, but there would be a privacy issue for the applicant and there was a concern that this would disturb the oak trees. Commission Comments: • Not disturbing the oak trees was of primary importance. • How would installation of the flag lot driveway effect drainage? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 PAGE 2 Victor Devens, Public Works, said drainage to Soto Park is at and above capacity and it would be required to retain water on site. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Robert Del Campo, applicant, explained that only one branch of the oak tree was proposed to be removed; sidewalk in front of the property would have pedestrians walking close to his bedroom and bathroom; others in the area have not been required to install walkway; he was prepared to do what Public Works required for on site water retention; requested waiving of density bonus on the two back lots; the front house had been his family residence for 20 years asked for density bonus to be waived also; requested to complete work on drop line from main power pole to garage completed after map is recorded. Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. The Commission had further discussion and made the following motion: Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to approve the Tentative Parcel Map and Variance, amending Conditions: • No. 45 — undergrounding waived, but service lines be undergrounded. • No. 61 - onsite water retention acceptable to the Public Works Director. • Sidewalk waived due to oak tree and privacy conflicts. and adopt: RESOLUTION 03 -1903 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 03 -004 APPLIED FOR BY ROBERT A. DEL CAMP The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Fowler, Arnold and Chair Guthrie. NOES: Commissioner Brown ABSENT: None the fore • oin • resolution was ado •ted this 7 da of October 2003. CONTINUED ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.0 — DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 03 -006; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — VICINITY OF TRAFFIC WAY AND STATION WAY, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, Community Development Director, Rob Strong and Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. Ms. McClish gave an overview using a power point presentation of the proposed ordinance for the Traffic Way and Station Way area that would amend the zoning map and Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Title 16, Chapters 16.08 and 16.36 to rezone a portion of the Highway Commercial, General Commercial and Village Mixed -Use Districts to Traffic Way Mixed -Use, including requirements affecting auto - related and visitor serving uses and shared parking locations. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 PAGE 3 Ms. McClish stated that this was a continued discussion from September 16, 2003. On October 6, the ARC had again reviewed the zoning proposal and continued the Village Guidelines and Standards to a special meeting of October 20. On the zoning proposal the ARC recommended one change - equipment rental - it was proposed that it would be allowable through the CUP process and to allow for public review. The ARC also recommended that the building height be limited to 30 feet or 3 stories. Up to 36' would be allowed by CUP for Visitor Serving uses. Commissioner Arnold asked if there were any restrictions as to where the live /work arrangements would be located? Ms. McClish replied that there was nothing in the proposal that restricts the placement of the residential component of the live /work. This would be a CUP requirement and decided on case -by -case basis. Commissioner Brown asked if more flexibility to the language could be added for the Mixed - Use zoning relating to the buffering between different uses. Ms. McClish replied that the interface between commercial and residential uses was addressed in three different places and had previously been dealt with when the Design Standards for the Village Mixed -Use districts was addressed and there are specific standards for automobile uses for the Traffic Way area. Ms. McClish said some language could be added in Exhibit A2 relating to this. Commissioner Brown also asked that language be added to allow greater heights in the Visitor Serving area to allow for the possibility of a hotel? Ms. McClish replied that a height greater than 36' could be provided through a CUP. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Four residents spoke and a petition submitted which had been signed by an additional 19 neighbors regarding the proposed re- zoning for Traffic Way Mixed -Use. The neighbors expressed their concerns with the increased traffic and requested that Allen Street be closed at the property line between 115 & 121 Allen Street. The four residents were: 1. Ellen Gayer, 121 Allen Street. 2. Rachel Salerno, 331 Short Street. 3. David Hamilton, 211 Allen Street. 4. Fred Bauer, 212 Short Street. Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Brown: • Buffers between the different uses — he would like to see some flexibility in the language. • Closure of Allen Street further down so the businesses could still have access. • Visitor Services district - like to see greater heights. Commissioner Fowler: • Allen Street closure should be considered. • Most of the conditions are fine and the mixed use is good. • Is the issue of naming an auto - related area being rushed, will this not eventually become part of the historic Village and should we be drafting the guidelines this way. • Allowing over 36' heights should be left as a Variance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 • Buffer areas: Agreed with Commissioner Brown that language could be changed to state "or more" to give flexibility. Ms. McClish stated staff could bring forward interface language for addition to section A2 and it would be forthcoming separate from Traffic Way mixed -use proposal. Commissioner Arnold: • Changing to mixed -use was for the commercial zones and the properties on Allen Street were residential non - conforming. The change to Mixed -Use allows for more flexibility. • He agreed with Ms. Fowler that he also had some concern with the auto theme on Traffic Way and whether it was appropriate for this area. • The new sign recently approved for Mullahey Ford was very modern. • He had concern for exceeding the 36' height. Commissioner Brown relating to the comments from Commissioner Fowler and Arnold stated the City has done nothing to restrict what auto - related businesses are allowed to do and maybe we are putting together a whole district that is not suitable for the area. Commissioner keen: • He agreed with having more flexibility in the buffer language. • Equipment rental: there are rental businesses that just have light equipment and wondered if this should require a CUP. • He would not like to exceed the 36' building height. • Auto dealerships are well established in the area and he would expect the area to remain this way. Commissioner Guthrie: • Agreed that 36" height/3 stories should not be exceeded. • Specific criteria should be established for the interface between auto - related uses and residential; Attachment 5, as it reads now, would not be adequate and should be expanded to protect the neighborhood and that auto - related businesses can relate to. • More flexible language for buffer zones should be allowed for Mixed -Use zones. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to recommend that the City Council adopt Development Code Amendment 03 -006, regarding rezoning a portion of the Highway Commercial, General Commercial and Village Mixed -Use Districts to Traffic Way Mixed -Use and adopting Traffic Way Mixed -Use district land use regulation and adopt: RESOLUTION 03 -1904 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING AT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 03 -006 REZONING A PORTION OF THE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND VILLAGE MIXED -USE DISTRICTS TO TRAFFIC WAY MIXED -USE The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: PAGE 4 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Keen, Arnold, Brown, Fowler and Chair Guthrie None None PAGE 5 the forego ng resolution was adopted this 7 day of October, 2003 Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to recommend that consideration of the revision of the Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay D- 2.11 for the vicinity of Traffic Way and Station Way be continued to the meeting of December 2, 2003. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Keen, Arnold, Brown, Fowler and Chair Guthrie None None CONTINUED ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II. D — VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 02 -002, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 02 -002, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 02 -001 & SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 02- 001; APPLICANT — DON McHANEY; LOCATION — NORTH SIDE OF FARROLL AVE BETWEEN OAK PARK BLVD AND GOLDEN WEST PLACE. Staff report prepared and presented by Kelly Heffernon. Ms. Heffernon gave an update on the proposal for a subdivision of a 10.3 -acre site. She described the changes that the applicant had made since the last submittal to the Planning Commission (September 2, 2003): reduced the project from 73 to 66 residential lots and included a 0.9 -acre park/ponding basin adjoining Soto Sports Complex; another plan type has been introduced, Plan "D ", a larger two -story design; Plan "C" has been altered to show the carports enclosed as two -car garages. Other changes included enlarging two lots and widening all "C" lots to provide more open space and added guest parking spaces along the private drive; an updated traffic study has also been submitted. Finally Ms. Heffernon explained that because the subject property is one of the few remaining large undeveloped parcels in Drainage Zone A, staff requested that the retention basin be oversized to accommodate additional runoff; the retention basin shown on the plans car accommodate approximately triple the amount of storage capacity than the project requires, but would result in the loss of seven lots. The applicant is willing to dedicate the property to the City to own and maintain, but requests that as a concession for this added public benefit the City allow ten affordable units rather than the full 25% of the project. An alternative is to downsize the basin to the project requirement only and provide the required number of affordable units on -site. Staff favors the larger basin and preservation of all seventeen affordable units. In answer to Commission questions Mr. Strong gave a detailed explanation of the history and the capacity of the existing drainage basin and future expectations with the installation of a larger retention basin. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 PAGE 6 John Mack, Architect, gave a power point presentation and an extensive overview of the project now entitled "Parkside Village" and described the revisions to the proposal since the last submittal. He also described the options for the retention basin. He requested: • They be reimbursed for the new water line that the City was requiring them to install. • They would like to have the 32 -foot wide streets. • They would like the City maintain the park and retention basin. In conclusion, he stated that if they exercised Option B for the pedestrian path to Soto Complex they would be able to increase the capacity of the retention basin by 20 %. In answer to a question from Commissioner Arnold, Mr. Mack said they were intending to build out the park, but were requesting the City to maintain the public park and the retention basin. In answer to a question from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Mack stated if they were not required to install the retention basin they could increase the project by six units (more affordable units). Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Wayne Peterson, 1382 Dixson Street, stated that he did not think the lots were compatible with the existing lots on Dixson Street (they were smaller). Pete Gallagher, 1375 Dixson Street, had concern that: • The lot sizes were not compatible with the existing lots on Dixson Street. • Homes that share a common drive are flag Tots and neighbors would have to be very cooperative for this to be successful. • Putting homes against the backside of Soto Sports Complex ball field could be a problem with lights and noise and the solution of a retention basin would be a win for the City. • He liked Option B for water retention. • 32 -foot road widths are small, but this may be offset by deeper lots and wider frontage. • Water retention basins could present health concerns with West Nile virus (he referred to pigeons and mosquito larvae. • He would like to see a smaller number of homes fronting Dixson due to traffic. Paul Usavage, 1374 Dixson Street, also had concerns with the size of the lots fronting Dixson and the consistency for the neighborhood. Mr. Mack commented that the lots off Dixson Street are 6000 square feet and everyone on Dixson Street can now enter from their own driveway (there are no longer shared driveways). Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Brown; • Concern that 6000 square foot Tots are now considered the norm, and even considered large, and he would like to see transition areas with lots more consistent to existing. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 PAGE 7 • He thought it unfair the developer is required to make up for lack of retention in the past and unreasonable for them to have them provide retention for future development, but there is a clear need for the retention. • There has been a huge density allowed on this project and he could only agree to compr from 15 to 17 affordable units. • He could live with either option A or B for pedestrian access and retention basin location. • He could not agree to street width less than 40 feet and not change any treatments such as sidewalk. • The park is an important addition for this very dense project as a place for small children to play. Commissioner Fowler: • Concern with loss of affordable housing; could the retention basin (Option B), provide a park and allow more affordable housing or provide more affordable housing elsewhere? • Has no problem with size of Dixson Street lots; this is a cul -de -sac and no one is going to drive through. Commissioner Arnold: • The ntilmber of lots on the Dixson Street side does make a true transition. • Prefer Option B for the park, more affordable, more workable. • Like to see access from Dixson Street over to the park. • The City should take care of the park, especially as it backs up to the Soto Park. • Agree that the open space calcs. sound nice, but cannot agree to this without the park being included. • Could not agree to less than 17 affordable units. • The City should not pay anything for the retention basin. Commissioner Keen stated he preferred Option B and thought this plan a lot better than the previous. He then addressed Ms. Heffernon with the following comments on the staff report and cond'tions of approval: • Page 5, #10, asked for clarification on the development code as it pertains to multi family and PUD requirements. Ms. Heffernon clarified that this was a general condition of approval and that the PUD requirement related onlyy to the density. • Hours of construction conflict on different pages of the report. Ms. Heffernon replied that it would be changed to be consistent. • #11, referring to the Development Code he did not think this was an infill project and therefore flag Tots were not appropriate. Mr. Strong clarified that this was a Planned Development district and therefore deviations are allowed. • #15, referring to the CC &R's for common areas, stated that his understanding of the Development Code (5.j.) says that the project has to maintain the park. Mr. Strong replied that the developers are saying that the ponding basin and the park will be used by others in addition to the residents and are asking the City to accept it, but the City is saying that as an alternative minimum we want the maintenance district that exists to the west on Dixson Street expanded so some contribution for maintenance could come from those areas and this project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 PAGE 8 Dan Hernandez, Parks and Recreation, with reference to maintenance district, stated that current staff had about 95 developed park acres with only six maintenance persons and the City is not in a position to adequately maintain an additional park at this time. Commissioner Keen continued: • Quoted additional sections where the Development Code states either the developer or the homeowners should take care of the park. • #18, 25% affordable, agree that it should be 17. • #28, agree that all the family PUD units should be fitted with fire sprinklers, and like to add to the condition that all flag lots should be sprinkled also. • #39, needs to be clarified - relates to Public Works and the landscaping and who should take care of it. • #45b., in -lieu fees on low- income housing should be waived - counterproductive. • #49 should be left in (loop for the water main). • Page 20: Commission Brown stated he would like to have a condition added that the design and layout of the pocket park would be subject to approval by Parks and Recreation. Mr. Hernandez stated reasons why City staff recommended Option A for the trail easement: • It is wider. • The purpose of the easement is for access to the Elm Street neighborhood park. • Option A is shorter and is more visible. • Option B would require the removal of a few of the healthy trees on the hillside and maybe a retention wall. Commissioner Keen continued: • Plan 'C' - it appears that there is not enough room to park in front of the garage without hanging over the sidewalk. • Plan 'D', sidewalk setbacks, referring to the Development Code, less than 5 -foot set backs not allowed - does not like to see buildings this close. Mr. Mack explained that he was going to do one with zero lot line on one side and 5 foot on the other. Building recommended 3 feet on either side. Commissioner Guthrie referring to the connection to Elm Street Park: • Alternative B is every bit as valuable as alternative A, in that it is also a pedestrian connection from the neighborhood to the commercial area. • If the easement that connects Dixson Street to Bakeman Lane north were included who would maintain that? Mr. Hernandez replied that it could probably be incorporated into the lighting and landscaping district currently in effect for that area. Chair Guthrie: • How could a HOA be responsible for the retention basin when the general public would be using this? Mr. Hernandez gave an example of another open space in the City which was maintained by HOA. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 Chair Guthrie: • According to the traffic report stacking on Dixson Street would not be a problem. • Size of the lots on Dixson Street although they are smaller should transition. • This is a valuable place for a ponding basin, especially given Option B and this could be fine tuned to allow a couple of other units to be developed. • Did not think the affordable housing units should be reduced in order to build the retention basin - unless the affordable units Toss could be made up in some way. Commissioner Keen, referring to Option B, stated if the basin is reduced and there are more Tots he would prefer to see them the houses on the other side and not between the park and open space. There was further discussion on the basin with Commissioner Keen stating that he would like to see something that could be used as open space or as a park. Commissioner Guthrie addressed the main issues agreed upon. • 17 affordable units should be required. • The City should require a maintenance district for the park. • Option B would be the recommendation of the Commission. • The road width should be 40 feet (could give up the parkway). • Commissioner Keen would like to see his comments on the conditions of approval addressed in writing. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to continue review of the project to the meeting of October 21, 2003. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT Commissioners Keen, Arnold, Brown and Fowler Chair Guthrie None PAGE 9 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.E — DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 02 -001 & VESTING TENTATIVE TRACE MAP CASE NO. 02 -005; APPLICANT — DON McHANEY; LOCATION — GRACE LANE; ROYAL OAKS PLANNED DEVELOPMENTMENT; LOT 182 AND PORTION OF LOT B, TRACT 1390. Staff report prepared and presented by Kelly Heffernon. Ms. Heffernon using a power point presentation described the proposal to subdivide a 29.46 -ac rle property into fifteen (15) residential lots; designate a 15.95 -acre area as perpetual open space and development of four (4) moderate - income family residences on a 1.28 -acre site adjacent to the open space parcel. In conclusion Ms. Heffernon stated that staff is recommending that the Commission adopt the resolution recommending to the City Council that they approve the Development Code Amendment and Tentative Tract Map. After staff answered Commission questions Victor Devens, Public Works addressed the issue of drainage stating they will be requiring that the applicant's engineer submit a very comprehensive plan for their review that will show exactly how they plan on dealing with all the storm water issues. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. PAGE 10 Commissioner Arnold asked if the applicant was planning on building the four affordable units? Ms. Heffernon says that is the intent. Craig Smith, representative and architect, addressed some of the issues: • They had designed an affordable housing component of four units on Parcel 'C' and they had met with staff and members of Grace Church who were very interested in that location and they had talked of replicating a similar set of four units on their overflow parking. • Conditions of approval: #84 and the request for a slope stability analysis, lots 11 & 12 and on the north side should be addressed, but on the south side that is a natural terrain and he did not think it would be necessary and should be left to the discretion of a soils engineer. #86, and the request for a 6 -foot wide bench behind that area; he did not think this could be accommodated without disturbing the area, and suggested this also be decided by a soils engineer. Victor Devens, explained that there was a concern with slope stability issues and the intent was not to grade the slope and that the language would be clarified with regard to the bench. Commissioner Brown asked if this project was achievable with the problem of soil stability. Mr. Smith replied that it should be achievable and that the soils report would be updated. Commissioner Guthrie asked if the affordable houses would be rentals? Greg Nester, Developer, answered that the affordable homes were single - family homes and that in this area they would prefer to be paying the in -lieu fee. Don Mckuser, 429 Emerald Bay: • A few years ago he was told that 14 lots were acceptable at this site, but now we have 15 lots plus four affordable homes. • He had concerns with traffic and the density in the area. James Cutshaw, 409 Avenida De Diamanta: • Concerns with traffic - if Grace Lane is a through street this will become a freeway. • Additional homes will bring many more people, cars, dogs and noise. • Will bring much grief to homeowners on my street and on Rodeo Drive. Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Keen: • Grace Lane was always intended to be an access road from James Way to West Branch, and this is one of the reasons this has taken so long to get started. • Condition #9, consistency of construction hours. • Condition #58 lift station demolition — what happens to land. Victor Devens replied that it would remain an easement as there are two City manholes. • Condition #71 should be clarified to reflect the plan, sidewalk not required on both sides. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 PAGE 11 Commissioner Arnold: • He thought this was a very appropriate use of land. • He would like to see it spelled out that the affordable units be built, but he was not sure if it was an appropriate area for them. • He would like to see the number of speed bumps that would be put in to slow down the traffic. • Are the proposed building pads on the plans set. Ms. Heffernon said they are not allowed to build outside the envelopes shown. Commissioner Brown: • He had concerns with the drainage and soils issue - he would like to see a report before approval. • He liked the idea of the affordable lots being built concurrently. • Grace Lane would be an improvement in the area. Commissioner Guthrie: • Concern that the affordable houses will be built. • Concern also with drainage. • He had no problem with the project going forward with the changes suggested by staff. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to recommend that the City Council approve Development Code Amendment Case No. 02 -001 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 02 -005 and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 03 -1905 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 02 -001 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 02 -005 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE ROYAL OAKS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DESCRIBED AS LOT 182 AND A PORTION OF LOT B OF TRACT 1390, APPLIED FOR BY DON McHANEY The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT Commissioners Keen, Arnold, Brown, Fowler and Chair Guthrie None None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 7 day of October 2003. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.F — AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) CASE NO. 03 -003 & DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) CASE NO. 3 -005; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. Staff report prepared and presented by Teresa McClish and Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. Consideration of GPA Case No. 03 -003 Resolution to create an Agricultural Conservation Easement Program and an Agricultural Enterprise Program; DCA Case No. 03 -005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 ordinance to amend Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, Section 16.20, 16.24 and 16.28, creating an Agricultural Buffer Overlay District, establishing expanded findings for rezoning and subdivision applications, modifying allowable uses and standards in agricultural districts and establishing specific mitigation requirements for conversion of agricultural zoned land. Staff recommended continuation to November 4, 2003. Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown to continue the Agricultural Conservation GPA Case No. 03 -003 & DCA Case No. 03 -005 to the meeting of November 4, 2003. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Fowler, Keen and Chair Guthrie. NOES: None ABSENT: None NON- PUBLIC HEARING ITEM III.A — PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 03 -012; APPLICANT — LORENE NEFF; LOCATION — 509 BENNETT STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner — Jim Bergman. The Commission reviewed a proposed lot line adjustment to better utilize underlying antiquated parcels. Due to the late hour Chair Guthrie requested this item be continued to the meeting of October 21, 2003. The Commission agreed to the continuance on a 5/0 voice vote. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS - None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: 1. Reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Nos. 98 -572 and 98 -573. PAGE 12 Mr. Strong referred to his letter of October 3, 2003 (copy submitted for Planning Commission consideration) addressed to Mr. Russ Sheppel and Mr. Kevin Kennedy, which provided a deadline of October 24, 2003 to resolve the shared parking agreement required by the respective Conditional Use Permits. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to recommend re- consideration of both Conditional Use Permits at the Public Hearing on November 18, 2003, unless the agreement is submitted to the City prior to October 24, 2003. The motion was approved on a 5/0 voice vote. ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Arnold, seconded by Commissioner Brown and unanimously passed on a 5/0 voice vote. 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2003 ATTEST: L N REARDON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION TO C c NTENT: 40 • bAtallaiiMiLk ROB STRO ,\ COMMUNITY DEVELOPME T DIRECTOR MES AGE1 UTHRIE, CHAIR