Loading...
PC Minutes 2003-09-161 1 1 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING — PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 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, Ryan Foster, Planning Intern, Kristin Krasnove and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW - The Commission agreed to move non - public hearing Item III.A. to be heard first. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The minutes of May 7, July 29, August 5 and August 19, 2003 were unanimously approved as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Letter from Dave and Karen Ritchie dated September 11, 2003, re: Item II.C. — Agricultural Conservation. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM III.A - TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 03 -005; APPLICANT — MARGARET & BRUCE SUMMERS; LOCATION — 1570 NEWPORT AVENUE Staff report prepared and presented by Planning Intern, Kristin Krasnove. (This was her finale prior to returning to Cal Poly.) Ms. Krasnove stated this is the third and final one -year time extension to subdivide an existing residential parcel. In reply to questions from the Commission Ms. Krasnove said no changes were being requested. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to approve Time Extension Case No. 03 -005, and adopt: RESOLUTION 03 -1901 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE -YEAR TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 03 -005 FOR VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 99 -002 LOCATED AT 1470 NEWPORT AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY BRUCE AND MARGARET SUMMERS The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Arnold, Brown, Fowler and Chair Guthrie. NOES: None ABSENT: None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 The Commission thanked Ms. Krasnove for the work she had completed during her time with the Community Development Department and wished her all the best in her future endeavors. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS II.A - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 03 -005 & VARIANCE CASE NO. 03 -005; APPLICANT — SANDRA HOGAN; LOCATION — 1254 POPLAR STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon. Ms. Heffernon stated that this was a proposal to consider re- approval of an expired Parcel Map consistent with the original Conditions of Approval. Ms. Heffernon described the proposal and stated that Parcel 1 would consist of the single - family residence and detached garage and would front Poplar Street and Parcel 2 would be a flag lot behind Parcel 1 containing the duplex. In reply to questions from the Commission Ms. Heffernon stated that there have been no changes to the original proposal and gave an explanation of the setbacks. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Terry Paine, representative, gave further explanation of the lot size calculations. Chair Guthrie closed the public hearing. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to approve the Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 03 -005 and Variance Case No. 03 -005, and adopt: RESOLUTION 03 -1902 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 03 -005 AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 03 -005 LOCATED AT 1254 POPLAR STREET APPLIED FOR BY SANDRA HOGAN The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Fowler, Arnold, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None PAGE 2 the foregoing resolution was ado•ted this 16 day of September, 2003. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.B - 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. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 PAGE 3 Ms. McClish gave a power point presentation describing the proposed Development Code Amendment and the current zoning. She explained that the proposed ordinance for the T rlaffic Way and Station Way area would amend the zoning map and Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Title 16, Chapters 16.08 and 16.36, rezone a portion of the Highway Commercial, General Commercial and Village Mixed -Use Districts to Traffic Way Mixed -Use, amend Design Overlay District D -2.11 to revise Design Guidelines and Standards for the Traffic Way area, including requirements affecting auto - related and visitor serIving uses and shared parking locations, and establish new Design Guidelines and Standards for proposed Design Overlay District D -2.2. Finally Ms. McClish stated that the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) had reviewed the proposal on September 8, 2003 and recommend approving the zoning revisions. Several concepts were discussed to augment the proposed Design Guidelines and Standards for Traffic Way and Station Way areas and that discussion was continued to the ARC meeting of October 6, 2003. Commission Brown concerns: • Traffic Way Mixed Use district on the interior of a block, would not change the neighborhood, but that there was at least one lot (presently a residence) that was not on the interior. • Th there were too many potential districts and overlays. In reply, Ms. McClish explained that the lot fronting Allen Street did not break up the VMU and that it is part of the Christensen Chevrolet ownership; currently Design Overlay D -2.11 covers Traffic Way and Station Way and could continue like this, but that staff is proposing the separate overlay to distinguish auto related sales and service, visitor serving uses and shared parking locations. Commissioner Keen: • Would like to consider this after the ARC has given their input on October 6. • Concern that these are now Standards not Guidelines. • He found Chart Al confusing. In reply, Ms. McClish stated that a CUP is required foi new building, but not where there is a change use. Chair Guthrie: • Had a concern with the proposed building height in the TMU district. He suggested that it be 30 feet max, with a note that 36 -feet be accommodated by Minor Use Permit. Mr. Strong agreed that the potential for 3 stories is evident. • He saw nothing to deal with interface between auto dealerships and residences in the Design Guidelines. Mr. Strong explained that that this addressed case -by case (CUP) and by Specific Use Standards. • Why was Agricultural Processing allowed, but not a winery? Mr. Strong suggested this could be added, particularly in the visitor serving area. • Why did small retail require a CUP, but large retail only require Minor Use Permit (MUP)? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 PAGE 4 • What was the difference between Social Services and a Social club? This should be clarified. • Equestrian facility? Where would be this be permitted? • Noted a typo under Catering says 'CU', should be CUP. • Would there be a set of findings for visitor serving uses as there is for the auto related services? Mr. Strong explained that staff was attempting to accommodate existing auto sales and expansion areas adjoining Fair Oaks and Traffic Way. The intent is to give preference or priority, not preclude other use proposals. The same concept is applicable to visitor services that need freeway accessible facilities. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Cindy Hansen, Huasna area, stated a concern that the historical period of 1920 through1960's was too broad an era and would produce too much variety and would like to see this less broad scoped. Marie Cattoir, owner of property at 401 Traffic Way, stated: • They had beautified their property. • She did not think Allen Street should be closed, as this would affect the business. • If you buy next to a business you should recognize that the business involves non - residential activity. • The City should not be too ambitious about altering the street as you could put everyone out of business. It is nice to upgrade, but need to do so within the confines. The new standard state "minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet" and that would mean we would make many Tots non - conforming. Commission Brown complemented Ms. Cattoir on beautification of the gas station and asked how closing off Allen Street would affect the business? Ms. Cattouir said access on both streets is needed to make the business functional. Mr. Strong clarified that this was only an idea presented during the workshop and they had considered other ideas such as controlled closure, but this would be done with full hearings through the Traffic Commission. Barbara Smith, corner Short Street and Poole Street, expressed concern with commercial employee parking and not being able to access her residence. Bob Christianson, business owner, stated he had purchased his properties many years ago, the properties at 106 Allen and 115 Allen were Commercial and he had not thought there would be a problem with using these when the time came. He did not have a concern with the street being closed. He questioned the historic era of 1920 - 1960 as to how this would fit with the existing businesses. He concluded by stating that they needed to expand their business. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 PAGE 5 Otis Page, 606 Miller Street, stated he believed there was a conflict of interest with Commissioner Brown living on Allen Street and would like the City to check on this. Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Fowler: • Asked whose idea it was to have the 1920- 1950's era? Mr. Strong explained that it Cal Poly's class idea. • That the Guidelines and Standards were very restrictive on buildings. • That there are too many distinctions - she was not ready to make a recommendation. Commissioner Brown: • He would like to hear from ARC before he could make a recommendation • He did not see a hurry to adopt a portion of this and would prefer to do all at one time and simplify the process. • He thought it could cause confusion to have too many overlay districts. Commissioner Keen: • Many meetings, workshops and hearings have all been directing us to review this and now we are asking staff to make another layer. • He would like to see the Guidelines and Standards again after the revisit to the ARC, but he was ready to pass the resolution. Commissioner Arnold: • He had a concern with the second overlay for Station Way, that it might make more sense not to have an overlay and that it needed to be looked at further. Commissioner Guthrie: • H e would like to see the language for '36 feet/ 3 - story rule reviewed. • A MUP for a gas station, too many environmental concerns, should be CUP • Would like to see smaller retailers changed to MUP. • Social Services — needs explanation. • Visitor Services - need set of findings similar to auto related. • Design Guidelines — too many overlay districts. • Need added criteria from ARC re auto interface between auto and residential. Commissioner Keen: • Not in favor of height for motel not appropriate for rest of the area — all single story on Traffic Way should be left the way it is and to ask for exception. Mr. Strong said they could make a 30 -foot development standard except for 36 feet for Visitor Use by Minor Use Permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 The Commission unanimously agreed that this item be continued to the meeting of October 7, 2003. The Commission took a 10- minute break. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II. C - AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION, STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 03 -004; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. Staff report prepared and presented by Teresa McClish and Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. Ms. McClish gave an update stating that on August 26, City Council considered a draft resolution for the first series of actions based on Commission recommendations of August 19, from the Report on the Conservation of Agricultural Resources in the City, but no action was taken. The Council continued its public hearing to September 23, 2003 and requested that staff review alternatives with the Planning Commission prior to the continued hearing. Ms. McClish then gave the highlights of the report explaining that all the related policies had been specifically outlined. Commissioner Brown asked why the City Council did not just modify the Commission's recommendation and modify it to their liking? Ms. McClish said the Council is looking for further discussion and any distinction on the four properties proposed to be redesignagted. Mr. Strong added that State law says when Council wants to make a substantial change to Planning Commission decision they should refer it back to them for additional opportunity to comment. Commissioner Guthrie asked what the zoning of the Japanese Welfare Society property was before the 1991 General Plan? Mr. Strong said it was rezoned and reclassified to Agriculture in 1991 and before that it was Residential - Agriculture. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. PAGE 6 Ed Dorfman, property owner Cherry Avenue: • The property is infill and has strong neighborhood support for residential development of the property and is smart growth. • Cherry Avenue would be upgraded to a safer street with sidewalks and parking on both sides. • Japanese Welfare Society property could be developed and the funds could jumpstart the recreational building the City has been talking about for a long time. • Putting buffer zones on homes around the Agriculture zone will not solve anything. • Development would eliminate pesticide use near residential use. • Development of the Traffic Way frontage into potential lodging facilities would provide direct and indirect revenue to City. 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 PAGE 7 • Monetary contributions would help solve the drainage problems from Newson Springs. • Development of the property would result in additional opportunity for people to get a house. • The only negative impact would be loss of agricultural land, but with this small pa rcel it will not have much effect on the national production of food. Otis Page, 606 Miller Street: • The Planning Commission has been lightly regarded by City Council in the past, but is now being listened to. The decision to be made tonight is a very serious one. • Should mixed use (Dorfman property) be allowed when it means the conversion from Agriculture (this violates the principal of Agricultural preservation). When it, states "a percentage of mixed use ", what percentage should it be? • The Vanderveen property has not been farmed, cannot be farmed, and one house per acre would not harm the City. Chuck Fellows, 202 Canyon Way: • Re the four parcels being considered: the simplest thing to do would be to c hange the designation of three of the parcels back to Ag (and let the property owners request a change). The Japanese Welfare Society property should not be changed because it is quite different. Steve Ross 211, Garden Street, not in support of the Japanese Welfare property being changed back to Agriculture. All four properties should be considered independently, but if the Dorfman property is considered Agriculture then the Japanese Welfare property should be also. Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. In reply to questions from Chair Guthrie Mr. Strong replied: • Japanese Welfare Society's property could be developed even with the buffer included, but the buffer would probably not be effective separation between agriculture and residential. Commissioner Arnold stated he did not agree with Mr. Page that there cannot be an Ag and housing component, although it would require some creative solution and he could not at this time give a percentage for the mixed use. Commissioner Fowler had reconsidered and compared all four parcels and two of the parcels have not been farmed in years, are surrounded by houses including the Vanderveen property. The Dorfman property is widowed and perfect infill. She stated that she believed the General Plan should not be amended.. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 PAGE 8 Commissioner Brown: • Saw no new information to make him change his mind. • It would not be equitable to treat the Japanese Welfare Society parcel differently, and is not a legitimate argument to say it cannot be farmed. • Parcels need to be consistent with GP and zoned Ag • All the properties should start at same point. Applicants can then file and make their case for conversion and they will probably succeed. • His greatest concern is that the property owners will not have to provide adequate mitigation for loss of prime agricultural soils. • Redesignation of the properties to Agriculture does not preclude the ability to convert. • Like to reaffirm his previous vote. Commissioner Guthrie: • Did not hear anything to convince him that conversion of these properties was not inconsistent with the existing General Plan. • There is the possibility that there was a mistake made when the Japanese Welfare Society's property and prior Residential zoning was converted. • He has serious reservations about the Mixed -Use designation here. It would be better to go thru the entire planning process for all of the Agricultural parcels as it was not clearly defined and we need to have owners come forward for full hearings on these parcels as this would result in a much better process for the future. • He could not change the recommended Agriculture on any of the properties except maybe the Japanese Welfare Society property. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to recommend to the City Council that they make no changes to the General Plan and modify the Development Code to zone the four parcels accordingly. The motion failed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen and Fowler NOES: Brown, Fowler, Arnold, Keen and Chair Guthrie ABSENT: None Commissioner Brown made a motion that the Commission reaffirm Resolution 03 -1899 as previously recommended by a 3/2 vote. Further discussion required Commission Brown to amend his motion. O Commissioner Brown made a motion seconded by Commissioner Arnold, that after much deliberation and discussion they recommend to City Council that the designation in the General Plan be changed back to Agriculture and the other issues in the previous resolution be adopted also (including deletion of LU5 -13 and modification of Ag 1 -4.2). The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brown, Arnold and Chair Guthrie Commissioners Fowler and Keen None PAGE 9 NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM III.B - AMENDMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS FOR THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. Staff report prepared and presented by Community Development Director, Rob Strong. Mr. Strong said the primary reason for considering amendment to the bylaws was to convene at 6:00 p.m. for the meetings and consider selection procedure for Chair and Vice Chair: Commission decisions: • They agreed to the 6:00 p.m. meeting time. • They agreed to selection of officers to remain the same. • F.6: language changed to reflect the present system of voting. • q.a: clarify that "Secretary to the Commission" be used on all Commission documents in place of "Commission Clerk ". Commissioner Fowler made a motion, seconded by Commissioner to Brown, to change the convening of meetings from 7:00 p.m. to 6 :00 p.m. The motion was unanimously approved on a 5/0 voice vote. Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to eliminate the "Commission Clerk" language and replace with "Secretary to the Commission ". The motion was unanimously approved on a 5/0 voice vote. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to change the language on F.6 to reflect the present system of voting. The motion was unanimously approved on a 5/0 voice vote. DISCUSSION ITEMS - DRAFT 2003 -4 ANNUAL REPORT - Report prepared by Community Development Director, Rob Strong. The Commission said they thought the report was eloquent and concise and they had no further comment. Mr. Strong said this would now go forward to the State by October 1, 2003, as required by State law. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS - Mr. Strong gave an update on Philly's restaurant stating that most conditions required by the Commission had been accomplished except for the sidewalk and if this is not complied within the 60 days the permit could be revoked if they do not complete the work. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 In reply to further questions from the Commission Mr. Strong said: • The appeal on the Mobil station on Grand Avenue was settled by a meeting of all parties involved. • The Elm Street Viewshed Review was being appealed. Commissioner Arnold asked that he be informed when this goes before the Council. • Phil Zeidman's latest plans were rejected by staff and we have asked that alternative design plans be submitted. • The Housing Element will be reviewed at the October 21 meeting of the Commission. • Gave an update on the EIR for the former Tract 1998 and the Creekside EIR. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP — None ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and unanimously passed on a 5/0 voice vote. ATTEST: 1 LYN'REARDON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION J% AO% R • STR • AS TO dONTE COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT DIRECTOR PAGE 10 AMES GUTHRIE, CHAIR 1 1 1