Loading...
PC Minutes 2002-07-16MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 2002 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chair Keen presiding; also present were Commissioner's Fowler and Guthrie. Chair Costello and Commissioner Brown were absent. Staff members in attendance were Planning Intern, Ryan Foster, Community Development Director, Rob Strong and Public Works, Associate Engineer, Rodger Olds. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None AGENDA REVIEW - No changes in the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING — PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 02 -002; APPLICANT — A.G. EDWARDS & SONS, INC. AND VIGNETO RESTAURANT; LOCATION — RANCHO PARKWAY, FIVE CITIES CENTER, PHASE II. Staff report prepared and presented by Ryan Foster. Ryan Foster described the project and informed the Commission that the ARC, at the July 1, 2002 meeting, found the signs to be consistent with the existing Planned Sign Program (PSP) and that the requested placement of all signs was consistent with the PSP definition of frontage. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. would get an additional frontage sign and the Vigneto Restaurant would get two additional frontages signs. Ryan Foster answered Commissioner Guthrie's question saying that the approved Planned Sign Program for the Five Cities Center differs from the Development Code in that it is more restrictive. Commissioner Keen questioned if the Planned Sign Program is amended for buildings 'L' & 'M' will these same amendments also apply to future new buildings in the center. Mr. Foster said if any changes were requested in the future on any new buildings an amendment to the Five Cities PSP would have to be processed. The business owners came forward to answer questions. The Planning Commission at that time they had no questions for either Vigneto Restaurant or A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. Nan Fowler commented that signs are very important to attract business, she liked the signs and that it was reasonable to have signage on three major frontages. Commissioner Guthrie had no concerns with the proposed signage stating that the signs were very reasonable considering the amount of frontage available and he could support this sign program. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 2002 Commissioner Keen agreed with Commissioner Guthrie stating that according to the calculations for the Planned Sign Program the signs could have been much larger. He asked if all the wires sticking out around the Edwards building were for light fixtures; he had noticed them when he went to view the building, but had not seen them on the drawings. Mr. Alpardo, owner, replied that these were flexes for light fixtures that would shine up to awnings around the perimeter of the building; there would also be recessed channels for lighting to shine down. Commissioner Keen had a concern that other buildings in the center may want signs on the back of their buildings facing the freeway and he would not like to see this happen. Commissioner Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to recommend that City Council approve the Planned Sign Program Case No. 02 -002 and adopt resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 02 -1843 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 02 -002, APPLIED FOR BY SIGNTECH, FOR BUILDINGS 'L' AND 'M', LOCATED IN THE FIVE CITIES CENTER The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner's Fowler, Guthrie, and Vice Chair Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner's Brown and Costello The foregoing resolution was adopted this 16th day of July 2002. PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 02 -002 & VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 02 -001; APPLICANT - ANTHONY TOSTE; LOCATION - 1060 MAPLE STREET The applicant had requested the item be continued to the meeting of August 6, 2002. Commissioner Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to continue Planned Unit Development Case No. 02 -002 & Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 02 -001 to the August 6, 2002 meeting. The motion was unanimously approved by a 3/0 voice vote. PAGE 2 NON - PUBLIC HEARING - PRE - APPLICATION CASE NO. 02 -007; APPLICANT - LAWRENCE VENTRESCA & SHARON CLARK; LOCATION - 1171 SUNSET DRIVE. Staff report prepared and presented by Ryan Foster. 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 2002 PAGE 3 Mr. Foster described the proposed project stating that currently the lot is drawn as a flag lot, but after averaging out neighboring lots it had been established that two longer narrower lots might be more appropriate. Staff has a concern with the density because of the way the current Development Code standards are calculated. Alternative ways to get the density bonus would be to dedicate one of the units as an affordable housing unit or payment of an in -lieu fee for affordable housing. In answer to Commissioner Guthrie's question Mr. Foster said the narrowest lot in the area is about 42 feet; there are several that are 52 feet and directly across the street the lots are 57 and 70 feet wide. Lawrence Ventresca & Sharon Clark, applicants, said they would like more information on the cost of the alternatives. Ryan Foster explained in more detail what is meant by density bonuses and low - income- housing. He stated that the City is in the process of re- writing the actual agreements that would be satisfactory to the City and the banks for affordable housing units. Cecila Hinds, 324 Short Street, one of the five owners of the homes, asked whether the old structure or the new structure would qualify for the low income? Commissioner Keen replied that either structure could qualify. Commissioner Guthrie said he thought it would be much wiser to split the lot lengthwise based on the narrow width of the, other lots in the neighborhood and the fact that there are no other flag Tots in the neighborhood. He stated that in this case in -lieu fees would be most applicable, but he was not sure how the fees could be assessed. Mr. Strong said that staff had discussed this issue and had concluded that in a case such as this if a density bonus is being requested the equivalent of an in -lieu fee (3% of construction value) could be asked for in addition to the 3% affordable housing fee assessed for new development; staff would like to get some guidance from the Planning Commission as to whether this would be equitable. The Commission and staff then further discussed at some length affordable housing units and how they should be assessed. Commissioner Fowler stated that she would like to see the lot divided into two narrow lots so the Oak tree could be saved and less cement would be required; an in -lieu fee would be better than a deed restriction. Commissioner Keen had a concern with flag Tots because of fire and stated a flag lot home would have to be sprinkled, shared drives can become a nuisance and the oak tree would be difficult to work around. A one -lot subdivision with a house MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 2002 already on it does not seem fair, but dividing the lot into two smaller Tots creates more affordable housing. Commissioner Guthrie said he could not support a flag lot at all as opposed to splitting the lot. Mr. Ventresca stated they would prefer to split the lot into two smaller lots and wanted the Commission to know that they have plans to revamp the existing home to make it more desirable to the neighborhood. The Commission had no other comments or concerns. DISCUSSION ITEMS - Rob Strong discussed a request from Castlerock Development for Minor Exceptions to allow an increase in square footage at 521 and 529 Sombrillo, Tract 1834. The Planning Commission had no concerns with the 50 sq. ft. increase in floor- area -ratio on the 3,000 and 4,000 sq. ft. homes. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS - None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP - Rob Strong said he had received a Draft EIR and Comment for Biddle Ranch Agricultural Cluster Subdivision project. He distributed a memo, project description and summary of Project Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts for Commission review and comment at their August 6, 2002 meeting. ADJOURNMENT -There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. on a motion by vice Chair Keen, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: n �`��ettrw LYN REARDON- SMITH, COMMISSION CLERK ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR PAGE 4 1 1 1