Loading...
PC Minutes 2002-06-181 1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Costello presiding. Present were Commissioners, Brown, Fowler, Guthrie, and Keen. Also in attendance were staff members Associate Planner Teresa McClish, Planning Interns Ryan Foster and Ryan Hostetter, Community Development Director Rob Strong and Public Works Assistant City Engineer, Mike Linn. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes for the Special Meeting of June 4, 2002 were unanimously approved as written with a 5/0 voice vote. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - One letter pertaining to public hearing item 1C and two letters handed in from the public for the Commission to review. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM — VARIANCE CASE NO. 02 -002; APPLICANT — MARY E MYERS; LOCATION - PASEO STREET. Staff report prepared by Kelly Heffernon. Rob Strong presented the staff report describing the lot and explaining that the proposed home would conform to the lot coverage and setback requirements with the exception of the street side yard for which an exception has been requested. There is also a request for a sidewalk exception. Further, a letter from Mr. Vanderveen has been received regarding his concerns about the commitments he has made to comply with Army Corps of Engineers to protect the riparian area, and he would like to be sure the applicant also has to comply with the Army Corps of Engineers to help protect the creek; an additional condition of approval has been added so that the applicant can comply with this requirement. Commissioner Brown questioned the setback requirements from the previous zoning districts in the staff report versus lot coverage requirements from current zoning and asked what was the reasoning behind requesting the five -foot variance? Rob Strong replied that the abnormal lot width, it being a corner lot, and the steep slopes. It is possible to reduce the width of the house in order to comply with the set standards. Commissioner Fowler asked if one of the reasons behind the lot being narrow because the owner had to dedicate part of the street to the city for fire access and would it make the erosion problem worse if the ten -foot set back is required and they have to cut more land? Mr. Strong replied that Paseo Street is an old railroad access way, and the alignment of the street is mainly due to the topography so the MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002 PAGE 2 effective lot area is less then the legal lot area. The front yard setback has been calculated from the legal right of way and it meets the front yard requirement from the right of way, but not the street side yard setback. It would require an alteration to the design, but it should not increase the amount of grading and it would move the retaining wall. Commissioner Guthrie asked: • Is a sidewalk required on a public road? ■ Does the applicant need an exception for the sidewalk along railroad alley or the private road? • How will the sidewalk end into the private alley? Will it just end or taper? ■ The lot above this lot is almost an exact copy, and did they require a variance on their property also? • Was this neighborhood converted to a lower zoning designation and is that why we have 5,000 square foot lots in 10,000 square foot zoning districts? Rob Strong replied: • The side yard along Paseo from May down to the old railroad is a public street right of way so normally we would ask for curb, gutter and sidewalk which is what exists along May Street and Paseo Street. The applicant is going to taper their curb and gutter into the private more narrow lane, and they are requesting the sidewalk be waived in the public right of way. • If we did not grant the sidewalk waiver along Paseo we would need to look at whether sidewalks should continue around to the driveway or some transition point. However, sidewalks are not required on private drives, but can be determined to be appropriate. Mr. Vanderveen is also concerned with access of construction vehicles. We are looking at a 95 - foot exception for the sidewalk. • The intention is to put a ramp or some type of termination of the sidewalk so the curb and gutter will merge with the street pavement. • They did not need a variance for their property and they were able to comply with the code. • The subdivision of the area does not reflect the zoning pattern, and it seems the city is hoping the lots would be merged. It would take two or three lots to create a conforming residential site in this neighborhood. Commissioner Costello asked if the railroad alley is intended to be a through road in the future and in terms of liability or the code do we require sidewalks on that street as a private street? Mr. Strong replied that he did not think the intention of the owners was to remove the chain and enable through traffic. It would increase the public use of Paseo and it would be up to the residents as to whether they would like this. Generally we have not treated flag lots or private drives with 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002 PAGE 3 normal public improvement standards including sidewalks. The slope and constraints create a hardship for these improvements. OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT David Brown, representative, said Exhibit B 1 shows the actual building lot coverage as 26.48% and it says RA is 35 %, less required parking, landscaping, patios, and decks. The road actually traverses the corner of the property and the lot ranges in slope from 24% to 39% so we need to do grading on the property. Commissioner Brown: • Attachment I, 94 -507, has a description of the lot coverage which does not match the one just given, and it is my understanding that we must go with what is in Attachment No. 1. • On variance number three I would like more description in writing especially with the setback. It seems that the setbacks could be met if the structure were designed to meet the setback requirements. Mr. Brown: • There were two ordinances we were able to go with. • The lot does not meet the zoning of the neighborhood, and there is a private road here that everyone is going to enjoy, but it is not on his or her property. Also the corner lot is developed so that the ten foot setback is for safety and so people can see around the corner, however with this lot that is not applicable. Commissioner Brown said the setback requirements are here because of the zoning and not because it is a corner lot. Mr. Brown replied that this lot has more extreme conditions then the other lots because of its slope. Commissioner Guthrie asked what was unique about this lot that separates it from the lot above it? Mr. Brown said there is about a 15% slope difference between this lot and the others. Commissioner Guthrie stated that special circumstances are required for this lot that others in the neighborhood do not have to be able to meet the findings. Hans Vanderveen, owner of lots 16 & 17 said that they had been told several years ago that they shouldn't try getting a variance for the lot above the applicant's. They had been required to put the full -blown street when building, as well as the ten -foot setback on the side in addition to giving up a portion of their lots for the railroad right of way and for the future if the City were to ever build that road MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002 PAGE 4 through. The city owns a portion of the right of way, Paseo St. and at the bottom of our four lots in case they want to put the road through. Heather Jensen, current owner of the lots in question stated most of the pedestrians in the area are local residents; there are no sidewalks in the private part of Paseo Street so not having sidewalks will have a nice natural transition into the private portion; the size of the lot is smaller because it was reduced when the private drive was put in; the road had to be large enough to fit fire trucks for safety reasons. In addition, a reduction in the size of the home would be inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Chuck Fellows stated that he was in favor of sidewalks and because most of the pedestrians know the cautions and are locals doesn't mean the people driving through the street will be careful; there are new homes being built nearby with people who will be walking through Paseo and it is important that they have sidewalks; there is also the possibility that in the future the fence may come down and the right of way may become a through street. If it requires a retaining wall or a smaller house for a sidewalk then so be it. THE PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED Commissioner Brown: I don't think a good argument has been made re: • The ten -foot setback. • Finding no. three. • Clarification on the lot coverage. • Clarification on lot coverage calculations. Commissioner Guthrie commented: • He did not think the landowner should bear the expense of the sidewalk if the circulation pattern will end at that point. • Mr. Fellows brings up a good point about the future of the circulation for that neighborhood. • At this point in time I cannot vote for this based on the information given. Commissioner Fowler commented: • I don't have so much trouble with the coverage. It is a small difficult lot to build on so it takes some different rules. • The five -foot setback is fine. • It seems that Paseo is not a normal street and was a private street. The other homes do not have sidewalks so I am in favor of the project as is. Commissioner Keen commented: • Because the owner has had to dedicate such a large portion of the lot for the road it deserves different considerations than we would normally give to a lot. 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002 PAGE 5 ■ If Exhibit B.2 is to scale then the sidewalk on Paseo is a very short distance so I do not have much of a concern. • I do not see the gate being removed because it was put there as a condition when the Vanderveen properties were built. It would be a hazard having people on May Street going through to Hwy 227. Commissioner Guthrie: I don't know that a decision can be made based on the difference in the square footage issue. I want to re -check with staff on what in fact the lot coverage is. Rob Strong: I think that the section on Attachment 1 is different than the exclusions made in the calculations. Covered patios over 30 inches high would be included in the coverage and this would leave the project exceeding the maximum lot coverage. If the variance for lot coverage is not approved the size of the house can be reduced. The slope is a unique difficulty and the lot size is smaller then others in the area. The difference in lot area between this lot and others is at least 700 square feet. Commissioner Guthrie stated because the lot is that much smaller it is significant; the sidewalks are not necessary as he did not see them being heavily used, but curb and gutter around the corner and property lines is necessary. He further stated that all of the constrictions on this lot are on the length and not the width, but we are being asked to grant a variance on the lot's width. The property owners of the lot above were able to meet the same width restrictions and were able to meet this requirement. The width of the lot is not enough of a restriction here that a variance would be required. Chair Costello said he would hope to never see railroad right of way become a through street, but he would like to see a sidewalk put in the drive for safety issues. In terms of lot coverage I calculated about 40 %, and I could probably find reasons to allow that large of a house to go in here, but that is not before us now. In terms of extending the sidewalk maybe it could be longer and narrower. The access road is narrow and dangerous. We have a safety issue here that needs to be addressed and for that reason I cannot support the variance. Commissioner Keen said the sidewalk at the end of Paseo is probably not used, judging by the amount of people that use the sidewalk in front of his house which is a heavily traveled street. The only people that use the sidewalks are the kids going to school. He further said that he would not advocate eliminating sidewalks, but when there are so few pedestrians the sidewalks are not necessary. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002 PAGE 6 Chair Costello stated that this is an access way that goes up to the school so there will be pedestrians using this area. Commissioner Brown stated the road was a mitigation measure for the riparian habitat, so it was a direct consequence of the applicants wanting to build on the lots. Further, he did not believe that they were held hostage, and that the road was a mutual agreement as a mitigation measure. He agreed that the lots were small, but based on the fact that we have to follow Attachment 'A' and the current SF requirements, the five -foot setback is even less then the current code. The history of the road has to be known. Commissioner Guthrie asked what the significant difference was between this lot and the one above that forces the need for special consideration? Commissioner Keen stated that the road is the difference between the Tots and the mitigation for the corner did not have to do with their lot, but the lots further down. The lot in question had to give up their land for the road so the Tots down below could be built. Rob Strong stated that according to the assessors parcel maps, the ownership for lots 22, 23, and 24 show as a single assessor's parcel and there is a provision in the code that would provide that those lots are merged re- subdivided to be more conforming or be considered as a single building site. He further stated that if this could not be resolved tonight by title reports then the Commission could continue the variance hearing and see if it is a legal building site. Commissioner Brown asked what the concern was regarding this. Rob Strong explained that all the Tots show up as common ownership and combined would conform to the zoning, but would not meet the lot lines and house site depicted. If lots are merged they cannot be built on again as individual lots without a parcel map. I would like the City attorney's input on this issue before we continue. Chair Costello suggested that if this is continued the lot coverage could also be looked at. Heather Jensen stated that they had owned the lot for over 35 years and were not aware that it had been individually subdivided would question if this is even an issue. Commissioner Keen said he would also like an explanation of an antiquated subdivision and how this differs for example from Morning Rise and the one on the corner of Farrell and Elm Street. 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002 PAGE 7 Commissioner Brown made a motion to move the matter to the next planning commission meeting to enable the lot coverage issue and the ownership issue to be brought back to the commission. Commissioner Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved with a 5/0 voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 02 -006; APPLICANT VISTA HOSPITAL SYSTEMS INC. /RICHARD SANDOVAL; LOCATION - 345 SOUTH HALCYON ROAD. The staff report was prepared and presented by Teresa McClish. Ms. McClish described the proposed project and explained stated that originally there was to be a 39 -space parking lot, but additional landscaping was requested by Staff Advisory and Architectural Review Committee lowering the amount of spaces to 33. The addition of parking will bring the hospital closer to conformance with the Development Code. In answer to a question from Commissioner Guthrie Mike Linn replied that the landscaped area is not the catch basin, but there is a drain that catches the runoff in a pipe. Commissioner Guthrie stated that this is a natural bus stop site, but the road is not designed for a stop, but could a bus stop be configured in such a necessary location and would it be possible to provide a bus pocket here? Rob Strong replied that given the landscape strain the parking lot would have to be compressed and a bus turnout provided instead of parking spaces. Or we could look at the remaining frontage where a stop could be provided. Commissioner Costello asked if it would be possible for the bus stop to be in a turn around on the entrance? Rob Strong replied that it would be abnormal and would probably block the access drive and may not be able to make a turn, but thought there may be alternatives to make the bus stop. Commissioner Keen stated that the bus stop is on the corner and it comes from two directions so people can transfer. Sometimes people are running across the street from the hospital to catch the bus, so a stop in this area would help. Commissioner Fowler stated that parking is important and asked why two spaces would be lost on the end? Rob Strong replied that at least one would be lost because if you come in the lot and think that there is a space at the end there is no way to turn around. Commissioner Fowler further added that because of the school children in the area all the landscaping should be low for safety. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002 Commissioner Guthrie asked what the radius on the entry was? Tim Walters, RRM Design Group, explained that the applicant has a large shortage of parking in the front area by the drop off zone. Most employees park in the rear, and generally in the front the lot for the patients is full. The changes are mostly based on recommendations by the study group and Architectural Review Committee. In response to Commissioner Guthrie's questions on the drainage there is in fact one proposed and one existing drain. With regards to the bus turnout, Halcyon is an extremely busy area. The turnout would have to occur between the driveway and the corner which is a fairly short distance, and the turnout would need a lot of space. It would require somewhere in the range of 30 to 40 feet plus transition areas which would take up maybe eight spaces. It would be very tight with a bus turnout. It would also probably reduce the amount of proposed landscaping significantly. Commissioner Guthrie suggested that a turnout could be placed on the other side as well. Mr. Walters replied that the cost of the turnout would probably cost as much as the lot itself. The turnaround space at the end is to be provided to make sure that seniors and everyone would have enough room to turn around. Commissioner Guthrie asked why the ingress and egress are being change to be more awkward? Mr. Walters stated that the hospital is currently experiencing difficulties with the large throat that occurs between the existing driveway aprons and causes confusion for drivers. By making the entry more narrow it would be clearer as to which direction the drivers should be going. We also enhanced the landscaping on the entrance. For the curb returns we used an apron because that matched what existed, but a return could be placed here as well. Commissioner Keen asked is a couple of spaces could be gained when the exit is moved and where the first parking spot is on the edge you have added the 23 foot radius plus the landscaped area that is existing, which could add up to a couple more parking spaces. Mr. Walters replied that anything is possible, but we wanted landscaping in the middle between the two driveways. Commissioner Costello asked if would be possible to reduce the turnaround space to one instead of two, and a couple of feet of landscaped area could be shaved off to add room for the turnaround area. PUBLIC COMMENT OPENED No discussion THE PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED PAGE 8 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002 PAGE 9 Commissioner Guthrie commented that parking is necessary here, but I also think the bus stop is a necessary addition Commissioner Keen stated that there needs to be parking here, but he would like to see what could be done about a bus stop at this location and he could not approve of this project until a bus stop had been looked into. Commissioner Fowler stated that she would like to see more parking and asked if there was a way to move the bus stop to the next segment in front of the other parking lot farther away from the intersection. Commissioner Brown stated that the bus stop is a pretty major change to the current configuration and he could not approve this without knowing where the bus stop would actually be. Rob Strong comments: • We would need to work with the Public Works Director on the bus turnout and with the hospital on the location of the stop. • The turnout could be done without losing any of the parking. Commissioner Brown said that if the stop were farther up the street frontage it might be too close to the intersection. Commissioner Costello asked if a condition were added that required the applicant to work with Public Works for a suitable design, would there be significant financial impacts? Rob Strong said we need a condition that would require the applicant to come back to the Planning Commission if they were unable to do the bus stop. Commissioner Keen suggested that the bus stop be moved up against the entrance into the hospital and use it when the buses are not there for a right turn lane. Commissioner Guthrie stated that there is a telephone in the way of a stop against the entrance and there may be help for funding from SCAT or a bus entity. Commissioner Costello said it was a sound idea and it would be worth exploring. He further stated that he could approve with a condition that the applicant worked with public works in the design of the stop and if the design is not feasible then it should be brought back to the Commission. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 02 -1839 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 02 -006, LOCATED AT 345 SOUTH HALCYON ROAD, APPLIED FOR BY ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner's Brown, Fowler, Guthrie, Keen and Chair Costello NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 18th day of June, 2002. PAGE 10 Commissioner Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen to approve Conditional Use Permit Case No. 02 -006 with the additional condition that the applicant is to work with public works to design and construct a bus turnout within the scope of the project, and adopt: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 02 -002 & VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 02 -001; APPLICANT- ANTHONY TOSTE; LOCATION 1060 MAPLE STREET. Staff Report prepared and presented by Teresa McClish. Ms. McClish, Associate Planner read the staff report explaining the project in detail, explaining that Parcel A has access from Maple Street and parcels B and C have access from Wallace Place, a private road with an existing common maintenance agreement. The area has a variety of lot sizes ranging from 5700 square feet to about 6600 square feet as well as standard lot sizes. The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development to provide more efficient use of land and keep the character with the existing neighborhood. Primarily this process will allow deviation from the minimum building site for each parcel and a decrease in the front setback for proposed parcel B. The applicant is proposing to demolish the unit on Parcel C and build a new three - bedroom unit and remodel the residence on parcel B and include a new separate garage. No changes are proposed to the existing unit on Parcel A. The ARC recommends approval of the front yard deviation to parcel B in order to preserve the oak tree. The ARC also recommended that if approved the project be submitted back to the ARC for further review of details. In regards to the density, a 25% increase in density would, as defined by the code, would bring the allowed density to 2.9 units for the project site or two units. The project would hold one unit, or 33% as affordable housing allowable by our density 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002 PAGE 11 bonus. In effect, the project would convert the existing rental property into a small lot subdivision with an affordable housing ownership unit. The project is consistent with the General Plan, the standards for Parcel Maps and Planned Unit Developments, is consistent with the General Plan for affordable housing and meets the open space requirements required by the Planned Unit Development section of the code. Commissioner Brown stated that similar conditions were used for Gary Young's project, but City Council had to re -word language. What would happen if the unit is sold or is continuing to be rented? Rob Strong explained that the City of Arroyo Grande has one legally restricted affordable housing unit and it has a thirty -year covenant on the deed that says it will be owned and occupied by a qualified family. That unit successfully transferred ownership before, and recently the current family was attempting to sell to another qualified family and they have been unable to get a loan. San Luis Obispo City and County are using the silent second method for low- income families to receive loans, which involves appraising the property at its restricted and unrestricted value, and the city carries the unrestricted value. In the event that the property is sold for market value the city recovers what remains beyond the restricted value that was provided by the lender for the mortgage. We are still revising the language for the lender to accept and it may go back to the Council. Commissioner Brown asked Rob Strong if it would be under the same requirement if the occupants in the affordable unit own or rent it and did he see light at the end of the tunnel with the current affordable applicants? Mr. Strong said that the unit would still have to be under the affordable range, and the conditions should be broader so that the language would be stated in the conditions. He further explained that this would be a major topic with the housing element revisions. There is a stigma that the affordable housing codes are a Robin Hood effort by the government. The Conditional Use Permit process is the only vehicle we have right now where we can establish through the public hearing process if this is beneficial to the public safety and welfare. Commissioner Fowler said she would like to see the pine tree come out in front and was the placement of the garage to save the Magnolia Tree? Teresa McClish replied that it was. Commissioner Fowler commented that on a density issue 2.9 should be rounded to 3 and on affordable housing, the problem is the long term of these units and questioned how people in affordable housing could be helped so that they can stay affordable in the future. Rob Strong replied that the City is trying to establish the silent second to help the affordable housing situation, and is working on the language for the lenders to accept. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002 Commissioner Guthrie asked: • Are there connection for power lines between the poles • Are the electrical connections undergrounded on the home next door? • Why is this just a deviation instead of a variance? PAGE 12 Commissioner Fowler asked if sidewalks have to be put in on a private road? Mr. Strong replied that the City envisions that flag lots and private extensions would not be required to have sidewalks, however if for example on Maple street there is a sidewalk missing then we would require it. Staff replied that there is one small wire for cable on the property and this is a Planned Development that is why it is a deviation. OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT Terry Payne, Representative stated: • It is proposed to have an exemption for undergrounding based on the surrounding neighborhood. ■ The pole that exists on Parcel B will be used and the pole on the back will be eliminated. ■ The access way is there because of a dedicated easement. • In light of us only just receiving the information on the affordable housing I would like to reserve the right to continue the project. If we do a remodel and are restricted to the given chart this unit would only sell for 190,000. We could propose not remodeling that unit and leave it the way it is and put it into the 229,000 price range. The potential buyers do not qualify for affordable housing so maybe we can do something like a deed restriction. There is also a condition on adding sprinklers when doing a remodel so we would like to waive the sprinkler condition, especially if its an affordable unit. Commissioner Guthrie asked what would be done to extend the utilities? Ms. Payne replied that there is already a water and sewer line in the existing access easement. The only trenching that would need to be done is to extend the utilities to go from the one located in the middle of parcel B. Commissioner Keen asked why parcel 'B' was chosen as the affordable parcel? Ms. Payne explained that there is a higher resale value on parcel A. We would leave parcel B without remodeling it if we were to be locked into the affordable housing contract otherwise we would not be making anything out of the parcel. Commissioner Keen stated the setback for the garage would be nine feet, and it shows that the drive for the existing parcel is to be removed. There would need to be parking added to the plan. Ms. Payne replied that could be done. 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002 PAGE 13 Commissioner Guthrie asked if there was any way to develop an in lieu -fee similar to large subdivisions for affordable housing? Rob Strong replied that the in -lieu fee would not generate much in the way of affordable housing, but thought that the development code could be revised to achieve that. In reply to a question from Ms. Payne, Rob Strong said most of the sub - division in lieu fees are about 3% of construction fees. As for fire sprinklers recently there was an issue on a flag lot where the fire truck couldn't get down. We think that parcel B and C should be required to have sprinklers. Commissioner Brown asked what was the problem with under grounding versus using a pole. Ms. Payne replied that if the pole were removed from parcel B a lot more would need to be spent in construction fees and trenching around the magnolia tree and would be a risk to the tree. Commissioner Guthrie stated the Housing Element is written with the intent to provide affordable housing, and affordable housing can be sold. To increase the density we need to stand by the code and require affordable housing. Waiving the undergrounding based on having affordable housing would be acceptable. However, the undergrounding would be relatively simple on this project. He further stated that he shared Commissioner Keen's concern with the garage and the amount of parking space in front of the home. Commissioner Keen stated that the way that this project works because of the density bonus you must have the affordable housing. After what happened at Farrell Street I don't think I will ever be able to sit here and justify not having sprinklers on a flag lot. Removing pole number one on the street should not have to be required, but I do think that everything should be undergrounded. It would be my suggestion that pole number one remain and the other poles removed and undergrounded. Commissioner Fowler stated she had a concern with the affordable housing, and that three small houses on three small lots should be affordable anyway; 2.9 is so close to 3 with the density that she did not have a problem with that; she agreed with Commissioner Keen on undergrounding. Commissioner Brown stated the project is great for the neighborhood; that it is incorrect to say that the affordable owner would not be able to participate in any increase in equity and therefore it would not be worthwhile doing; it is not fair to say that someone would buy these units and not participate in the increase in equity. He further stated that the point of low- income housing is not to provide sub - standard housing. If you leave the house as it is as affordable rather then MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002 remodeling; I don't like the concept that low- income people have to live in sub- standard housing. Commissioner Costello agreed with Commissioner Keen that sprinklers should be required and on undergrounding of the utilities. He also agreed with having the affordable housing if the parcels are for sale or rented. He further stated he could support the project with the sprinklers, removing back B & L poles and having the affordable housing. Ms. Payne requested to continue the matter to the next meeting. All Commissioners were unanimously in favor of continuing until the next meeting on July 16 with a 5/0 voice vote. NON - PUBLIC HEARING - TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 02 -011; APPLICANT- BILLY SUTTON; LOCATION- 1171 ASH STREET. Staff Report prepared and presented by Ryan Foster, Planning Intern. Mr. Foster said the time extension is for Tentative Parcel Map and Planned Unit Development approved by the Planning Commission on June 6, 2000. He then explained that the Planning Commission could approve a time extension if the Commission finds that there is no significant change to the Municipal Code or the General Plan that would change the conditions under which the project was approved. The General Plan Land Use changed from MF to MFH and the dwelling units remain to nine units per acre. Condition of Approval no. 5 on the time extension is to meet the intent of the Municipal Code by stipulating that the applicant pay the development impact fees which are in effect at the time the building permit is issued. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to approve Time Extension 02 -001 for Tentative Parcel Map 99 -003 and Planned Unit Development 99 -003 and adopt: RESOLUTION 02 -1842 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TIME EXTENSION 02 -001 FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 99 -003 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 99 -003, LOCATED AT 1171 ASH STREET The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: PAGE 14 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002 AYES: Commissioner's Guthrie, Fowler, Brown, Keen and Chair Costello NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 18 day of June, 2002. PAGE 15 Rob Strong commented that the City is starting a new process of trying to look at conditions of approval for time extensions. We determined that subdivision maps that were approved in 1999 and are requesting an extension in 2002; because of the April 2000 Development Code Impact Fee adoption- amounts to about $4000 per unit in fees that the city would otherwise forgo. There are some Time Extensions currently requested that may become major issues dealing with Tract Maps. We are going to recommend the fee adjustment where there is a change of circumstance that has required the time extension. DISCUSSION ITEMS - Rob Strong gave an update on his meeting with LAFCO saying that in the initial meeting LAFCO collected most of the information they asked for from us. They are currently doing Grover Beach and South County Sanitation. We expect that by January there will be some form of proposed adjustment to our Sphere. We are in the process of writing to the County requesting the commitments in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding with regard to dropping our sphere to the north which was made subject to them committing to a 2.5 acre parcel minimum and other considerations. The County has not responded which may slow the process. I have not heard anything more from LAFCO with regard to the City's comments on the Pismo sphere of influence related to Los Robles Del Mar. LAFCO approved the modified sphere without excluding Los Robles Del Mar, but I don't think the City of Pismo has progressed to the point where the project has been resolved. We are beginning the Housing Element and we will report back to you in July and we are in process of beginning the Development Code update with the Village Commercial converting to a mixed use Village Core. We are continuing the Design Guidelines for Historic Districts as well. We will be going back to the ARC and the Planning Commission with the Guidelines which will be noticed as public meetings. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS Rob Strong gave an update on the Downtown Parking Advisory Board and the Village Core parking requirements and saying that at present a downtown parking study is being done; MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002 Commissioner Costello said he had noticed lately more and more temporary signs going up such as Hollywood Video and asked where they fit with the sign ordinance? Rob Strong said that temporary signs are covered in the ordinance and we do respond to complaints and enforce on the basis of complaints. The Council has authorized a code enforcement program on a complaint basis on temporary signs. The person that makes the complaint is kept confidential. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:53 p.m. on a motion by Chair Costello, seconded by Commissioner Keen and unanimously carried with a 5/0 voice vote. ATTEST: RYAN HOSTETTER, COMMISSION CLERK ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR PAGE 16 k 6 JO M. COSTELLO, CHAIR 1