PC Minutes 2000-07-181
1
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 1
ALL TO ORDER
Chair Greene called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo
Grande to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
X Commissioner Costello
X Commissioner Keen
X Commissioner London
X Vice -Chair Parker
X Chair Greene
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion by Commissioner London, seconded by Vice -Chair Parker the minutes of June 6,
2000 were approved as written and the minutes of July 5, 2000 were approved as amended.
ITEM I.
I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
1.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1. Letter to the Planning Commission from David E. Shaw, dated July 17, 2000 regarding the
Village Glen Tract 2265 Amendment.
2. Memorandum from Kerry McCants, dated July 18, 2000 regarding Conditional Use Permit
No. 00 -006, Peace Lutheran Church - applicant.
3. Memorandum from Teresa McClish, dated July 18, 2000 regarding Pre - Application No. 00-
004, Gene Marks - applicant.
ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
II.A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00 -001; LOCATION - 206 NORTH HALCYON ROAD;
APPLICANT - OPERATING ENGINEER'S (CONTINUED FROM JULY 5, 2000)
Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, explained to the Planning Commission that the applicant had
requested that their application be officially withdrawn.
II. B. TENTATIVE TRACT 2265 AMENDMENT; LOCATION - 420 CANYON WAY; APPLICANT
- VILLAGE GLEN HOMES LLC
Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, presented the staff report stating that the Planning Commission
had approved Tentative Tract Map 2265 on December 21, 1999 subject to a condition that certain
overhead utilities be placed underground. The applicant is requesting that an amendment to this
condition be made to allow one of the poles and its associated overhead utility lines to remain.
The project site contains 8 utility poles that are subject to the undergrounding requirement of the
Development Code. As noted during previous public hearings, the Development Code allows
relief of this requirement if it can be shown that the topography, or some other condition,
causes the undergrounding of the utilities to be either impractical or infeasible. Ms. Heffernon
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION •
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 2
explained to the Commission that the applicant has stated that removing pole #3 and placing all
overhead utilities underground would be impractical for two reasons:
#1: This pole and the related utility lines do not serve the Village Glen Project; and
#2: Pole #4 already has many lines connected to it, and placing additional lines onto pole #4
would not decrease the number of lines associated with poles #3 and #4.
Ms. Heffernon stated that staff had received one written comment to date from a neighbor who
is not in favor of granting the exception. The Director of Public Works and the Community
Development Director have reviewed the applicant's request and do not believe the
undergrounding requirement in this case is unreasonable. Therefore, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission deny the request to amend Condition of Approval No. 95 for Tract Map
2265.
The Planning Commission discussed the location of the utility poles with Mr. Campbell. Mr.
Campbell explained the City's decision on which poles needed to be removed.
Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing.
The following members of the public spoke to the Planning Commission:
Mark Panther, 402 Moss Lane
Bruce Buckingham, representative for the developer, presented a brief overview to the Planning
Commission. He stated that at a previous Planning Commission meeting, a Parcel Map was
processed at the end of Canyon Way involving 3 lots that included a pole within six feet of the
side yard property line. The Public Works Department had requested that this pole be removed,
but at the request of the applicant stating that it was impractical and infeasible to do so, the
Planning Commission granted an exception and the pole was left in place.
Mr. Buckingham explained that the exemption he was requesting at tonight's meeting was similar
in nature. He explained the position of the various power poles, how the wires were connected to
the poles, and what residences these utilities served. He stated that the applicant believed that
the applicable Development Code section does allow for exemptions "where utility service poles
presently exist along or near rear lot lines ". Mr. Buckingham explained that the pole in question
was on a rear line of Lot 15. The applicant feels that all the other poles they have been required
to underground serve the subject property and rightfully should be removed. This pole does not
serve any lot in Tract 2265.
Another thing about this particular pole ( #3) is that if this pole is removed, the lines will just be
moved to the adjacent pole ( #4) and there will be no net loss of lines. Mr. Buckingham stated that
this pole ( #3) is a "slack pole" working in tandem with the adjacent pole ( #4).
Mr. Buckingham stated that it was unclear, after their conversations with P.G.& E., whether there
would have to be another "guy" wire added to pole #4, or if another "slack pole" would have to
be installed as a result of removing pole #3. They did not have a specific answer.
Commissioner London stated that if at least one pole was taken away it would look better. Mr.
London asked if Mr. Buckingham should have had the answers before coming before the Planning
Commission?
1
1
1
1
1
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 3
Mr. Buckingham stated that he would have liked to have the answers, but P.G.& E., although he
has met with them on many occasions, did not have the answers. They would not commit to
anything at this time.
Commissioner Keen stated that when the Planning Commission was discussing the previously
mentioned project (the Benson project), he had asked Mr. Buckingham to find out if the whole line
could be fed from the infrastructure of Tract 2265.
Mr. Buckingham stated that he had discussed this with P.G.& E. and he has found that it would be
feasible to do however, it would cause them to have to remove a pole that the City was not even
asking them to remove.
Vice -Chair Parker and Mr. Buckingham discussed the exact number of poles that were involved, the
number of poles that were being removed, and where the remaining lines would be placed.
Commissioner Costello discussed the section of the Development Code that dealt with exceptions
for the undergrounding of utility lines on rear lot lines. Mr. Buckingham had referenced this section
in his argument for the granting of an exception in this case. Mr. Costello pointed out that this
exception would not apply to new subdivisions.
Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Costello stated that any time the Planning Commission is discussing this issue he
has to ask himself, "Why is the City requiring the undergrounding of utilities in the first place, and
what is the City trying to accomplish "? Is it just for aesthetics and to improve the "visual" aspect
of the City? If this is the case then he would be a little bit critical about when the City says it is OK
not to do it or when they should "hold the line ". This is an issue where the Planning Commission is
trying to get more guidance on just what this policy means and needs to be. Mr. Costello stated
that he could see both sides of the argument. He said that the question sometimes comes down to
"is something unfeasible because it is expensive "?
Vice -Chair Parker stated that this issue seems to come up at every Planning Commission meeting.
She agrees with what Mr. Keen said earlier that it is becoming difficult to make these decisions on
this issue.
She stated that she believes that the intent of undergrounding the "T" is very appropriate. She
thinks that it would be good to get rid of the utility lines that are along the new development. She
then stated that it is more confusing to deal with poles # 1, 2, 3, and 4 where there are wires
going from poles 1 and 2 and underground 3 and come back up to attach lines to pole 4. It doesn't
make sense to do this. If there were a compromise to make, perhaps it would be to take out pole
#3 and attach the lines to pole #4.
Commissioner Keen stated that he had spent some time out on the property trying to come up with
a solution to this problem. He felt that just removing pole #3 and moving the lines to pole #4 is not
an acceptable solution. He explained that the reason the poles were put in this way was to keep
the high voltage lines from going across the property. Putting the wires over this property is not a
solution for the property owner or for P.G. & E.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 4
He said that when they had looked at the "Benson Project ", he stated that he did not think it was
necessary, or feasible, to remove pole #3 or #4. The house that is in this vicinity is serviced by
pole #2 so eliminating the whole line would be difficult.
He stated that there is no real solution, and although he doesn't really like it, he would agree to
leave these poles just like they are.
Commissioner London asked Commissioner Costello for some further explanation about this
situation. Mr. London stated that this is a "first- class" project that the Planning Commission has
been dealing with for some time. From a distance the wires themselves seem to fade and they are
not as noticeable from a distance but the poles are very noticeable. If there is any possible way to
put the wires from pole #3 to pole #4 it should be done. He stated that he did not believe that the
Planning Commission had enough information at this time to make a decision. Mr. London stated
that he wished that there were a P.G. & E. representative at the meeting to help explain this
situation.
Commissioner Keen stated that one of the problems is the sentence in the Development Code
that deals with the pole being within six (6) feet of the property line. He is not sure that this is
a fair "analogy" if it does not serve the project that is being reviewed.
Chair Greene stated that the Development Code is the Planning Commissions' "standard" in
terms of making decisions. He felt that the City would be inviting "chaos" by giving the
Development Code anything less than their highest fidelity as the City's guideline. As he looks
at the Development Code he feels that the staff is right and that pole #3 has to be put
underground in order to comply with Section 9 -15 -050. The burden is on the applicant to prove
that there is an exception. He does not feel that the applicant has accomplished this.
Mr. Greene said that pole #3 backs up to the rear of Lot #1 5 and it would be a "blight" for the
homeowner on this lot to have the pole in their back yard. He believes that this issue was put in
the Development Code because the decision - makers in the community felt that undergrounding
was an objective that the City should pursue because above ground utilities are unpleasant to
look at. He does not see any basis to overrule staff's recommendation that the Planning
Commission deny the request to amend the condition and cannot support the request.
Commissioner Costello asked staff if the request was denied, could the applicant appeal the
decision to the City Council?
Mr. McCants stated that the applicant could file an appeal to the City Council.
Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission deny the request to amend
Condition of Approval #95 for Tract 2265. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The
motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
ROLL CALL VOTE
YES Commissioner Costello
NO Commissioner Keen
YES Commissioner London
NO Vice -Chair Parker
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 5
YES Chair Greene
II. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00 -005, VARIANCE 00 -002, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 00-
003; LOCATION — 1375 GRAND AVENUE; APPLICANT — ZADDIE BUNKER TRUST,
GARY WHITE
Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, explained that the Planning Commission considered this
project on July 5` and discussed issues regarding the upgrade of the existing mini - storage
facility, the adequacy of landscaping, undergrounding of overhead utilities, and conformance of
the project with the City's new Economic Development Strategy. The public hearing was
continued and the applicant was directed to meet with the Economic Development Director
regarding how the proposed project fits with the Economic Development Strategy.
Ms. Heffernon noted that the summary of their meeting was provided in the attached
Memorandum from the Economic Development Director to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Heffernon advised the Planning Commission that the applicant has not revised the project
since the previous public hearing and requests that the Planning Commission make a decision
this evening.
Finally, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the
additional information provided by the Economic Development Director. If the Commission
determines that the project can be approved as submitted, the appropriate resolutions have been
included in the staff report, with a condition added requiring the applicant to install a wall along the
rear property line to separate the mini - storage use from the residential use, as discussed at the July
5th meeting. If the Planning Commission determines that the findings cannot be made to approve
the project, staff will return to the next meeting with a resolution for denial.
Commissioner Costello noted for the record that he had listened to the tapes from the Planning
Commission meeting of July 5, 2000 from which he was absent.
Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing.
Diane Sheelev, Economic Development Director, spoke briefly to the Planning Commission and
asked them if they had any questions concerning the Memo she had written as a follow -up to her
meeting with the applicant's representative, Gary White, which was included in the staff report for
this project?
Vice -Chair Parker asked for clarification on certain points of Ms. Sheeley's Memo to the Planning
Commission. Ms. Parker asked if it was in Ms. Sheeley's position to give recommendations on
projects or just state the facts of what would happen if it were to be different?
Ms. Sheeley stated that the objective of her Memo was to state the facts of how this project fits in
with the Economic Development Strategy and not to recommend one way or the other. In Ms.
Sheeley's opinion this is a land use issue that the Planning Commissioners will need to make a
decision on. Her interpretation of one of the goals of the economic development program is that
the City would like to see the expansion and retention of local businesses that create employment
opportunities and generate revenue for the City.
Vice -Chair Parker asked Ms. Sheeley what her understanding was of her (Ms. Sheeley's) position?
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 6
Ms. Sheeley stated that currently there is an Economic Development Strategy. The Economic
Development Director's role is to implement both the Economic Development Strategy and the
Redevelopment Plan Implementation Strategy. She reminded the Commission that as of this date
the Economic Development Strategy has not yet been incorporated as an Economic Element in the
General Plan. Therefore, this is simply a policy document.
She went on to say that her understanding of the direction of the Economic Development Strategy
and how it fits in, is that it is to complement the General Plan, and to complement the
redevelopment strategy, not to add another component on land use.
Vice -Chair Parker asked what the need for commercial /office buildings along Grand Avenue is?
Ms. Sheeley stated that from her perspective only, people periodically contact her office and
request information for office space and retail space. There is some difficulty tracking how serious
these calls are. For instance, it could be a Cal Poly student simply asking questions for a class or it
may be someone with a business in a neighboring community that would like to relocate into
Arroyo Grande. Also, the Chamber of Commerce gets these calls and although she communicates
with them, it is still difficult to get a feel for what the "market" can hold and what is actually
needed. She stated that she relies on the developers somewhat for this information because they
are the ones in the "market" everyday, trying to find out if there are tenants for the spaces they
have or would like to build.
Chair Greene invited the applicant's representative, Gary White, to speak to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. White explained that he had met with Ms. Sheeley and Mr. McCants, as the Planning
Commission had requested, to attempt to get some direction about his project. Mr. White stated
that he does not feel that the Economic Development Strategy provides clear direction to as to how
to address some of the issues that have been raised concerning his project. Mr. White pointed out
that when he first came before the Planning Commission on February 1, 2000, none of these
issues were present. Mr. White stated that it makes it difficult to address the current issues
because the project had already been designed.
Mr. White discussed the issues that had been brought up at the previous meeting and how these
had been addressed.
• Commissioners London and Parker had discussed the walls surrounding the project. The
applicant was willing to make the changes that had been discussed.
• The undergrounding of the utilities is another major issue. At the previous meeting the
Commission had stated that cost should not be a factor in deciding which poles and lines need
to be placed underground. Mr. White pointed out that this is a major issue for the developer
because if the project is not economically feasible, it cannot be built.
• Mr. White discussed the possibility of a "joint effort" between several different developers in
this area with regards to the undergrounding of the utilities.
• With regards to Commissioner Keen's remarks about the metal buildings, and his wish to see
stucco instead, Mr. White explained that they are proposing "faux" stucco walls on the
buildings. The only portion of the metal buildings that will be seen is in the interior property.
1
1
1
1
1
1
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 7
• With the regards to the issue raised about joining with the developer that is considering the
Long's project adjacent to this property, they have not spoken to them for several different
reasons, which Mr. White explained.
Commissioner Costello and Mr. White discussed the undergrounding of the utilities and which poles
Mr: White was objecting to undergrounding.
Commissioner Keen stated that, although Mr. White had answered some of his questions about the
metal buildings, they (the metal buildings) were still his main objection to the project.
Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing.
Vice -Chair Parker stated that she believed very strongly that the Planning Commission should follow
the General Plan and the Development Code as they interpret it when making decisions on projects.
She had the following issues and concerns:
• The Development Code clearly states that metal used in construction in commercial buildings,
roofs and walls, is to be discouraged. She felt that especially on Grand Avenue, it would look
inappropriate.
• She does not have a problem with the project; but she does have a problem with the
information the Commission gets that there is not enough commercial /retail space in Arroyo
Grande. She also feels that the City wants to develop the Grand Avenue corridor and make it
economically sound, as well as making it more appealing.
• It is important to encourage growth along the Grand Avenue corridor.
• She would like to encourage anyone who still has parcels along Grand Avenue to follow the
City's Economic Development Strategy. Ms. Parker stated that she realized this is only a
guideline, but it should be considered because the City needs more commercial /retail.
• The City needs to follow the General Plan and Development Code guidelines. She believes very
strongly that the City recognizes the property rights. She believes that Mr. White has the right
to build on his property what is allowed by the Development Code and General Plan. She
would like to see a larger portion of his development for commercial /retail if that is what is
needed. She believes Mr. White has the right to build a storage facility on his property and
because of this she stated that she is looking only at the project that is presented. Because of
this she feels that the project, as presented, is a nice one and will look good on Grand Avenue.
• She is glad that Mr. White will be putting stucco over the metal buildings on the front and she
hopes the stucco over the metal in the middle of the project does make it look more
presentable.
• Regarding the overhead utilities, she feels that staff has come up with an excellent compromise
and the developer needs to stick to this compromise.
Commissioner Keen did not have any further comments about the project.
Commissioner London stated that the comments he had made at the last meeting still stood and
that he had nothing further to add.
Commissioner Costello stated that he believed that the Planning Commission does not make policy.
It merely serves as an advisory panel to the City Council. This is how he was going to base his
decision on this project.
• The Planning Commission has heard repeatedly that there is not enough space available for
.retail /commercial business. That it is difficult to utilize retail space physically removed from
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 8
Grand Avenue. He believes that there is validity to the fact that the further away from Grand
the business is, and if it has no facing on Grand the dingier, the stores look.
He sees three specific questions regarding this project as follows:
• The first issue is the Economic Development Strategy. The Strategy states that "continue to
enhance and increase the utilization of the Grand Avenue corridor ". The Planning Commission
needs more guidance from the City Council on what this is. Ultimately, if the Planning
Commission turns down the project, the applicant can go to the City Council and ask them
what the Economic Development Strategy says about this.
There are mixed benefits to the project in terms of the economic development. The letter from
Ms. Sheeley shows that with the retail structure in the front there will be some benefit to the
City through property taxes. This commercial /retail will also provide some new jobs, so there is
a scale that is balancing in this situation and he was not sure which way it would "tip "?
• The second issue is the one of the undergrounding of the utilities. This issue has been coming
up before the Planning Commission for a year now. What the General Plan says is fairly
specific. Maybe the General Plan needs to be revised, or the policy maker's need to provide
more guidance to the Planning Commission. The language is not clear enough and he does not
believe it (the language in the Development Code) is particularly fair at this point.
• The last issue is in the City's General Plan Land Use Element, objective 6.1 1, which states that
"Commercial centers should be developed in a manner that is architecturally harmonious with
the defined theme, consistent with the rural, small town character of Arroyo Grande ". In
Paragraph H it states that, "the following architectural elements should be discouraged in
conjunction with construction of commercial buildings such as metal or plastic siding or metal
roofs ". Commissioner Costello stated that it seemed clear to him that if the Planning
Commission followed the guidance that they have in the General Plan and the policy that the
Economic Development Strategy shows, than he has some problems with the project.
Finally, Mr. Costello stated that "taken in a vacuum" the project looks good to him, but when he
applies the three specific issues to it he cannot support the project.
Chair Greene stated that his position has not changed since the previous Planning Commission
meeting and he had informed Mr. White of his position. His concerns with the project are as
follows:
• He does not believe that the Planning Commission can make the necessary architectural review
findings. Mr. Keen and Mr. Costello have both pointed out that the metal buildings are
inappropriate.
• Regarding the Economic Development Strategy, Mr. Greene stated that this document took a
year to create. He does not believe that this document is just a statement, but as close to City
policy as it can get without it actually being a part of the General Plan. He believes that in a
relatively short period of time it will be part of the General Plan. He stated that he interprets the
Economic Development Strategy the same way as Commissioner Costello does, which is that
the City has developed a strategy and a policy to stimulate the growth of retail and commercial
development along Grand Avenue. Mr. Greene said, that as he had pointed out at the previous
meeting, this kind of project that calls for "massing" of mini - storage space on the property and
a relatively small amount of commercial /retail space is inconsistent with the directives of the
Economic Development Strategy. The solution to the issue that is before the Planning
Commission is best answered by going to the City Council and asking them. Mr. Green told Mr.
1
1
1
1
1
1
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 9
White that the timing of this is somewhat unfortunate because the Economic Development
Strategy was developed after he began the formulation of his project.
• The Planning Commission is not a policy making body, rather it interprets existing policy.
• This is a Conditional Use Permit and the Planning Commission has to make a finding that the
proposed use is consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, and the development
policies and standards of the City. In his judgement, the Economic Development Strategy is a
policy standard and he is interpreting it to mean that this type of development, where a great
. portion of a parcel is devoted to non -sales tax revenue - producing, (a situation where few jobs
are produced), is inconsistent with City's goals.
• He disagrees with Ms. Parker's position that as long as the property is zoned for this a project
can be built. He does not believe this to be the case.
• Finally, one of the other findings that they have to make is that the site is suitable for the type
of intensity of use or development that is proposed. In his opinion the proposed development
would be a gross under - utilization of the property. By developing the property in the manner
that has been suggested, there will not be the opportunity and ability to landscape the property
in a fashion, which is consistent, with how the City envisions the growth of Grand Avenue, is
lost. The project will not produce any sales -tax revenue, and few jobs.
• Mr. Greene stated that he did not see the undergrounding of the utilities as a big issue. The
Development Code is clear, it is unambiguous about this issue. It may be harsh or unfair,
although he is not suggesting that it is, but the remedy is not to ask the Planning Commission
to make compromises without having any basis in fact for knowing how much things are going
to cost. The remedy would be for the applicant to go to the City Council and ask them to
change the law. He feels uncomfortable entering into a compromise such as the one the
applicant is proposing.
Vice -Chair Parker stated that Chair Greene had brought up a good point in that this is a Conditional
Use Permit and she had forgotten that this was the case. She stated that if you look up under the
findings for a Conditional Use Permit in the Development Code, the number one finding is that the
proposed use is permitted within the subject district pursuant to the provisions of this section
provided that it complies with all applicable provisions of ordinance, goals and objectives of the
General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City. It also goes on to say that
the proposed use would not impair in any way, the integrity or character of the district in which it is
to be established and located and that the site is suitable for the development that is proposed. If
there is a misunderstanding of the Development Code or General Plan it needs to go to the City
Council for a decision.
She further stated that she has had a problem with this project because of the recently adopted
Economic Development Strategy. In reading the findings that should be made for the Conditional
Use Permit she feels that it needs to be considered.
The Planning Commission asked staff how they should proceed?
Kelly stated that, if it is the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the project, specific
findings needed to be made for the denial. Staff could then bring the resolutions for denial back to
the next meeting for the Planning Commission to vote on.
Mr. McCants suggested that if the Planning Commission intended to make the findings for denial,
they focus on the General Plan and Development Code issues versus the Economic Development
Strategy issue.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 10
Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission vote, as a tentative action, to deny
the resolutions as presented and direct staff to prepare resolutions to be brought back to the
August 1, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, which are consistent with the concerns raised by
the Commission during their discussions at the present meeting. Specifically including, but not
limited to the principles of the Land Use Element objective 6.0, as well as the other concerns of the
Commissioners. Vice -Chair Parker seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the
following roll call vote:
ROLL CALL VOTE
YES Commissioner Costello
YES Commissioner Keen
NO Commissioner London
YES Vice -Chair Parker
YES Chair Greene
II. D. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2328, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 99 -001; LOCATION
1190 EL CAMINO REAL; APPLICANT — S & S HOMES (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 6, 2000)
Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, stated that the applicant had submitted revised plans for the
Planning Commission's review based on comments and concerns expressed during the June 6`
Planning Commission meeting. Specifically, the following revisions had been made:
1. The building footprints have been reduced by an average of 15 %.
2. The gross minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet. Although the net lot size when the
private road is removed from the calculation decreases to 4,000 and 5,000 square
feet for some Tots.
3. Except for lot 9, each lot has two guest parking spaces, increasing the overall guest
parking from 25 to 51 spaces.
4. Private open space increased from an average of 20% to 59% per lot.
5. A public shared area of 3,750 square feet has been added to the back of lot 10.
6. A net total of 6 additional oak trees have been saved due to the project redesign.
7. Side yard setbacks are a minimum of 5 feet, with a minimum of 10 feet between any
two residences.
8. A four -foot wide pedestrian and bike lane has been added on the interior road.
9. The traffic analysis has also been updated to better explain the methods used in
determining the traffic distribution and effects on the level of service resulting from
the proposed project.
Ms. Heffernon told the Commission that the Conditions of Approval have been modified to reflect
the revised project, such as requiring CC &R's for the common areas; a maintenance and access
agreement for the private driveway, the common parking areas and pedestrian access; and a
revised "Figure A" for the undergrounding of utilities based on Planning Commission comments
during the June 6 th meeting.
The applicant is also requesting that the street located within the development be officially
named "Stonecrest Drive" as part of the project approval. Ms. Heffernon explained that the
proposed street name was reviewed by the Department of Building and Fire to make sure it
would not be confused with other street names within San Luis Obispo or Santa Barbara
1
1
1
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 11
Counties during an emergency response situation. The Fire Chief has indicated that the
proposed street name would not cause any confusion
With regard to public comments prior to this hearing, staff did receive a letter from the adjacent
property owner who manages the Hilltop Trailer Park. His comments focused on three issues,
including:
1. The noise generated from the proposed development along the access road, and lack
of any sound barrier between the two properties;
2. The close proximity of the proposed driveway to the existing trailer park driveway,
which is about 50 feet;
3. And the speeding traffic along El Camino Real.
Ms. Heffernon stated that it was staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt a
negative declaration, instruct the secretary to file a notice of determination, and approve Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 2328 and Planned Unit Development 99 -001 subject to the findings and
conditions contained in Resolution No. 00 -1746. Staff further recommends that the Planning
Commission approve "Stonecrest Drive" as the street name for Tract 2328 by minute motion.
Commissioner Keen and Ms. Heffernon discussed what was meant in the Conditions of Approval
by the phrase "significant trees ". Ms. Heffernon explained that significant trees basically mean any
protected tree such as the native Oaks. These trees require a different replacement ratio than non-
native trees.
Commissioner Keen stated that in Condition of Approval #24 it stated that all trees shall be planted
or "fees paid ". What does this mean?
Ms. Heffernon stated that the "fees paid" referred to street trees. It was decided that the
Condition #24 should be modified to say "street trees ".
In response to Mr. Keen's questions about which trees were on the "save list" Ms. Heffernon
stated that the trees in question would be saved. She explained to Mr. Keen that an arborist is
required to be present during all grading activities and they will be giving recommendations as the
development moves forward.
Vice -Chair Parker asked the following questions:
• What a rolled curb was and was there going to be a raised sidewalk?
• The parking areas that are in the front yards and are labeled "Guest parking "; are these areas
community parking where anyone can park or is this for the use of that residence only.
• Lot Number 8 does not show any driveway in front of the garage. Is this in compliance with
the Development Code?
• Ms. Parker asked staff to clarify on the plans exactly where the easement that belonged to
Howard Mankins was located on the property?
• With regards to Lots 12, 13, 14, and 15, when the square footage is counted, does this include
the easement as part of the square footage of these Tots? And if it does include the easement,
could that land be confiscated for a road at some point?
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 12
Mr. Campbell explained what a rolled curb was and that the sidewalk would not be raised but an
area would be marked and lined for pedestrian /bike use. Mr. Campbell showed Ms. Parker where
the access easement was located.
Ms. Heffernon stated that she felt that the spaces labeled as "Guest parking" would be community
parking. With regards to Lot Number 8, there is actually enough length to the driveway for a car to
be parked there.
Ms. Heffernon stated that the lot size did include square footage for the easement just like the lots
include the driveway for the gross lot size. The owners of these lots would always have to provide
access through this easement.
Ms. Parker stated that she could not understand how this could be a 6,000 square foot lot if the
easement was included in the gross square footage of the lot.
Commissioner Costello asked Ms. Heffernon to repeat her remarks about the private road and how
this effected the square footage of the lots?
Ms. Heffernon repeated her remarks on the square footage and stated that ten (10) of the lots
went below 6,000 square feet if the square footage of the private road is removed.
Commissioner Costello asked if any of the open space on the lots was calculated using the private
driveway?
Ms. Heffernon replied that the calculations for open space did not include the driveways and that
the calculations for any open space removes the square footage of any paved areas.
Chair Greene asked how many Tots went below 6,000 square feet when the private road is taken
into consideration?
Ms. Heffernon stated that it was ten (10) lots.
Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing.
John Mack, Architect, representing S & S Homes spoke to the Commission and explained more
about the project. He reminded the Commission that this site was zoned Multi - Family and the
project had been designed to meet the Development Code requirements. He said that the project
has been redesigned to meet the concerns of the Planning Commission that were raised on June 6,
2000.
Mr. Mack stated that he had redesigned the entire project and he feels that the project is better as
a whole. The following changes were made:
• To meet the request of the Commission that there should be more parking, Mr. Mack had
reduced the size of the units. The units have been reduced overall by approximately 15 %. This
amount, taken over the cross section of the entire development, is equivalent to 3.9 units.
Mr. Mack discussed this with regards to the issue of density with the Planning Commission. He
stated that he had reduced the "massing" on the site, or the envelope of the building is less dense.
Therefore, more trees are saved and more parking was created.
1
1
1
1
1
1
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 13
The Development Code states that this site, because of the Multi- family zoning, allows a density of
40 %. Mr. Mack stated that this project has an average density of 23 %.
• The property lines were adjusted to meet the minimum lot size of 6,000.
• Each home in the development has two guest stalls for its exclusive use except for Lot 9, which
only has one (1) guest - parking stall. The guest stalls that are not located directly in front of the
garage have a sidewalk from the parking stalls to the front door of the residence.
■ By reducing the footprint area and reconfiguring some of the units, more Oak trees were saved.
There were a total of nine (9) more trees were saved, specifically tree numbers 58 and 60.
• The side yard setbacks on Lots 9 and 10 that were only three (3) feet have been increased to
five (5) feet.
• With regards to the questions Mr. Greene had raised concerning the results of the Traffic Study
that had been submitted by S & S Homes, Mr. Mack discussed the issue of the Traffic Study
that had been prepared and the fact that S & S Homes believed the study included what staff
had asked them to include. Mr. Mack stated that the traffic engineer had modified the study to
include answers to Mr. Greene's questions. Mr. Mack stated that the traffic engineer was in
attendance to answer any of the Commissioners' questions.
■ They had added a sidewalk to the entrance of the project on Lot Number 1. A twelve (12) foot,
striped travel lane had been put through the development bordering the access drive.
• The curb, gutter, and sidewalks have been extended down El Camino to Hillcrest.
The Planning Commission and Mr. Mack discussed the project and the changes that Mr. Mack had
made.
Chair Greene and Mr. Mack discussed the easement that is on the project site which grants access
to property owned by Mr. Mankins, the ownership of the access road, and the statistics of the lot
coverage.
Larry Hale, Traffic Engineer, Higgins & Associates stated that the original scope of work defined by
the City was too focused on the interchange on Oak Park Blvd. He stated that the project had 26
units which would generate approximately 20 peak hour trips in the morning and 26 peak hour trips
in the afternoon. These trips were distributed based on location of the project, an evaluation of
existing travel patterns, land use and trip type. Subsequent to the first report, which was
distributed to the Planning Commission at the June 6th meeting, the Brisco Road interchange was
added to the study. Level of service analysis indicated that the three intersections that comprise
the Brisco /Halcyon interchange currently operate at a LOS of B, both in the morning and the
afternoon, and would continue to do so with the proposed project traffic.
Mr. Hale and Chair Greene discussed the traffic impact analysis report. It was Mr. Hale's opinion
that this project would not have any significant impact on the Brisco /Halcyon Interchange.
Jack Hardy, S & S Homes Sales Manager presented the following information based on Planning
Commission questions:
■ The "policing" of the C C & R's is not an uncommon situation. The homeowners in the
development do this.
■ Land from an access easement cannot be confiscated.
• Although the homes are 15% smaller, the selling prices of the homes will be determined by
the prevailing market price.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 14
• S & S Homes knows who will buy these home because they have done many projects such as
this in this area. "Empty- nesters" and seniors who are looking to downsize their lifestyle will
purchase half of these homes.
Commissioner London asked Mr. Hardy if the easement was not used in a certain period of time
does it become invalid?
Mr. Hardy stated that this was true and that the period of time is five years.
Howard Mankins, 200 Hillcrest Drive, pointed out the lots surrounding and behind this property that
he owns. When he bought the property he came to the City and inquired about the size of an
easement. It was recommended that the easement be the size of a City street, i.e. 50 feet. He
would like to see the grading map to make sure that the grading to their property does not limit his
access to his three (3) parcels.
Mr. Mankins stated that he was concerned about what complaints he would get when he tried to
develop his property behind this project. He would like to have some kind of protection when he
tries to develop his land that he isn't told there will be too much traffic, etc. and not be allowed to
build. He would like to see something in the C C & R's that would address his continued use of the
easement. He would like to have the uses of the easement "spelled out" so there will not be any
structures, fences or gates to pass through in the easement that he would have to worry about at a
later date that would deprive him of easement use.
The Planning Commission discussed the easement and his property with Mr. Mankins. Mr.
Campbell stated that Condition of Approval No. 58 stated that fences and ditches shall be
constructed in a way that would maintain access to the two existing parcels south of the project.
John Mack and the Planning Commission discussed several issues that had been raised by Mr.
Mankins.
With regards to fencing on Lots 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, there is no fencing that will be in the 50
foot access easement. The only fencing is that which separates these lots.
Mr. Campbell made the following recommendations for changes to the Conditions of Approval:
• An added Condition that would read, "The Project access road shall be designed to allow future
extension to serve the southerly MF zoned parcels with two -way traffic along the access
easement ". Mr. Campbell stated that this would shift the split for one way traffic to two way
traffic. There would be a turnout design added.
• Mr. Campbell stated that he had a concern about the 3 MF area that is not currently a parcel.
If the project is allowed to go forward as it now is, this area will become landlocked which is
contrary to the Development Code because this does not currently benefit from the easement.
He would recommend that this project rededicate the existing easement to include this 3
parcel. The Condition should read "An easement shall be dedicated over the access road and
future access extension to provide access to the southerly MF zoned parcels ". This right is
given to the MF zoned parcels only, not the Industrial zoned property.
Commissioner Keen wanted to make sure that the Industrial parcel was not restricted from this
access and therefore become landlocked.
1
1
1
1
1
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 15
Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Keen stated again that he wanted to make sure that the language Mr. Campbell
suggested for the access easement did not restrict the access to the Industrial zoned area, leaving
this area landlocked. If Mr. Campbell's language did not preclude this, then he has no problem.
Mr. Keen stated further that he liked the project. However, he would like to see, in the Condition
#11, the reference to the "45 trees total" removed. He would like to have the condition read that
there will be a 3 to 1 replacement for all Oak trees that have to be removed.
Commissioner Keen also asked that the language in Condition of Approval #76 be changed.
Mr. Campbell suggested the wording "if determined feasible by an arborist, the utilities shall be
undergrounded entirely between Poles #14 and Pole #11. The poles will remain."
Commissioner London stated that he had liked the project when it was originally submitted and he
thinks the changes that have been made, as a result of the suggestions from the previous meeting,
make it better.
Vice -Chair Parker stated that:
• She likes to see projects like this in the City because she believes it helps to have housing that
is more affordable. She likes to see this type of development as opposed to apartments
because she believes people would like to have a small lot and house of their own.
• Although the parking problem has been addressed she is still confused about the "community"
parking. She does not think this will work if people don't have designated parking for their
parcel.
• She has a problem with "community sidewalks" going across people's front yards.
• One of the biggest problems he has with this project is the unresolved issue of the access
easement. It has not yet been determined where the access road needs to be built. It is
therefore difficult to determine if this property can be pulled out of an easement for this project.
Also, portions of the road access easement crosses over the building footprint of the corner
Tots. She's concerned that this may be a problem when the road is up for design and the
houses are already in place. She feels that the legal issues of the access easement should be
addressed before the Planning Commission can make a decision as this may cause an access
problem in the future. Not being an attorney, she does not feel that she can make this decision.
Commissioner Costello stated that he believes that the legal access issue would be something that
would be resolved in the future no matter what the Planning Commission decides. He stated that:
• In general he likes the project and feels that it is an appropriate use as a Multi - Family use is a
buffer between the Single- Family and Industrial.
• He stated that he had problems with the project when it was before the Planning Commission
before and he still has the same problem.
• He does not like the proposed parking. He had stated before that he wanted to see less units
and more parking.
• He still has an issue with the density of this project. He stated that in the Development Code
the definition of density is the "number of dwelling units on a lot in relation to the size
expressed in unit per gross acre ", not the coverage of the area. If there were 4 units less, this
would enable more parking, less need for parking, and there will be more free space for open
areas and sidewalks.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 16
Sidewalks and walkways are important to Mr. Costello because of Chapter 9.06, Section E in
the Development Code. In the "Additional Performance Standards" for PUDs it states:
"d" — "Circulation systems shall be designed to promote smooth flowing and non - conflicting
vehicular and pedestrian traffic ". He does not believe that the circulation system in this
instance accomplishes this.
"f" — "The project shall provide screening as required to separate different land uses, minimize
nuisance to and from adjacent property and guarantee convenient access to preserve open
space." He is not convinced that the wall between mobile home area and this project is going
to do this.
"I" — "Pedestrian bike paths will provide safe, convenient routes within the development and
Zink with other systems on the perimeter of the site." He does not believe these are safe and
believes that the pedestrians are at risk.
Chair Greene stated that when the Planning Commission first looked at this project in June,
2000 there were eleven (1 1) lots that were less than 6,000 square feet. There are ten (10)
such lots now. The Planning Commission discussed this issue.
Commissioner London stated that this is a Planned Unit Development and as such this type of
variance is allowed. No one would be forced to buy a small lot and furthermore he believes that
type of development with smaller lots and residences attracts a certain type of person.
Commissioner Costello stated that in Development Code Section 9.06.050 -E(e). L it states that
"open space shall be provided in accordance with Table 9.06.050 C 1 and 2. One states that
the area of each parcel common open space designed for active recreation purposes, and that
this is not common open space. He would rather see four (4) less units.
Vice -Chair Parker stated that half of the lots were below 6,000 square feet. She believes that
6,000 square feet has been the limit that the Planning Commission would approve and it causes
her some concern that lots below 6,000 square feet are approved. She believes that this would
set a precedent for smaller lot sizes.
Chair Greene had the following observations:
• Mr. Hale had done a very good job with the Traffic Analysis and the concerns that Mr.
Greene had at the last meeting had been addressed.
• The problem with Mr. Mankin's access easement will be resolved between the parties,
perhaps even in court. With staff's suggestion of language regarding how the easement is
to be addressed in the Conditions of Approval has satisfied his concern.
• Mr. Campbell had proposed a Condition of Approval to deal with the modification of the
private drive to accommodate two -way travel at about Lot 16 or 17 to permit two -way
travel into Mr. Mankin's Multi - Family area.
• Mr. Greene feels that the applicant has provided for pedestrian and bicycle safety.
• Mr. Greene believes strongly that people should be given enough space so their quality of
life is maintained. Mr. Greene stated that the "open space" in this development is truly
"open space ", not driveways or streets. Thus, the open space is in the amounts that he
considers satisfactory to meet his minimum thresholds.
Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt:
1
1
1
1
1
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 17
RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1746
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH
MITIGATION MEASURES; INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION; AND APPROVING VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2328 AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT NO. 99 -001 WITH ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW, LOCATED AT 1190 EL CAMINO REAL, APPLIED FOR BY S
& S HOMES
including Exhibit A with the aforementioned changes to the Conditions of Approval. The conditions
being changed are: The addition of a condition requiring the road to be designed to allow for future
extension of two -way traffic; The addition of a condition requiring rededication of the easement
allowing access to the three (3) southerly parcels; The modification of Condition #76 regarding the
undergrounding to allow a complete undergrounding of the "back line" if it is determined feasible by
an arborist; The modification of Condition #11 changing the language to eliminate the reference to
"45 trees total "; The modification of Condition #58, removing the word "two" and modifying the
phrase "existing parcels south of the project ".
Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call
vote:
ROLL CALL VOTE
NO Commissioner Costello
YES Commissioner Keen
YES Commissioner London
NO Vice -Chair Parker
YES Chair Greene
Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt the street name of Stonecrest
Drive for the project. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by
voice vote with Commissioners London, Keen, Vice -Chair Parker and Chair Greene voting "Yes"
and Commissioner Costello voting "No ".
III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
III. A. PRE - APPLICATION 00 -004; LOCATION - 131 JUNIPER STREET; APPLICANT - GENE
MARKS
Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, stated that the applicant proposed to create two lots with a
Planned Unit Development overlay for the site and build two residences on the newly created
parcels. Access to Parcel 2 would be provided by a 20' wide paved access easement. Two
existing houses will be demolished.
The subject property is located within the Condominium/Townhouse district which is intended for
development of small lot single - family and multi - family residences with a maximum density of 9
dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing 2 units on a .24 acre site, which meets density
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 18
requirements. The Juniper St. Apartments, single family residences and a mini storage facility
surround the site.
Planned Unit Developments permits are intended to facilitate development by providing flexibility
in design for a more efficient use in land. PUDs are required when lot sizes are less than that
permitted in the underlying zoning district. The minimum lot size for the MF district is 10,000
sq ft. The proposed lots are approx. 5400 and 5100 square feet respectively. Per the
development code, lot sizes, widths, and depths are determined through the PUD review
process.
The minimum lot width and depth in the MF District are 80 ft. and 100 ft respectively. The
proposed lots have a 70 -foot width and an approximately 75 -foot depth.
Building setbacks may also be reduced with a Planned Unit Development, provided that lot
coverage requirements of the district are met, which they are in this case.
The proposed project includes a 5 -foot side yard setback on the south side of Parcel one adjacent
to the neighboring residence driveway. The side yard setback for the MF district is 10 ft.
This project meets the private open space and parking requirements of the Development Code.
Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing.
Gene Marks, Applicant, spoke to the Planning Commission and stated that this site contained two
old houses and he wanted to rebuild two new residences and clean up the property.
Commissioner Costello asked Mr. Marks if the five -foot setback on Parcel 2 abuts up against the
driveway?
Mr. Marks stated that it was next to the driveway.
Vice -Chair Parker and Mr. Marks discussed the number of parking spaces on the site. She stated
that she liked the project and felt that it would be a big improvement over what existed at this
time.
Commissioner Costello stated that he felt that the project would fit in very well and that he had no
problem with it. He would like to make sure that the driveway to the back residence would be an
easement. He told Mr. Marks that it was a good project and a definite improvement to the area.
Commissioner London asked if the reason the front house did not have a fireplace was because of
the five -foot setback? He stated that it was his impression that the fireplace could "jut" out into
the easement if necessary.
Mr. Marks stated that he wanted to maintain the 20 -foot driveway to the back residence to give
plenty of room for fire access.
1
1
1
1
1
1
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 19
Chair Greene stated that he felt that this project would be good for the neighborhood. His only
suggestion would be to find some space on the north side of the parcel for some landscaping to
make it more attractive.
ITEM. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
ITEM. V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT
None
ITEM. VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP
REPORTS
None
ITEM. VII. ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Commissioner Costello, seconded by Commissioner Keen the meeting was
ad'ourned at 12:15 a.m. to the next scheduled meeting on August 1, 2000.
/OWLL4ICb Ofteeme)
Kathleen Fryer, Commissio Llerk Laurence Greene, Chair
AS TO CONTENT:
n
Kerry `AA eeants
Community Development Director