Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-08-03ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 Page of 12 CALL 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 ABSENT Commissioner Costello X Commissioner Keen X Commissioner London X Vice -Chair Parker X Chair Greene APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of June 1, 1999 were approved as corrected. On page 6, paragraph 4,- second line, the word "owned" should be changed to "occupied "; and the word "people" should be changed to "renters ". Paragraph 5, second line, should be changed to read "a substantially adverse effect ". Commissioner London moved that the minutes of June 1, 1999 be approved as corrected. Commissioner Keen seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously by a voice vote. Due to the lack of a quorum of members that were present at the July 20, 1999 meeting, approval of the minutes of July 20, 1999 were deferred until Vice -Chair Parker arrives. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. An enlargement of a site map of Chilton Street. This item will be heard in the Public Hearing Items at tonight's meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 99 -001, VARIANCE 99 -004 AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 99 -001; 1597 CHILTON STREET; APPLIED FOR BY JACK AND DEANNE CROFT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO RECONFIGURE THE LOT LINE BETWEEN 2 LOTS TO ALLOW A HOME TO BE BUILT ON THE STREET FRONT PARCEL. A VARIANCE OF 14.23 FEET IS NEEDED FOR AN AVERAGE LOT DEPTH. Tom Buford, Interim Community Development Director, presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. He explained that a single - family residence that straddles the property line currently occupies the parcel. The proposal is to place the existing residence on a single lot and have a second lot that could be ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 2 of 12 developed. This lot would front on Chilton Street. The new lot would meet the Development Code requirements for lot size and width, however the existing lot does not comply with the minimum lot depth. The applicant is asking for a variance of 14.23 feet. (Vice -Chair Parker arrived at the meeting.) Commissioner Keen questioned why the house was built on two lots to begin with? Mr. Buford replied that they did not know, however as far as staff knows it was conforming at the time and it was subject to permits, which allowed this house to straddle the two Tots. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Sherri Danoff - Gooding, representing the applicant, spoke to the Planning Commission. She stated that she first wanted to thank staff for the excellent service that they have received during the processing of their application. Further, she stated that the applicant was satisfied with all of the Conditions that had been placed on their project. Although one lot does require a variance, the new lot lines will improve the existing situation where both lots have insufficient widths. The new lot configurations will provide with performance of development with the existing pattern on the south side of Chilton Street. She informed the Commission that the applicant was in attendance tonight to answer any questions the Commission might have. Vice -Chair Parker asked how the applicant proposed to handle the common driveway maintenance, and the shared usage of the driveway? Ms. Danoff- Gooding replied that the applicant did not have a proposal at this time for a maintenance agreement however, if the Commission wished the applicant could draw up such a proposal for staff's approval. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Vice -Chair Parker asked Mr. Buford if he could explain the Certificate of Compliance in the second paragraph on page five of six of the staff report? Mr. Buford stated that he did feel the statement in the staff report was correct. He explained that what the Certificate of Compliance would actually indicate was that the existing configuration of the lot that the applicant seeks to record is in compliance with the City's Development Code and other building regulations. This Certificate is also subject to the approval of the Variance by ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 3 of 12 the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission approves the Variance, then the Certificate of Compliance can be recorded. Ms Parker asked if the lot was in compliance at this time? Mr. Campbell explained that there are two times when an applicant is asked to do a Certificate of Compliance. What a Certificate of Compliance is, is an agreement by the City that a lot has been legally created. Sometimes this is in question if it is an antiquated subdivision. This is usually a question for surveyors and attorneys however, as in this case, surveyors and attorneys would bring this to the Planning Commission for their approval. He went on to explain that the City's Development Code has this language for all Certificates of Compliance. It calls for a Certificate to be the end result of a lot line adjustment application. So, if a lot line adjustment is done and the applicant meets all their conditions, the Public Works Department follows it up with a Certificate of Compliance. Vice -Chair Parker commented that on Attachment I, Lot Line Adjustment, No. 7 it states that "if the Planning Commission has approved and conditionally approved a lot line adjustment that does not create a non - conforming lot in the development district in which it exists..." In other words if the Planning Commission approves this, it is not creating a non - conforming lot? Mr. Buford stated that this was correct provided that the Planning Commission also approved the Variance. Ms. Parker stated that when the Staff Advisory Committee met on July 6, 1999 there were a number of Conditions brought up by Mr. Campbell. Are these Conditions automatically created then or do they need to be put in the Conditions of Approval? Mr. Campbell stated that the conditions are not automatically created and that they were put in the Conditions of Approval. He went on to say that with a Lot Line Adjustment there is limited ability for a City to establish Conditions of Approval. Basically the City is limited to applying a right -of -way to the easements that are necessary for orderly development, requiring those improvements that are necessary to eliminate non - conforming lots. One such issue is the driveway. They will either have to move the driveway or obtain an easement. The water service is the same issue. The applicant has had to comply with the Conditions or has had to guarantee those relocations with some type of financial securities. He explained that the applicant has already complied with all the Conditions of Approval. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 4 of 12 Commissioner London was curious about an issue that Vice -Chair Parker had brought up. Who actually owns the driveway? Mr. Campbell explained that the lower lot would own the driveway and the upper lot would have an easement, which would allow them to access their property. The Public Works Department did not require them to have a maintenance agreement, mainly because there will only be two owners using the driveway. Mr. Buford explained that there are ways to do this other than an easement. However, if the parties grant the right -of -way easement even without written agreement between the parties, California law would provide some guidance to the parties with regard to maintenance and the like. Mr. Buford stated that the Conditions of Approval Number 18 indicates that private easements shall be reserved for the shared utility access of drainage, water and sewer and shall include the area shown as the private drive. It does not include specific maintenance language but it could be added. Commissioner Keen stated that in the Staff Advisory Committee the Fire Department had waived 150 -foot requirement for sprinklers as long as the setbacks were met. What setbacks were they talking about? Mr. Campbell explained that the setbacks referred to were the setbacks between the two buildings, which should be twenty -five feet. Mr. Keen asked if the other house would be Tess than 150 feet from the street? Ms. Danoff explained that the Fire Department decided that since nothing would change as far as access to the rear house they would not require that sprinklers be added. Chair Greene asked if there was a consensus from the Commission that a shared maintenance agreement would be appropriate. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she was not in favor of a lengthy shared access document. She would rather allow the two residences to work out whatever agreement that they would like to work out. However, she felt that the language Mr. Buford had suggested to amend Condition Number 18, adding the word maintenance would imply that the two of them did share maintenance and they could work out whatever that meant to them. Chair Greene asked Mr. Buford just how the wording would read? 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 5 of 12 Mr. Buford suggested that it read, "Prior to the recording of the Certificate of Compliance, private easements shall be reserved on the map or other document acceptable to the City, for the shared utility access, drainage, water, sewer, and driveway maintenance agreement ". Commissioner Keen wondered if the new owners would have different plans for the driveway? Chair Greene stated that since it was impossible to get to the existing house, whether or not they use the driveway, there will have to be an easement created for access. Mr. Buford suggested that there could be controversies that would arise and maybe the language that should be used would be, "and driveway use and maintenance agreement ". Commissioner London felt that this was acceptable. Vice -Chair Parker felt it was becoming too complicated and personally felt that the applicant did not need to come back to staff or the Planning Commission for anything further. Chair Greene stated that the right to cross is an easement. Just because there is an agreement does not mean there might not be a dispute. However, having something in writing might help. Vice -Chair Parker moved that the Planning Commission approve: RESOLUTION 99 -1704 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 99 -001 AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 99 -004 FOR TWO (2) LOTS, LOCATED AT 1597 CHILTON STREET, APPLIED FOR BY JACK AND DEANNE CROFT with Attachment A and the modification to Condition Number 18. Commissioner Keen seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by the following vote: ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 6 of 12 Roll Call Vote Absent Commissioner Aye Commissioner Keen Aye Commissioner London Ave Vice -Chair Parker Ave Chair Greene Vice -Chair Parker moved that the Planning Commission approve: RESOLUTION 99 -1705 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CASE NO 99- 001 FOR TWO (2) LOTS, LOCATED AT 1597 CHILTON STREET, APPLIED FOR BY JACK AND DEANNE CROFT Commissioner Keen seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by the following vote: Roll Call Vote Absent Commissioner Costello Aye Commissioner Keen Aye Commissioner London Ave Vice -Chair Parker Ave Chair Greene CONTINUED: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Keen asked that, in the minutes of August 3, 1999, the words "powder coated" be added to the type of steel that was used in the construction of the fencing. The Commission continued with the approval of the minutes of June 20, 1999. Vice -Chair Parker asked that the discussion under the Community Comments and Comments concerning Tract 1998 be expanded to include the entire conversation about this subject. Secondly, she did not feel that she had made the comment on page five of the minutes that said "Highway 227 would be moved through Price Canyon ". The statement should be taken out. On page 7, the word through should be changed to thorough. Commissioner London moved that the minutes be approved as amended. Vice- Chair Parker seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with Chair Greene not voting because he was not at the July 20, 1999 meeting. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 7 of 12 NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None DISCUSSION ITEMS None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS A. Consideration of setting a special meeting to walk Tract 1998 Mr. Buford stated that he did not have anything specific about this and that he was not sure where the Commission had left this item with Mr. Engen. He asked what the pleasure of the Planning Commission was? Vice -Chair Parker stated that the Department of Fish and Game, as well as the Environmental Defense Center and also the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District had an open meeting at Tract 1998 to discuss possible environmental concerns. During this review of Tract 1998 the Department of Fish and Game, as well as the Environmental Defense Center, recommended that the City contact the Army Corp of Engineers. They felt the area had been abused and some of the codes of the Army Corp of Engineers had been violated. The Department of Fish and Game felt the City of Arroyo Grande, as the lead agency should report the damage. She talked with Lezley Buford on return, and Lezley . agreed that this might be the best route to follow as the City had limited resources to enforce compliance with these issues. Because the Commissioners are not biologists and neither is Mr. Shetier or Mr. Crockett, the problem that the Planning Commission saw was how does the City know for sure what the monitoring should entail. Mrs. Parker was concerned as to how the Commission would know what it meant to clean up environmentally so that the Department of Fish and Game and the EDC would be satisfied that the area had been brought into compliance and therefore it was no longer threatened. She feels that especially in view of the fact that an EIR may be done for a possible new project at this site, it is very important to bring it back into compliance and not in violation of any Army Corp of Engineers codes. She feels that the City should do this in order to stand by what they are saying. They had discussed hiring a biologist to walk the site with the Planning Commission and help them to figure out what it meant to be in compliance. Mr. Engen had told them that Mr. Brownson had been in touch with a biologist named Julie Clark. Ms. Clark had offered to walk the site and help the City of Arroyo Grande by giving them a list of things that needed to be done to bring it back into compliance. She was willing to do this for free. Ms. Parker would rather see this -handed to a biologist to do because the biologist would certainly know more of what to do. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 8 of 12 Commissioner London asked if this required a working biologist? Ms. Parker stated that she had received a letter from the EDC in response to this matter. The EDC stated that it was their position that if somebody has a mitigation to keep a site clean in order to build another site and they don't comply, they are responsible for retaining a biologist to assist them in the clean up. Commission Keen stated that he was concerned about this matter. He did not see this as a Planning Commission problem. As far as the Commission getting involved in this, he felt it was premature. As citizens he felt the Commission should be concerned and the City should enforce the cleanup of what has happened there. Commissioner London wondered if they needed to force Castlerock to do anything? Mr. London stated that he suspects Mr. Shetler realizes that when he comes forward with an EIR or any plans for Tract 1998, they will be scrutinized for his past activities. Mr. London wondered if there was a mitigation as part of his approval for what he has already done at the site. Mr. Buford had a few thoughts in an attempt to respond to the concerns of the Planning Commission. He stated that there are four basic areas in considering the . problem with the property known as Tract 1998. 1. Trash and "foreign" debris that was brought onsite at one time or another, apparently within the fairly recent past and discarded there, littering the site. 2. Secondly the roadway that comes down from Tract 1834, Phase 5 that previously existed but was increased in size and use during construction operations of Tract 1834. This was improper use of the roadway and the roadway has not been returned to its previous condition. 3. The problem with the harassment of the Wetlands habitat. Large pits have been dug that were used to burn some of the old trees that exist on the site. He does not know when the trees actually came down, but there are a lot of trunks and branches that exist. 4. The problem with the riparian area and the existing culvert siltation that has occurred in the creek area. There is a question as to whether the events that caused some of those conditions such as siltation, occurred on Tract 1998 or another site.. Did it come from upstream or did most of the problem come from Tract 1998. As far as the roadway, it is a possibility that this was a violation of some Condition. When Mr. Engen, Mr. Crockett and Mr. Buford visited the site the first step they decided to take was to have the litter that could be considered a nuisance, 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 9 of 12 removed from the site. Mr. Crockett‘fas begun the steps to initiate an amicable discussion with the property owner to see if the City can achieve voluntary compliance to get this matter cleaned up. The most difficult area to deal with at this point is the riparian area. It will be very difficult to prove what has occurred there in the past. This certainly is the best place for remediation once the applicant comes forward with a plan of proposed development for the site. Mr. Buford stated that there is no way the site can be developed without a roadway from La Canada onto the site. Also, the City would require a secondary emergency access. Mr. Buford is not sure where that access would be but most certainly it would have to go over the creek. Then at this point the Department of Fish and Game would have jurisdiction with regard to a stream bed alteration permit. The areas most prone to conditions on the site are the roadway and the wetlands. He is not sure what the City could do at this time about those areas. The City is going to try to get the site cleaned up as much as possible. Mr. Buford stated that Vice -Chair Parker is correct in saying that the City needs some direction in knowing where to go with the cleanup. He will return with a report to the Planning Commission on the status of what is being done on the site. Commissioner Keen asked if they were still using the road because he was concerned about taking any trucks up and down it. Mr. Buford stated that he did not believe the applicant was using the road anymore. There were complaints several months ago about the road being used and the City stopped that use. Ms. Parker stated that both the EDC and the Department of Fish and Game requested that the City report this to the Army Corp of Engineers. They also felt that the City should have the opportunity to take its own action. Ms. Parker wrote a letter to the Army Corp of Engineers and explained what was going on. She gave the letter to Mr. Engen. Mr. Engen met with the City Manager and the City Manager felt he wanted the City to try and follow through first with what they could do. Vice -Chair Parker asked if it would be helpful if she contacted Julie Clark and had her contact the City? Mr. Buford replied that if Ms. Parker wanted to contact Ms. Clark, he would be happy to speak with her. Commissioner London suggested contacting Cal Poly and having a senior class do this as a project. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 10 of 12 Ms. Parker stated that she thought it would be better if Mr. Shetler had a concrete list of what needed to be done. Then it would be very clear for him exactly what he needed to do. She asked if there was an EIR being prepared for Tract 1998? Mr. Buford stated that the work that has been done on site has included visits by biologists that have tracked and mapped Pismo Clarkia and Oak Trees. There has been a wetland delineation on the site. This was all in preparation for the construction of the secondary emergency access road. There was a Draft Negative Declaration prepared; however the project for the access road has been pulled. There has been identification of many of the biological resources on the site. It will be difficult to look at the project and decide what the status of the roadway was in the beginning; what was the status of the site before construction operations began. In addition, a property owner has certain rights to do certain things with his /her property. If the City pursues this type of issue, there needs to be a legal basis established to do that. There are no Conditions that apply to Tract 1998. There are state and federal laws and ordinances to cover certain things. However, it is difficult to establish what has actually been violated. Mr. Buford went on to say that usually the Planning Commission has a project application before them and there is little question that the City has the discretion to impose conditions on the project. The City does not go out and police individual property owner's actions on their property as long as they are in compliance with the law. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she thought there was an active EIR. Mr. Buford stated that as far as he knew, there was no application on this project. As far as Community Development is concerned there has been no work done on this project for six to eight months. There was no EIR report prepared and no consultant retained to do the EIR. EIP conducted certain studies on site and those studies are in the file. If an application were submitted, then it would be subject to environmental review. Mr. Buford stated that he would prepare a report and bring this issue back to the Planning Commission within six weeks to let them know where the issue is with regards to the clean up, etc. Chair Greene stated that he agreed with Commissioner Keen that these issues did not fall within the limited jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, but as citizens the Commission was concerned. When Mr. Buford reports back to the Commission could he please delineate what events have occurred involving the property that fall within the City's jurisdiction? It would be helpful for the ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 11 of 12 Commission to know what other agencies have been contacted and what, if anything, they are considering concerning the site. Mr. Greene stated that he knew this was for informational purposes only and unless Mr. Shetler submitted a plan, there would be little or nothing the City could do. Chair Greene stated that he wanted to have some kind of presentation to recognize Henry Engen's contribution to the Community Development Department and to the City of Arroyo Grande. He asked if Staff would please schedule this on a future agenda? Commissioner Keen wanted to discuss an issue that he was very concerned about. This concern was what he had read in the minutes from the Architectural Review Committee. He stated that he had always been under the impression that the Community Development Director approved Administrative Sign Permits. He did not know that they went to the ARC. He was concerned that the ARC was setting precedents that the Planning Commission may not agree with. He asked the Commission to look at their copies of the minutes as he pointed out what he was concerned with. With regards to the Five City Planned Sign Program, he is concerned that the ARC is talking about signs that the Planning Commission has not even seen. As he remembers the Planned Sign Program any additional signs that were proposed, the Planning Commission was supposed. to see. This included any administrative decisions. Also, when Radio Shack signs were being reviewed, one of the signs that the ARC was talking about was a logo sign along side their door. The problem he had with this was that as they discussed the corporate logo, Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon stated that this was a corporate logo and it should be allowed. He was concerned about starting with Radio Shack and allowing them to have a corporate logo on the door. Mr. Keen did not feel the ARC should set policy on signs. Mr. Keen was further concerned with the fact that David Sachson always asked to have the UL sticker moved so it can't been seen. Mr. Keen does not understand why this is so objectionable to Mr. Sachson. He is not sure if this might be some type of code violation to put the sticker where it cannot be seen. As an electrician himself, he thinks it is important to have the sticker placed where it can be seen. Finally, with regards to the ARC's discussion on the signs for the new Starbucks, it states that Starbucks was requesting a window sign. Mr. Keen stated that he did not recall a section in the Planned Sign Program for any window signs. The minutes also stated that Kelly Heffernon was going to write direction for the ARC concerning the approval of window signs. Mr. Keen did not feel that this was ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 12 of 12 something that was appropriate for staff to be doing. - These types of decisions should come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Keen would like to see the report that Ms. Heffernon prepared for the ARC concerning this issue. Chair Greene asked if Mr. Buford could please check into this for the Commission and report back to them about this situation. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she had received several phone calls from the residents of Rancho Grande area about the screening being used around the roofs of the Five Cities Center. Chair Greene wanted to bring up the issue of the landscaping at the Five Cities Center. He is concerned that the City was not getting the landscaping that had been promised. He would like to see a report on what was being planted and how City Staff felt they were progressing with the project. The part of the project that most concerned him was the area above the Brisco Road Interchange and the area along St. Patrick's school. There was supposed to be extensive landscaping there and it doesn't seem to have been done. He would like to know how the City would exercise their authority if the plan were not completed as promised. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS. Mr. Buford informed the Commission that the EIR for the Arroyo Linda project would be ready for public review on August 16, 1999. The project has tentatively been scheduled for the Planning Commission sometime in September 1999. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commission AS TO C • TE T: Ierk Henry Engen, ICP Interim C• - unity Development Director latiAvAtr4) G1oJA't1, Laurence Greene, Chair