Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-06-011 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 1, 1999 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Greene presiding. Present were Commissioners Costello, Keen, and London. Commissioner Parker was absent. Also in attendance were Interim Community Development Director Henry Engen, Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon and Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of April 20, 1999 were approved as amended by changing the word purchase to purpose on Page 8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Memorandum from Henry Engen concerning Second Residential Units. 2. Letter dated May 28, 1999 from Lucia Mar Unified School District regarding Tentative Tract Map No. 2333. 3. Letter dated May 28, 1999 from Bonnie and John Mathias regarding Tentative Tract Map No. 2333 and Planned Unit Development 99 -002. 4. Letter from Namdar Structural Engineering dated June 1, 1999 regarding information concerning the change to the landscape plans for the Five Cities Center. 5. Department of Planning and Building, San Luis Obispo County, Description of project # D980092P — Lopez Co. — Talley Farms. Requested by Nanci Parker. 6. Minutes of City Council meeting for May 11, 1999. Chair Greene announced that Commissioner Costello had been delayed and would be a few minutes late for the meeting. Because of the absence of Commissioner Parker, he was going to change the order of the Items on the Agenda leaving the Public Hearing Items until Mr. Costello was present. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW - UP REPORTS. Henry Engen, Interim Community Development Director, informed the Commission that the Village Glen project was to be heard by the City Council on June 8, 1999. The Non - Taxable Retail Sales Ordinance will be heard by the City Council on June 22, 1999. Chair Greene asked if some of the ongoing discussion concerning the Village Glen Annexation involved discussion of a school site. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 2 Mr. Engen answered that he had heard that; however, it was not a part of the Staff Report to the City Council. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None Chair Greene called for a recess of the meeting until 7:25 by which time Commissioner Costello should have arrived. With the arrival of Commissioner Costello, Chair Greene reconvened the meeting at 7:25. PUBLIC HEARING — TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2333 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 99 -002 (CONTINUED FROM THE MAY 18, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING). LOCATION: 1138 AND 1148 FAIR OAKS AVENUE. RICHARD DE BLAUW — APPLICANT Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon reviewed the staff report dated June 1, 1999. She advised that the property in question consists of two separate parcels totaling approximately 1 acre in size. One of the parcels is currently developed with two residential dwellings and a garage. The second parcel is currently vacant. There are two -story apartment complexes directly to the north and west, and single family residences to the east and south. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing structures on the subject property and construct eight single - family homes. The homes are all two -story with three different floor plans. Ms. Heffernon advised that the Planning Commission has reviewed the project on two separate occasions. The first time was on April 6' 1999 as a pre - application, and then again on May 18, 1999 as a Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development. The issues discussed at the previous meetings were the lack of turn around space at the end of the proposed access road; insufficient side setbacks; density of residential units; privacy of the property owners to the east; and, discrepancies in open space calculations. Since the square footage of the floor plans did not coincide with the proposed open space percentages the Public Hearing was continued to allow the applicant to adjust the open space calculations. Staff has looked at the revised numbers and has determined that the 45% open space requirement has been met. The applicant has made some amendments to the project in response to Planning Commission concerns. The main changes include increasing the side setbacks from five feet to six and one -half feet; and, providing a turn around area at the end of the access road. The turn around area will be composed of hollow cement pavers, which will allow grass to grow through it while still allowing cars to drive on it. Ms. Heffernon asked the Commissioners to refer to the Staff Report where there is a comparison of this project to a similar type project at 305 Alder Street. Both projects have the maximum units allowed by the Development Code, include two story homes and are accessed by one twenty -foot road. 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 3 In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon asked the Commission to note that Lucia Mar School District had submitted a letter regarding the project. The District asked that the City, Applicant, and the District meet to determine appropriate mitigation for potential school related impacts generated by the project. The Planning Commission could add a condition stating that all school impact fees stated by State law shall be paid prior to issuance to any building permits this would allow the project to move forward while satisfying some of the concerns of the School District. The Planning Commission could also continue this item to a future meeting to allow time for the School District to negotiate any additional impact fees. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed modifications to the plans with regard to open space and the turn around area, and approve Tentative Tract Map 2333 and Planned Unit Development 99 -002 subject to the findings and conditions contained in Resolution 99 -1697 with consideration to adding a condition with mitigation for school impact fees. Commissioner Costello stated that he found the numbers for the open space to be correct. He asked about the concrete turn around area and how it would be maintained. Craig Campbell explained to Mr. Costello that the grass grows up between the concrete blocks and then it is mowed like regular grass. Mr. London stated that he recalled from the earlier meetings the response from the School District was favorable and had no mitigation. He asked what it was that had changed? Ms. Heffernon stated that she did not know what had happened. The Community Development Department had received a letter today (June 1, 1999) concerning this and nothing had been said before. Chair Greene asked about the school fees for this project. He wondered what the District had asked for in fees originally and if they had tried to reach an agreement with the Developer concerning this project? Ms. Heffernon said that with recent legislation, the amount school districts can assess a development such as this is regulated by state law. Chair Greene thanked Ms. Heffernon for including the information on Alder St. in the staff report. He asked if the roof configurations at Alder St. were similar to those being proposed at the new project? Ms. Heffernon replied that she was not sure. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 4 Kathy Preston, 1127 Fair Oaks submitted a petition to the Commission. The signers are opposed to the development. They feel the development is too much at 8 homes. Sylvia DeHart, 364 Walnut stated that she has lived in her house 10 years. She had the following concerns about the development: 1. Having a 2 story house 5 feet from their back fence is too close. 2. The 2 story would block the afternoon sun from their pool and garden. They rely on solar energy to heat the pool. 3. A 2 story house 5 feet from their back property would be obtrusive and would make being in their back yard like living in a fish bowl. Since the May 18 hearing she had done some research on the Development Code. In Chapter 9- 03.160 Section D it states that the Planning Commission may approve a request for a Planned Unit Development only if all the following findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner. Under Section D, Number 5 states that the proposed development as conditioned will not have a substantial adverse effect on the surrounding property.... Number 8 in the same section states that the project be unobtrusive and environmentally compatible with adjacent property. She feels that this development will be obtrusive and effect their property in an environmentally negative way. Jack Faught, 1125 Fair Oaks stated that he concurs with everything Mrs. DeHart said and that the main problem with this development was that 8 homes was too many. Louise Faught, 1125 Oaks stated that she was the principal driver for she and her husband and it is already too hard to pull out onto Fair Oaks. With this many houses there won't be enough parking which will make it harder for the people across the street on Fair Oaks to back in and out of their driveways. LaFon Kellerman 1 129 Fair Oaks stated that she did not have anything against Mr. DeBlauw; however, she felt that kids need a place to play and there isn't enough room at this project. She would like to see this property developed but not to the extent Mr. DeBlauw is going to develop it. She had spoken to a real estate person and was told that her property value would go down if this project were put in. John Beccera, 350 Walnut St. stated that the main issue was one of privacy. This was going to be lost for the neighbors on the east side of the project. Gary DeHart, 364 Walnut St. stated that although the developer said that high, opaque windows would be put in the upstairs windows that faces the properties on Walnut, there is noting to say that once these places are built and sold, those windows will be removed and replaced with larger, clear windows. He feels there would also be a loss of privacy from windows on the side of the house. Gerald Baker, owner of 1138 Fair Oaks, has owned the subject property for 20 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 5 years. Would like to see the area cleaned up and Mr. DeBlauw's project would made that possible. He has spent a lot of money to do this project and would like to Commission to consider Mr. DeBlauw's request. Linda Hughes, 366 Walnut spoke to the Commission and stated that her backyard is adjacent to the vacant property. The lot behind them has been vacant for 23 years and they have enjoyed having the open .space. However, lately there have been people roaming around there and she would feel better if it was developed. She was at the meeting to speak for the development of the property. The lot was long and narrow and the developer had made a real effort to mitigate this. The property was zoned for Multi - Family and she was afraid that they would build condos there. She felt this project would be better than condos. Greg Whitford, 967 Printz Rd. stated that unfortunately people don't realize that they could end up with 8 condos behind them. They are allowed a 5 -foot setback without the PUD. It is not feasible to put in only 6 units on this property. This area had already been downzoned from 14 units to only nine. Melissa Watkins, 640 Heritage Lane stated that she was a real estate agent. It was her opinion that property values would not fall because of this development but rather they would increase. She felt that this would be a good buffer between the apartments and single family homes in the area. The only way this project is going to be cost effective is to have 8 units built on the project site. Duane DeBlauw spoke on briefly on behalf of the project. Mike Williams, 1156 Pacific Point Way representing Mr. DeBlauw made a few final remarks on behalf of the project. Commissioner London asked Mr. Williams if there was any way to mitigate the visual obstruction of the new homes with regards to the neighbors on the east side of the project? Commissioner London also asked if a traffic study needed to be done for a PUD? Craig Campbell, Public Works, stated that a PUD does not require a traffic study. Commissioner Keen stated that he felt the same about the project that he had at the May 18, 1999 meeting. He felt the neighbors would be more pleased with this rather than having townhomes or condos. Commissioner Costello had very mixed feelings about the project. He felt this project would be very well built but he had some concerns as follows: 1. He had driven by the development on Alder St. and had seen cars parked out into the driveways. He felt this would happen at this development also. 2. He does not feel he can comment on the economics of having 8 homes here. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 6 Commissioner Costello feels that this project is too dense and will adversely effect the surrounding neighbors. Chair Greene had some stated that this is a close call as far as finding this project consistent with the Development Code. His personal feeling that the project is too dense. However, the owner has the entitlement to build 8 units as long as the set backs are met. He is not persuaded by the traffic complaints. This kind of a project is bound to create more traffic in the area. He feels that permitting single family homes is this area is an asset. Townhomes and Condos are usually renter occupied and renters generally have no allegiance to the Community or neighborhood. The critical issue for Mr. Greene is the impact of the development on the surrounding neighbors. Is the proposed development one, which will create a substantially adverse impact on the surrounding property and will it be obtrusive and environmentally incompatible. With this in mind he spent time looking at the surrounding neighborhood and found it was a mixed use. There will be an adverse impact to the neighbors on Walnut Street. The critical question is if it is substantial. He is interested in hearing any efforts the applicant can make to mitigate the obtrusiveness of this project on the surrounding property. The Commission discussed several issues with the applicant that could be done to help make this less obtrusive to the neighbors. Chair Greene asked staff to draft language to allow for the following in the Conditions of Approval: 1. Draft a condition to include language in the CC & R's to prohibit altering the rear windows. 2. Applicants to accommodate reasonable roof height reduction. 3. To limit the height on the homes adjacent to the neighbors on Walnut St. 4. Condition of Approval #20 be modified to include the substitution of a 24 -inch box Coast Oak Tree be planted. Chair Greene proposed a brief break to enable staff time to draft language for the Conditions of Approval on this project. The following Conditions of Approval were added or changed: 1. Add a special Condition Section: a Condition # 6 shall read: The Plans shall be revised to the satisfaction of Community Development staff to provide for a maximum building height not to exceed 24 feet on lots one through four. b Condition # 7 shall read: A deed restriction shall be recorded against lots one through four, which prohibits altering the opaque windows, located on the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 7 east elevations. c Condition # 63n would read: School impact fees subject to approval by the Lucia Mar School District pursuant to State law. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1697 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2333 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 99 -002 WITH ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW LOCATED AT 1138 AND 1148 FAIR OAKS AVENUE WITH EXHIBIT A AND AS MODIFIED. On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner London, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Keen, London and Chair Greene NOES: Commissioner Costello ABSENT: Commissioner Parker the foregoing resolution was adopted June 1, 1999. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. LANDSCAPE REVISIONS — FIVE CITIES CENTER Contract Planner Joe Prutch explained the revisions to project being asked for by Howard Mann LLC /Five Cities Center. The original approved Landscape Plan required that landscape "screen walls" be provided on the fill slope below buildings J and K. T_ he approved landscape plan designated the use of a split faced concrete block wall for the "screen walls" material. It was found that the concrete block wall was too heavy for the slope it was to be constructed on. Civil engineers would not approve of the concrete wall because of its lack of stability. Lightweight screen fencing was the proposed alternative. The Amended Landscape Plan was submitted for Architectural Review and approved in a special ARC meeting held on February 8, 1999. David Sachson, ARC member had submitted a letter expressing his concerns about this project. In his letter he stated that the new fencing does not comply with the Design Guidelines Item #6, which stated that all fences should be of a durable, noncombustible material. Therefore, a wood fence would be inappropriate. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 8 The Commission discussed the proposed wood lattice fencing and had the following observations: 1. A wood lattice fence wood would not be compatible with the existing buildings. 2. The material used should be of a more permanent and durable nature. 3. The Design Guidelines prohibit the use of wood fencing. 4. The wood lattice fencing would be a constant maintenance problem. 5. Because of the prominent visibility of the slope, whatever is used must be aesthetically pleasing and durable. Mike Heinrich spoke to the Commission and explained that: 1. The developer can't build the wall because it would undermine the slope. 2. The original purpose was to provide something to support the Bougainvillea plants that will be used to cover the slope. 3. The lattice that would be use would be pressure treated and durable. The Commission and the Applicant discussed the possibility of using a more durable material for the latticework. The applicant stated that there is a metal type lattice material that would meet the standards for durability and would not be combustible. The Commission was concerned about the color of the material that would be used. They wanted the color consistent and compatible with the buildings. The Commission discussed whether this should come back to them for final approval of the color and material. After discussing the issue with staff and the applicant it the Commission decided to leave the final decision to the discretion of the Community Development Director. Chair Greene summarized the changes that should be made to Resolution No. 99 1698 as follows: 1. Color of material used should be consistent with, or close too, the color of the buildings. 2. Wood or vinyl material will be excluded. 3. Final approval of color and material will be left to the discretion of the 4. Community Development Director. 5. The material used will be powered coated, rust resistant material. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1698 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING AN AMENDED LANDSCAPE PLAN AND APPROVING AMENDED LANDSCAPE PLAN CASE NO. 99 -001 LOCATED AT FIVE CITIES CENTER AND APPLIED FOR BY 'HOWARD MANN, LLC /FIVE CITIES CENTER. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 9 On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner London, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Keen, London and Chair Greene Commissioner Costello Commissioner Parker the foregoing resolution was adopted June 1, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT A. Discussion of special meeting on June 29, 1999 The Commission and Staff discussed switching the Planning Commission meeting of June 15, 1999 to June 29, 1999. Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission meeting of June 15, 1999 be cancelled and a special meeting be held on June 29, 1999. Commission Keen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Chair Greene complimented Parks and Recreation Director Dan Hernandez and his staff for doing such a good job monitoring the landscaping at the Five Cities Center. There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by Chair Greene at 10:30 P.M. ATTEST: CAP--\\\\SULX . Kathleen Fryer, Planning Commission Clerk AS TO CONTENT: /atlAun 67LP14Q Laurence Greene, Chair Henry Eng , AICP Interim Community Development Director