Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-05-181 MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION May 18, 1999 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chair Parker presiding. Present were Commissioners Keen, Costello, and London. Chair Greene was absent. Staff members in attendance were Contract Planner Tom Buford, Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon, Public Works Director Don Spagnolo, and Senior, Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meeting of April 6, 1999 were approved as submitted on motion by Commissioner London, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and unanimously carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1 Letter dated May 18, 1999 from John and Chesterlyn Becerra, 350 Walnut Street, regarding Agenda Item No. II.0 (Richard DeBlauw application). 2. Letter dated May 18, 1999 from JoAnne Brewer, 340 Walnut Street, regarding Agenda Item No. II.C. (Richard DeBlauw application). PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2333 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 99 -002, REQUESTING APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO SUBDIVIDE TWO EXISTING PARCELS INTO EIGHT LOTS. APPLICANT: RICHARD DE BLAUW; REPRESENTATIVE: MICHAEL DAVE WILLIAMS; LOCATION: 1138 AND 1148 FAIR OAKS AVENUE. Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon reviewed the staff report dated May 18, 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 initially reviewed the project as a pre - application on April 6 th and discussed issues of density, affordability, impacts to adjacent property owners with regard to privacy, tree removal and common open space. She referred to the letter attached to the staff report from the applicant in response to the Planning Commission's concerns. She advised that the most noticeable change has been to the windows facing the neighboring single family MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 18, 1999 Page 2 residences to the east that have been made smaller and higher and are made from obscure glass. She further advised that the property is located within the Condominium Townhouse zoning district which is intended for development of small lot single family and multi family dwelling units with a maximum density of nine (9) dwelling units per acre. Ms. Heffernon pointed out that the applicant's request for approval of a Planned Unit Development will allow deviation from minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, and setback requirements from the Development Code. She further noted that the PUD process is intended to provide flexibility in design to provide more efficient use of land than would normally be possible by the strict requirements of the Development Code. The project meets lot coverage, floor area ratio, guest parking and private open space requirements of the Development Code. Also, a Minor Exception for fence height would be processed if the project is approved. Staff has conducted an environmental review of this project and does not anticipate that it would have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures has been prepared for the Planning Commission to adopt. She advised that the Staff Advisory Committee and Architectural Advisory Committee have both reviewed and approved the project, and have recommended approval by the Planning Commission. In response to Commissioner London's question regarding any requirement for a turn around in the back of the development, Associate Planner Heffernon advised there is no requirement as long as there is emergency access per the Fire Department. She noted that the Fire Department has looked at this project and has required that all individual units be sprinkled for fire protection. Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell advised there is a section in the Development Code whereby once a certain number of parking spaces are exceeded, there is a requirement to have room to turn around and head out forward. He further advised that parking spaces for this project within each lot are perpendicular to the road and, therefore, you can come in, turn around and back out. He stated there is no code requirement for a designated clear area for a turn around. Commissioner Costello stated it is difficult to read the numbers on the plans that set forth how large the houses are. He has calculated it three different ways and none of the numbers match the numbers being presented in percentages or square footage, except for the 39,384 square feet for the total project. He requested clarification on exactly what is what because the numbers he runs exceed what is allowed. Vice Chair Parker stated she also came up with different figures and suggested this matter be addressed later because the percentages do not come out, and she agreed that it is very difficult to read the small numbers on the plans. She asked if the back walls that are five feet from the zero lot line carports are planned to be fire walls? Ms. 1 1 1 MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 18, 1999 Page 3 • Heffernon advised that they are required to be fire walls. In response to the question regarding school impact and mitigation, Contract Planner Buford advised there is a State law as to what the schools can require based on a fee at a number of dollars per square foot. He noted he didn't have an answer at this time as to when that is paid and who collects it, but that information will be provided to the Commission. With regard to the issue of the turn - around, Vice Chair Parker stated this is a big issue for her, and is a bit scary to think of a fire truck or emergency vehicle pulling in there and having to back out because it could not turn around. Commissioner Keen referred to the requirement for duplex water meters. He inquired, since these houses are sprinkled and are going to require larger meters, wouldn't it be more prudent to have them each tapped in individually rather than requiring duplex? Mr. Campbell agreed that might be true and they will need to look at that during the final design; possibly they may need to size a single line appropriately. Commissioner London questioned the depth of the driveways that are supposed to accommodate the extra parking, stating they do not look very deep and it appears SUVs and RVs could be sticking out into the street unless the driveways are deep enough. Vice Chair Parker stated that the second page of Attachment 3 shows driveway depths to be 20 by 27 and 20 by 24 feet. There being no additional questions for staff at this time, Vice Chair Parker opened the hearing for public comment. Mike Williams, representing DeBlauw Construction, addressed some of the issues discussed tonight by the Commissioners. With regard to the turn around issue, Mr. Williams advised that the Fire Chief has looked at that and he felt that since the houses are equipped with sprinklers, he was satisfied with being able to back the fire truck in, and he also felt that was better than having a fire hydrant in the middle -of the property. As far as the question of turning the fire truck around, the Fire Chief felt that the 20 foot wide street or easement driveway coming in was adequate. In response to Commissioner Costello's comments regarding the numbers, Mr. Williams stated he agreed that it is difficult to put all of those things together, and he had spent the better part of the day with the engineer to guarantee him that those numbers are correct. Mr. Williams reviewed the calculations and advised that the total footprint area for living space for each of the 8 houses should total 11,384. Commissioner Costello reviewed his method of calculations, which did not add up to what Mr. Williams had quoted. He stated he would like to have numbers that everyone agrees are the same. Mr. Williams stated they will comply and will be able to provide those numbers. MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 18, 1999 Page 4 Jack Fauqht, 1 125 Fair Oaks Avenue, stated he lives almost directly across from the proposed project. He stated he is concerned about the traffic and the fact that the Tots they are building on are undersized lots and they are proposing to build about the largest homes in the area up to 2400 square feet. He stated it was his understanding that a PUD lot was supposed to be for medium priced homes, and these homes would not be medium priced in this area. He also expressed concern about the Oak tree on the property and he would not like to see that tree cut down. He commented he is concerned with the overall project and the numbers that have been given. He stated he would like to see the number of houses reduced because he doesn't feel in that area that eight houses are acceptable on that property, and especially two story houses which would be the only two story homes in the area overlooking everything around there. Mr. Faught stated he is not against building on that lot because it would be an asset having something there, however, eight houses seems too much just for that small area. Sylvia DeHart, 364 Walnut Street, stated she lives on the East side of the project. She advised she has three basic reasons she is concerned about this project. She is very concerned about having a two story home 5 feet from her back fence. In her opinion, this would really effect the property value of her home if she should decide to sell it. She commented they have a pool in their back yard and some very nice landscaping with a vegetable garden. She was very concerned that a big two story home would block the sun in the afternoon that heats the pool with a solar cover, and the vegetable garden wouldn't get any sun. She stated the obscured glass windows could be removed at any time by the homeowner and transparent glass installed. She noted that the distance from the pool to her back fence is 8 feet, and a two -story structure would shade that whole area. Also, in her opinion, building 8 homes on that lot is just looking to make the most amount of money instead of taking into consideration what it would look like and how it would affect the neighborhood. Gary Collins, 1 159 Fair Oaks Avenue, stated they bought their home there about three years ago and they like the one -story homes, and he doesn't feel the rules and regulations should be deviated from. LaVon Kellerman, 1 129 Fair Oaks, stated she concurs with everything her neighbors have said. Greg Whitford, 976 Printz Road, stated he is the current owner of 1148 Fair Oaks Avenue. He stated if these homes are not built the way they are suggested as PUD, then we will end up with condominiums or townhouses with 8 units between the two because of the way the property is zoned. There isn't much choice if it doesn't go PUD. Townhouses will most likely be two -story and condominiums will probably be two story also. He stated he believes the developer has done the best he could if the 1 1 1 MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 18, 1999 Page 5 numbers can be worked out on the square footage. Danny Hughes, 366 Walnut, stated he lives east and adjacent to the project and he personally likes the project and would prefer to see houses go in instead of condominiums or apartments. He noted that there currently is a two -story home in the area adjacent to him and there is room for these houses in there and, in his opinion, the project would be nice for the area. Melissa Watkins, 640 Heritage Lane, stated she is the real estate agent representing Mr. DeBlauw. She stated, in her opinion, this project would be very good for the property values in almost every case, especially the ones that are right next to the empty lot. She pointed out it is sometimes very hard to sell a house next to an empty lot when it is not known what will be built there. She also noted that the property is zoned for some type of multi - family building such as condominiums, apartments or townhouses. These homes are going to be the best that can be built on that type of property. She cited other similar projects on Spruce and Ash and she felt if the neighbors would drive by there now that they are built and the landscaping is in place, they would be pleasantly surprised at how nice the project looks. Richard DeBlauw, applicant for the project, addressed some of the concerns expressed by the neighbors regarding privacy. Also, with regard to the concern about people having to back out of their garage, back out of their driveway, and back onto Fair Oaks Avenue, he stated that is not so. They will back out of their driveway and back into the driveway across from their house and then pull out on Fair Oaks straight forward. With regard to the desire for single story homes, Mr. DeBlauw advised that .the lot would not accommodate single story homes that would be large enough to be marketable. Also, the reason 8 units are proposed is because the property is zoned for 8 units and for the price that is paid for the land, it would really not be economical or feasible to build anything less. As far as lot coverage, Mr. De Blauw stated they will look into that to determine why there is a discrepancy and, if necessary, adjustments will be made. Linda Hughes, 366 Walnut Street, stated she has lived there for 23 years with that empty lot behind her home and she would much rather see this project built than apartments. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Vice Chair Parker closed the public hearing and restricted further comments to the Commission. Commissioner London stated that at the initial meeting on this project, it was suggested that the builder come back with some other proposals such as perhaps a fewer number of homes, single story, mixed type of homes, etc. In hearing that the MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 18, 1999 Page 6 developer doesn't think he can do that, Commissioner London noted that he feels it is still feasible, but is not being considered. He stated he also recognizes that something is going to be built there and having single family residences in the long run is probably going to be more acceptable to the current neighborhood. Commissioner Costello stated he would like to see a smaller project in there and, in his opinion, we are putting too many houses in too small of a space. He didn't feel there was a problem with the fire engines getting in there, however, he is worried about kids walking to school, extra traffic and extra vehicles. He commented if this project could be made to work with six houses, in his opinion, it would be a much better project and would have less opposition from the neighbors, and probably would be a lot less impact to the existing houses. He stated these were his problems before and they are still there. He would like to see a smaller project work in that space instead of having to fight with a microscope trying to make the square footage fit so that the maximum lot coverage of 40% is met. Commissioner Keen agreed that if this project was developed in apartments or townhouses they would probably be rental units to tenants that may not be as concerned about the property and neighbors as somebody would that buys a house. Therefore, it seems it would be to everybody's best interest to have single family houses on this property instead of townhouses or condominiums. He stated he also would like to see Tess units and single story homes, but he realizes that the entitlement has been set out for what can go in there and that is what has been proposed. He further stated that the concerns he expressed during the pre - application review have been addressed. In summary, Commissioner Keen commented that this property is zoned for this type of development and he feels this project meets the City's Development Code. He also stated he thinks the numbers have to be rechecked and verified to make sure the open space is correct for this project. Vice Chair Parker referred to the PUD provisions. She stated having apartment buildings on one side and single family homes on the other side, she would like to see something in between the apartments and the homes and, in her opinion, mixed uses are sometimes difficult for people to live with. If condominiums were put in there, they could be nicely done, but the neighborhood would be better served perhaps if there were single family homes. She stated, however, on the other side of the issue she has a problem with ignoring all of the rules in order to get something that is aesthetically pleasing. She felt the turn around pattern was inappropriate as part of this plan and, in her opinion, the end of this development needs a turn around. Another problem she has is the 5 foot set back at the rear end of the building and she doesn't believe that will work in this particular case and she feels there needs to be more of a buffer between single family homes and an apartment building. Also, the mailboxes on Fair Oaks could eventually be a problem. Another problem is that the 1 1 1 1 MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 18, 1999 Page 7 driveway is 20 feet wide, which means if you have a car coming one way and a car going the other way at the same time, there is no place to walk. She stated she also came up with different numbers for the open space. The requirement is 45% of open space and she came up with 42 %. The open space issue could perhaps be reduced in order to get a complete PUD in there. She indicated her feeling that if you have single family homes in there and the fact that each home has a little bit of elbow room as opposed to a condominium or apartment, it would be better than pressing the 45% as opposed to the 42% open space. Given the configuration of the lot and the proximity of the multi family on one side and single family homes on the other side, she would like to see a bridge between the two. Perhaps fewer homes might work; if there were fewer homes, there could be more open space, a turn around at the end, and perhaps with a different configuration there could be more room in the back than just five feet. There being no further comments from the Commission at this time, 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 . WITH MITIGATION MEASURES; INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION; AND APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2333 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 99 -002 WITH ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, LOCATED AT 1138 AND 1148 FAIR OAKS AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY RICHARD DE BLAUW. On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner London, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Keen and London NOES: Commissioner Costello and Vice Chair Parker ABSENT: Chair Greene the foregoing Resolution was lost due to the lack of a majority vote. Contract Planner Buford advised that from a staff standpoint, staff is willing to work with the applicant to get this done and turn it around. Obviously, there are some exhibits that need to be prepared for the Commissioners by the applicant. He suggested continuing the item to the meeting of June 1, 1999 when Chair Greene will be present. The applicant indicated he is in agreement with staff's recommendation. MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 18, 1999 Page 8 After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Costello, seconded by Commissioner London, and unanimously carried, the matter was continued to the meeting of June 1, 1999. Staff was directed to work with the applicant and to recalculate and /or clarify the figures. Vice Chair Parker requested that the figures submitted on the tables be of a size that can be read easily. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99 -003, REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED SECOND UNIT DWELLING, GARAGE AND WORKSHOP; APPLICANTS: DANTE AND YVONNE TOMASINI; LOCATION: 148 SOUTH ALPINE STREET. Associate Planner Heffernon reviewed the staff report dated May 18, 1999, and briefly described the proposed project. She noted that the property is currently developed with an 895 square foot single family residence and accessory structure to the front of the lot. The applicant proposes to construct a 640 square foot detached second residence to the rear of the property with a two -car garage and workshop. The proposed second unit meets all Development Code standards including setbacks, lot coverage, maximum square footage and height. She noted that Condition #9, has been added requiring that a deed restriction be recorded requiring that the property owner reside in either unit in order to rent the other. Also, the Architectural Review Committee recommended that a condition be added regarding the potential conversion of the workshop to living space, and this has been addressed in Condition #11. _ Ms. Heffernon stated that staff has completed an environmental review and does not anticipate that this project will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for consideration by the Planning Commission. In summary, she advised that the Staff Advisory Committee and Architectural Review Committee recommend that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the project subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner London questioned the reasoning for the deed restrictions and asked what would preclude the applicant from converting the shop into living quarters and what would the penalty be? Ms. Heffernon advised that the Commission could condition the Use Permit in such a way that such a conversion would be difficult. Contract Planner Buford advised there is always the possibility that a conversion could be done in violation of the Conditional Use Permit. He suggested there are a couple of options; one is by code enforcement proceedings and the second is, because this is a Conditional Use Permit there are procedures that can be taken to revoke the Use Permit and force the owner of the property to de- convert such space. In response to Commissioner Keen's inquiry regarding background information on the state law on second residential units or "granny flat" provisions in a residential zone, Mr. Buford advised staff could pull that information out at a later time to provide to the Commission. 1 1 1 1 MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 18, 1999 Page 9 There being no further discussion at this time by the Commission, Vice Chair Parker opened the hearing for public comment. Dante Tomasini, 148 So. Alpine Street, applicant, explained some of the intended uses of the shop building. Regarding the proposed door from the shop to the kitchen area, Mr. Tomasini advised that door is for convenience only Hearing no additional comments from the audience, Vice Chair Parker closed the public hearing and restricted further comments to the Commission and staff. Commissioner London stated he doesn't feel there should be a door from the shop directly into the house and there should be an outside entrance and exit for the shop for any emergency. Commissioner Keen stated his primary concern also was the conversion of this floor space to living space. He commented he is not convinced that even closing up the door is going to make any difference. There is a problem with the design and in his opinion, somewhere down the line someone could easily convert the shop area into living space. His concern is that a 640 foot limitation is placed on this type of development, and then have it converted to a 950 square foot house is not what was intended. Other than his concern about the conversion, he stated that the rest of the project looks good. Commissioner Costello stated he has no particular problem with this project except for the potential conversion that has been discussed. He asked if there is a way to put some sort of conditions on the sale of the house that conversion cannot occur and the property will be inspected six months after the sale is complete to make sure that does not occur? If there were some way to put a provision with that kind of language into the permit and have the ability to enforce it, he would feel more comfortable. Commissioner Keen referred to water buildout projections, noting that when buildout water was figured, it was figured on these lots not having full residences, therefore, if these residences are allowed to be expanded with more bedrooms, that's more water and, there is no way to calculate water buildout if everyone comes in with a Conditional Use Permit for a larger second dwelling. Vice Chair Parker stated she didn't have a problem with going from the shop into the house any more than going from the garage into the house; or having a shop there as opposed to having a garage there and, in her opinion, if someone was intent on converting shop or garage space to living space, they could one way or another and she didn't see how opening it up could solve that problem. She further stated she doesn't really want to play the roll of "big brother" inspecting everyone's home to MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 18, 1999 Page 10 make sure they are always in compliance. The situation about the water is something that would effect the rest of the people in Arroyo Grande, which is why we should adhere to the 640 -foot home. Vice Chair Parker stated if the house is ever sold, there is a deed restriction with information that there is a 640 sq. ft. home in the back with a shop that cannot be converted. She did express concern if this shop area would eventually be turned into a commercial endeavor where there would be a lot of shop construction noises in a residential zone then, in her opinion, the residences should be alerted to that before the shop is approved. Ms. Heffernon noted the applicant would be required to apply for a Home Occupation Permit and, in her opinion, any type of commercial endeavor would probably be outright denied. Mr. Buford advised that if the applicant intended operating a business out of his home and did not have a Home Occupation Permit, that is exactly the situation for which we have a Code Enforcement Officer and it would be very easy to inspect the residence and correct the situation if that did occur. He suggested that the Commission could either condition the approval or ask for a redesign of the plans to reflect what looks more like a shop and less like a "ready to be converted bedroom" and bring it back to the Commission at a later time. Commissioner Costello recommended that language be added in the deed restriction stipulating that the living area of the second dwelling be limited to 640 square feet, provide notice that no conversion of. the shop area has been approved, and any conversion would be in violation of the City's ordinance and, secondly, that there be an exit from the shop area in the form of a door or sliding glass door to either the north or the south. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1695 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 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 99 -003, LOCATED AT 148 SO. ALPINE STREET, APPLIED FOR BY DANTE AND YVONNE TOMASINI. On motion by Commissioner Costello, seconded by Commissioner London, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: 1 1 1 MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 18, 1999 Page 11 AYES: Commissioners Costello, Keen, London and Vice Chair Parker NOES: None ABSENT: Chair Greene the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18t day of May 1999. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 99 -004, REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE BUILDING WITH A SECOND FLOOR DWELLING; APPLICANT: CAREY JAMES; REPRESENTATIVE: GREGORY D. SOTO, LIV -IN ENVIRONMENTS; LOCATION: 136 BRIDGE STREET. Associate Planner Heffernon reviewed the staff report dated May 18, 1999. She advised that the proposed project is located on a long and narrow lot between Bridge Street and Traffic Way in the Village Commercial District. The applicant proposes to construct a 1,406 sq. ft. office building on the lower floor with a 782 sq. ft. second floor apartment. The project first came in as a pre - application review, which both the Staff Advisory Committee and Architectural Review Committee reviewed in March of this year. The main issue discussed during that time was whether the access be from Traffic Way as proposed, or from Bridge Street. She noted that staff was originally concerned about left turning movements on to Traffic Way from the, site, but determined that the issue could be solved by conditioning the project to &right turn exit only. Ms. Heffernon called attention to Page 4 of the staff report, under "Traffic ", asking that the reference to prohibiting left hand movements on to the property be stricken. She advised that the Architectural Review Committee approved the architecture and pedestrian orientation to Bridge Street and felt that overall the project was consistent with the Village character of Arroyo Grande. She further advised that, with respect to the Development Code, the project fits the description of the primary purpose of the Village Commercial District. The project is also consistent with all Development Code requirements related to setbacks, lot coverage, building height, landscaping, and parking. She noted that staff has reviewed the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has prepared a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures for the Commission to adopt. Also, the Staff Advisory Committee and Architectural Review Committee both recommend that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution thereby approving the Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit 99 -004. Commissioner London questioned whether or not there is anything to prohibit building a residence so close to a body shop that generates fumes from gases, etc.? Ms. Heffernon stated the body shop is a legal non - conforming use and would not be allowed today. She further stated that the proximity of the body shop to the residence is a Health Department issue. She also stated it would be up to the Commission to determine whether or not they can make the findings for approval. Commissioner MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 18, 1999 Page 12 London stated he believes a determination needs to be made as to whether or not anything built on that lot is going to subject the people inside to hazardous conditions. Commissioner Keen stated there are air quality standards for spray booths and if that shop is in compliance, then there would be no problem with building on that lot. He commented if there is a problem with the body shop then, in his opinion, that needs to be corrected, and not denying someone the use and access to their property. He also recalled that the Village Guidelines encourages residences above the businesses and he felt that is one reason this was designed that way. Ms. Heffernon stated staff could talk to the various agencies involved in air quality, however, staff does not feel it would be right to deny or postpone a project based upon an adjacent use that has been in existence for a long time. Contract Planner Buford advised that the standard conditions in the approval of any project contain a "hold harmless" clause whereby the applicant undertakes to hold the City harmless from any harm that may come from the approval. He noted the clause was drafted by the city attorney and is obviously in there for a reason. He stated that there could be some kind of notification to the tenants of the building with regard to surrounding activities. Beyond that, however, if this particular operation is not in compliance with our codes and ordinances, we have the means of bringing them into compliance. Vice Chair Parker questioned fire exit for the second floor, landscaping requirements, and parking requirements for the apartment. There being no additional comments from the Commission, Vice Chair Parker opened the hearing for public comments. Diane James, 1 196 Grand Ave, stated she is a co- applicant for the project. She stated she appreciated the Commission's comments regarding the body shop and they will check into that to make sure they are in compliance. She stated she talked -to the body shop owner and it is planned to plant a lot of trees between the body shop and their project that are designed to provide a lot of oxygen which should help, and there was also talk about putting slats in the chain Zink fence which would also help the situation. She noted these are a few of the precautions they plan to take and they will be checking to make sure that the body shop is in compliance with air quality regulations. Greq Soto, project architect, made a correction to a discrepancy in the General Conditions, under Exhibit A, changing the upper floor plan statistics to 893 square feet. He stated the reason that was increased was because of the necessity to add a landing upstairs in front of the door and the doorway to create a one -hour protection between the commercial and residential uses. Another discrepancy under the 1 MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 18, 1999 Page 13 "Development Code ", #10 states, "all parking spaces adjacent to a wall, fence, or property line shall have a minimum width of 11 feet. This does not apply to garage or carport spaces which shall each have a minimum dimension of 10 ft. wide by 20 ft. deep." He referred to #34, A, where it states "all parking spaces adjacent to a wall, fence or property line shall have a minimum width of 11 feet." Mr. Soto questioned which one of these must be adhered to; would it be the one relating to the carport or the 11 feet? Mr. Soto stated in previous Staff Advisory Committee and Architectural Review Committee meetings there were discussions regarding a 6 ft. PUE, and Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell had mentioned a 10 ft. easement. However, there is nothing mentioned under the General Conditions. In response to Commissioner London's question regarding the issue of odors emanating from the body shop, Mr. Soto advised there are filters that can be installed in mechanical units, and if the paint shop has the right filters and is working correctly, it is putting out very minimal toxics or odors into the air. He noted that more could also be done within their own system to clear the air out before it goes into the rooms. Commissioner Keen commented he feels this will be a nice project and he doesn't have a problem with it. Commissioner Costello stated he likes the project also. Vice Chair Parker stated she assumes that the residence is going to be occupied by the owner so they would be aware of the body shop use next door, however, if the residence were to be rented out, it would be prudent for the owner to notify the tenant about the potential odors. In answer to Vice Chair Parker's question regarding the landscaping areas to be planted, Mr. Soto reviewed proposed landscaping plans. John Clark, owner of 132 Bridge Street, spoke regarding the comment about a left - hand turn only going out of the Traffic Way exit. He stated he has had an easement for 15 years on that property and that is his only access and egress except for the alley coming out on to Bridge Street. He further stated traffic has been going right and left there for 15 years ever since he has had that easement and, in his opinion, this shouldn't be changed after 15 years and hurt an established business. He further stated after reviewing information that was submitted to him, anything he has committed to before as far as landscaping, easements, etc. he is calling off now. His tenant that is in that building now is very much against the proposed communal landscaping between the two buildings. He noted his tenant has been in the building for several years now, and he will be losing that tenant if they do what they want to do. He commented that so far everything that has been discussed is hurting his business, his property, and his rental. As of now, he stated he is calling off any commitment on his part because the objections from his tenants is becoming strong enough that he is forced to listen to them. He further stated if the applicants wish to talk to him he may be willing to re- negotiate, however, he is not committing himself MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 18, 1999 Page 14 to anything, and he is definitely against restricting left hand turns in or out of his easement on that property. He noted he has a 24 -foot easement coming on to the Traffic Way side of that property which is used both ways and he would like to keep it that way. Carey James, co -owner of the project, spoke regarding Mr. Clark's comments. He stated there is a cinder block wall that divides the two properties, and it was his intent to put a walkway from the back parking lot to the front of the building, and to enhance that they wanted to give it more of a courtyard effect. They envisioned a fountain in the center with a couple of nice benches on each side and a trellis going through the entire area. Mr. James stated he had talked to Mr. Clark about this, and he actually signed a letter saying he was going to give his permission to do that. Mr. James stated he expressed to Mr. Clark that he would be paying for the entire project and he seemed amiable to that. He further stated this is the first he has heard that he is not amiable to the proposal. Mr. James stated he believes Mr. Clark is worried that he will be required to move the "trailer" that is located on the back of his property, and that is not something they were planning on asking him to do; the walkway was going to go in front of the trailer so he would not be forced to move the trailer. Mr. James stated they did have some concern about the paint /body shop when they first looked at purchasing the lot and he had done his own informal survey by talking to other property owners around the area. He stated the feedback he got was that there were days, depending upon the wind, circumstances, etc. that they would smell the paint shop and, in his opinion, that is something you have to expect in a mixed use area like this. It is their intention to put in forced air and forced heat on both levels of the building and he believes that with the sealed glass on one side combined with the kind of plantings they propose, he doesn't see a problem. He doesn't feel it is fair to hold up this process and penalize them. Richard DeBlauw, spoke in favor of the project stating, in his opinion, the project will certainly dress up that part of the neighborhood and if they can work out the problems with the neighbors, he would like to see the project built there. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Vice Chair Parker closed the public portion of the meeting and restricted further discussion to the Commission and staff. Ms. Heffernon clarified that the condition in the Conditions of Approval should speak only to prohibiting left hand turn movements from the property and signing it for a right turn only exit. Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell clarified that there is a conflict between Conditions 34.A and #10, and it would be acceptable to strike Condition 34.A and rely 1 1 1 MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 18, 1999 Page 15 on #10. That would allow the parking spaces interior to the carport to be 10 ft. wide instead of 11 ft., which would be consistent with the conventional minimum size for a garage. He further noted, for the applicant's information, there is no Condition of Approval for a PUE on this project. Vice Chair Parker noted there is also a change on the square footage, which would change the first sentence to read "893 sq. ft. second floor dwelling." After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1696 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 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 99 -114, LOCATED AT 136 BRIDGE STREET APPLIED FOR BY CAREY JAMES. On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Costello, London and Vice Chair Parker NOES: None ABSENT: Chair Greene the foregoing resolution was adopted this 18 day of May 1999. NON - PUBLIC HEARING - FISCAL YEAR 1999 -00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM /GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY. Public Works Director Spagnolo presented the Capital Improvement Program in accordance with Government Code Section 65103. He noted this is being submitted to the Planning Commission to determine consistency with the General Plan. He advised that this is a true 5 -year Capital Improvement Program and briefly explained the program format. He described the five sections which break down the expenditures, funding sources, includes a summary spread sheet of all the projects identifying the sources of the funds and when they will be expended, as well as descriptions and details of each and every one of the projects. Mr. Spagnolo briefly reviewed the proposed projects and the program. He advised that this document would be presented to the City Council on June 10 at the budget workshop, because this particular element is part of the budget package, including all of the operating budgets for the whole city. After considerable discussion, on motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by MINUTES Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 18, 1999 Page 16 Commissioner London, and unanimously carried, the Planning Commission determined that the Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the General Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS A. Appointment of Commissioner to Economic Task Force. Commissioner London was appointed to the Economic Task Force on motion by Commissioner Costello, seconded by Commissioner Keen and unanimously carried. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS Contract Planner Buford advised that the James Way Annexation will be back before the City Council on June 8 Rodeo Heights was a project that was dealt with on the Planning Commission level with a staff recommendation to certify an EIR, which was returned to staff with the direction to look at the EIR and see what could be done with the project. It looks like this will be coming back to the Planning Commission with a 1 9 -lot subdivision. The original proposal was for a 38 -lot subdivision. Mr. Buford also advised that the Fiscal Impact Analysis on Arroyo Linda has been completed and staff is completing a further review of a traffic study. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by Vice Chair Parker at 1 1:45 P.M. ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Planning C c A-S — TO- ON1,EN- mission Clerk Tom,B ford, Contract tanner/ Acting Community Development Director Nancy Parker, Vice Chair