Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-04-061 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 MINUTES The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Greene presiding. Present were Commissioners Keen, Parker, Greene, London, and Costello. Interim Community Development Director Henry Engen and Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon were also in attendance. II. A. Oral Communications None B. Written Communications Arroyo Grande Development Code, Table 9- 06.050 -B and Table 9- 06.050 -C. A. Public Hearing Items CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98 -570: CONSTRUCTION OF AN OUTDOOR DINING PATIO AND. EXPANSION OF THE ENTRANCE/WAITING AREA TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT. QUARTERDECK RESTAURANT - 1500 W. BRANCH STREET. Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon gave a brief overview of the project. She stated that the project includes construction of a 4,400 square foot dining patio addition with a stage for outdoor entertainment, and a 126 square foot addition to the entrance /waiting area. She further stated that the design concept of this addition is consistent with the nautical theme of the Quarterdeck Restaurant. She then informed the Commission that both the SAC and ARC had reviewed the project and some of the issues that had come up in those Committees included: parking requirements, future widening of West Branch St., outdoor lighting, drainage, fire exits, and height requirements. She explained to the Commission that the Development Code requires 1 parking space for every 100 square feet of public area. This would total 37 additional parking spaces for the proposed project. The Development Code also allows for up to a 30% reduction in shared parking facilities. Since this is at the Oak Park Plaza, they can use that 30% reduction and the applicant is proposing to reduce the required amount of parking by only 6.6 %. Ms. Heffernon reminded the Commission that in 1997, there was an additional 20,000 -sq. ft. parcel that was created in Oak Park Plaza which effected the center's parking requirement. A parking study was conducted as part of this new parcel, which concluded that there were 10 surplus parking spaces in the Plaza. There has been a previous approval for a 6.9% reduction in parking and if the Commission approves the reduction for this project, the total for the center would be13.5 %. This parking reduction is within the 30% allowed by the Development Code. Chair Greene asked the Commission if they had any questions for staff? Minutes Arroyo Grande Planning Commission April 6, 1999 Page 2 Commissioner Costello was concerned about the existing structure and the future right of way. Should West Branch be widened? Would the structure be subject to future encroachment by the right of way? Craig Campbell, Senior Contract Engineer, explained that there is a proposed road section for the ultimate condition of West Branch as contained in the Circulation Element. It does not define the current right of way. If the road were widened, it would require removal of some of the existing buildings effected. Commissioner Parker asked if the handicapped parking space would have to be in compliance. She also asked if three fire exits would be needed if the use was more intensive. Mr. Campbell replied that he was not familiar enough with the building code to know about the requirements for fire exits. Interim Community Development Director, Henry Engen, explained that the requirements for fire exits depended on the type of use and it would be best to ask the applicant's representative what this area would be used for. If it changed from table seating to a more intensive use the Building Department would decide how they would handle that. Commissioner London asked if the code for exits would apply since this was an outside area? Mr. Engen replied that it would apply in both cases because it is a structure where' people are assembled. Commissioner Keen asked if the noise from the outdoor stage would travel up to the motel above the restaurant? Ms. Heffernon stated that Commissioner Parker had had the same concern. One way to take care of this concern would be to add a condition to review the project in 6 months or a year. Mr. Keen also called attention to Condition No. 30, which stated that the adjacent property owners have consented to the proposed offsite construction. He asked what the offsite construction was and who all had to approve it? Mr. Campbell explained that there was some additional construction and modifications proposed at the shopping center and the property owners were the ones who had to approve these changes. Chair Greene asked if a Variance was needed to approve the additional height in the retaining wall, or was this included in the Resolution they were being asked to consider? He also asked about the drainage issue and if there would be any limitations on the hours of operation or the lighting.? 1 1 Minutes Arroyo Grande Planning Commission April 6, 1999 Page 3 Ms. Heffernon stated that the wall measured 6 feet from inside the patio area, but from the outside it was actually less than 6 feet. The Development Code allows this without a Variance because it is a PD zoning. The drainage issue had been discussed and resolved with Public Works. The lighting was also discussed and it will be directed downward. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing: Craig Smith, representative for the applicant spoke to the Commission and stated that he was the architect for the project. He answered some the of the questions that had been directed to Staff as follows: 1. The project will meet all requirements of ADA and California Administrative Code, Title 24, Handicap Provisions. 2. Mr. Smith had met with Larry Schmidt and will be addressing a posted occupancy number, and that occupancy will be for a concentrated use that will require an additional exit, for a total of two fire exits. 3. This is an assembly area and will be required to comply with all building codes with regards to exiting as a normal building would. 4. The flame- retarded canopy will not be a heavy cover, but rather a combination of a sunscreen and an architectural feature. Therefore, it will not be a sound mitigating device. 5. The applicant felt that the sound would not be a problem because there are no immediate neighbors and there has been no concern expressed by the motel owners. However, if the Commission would like to condition this for further review, that is not a problem for the applicant. 6. The exterior lighting will be subdued. 7. The hours of operations will remain the same as they are now. 8. If the retaining wall issue is a concern because of height, the applicant has no problem with modifying it. 9. This is not just a patio improvement, but they would like to improve the entire area around the restaurant including the trash enclosures, landscaping etc. In summary Mr. Smith explained that the applicant would like to improve this area and make it a more colorful, visually pleasing space. Commission Costello asked where the parking spaces were being lost? Mr. Smith replied that the parking lot is not used to its full extent and the parking study concluded this. Commissioner Keen asked to be shown the two fire exits and wondered if there could be an exit through the building? He also asked Mr. Smith if he had used the material proposed for the retaining wall before? Mr. Smith replied that it was not possible to exit through the restaurant. To meet the building code they would need the two exits off the patio. In reference to the material for the retaining wall he had used the same material before for and it had worked very well. Minutes Arroyo Grande Planning Commission April 6, 1999 Page 4 Commissioner Parker asked what kind of entertainment there would be? She was concerned about the noise issue and had received calls from people in the area that were concerned about this. She also asked about the use of the corrugated metal? Mr. Smith replied that the corrugated metal was used for character and only in a very small area of the patio. Cindy Jones, owner of the Quarterdeck spoke to the Commission and explained that there would not be any loud music, mostly just small "combos" on Friday and Saturday nights. There would be no late night entertainment. Commissioner Keen stated that he was worried about the hours of operation and the kind of entertainment that would be there. He reminded the applicant that in future years there could be another owner that would not be as careful about this. Ms. Jones replied that, although she understood his concern, they would be signing a ten year lease with the owners of the property and could sign up to 2 optional 5 year leases after that. Pete Dougall, 801 N. Mesa Dr., spoke in favor of the project. He asked the Commission to approve this project and support a local business that has added stability to this community. Richard. DeBlauw, spoke briefly to the Commission and said that he was in favor of this project. L Kellerman, 1 129 Fair Oaks, spoke in favor of the project. Nan Flower, 630 Cerro Vista Dr., asked the Commission to approve the project. It is a locally owned business and she was always in favor of supporting women in business. Chair Greene closed the public hearing. Commissioner Costello stated that he didn't see any problem with parking in this location since it appeared that the parking lot was under - utilized at this time. He further stated that his concern was that with the new Five Cities Center there would be fewer businesses in this location. This restaurant is a stabilizing force in this complex and he would like to see it do well. He did not have any problem with the wall height Therefore, he would support the project. Commissioner Keen agreed with Commissioner Costello about the wall height. The problem he sees with the parking is the new development that was approved for the center. He was afraid that if the new building was a restaurant it might have the same hours and therefore the parking might become a problem. He would also like to make sure that the canopy material is fire proofed. Other than these concerns, he is in favor of the project. Minutes Arroyo Grande Planning Commission April 6, 1999 Page 5 Commissioner Parker would like to see the Conditions of Approval amended to make sure, depending upon usage, there are enough fire exits. The other issue would be to revisit the project in a year's time to make sure the noise issue was not a problem. She has a problem with the corrugated roofing. She feels that this restaurant is a stabilizing force in this area and she supports the project. Chair Greene stated that he supports the project. Mr. Greene noticed that in the staff . report there are four attachments designated as attachment B. He would propose that they be numbered B1 through B4 and that Condition Number 4 should be amended to read: "Development shall proceed in substantial conformance with plans presented to the Planning Commission meeting on April 6, 1999. These plans are marked exhibits B1 through B4." He feels that because the project is surrounded by a freeway, businesses and a parking lot that noise and Tight will not be a problem. However, he does feel the project should be revisited in a years time to see if everything is alright, and would like that to be added to the Conditions of Approval. He would also like to see a condition limiting the hours for music to 11:00 or 12:00 at night. Finally, the corrugated roof is in accordance and consistent with the nautical theme and he has no problem with it. Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon, proposed the following changes to the Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 25 should read "Provide all required exits per the uniform building code ". Condition No. 37 should read "Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 98 -570 will be brought back before the Planning Commisson for consideration with emphasis on, but not limited to, sound, lights, noise, and hours of operation, one year after approval of the project by the City Council ". Condition No. 38 should read "Hours of operation for outdoor music shall be limited to 10:00 a.m. until 12:00 a.m. ". Hearing no further comments on this issue, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1692 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98 -570, APPLIED FOR BY ANNE GRIFFITH & CYNTHIA JONES, LOCATED AT 1500 WEST BRANCH STREET On motion by Commissioner Parker, seconded by Commissioner London, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: Minutes Arroyo Grande Planning Commission April 6, 1999 Page 6 YES: Commissioners Keen, Parker, London, Costello, and Chair Greene NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 6th day of April 1999. III. Non - Public Hearing Items TIME EXTENSION, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2207 THE TRACT MAP INVOLVES THE SUBDIVISION OF A 57 ACRE PARCEL INTO 38 CLUSTERED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND TWO (2) OPEN SPACE LOTS. Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report. She stated that the City Council approved the Tentative Tract Map on April 22, 1997. Since the Subdivision Map Act automatically grants a two -year approval for all maps, this map will expire on April 22, 1999. She further explained that the Map Act allows the City to approve a maximum of three, one -year extensions. This is the first request for an extension. In order to grant an extension, the Planning Commission must make the findings that there have been no significant changes in the General Plan, Municipal Code, or character of the area within the area that the project is located which would cause the approved project to be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare. No such changes have occurred in this area. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution granting a one -year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 2207. Commission Keen stated that he had no questions at this time, but he did have a lot of background on this project and would be happy to help answer any questions the other Commissioners might have. Commissioner Parker stated that the traffic study that was submitted as part of the staff report was over two (2) years old. She was wondering, because of recent increases in traffic, if it would be appropriate to require a new traffic study and update the mitigations before a final plan was approved. Craig Campbell stated that typically this is not an approach that has been taken by the City. He quoted from the staff report, which included a statement from the Development Code, that "a time extension will be issued if the Planning Commission finds there has been no significant changes ... ". The typical approach is to say nothing has changed and back up what has been previously approved. Commission Parker asked if this was appropriate when the Commission knew that the level of traffic service in the Fair Oaks Avenue area drops below a level that is acceptable. Mr. Campbell replied that it was up to the Planning Commission to decide if significant changes had occurred that could be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare. If the Commission cannot make the finding that this has occurred, then it is bound to agree to the time extension and the approvals that were passed before. Minutes Arroyo Grande Planning Commission April 6, 1999 Page 7 Commissioner Parker asked if it was appropriate, because the Commission did not have an updated traffic report, to ask for an updated traffic report to compare and see if there had been a significant change in that area. Mr. Campbell stated that he had looked at the existing traffic report and it did include some projects that were no longer under consideration; it did include the Five Cities Center; and the only notable omission was the Arroyo Linda /Crossroads proposed project. Overall, it is his opinion that the overall level of traffic that was evaluated, and its pipeline projects, would be similar to what would be found today. The levels of service were all C or better with one intersection that would go to a D with buildout plus project. Commissioner Parker then asked why the road going through this residential project, would be considered a collector street? Mr. Campbell explained that this was a subject of much discussion during the original approvals and explained some of the considerations that had gone into the decision. Commissioner Costello questioned the fact that the study showed Orchard, Fair Oaks and the 101 exit to be level of service A in the morning peak hours. He did not feel that this was accurate at this time. Mr. Campbell replied that the Commission and members of the public raised this point at the time of the Tract approval. The merits of the.. traffic study were considered and resulted in the Conditions of Approval that were approved. Commission Keen remembered that the collector road had to be put in because of an easement that caused them to work around it by adding the collector road. Commissioner Costello asked if the Commission could approve the extension with the condition that a new traffic study be done. Interim Director Henry Engen stated that this would be difficult to do. This is not a use permit situation where it can be brought back in a year to see if things are changed. He had talked to the City Attorney and he had said that it would be a hard case to condition a map that had been approved with conditions. Commissioner Keen commented that he had a lot of problems with this project. However, because of the negotiations on the different properties and the conditions that were placed on it, if this project ever comes about it will have to come before the Planning Commission again. At that time the Commission can deal with some of the issues concerning this project. Therefore, he would be in favor of granting the time extension at this time. Commissioner Costello stated that in looking at approving or not approving a time extension, and looking at the circumstances under which the extension may be Minutes Arroyo Grande Planning Commission April 6, 1999 Page 8 granted, which are "the extension may be granted if the Planning Commission finds no significant changes in the General. Plan, Municipal Code, or character of the area in which the project is located that would cause the approved project to be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare ". He questions the statistics from the original traffic study and finds that those statistics have changed dramatically. With the hundreds of students that go to and from Arroyo Grande High School on Fair Oaks every day, he finds this to be injurious to public health, safety and welfare. Commissioner Parker stated that she agrees with Commissioner Costello's comments. She feels that a lot of changes have occurred since this project was originally approved. She is uncomfortable with this project and if the applicant is serious about doing the project then she would like to see the applicant make some attempt to correct the problems that have come up in the last 3 years. If he were to request another time extension from the Commission in a year's period of time she would like to see that the applicant had a plan that actually worked. She would like to know if the time extension could be granted based on the applicant making some changes to his project. Commissioner London questioned staff as to what was appropriate to do in this case? He wasn't sure if the Commission could put conditions on a time extension approval, or, should the Commission approve the time extension, let the applicant know about their concerns. Mr. Engen explained that the Commission cannot overturn the original approval since City rules have not changed. The question for the Commission is whether the extension is granted with conditions or just to approve it. As Commissioner Keen had pointed out the project would come before the Commission again and some of these issues could be worked out. If the Commission approved the time extension tonight, Community Development could always prepare a letter to the Applicant indicating that there was considerable discussion of this matter and some major concerns over the traffic report and other matters. Chair Greene stated that he agreed with Commissioner Keen that the project was not moving forward. It is unlikely that the project will go forward without some modifications and if there are modifications it will come back before the Commission for review. The Commission is not in a position to exercise "buyers remorse ". The project has been approved, the statutes say that the Commission has to make a finding that the project area has significantly changed to deny the request and this has not happened. Mr. Greene stated that he felt it would be exceeding the scope of the Planning Commissions authority to reject this request based on the Commission's feelings of dissatisfaction with the project as it exists. Mr. Greene shares the concerns of the other members of the Commission regarding the wisdom of this particular project but the Commission has to confine its decision to whether there have been significant changes in this area. He felt it was a good idea to write a letter to the applicant expressing the Commissioner's concerns. Hearing no further comments on this issue, the following action was taken: Minutes Arroyo Grande Planning Commission April 6, 1999 Page 9 RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1688 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE -YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2207, LOCATED SOUTH OF ORCHARD AVENUE APPLIED FOR BY BUSICK AND GEARING DEVELOPMENT. On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner London, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: YES: Commissioners Keen, Parker, London and Chair Greene NOES: Commissioner Costello ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 6th day of April, 1999. B. PRE - APPLICATION 99 - 006 - RICHARD DE BLAUW, 1148 FAIR OAKS Interim Director Henry Engen presented the Staff report of the Planning Commission. Mr. Engen stated that the property is zoned Multi- Family. To the east the property is zoned single family, multi - family to the north and multi - family apartment to the west. The neighborhood is one of transition with a cross - section of residential uses. The proposed project consists of two lots, one is vacant and one with existing structures that would be torn down. The proposed project would be the construction of eight single - family homes on the parcels. The Planning Commission is being asked to provide comments to the applicant regarding the project proposal and design. The lots average out to 4,900 square feet and would be within the overall density of the zoning ordinance for the Development Code. The PUD is being requested to allow deviation from development code requirements. Chair Greene asked if the Commissioners had questions for Staff? Commissioner Keen stated that in the Staff report it mentioned _the six existing Pine trees, but he did not see where it mentioned the existing Oak tree. Commissioner London asked if the Commission had some leeway to not abide by the Development Code as it relates to setbacks and, if so, what was the extent of that leeway? He was concerned because although the Development Code calls for a 20 -foot setback for a two -story house, the setbacks on this development were only 5 feet. Mr. Engen stated that he agreed with Mr. London that there was a large difference in the setbacks. Mr. Engen explained that there is no formula that says what is reasonable. This is intended to allow for common walls and that kind of thing in a PUD. This is a different situation however, as this is a small lot subdivision. Minutes Arroyo Grande Planning Commission April 6, 1999 Page 10 Mr. London asked if it was normal in a housing tract with the houses back to back, to have this small of a setback. Mr. Engen answered that it was a very small setback. Mr. London then asked when the Commission would hear the concerns of the adjacent property owners that would be looking at a two -story house instead of an open view, and if this was the time to discuss such an issue. He also asked if there was any requirement in a development of this nature to allow for additional parking. Mr. Engen said that the Commission would hear these concerns at the Public Hearing for this project and it would be a good idea to discuss this issue at that meeting. He also explained that the street is a fire lane so no parking would be allowed on the street. The square footage of the lot includes the driveway because it is not a dedicated street. Chair Greene stated that the materials given to the Planning Commission showed that some of the houses are designated for building coverage of 1,275 feet. He did not see a plan for a 1,275 square foot house. He asked if he was reading the plans wrong? Mr. Engen replied that the developer would have to answer that question. Mike Williams, Representative for the Applicant spoke briefly to the Commission. He stated that it was the belief of the Applicant that this project would upgrade the neighborhood. The buildings that are on the property now are in such disrepair that the only thing to do is demolish them and rebuild. He had talked to Larry Schmidt and was told that the parking garages that are right up against the property line on the left side would have to have a one -hour firewall. Beyond that he would be happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Costello asked about the garages and if there was five feet between the back of the garage and the property line? He also asked if there were any other projects like this one with the same density being proposed? Mr. Williams answered that the Building Code states that for this type of project a one -hour firewall is necessary. He also stated that this area was zoned for 9 units but they were only putting 8 homes to allow for more open space. The Development Code requirement for Planned Unit Developments is that the project does not cover more than 45% of the lot. Commissioner London asked Mr. Williams to confirm that the lot goes to the middle of the driveway? Mr. Williams stated that the open space includes the driveway. Mr. London asked if the 10 -foot main driveway was considered public /emergency access and will parking be allowed or will it be red - curbed? He asked what the selling price of the homes would be? Will the driveway be concrete and how will the project be drained? Minutes Arroyo Grande Planning Commission April 6, 1999 Page -11 The driveway will be red - curbed and there will be no parking in this area. Each house will have three parking places, two in the garage and one in the driveway. The selling price will be between $195,000 and $210,000. The Applicant has worked with Public Works on the draining issue. The project will drain from the outsides of the project to the center of the driveway and to the street. Mr. London was concerned about the neighboring homes and what was being done to mitigate the view. Mr. Williams said their plan was . to make the houses pleasant to look at and to install windows that were high so they would not be looking down into the neighbors' yards. Commissioner Parker was concerned that not enough open space was provided for each home. Secondly will there be any privacy through the use of fences? Mr. Williams stated that there would be a fence between each home to allow for a private yard. Chair Greene asked Mr. Williams the question he had for staff concerning the 1,275.square foot houses that he had not seen on the plans? He also had a question concerning the upstairs windows that were shown on the plans that overlooked the single story houses next to the project? Mr. Williams replied that the plans Mr. Greene was looking at were only the footprint for the homes. He explained that the homes were two - story, which may account for the confusion. The second story windows that were shown on the plans were going to be changed. After some discussion with Staff it was decided the windows should either be moved to the side of the house or raised so they did not overlook the yards behind the project. Commissioner Costello asked how the open space was calculated in the percentages? Mr. Costello stated that he had calculated a couple of the lots and there was more than 45% coverage on them. Mr. Williams replied that the Development Code stated that no more than 45% of the lot could be covered. Mr. Williams asked if Mr. Costello had calculated all the way to the outside property line? Mr. Costello said yes, that he had done that. Mr. Williams replied that this was what the architect had come up with so they would have to check on that with him. Jack Fauqht, 1125 Fair Oaks Ave., wanted to put a stop to the building of 8 units on this lot. There are no two -story houses on the block now. It is densely populated now with all the apartment buildings in the area. A minimum of 16 more cars coming from this project Minutes Arroyo Grande Planning Commission April 6, 1999 Page 12 will increase the traffic. It is not in keeping with the neighborhood. He is not saying that he would not like to see this property developed because it is an eyesore now. However, 8 units is too much. The developer stated that they had inquired in the neighborhood about the project. Mr. Faught had not been approached and several of the neighbors had not either. Ms. Kellerman, 1129 Fair Oaks Ave., stated that she concurs with Mr. Faught. There are many school children, high school kids, and cars. There will be added cars that will park on the street with this development. It is already hard for them to get in and out of their driveway. She was not approached about this project at all. She only saw them going into the apartments. She is very much against this project. She does not mind them developing this property, but not with 8 units. Louise Fauqht, 1 125 Fair Oaks Ave., stated that across the street from this development is a right of way for another 5 units. This project has too many units and she is against it. Sylvia DeHart, 364 Walnut, stated that she also was not asked her opinion on this project by the developer. This project will take away all the privacy on their lot. Eight units is just too much. They have just recently put in a pool with a deck and a vegetable garden, making a very nice, private back yard. If two story houses are built that look directly into their yard, this will be destroyed. Commissioner Keen asked Mrs. DeHart approximately how far their house was from the property line. She was not sure just how far it was. Greg Whitmore, 1 148 Fair Oaks Ave. is the owner of the property at 1 148 Fair Oaks. Nine years ago the City went through a General Plan Update. At this time he was told that he could put 9 units on this property. He felt that this development was a very good transition from one type of zoning, (Single - Family) to the next (Multi - Family). He asked that the Commission work with Mr. DeBlauw and this project. Mitch Rust, 1121 Fair Oaks, stated that he did not like the fact that no one in the neighborhood was asked if they had any problem with this project. The density of this project was too much with 8 units. He felt this side of town had been treated badly for too long and he would like that to stop. He said that the traffic was dangerous now and he hoped no child would be hit as a result of the heavy traffic. Richard DeBlauw the applicant stated that this was'not meant to be a public hearing and it should not be conducted as such. Commissioner .Costello stated that the zoning in this area was 9 units. Putting 8 units on this parcel might be a little too dense. There will be "tight quarters" as far as access in and out. He suggested that the Applicant check on the numbers on the open space and see if they are right. The best development for this parcel is a lateral one but he would Minutes Arroyo Grande Planning Commission April 6, 1999 Page 13 look carefully at the different issues before deciding on 8 units. He cautioned the developer to be cognizant of the impacts to the neighbors. Commissioner Parker felt that 8 units were too many for this area. She stated that she lives in an area where she has to share a common driveway and it can present a real problem. Having the three -car driveways is a good way to mitigate the parking issue. She still felt that the turn - around for these lots might be a problem. She stated that having the transition between the apartments and the single - family homes with this project was a good idea. Again, she felt one or two Tess homes would be better. Commissioner Keen stated that he agreed with much of what Commission Parker had said. In addition, what he has always interpreted about the PUDs with the reduced setbacks and all, was that they were supposed to produce more affordable housing. He said that $210,000 was above what the published medium housing is in Arroyo Grande. A price that is above the medium is not what the he feels an affordable house is. He was concerned that the City was granting this concessions for setbacks, etc. for the PUDs and not accomplishing, in his opinion, what a PUD was supposed to do.: He wants to make sure that the driveway lengths are 20 feet or better so the cars are not sticking out in the street. He would like to see overhead garage doors instead of the swing up doors. He is concerned about the windows on the backside of the two story houses. He would like to see single story houses on that side of the development. If this is not feasible, then it would be better, if the fire code will allow it, to put in block glass windows, that no one could look through into the back yards of the neighbors. He would like to see the Oak Tree left on the lot. His suggestion was to cut out one of the houses and create an open space around the Oak Tree. He does not like to see them cut down to facilitate these projects. Finally, he wanted the Planning Commission to drive by a PUD at Alder and Ash that is very similar to this PUD. The Commission would have a better concept of this project if they looked at another one. Commissioner London, stated that he had looked at the project Commission Keen was referring to and saw that they had managed to save two Oak trees at the back of the project. He was concerned with the issue of parking on this project. The entrance driveway has to be kept as a fire lane for safety purposes and he feels it is too narrow. There are too many houses on this lot. He wondered if the driveway could be moved to one side and just 5 houses built in a row on the other side. He suggested that the Developer discuss this with the property owners that will be looking at the two story houses and see if there is a compromise that can be reached with them. Minutes Arroyo Grande Planning Commission April 6, 1999 Page 14 Chair Greene told the Applicant that this was a very poorly designed parcel and it would be difficult to develop. He would encourage the applicant to continue to pursue this kind of a development rather than townhouses or condominiums. This is a good concept. The Development Code has several findings that the Commission has to make. One of the findings is presence or absence of a substantial adverse impact upon surrounding property. Whether or not there is an adverse impact depends on "where you stand." Two -story home five feet from the property line of single -level homes can create an adverse impact. This is hard to mitigate by just manipulating the windows. Such a structure would be "monolithic" to look at. He would have a hard time not recognizing that there is a substantial adverse impact for those neighbors. He would suggest that they listen to Commissioner Keen's advice and building one -story homes on that side of the development. He feels that there is a lack of open space on this project. Furthermore, he is opposed to the removal of the Oak tree. He feels that it would be beneficial to create an open space in the area around the tree. Although he feels this is an efficient use of this area and the design is excellent the density should be reduced. This exceeds the medium cost for affordable housing and therefore does not conform to the Development Code and the General Plan. He suggested the developer reduce the density of the project, thereby allowing more open /green space, increase public safety and provide needed housing. DISCUSSION ITEMS - The Planning Commissioners discussed the possibility of changing the starting time of the Planning Commission meetings. Commissioner Keen stated that it would be a little hard for him to get to the meetings by 7:00 but if the rest of the Commission wanted to start earlier, he would be willing to do so. Commissioners Costello, Parker, Greene, and London stated they would like to start at 7:00 p.m. Chair Greene directed Staff to put this item on the agenda for April 20, 1999 for a Planning Commission vote. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS None 1 1 1 Minutes Arroyo Grande Planning Commission April 6, 1999 Page 15 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. by Acting Chair Greene. ATTEST: 4 CUVIADOX\ 'T A Ae&_ Kathleen Fryer, Acting Co mission Clerk Laurence Greene, Chair AS TO CONTENT: Henry Engen, ICP V Interim Community Development Director 1 hi V1402 1 01100/k