Loading...
PC Minutes 1996-07-161 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairperson Tappan presiding. Present were Commissioners Deviny, Keen, Titus and Lubin. Community Development Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck, Associate Planners Lori Rosenstein and Scott Spierling were in attendance. INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER - Chairperson Tappan introduced Commissioner Lynn Titus. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Mayor Pete Dougall thanked the Planning Commission for all of their hard work on the GenCom, Inc. project. PUBLIC IIEARING - LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPLICANT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 92 -502 AND 94 -527, TIME EXTENSIONS, REQUEST FOR A TWO YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR THE LOPEZ CONTINUATION I-IIGH SCHOOL INCLUDING A SPECIAL START PROGRAM WIIICH ADDRESSES THE NEEDS OF A TEENAGE ACADEMIC AND PARENTING PROGRAM (TAP); 227 BRIDGE STREET Associate Planner Lori Rosenstein presented the staff report. She informed the Planning Commission that Lopez Continuation High School had been approved as a temporary use at 227 Bridge Street by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 92 -502 and the expiration date for that CUP was August 18, 1996. The second CUP, No. 94 -527, was for the operation of a Teenage Academic and Parenting Program (TAP) at the same location and had the same expiration date. The Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMUSD) requested a two year time extension on both of the CUP's. A memo from the Police Department regarding lack of incidents in the area is attached to the staff report. A letter dated 7- 15 -96, from Mr. Bill Hart a neighbor, was received and presented to the Planning Commission this evening. The Staff Advisory Committee has reviewed the proposal and recommends approval. Commissioner Lubin asked staff about the status of the sidewalk repairs. Staff replied that the District had posted a bond for the improvements and presented a plan to the Traffic Commission but it had been denied. The applicant was currently working with the City to make the improvements. Chairperson Tappan opened the public hearing. Scott Lathrop, Lucia Mar Unified School District representative - stated that a meeting was set for July 17, 1996 with the Engineering Department to resolve the question of elevation for' the drainage in this location. LMUSD intended to complete the improvements prior to school starting in September. He noted that the bond that was posted has expired. LMUSD has budgeted the money for the improvements and wants to have their plans approved so that they can move forward. Commissioner Keen asked Mr. Lathrop about the special condition for six (6) month review of the CUP; Mr. Lathrop indicated that they requested on -going review at the Staff Advisory Committee meeting and prefer to deal with any problems immediately. Commissioner Deviny expressed concern that the sidewalk had not yet been improved; Mr. Lathrop stated that they intended to resolve any .issues at the meeting with Engineering. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 July 16, 1996 Craig Campbell, City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department - discussed Condition of Approval (COA) #17 in Resolution No. 94 -1493, CUP Nci. 94 -527, regarding proposed public improvements and suggested how to assure compliance since the bond had expired. Iloward Mankins, owner of property at 127 Bridge - stated that he favors approval of the time extensions and the school program; expressed the opinion that the six (6) month review should not be a part of the approvals due to the costs involved With no further comments from the audience, Chairperson Tappan closed the public hearing There was discussion regarding compliance with the public improvement condition; LMUSD intention to move the school to a permanent location; proposed six (6) month review of the CUP's; and improvement that had occurred at the site. After discussion by the Commission regarding the above issues, the following action was taken, to adopt: A RESOLUTION OF TiIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A TWO YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 92 -502 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94 -527, FOR TI-IE OPERATION OF LOPEZ CONTINUATION HIGH SCHOOL INCLUDING A TEENAGE ACADEMIC AND PARENTING PROGRAM (TAP) AT 227 BRIDGE STREET APPLIED FOR BY LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Modify COA #9: "Prior to August -18- ;4996 gj > ex 1 9G the applicant shall renew the performance bond orothcr ce acpfable se curit and execute a new agreement with the City on the installation of the required public improvements, of 1ia 1 > I1s1 e 1ni xt,Y; nients:: s addies l tr.. Conditrn „ IJJ' .9 .-527 RESOLUTION NO. 96-1570 On a motion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Lubin, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Deviny, Lubin, Keen, Titus and Tappan NOES: None ABSENT: None Staff advised the public of the right to appeal this project decision. PUBLIC HEARING - OTTSE, INC., APPLICANT; AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1997; AMENDED MITIGATION MEASURE NO. 23 TO REDUCE THE TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE; NORTFI OF JAMES WAY AND WEST OF LA CANADA WITI -TIN TIIE RANCHO GRANDE SUBDIVISION; REPRESENTATIVE SHELTER CONSTRUCTION, INC. 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 July 16, 1996 Associate Planner Lori Rosenstein presented the staff report. She reviewed the background of the approvals for this project and the City Council policy which allowed developers who had not recorded their maps to apply for an amended map and an amendment to the original fee schedule. An amendment to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Rancho Grande Subdivision and approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 1997 and Specific Development Plan 90 -04 has been prepared and was included with the staff report. Staff noted that Planning Commission by -laws require four (4) affirmative votes of the Planning Commission to send a recommendation to the City Council. Tract No. 1997 was approved for fifty -six (56) dwelling units and it was noted, if approved, the traffic impact fee would be reduced from $2656 per lot to $1,069.22 for this tract only. In February of 1996 the Planning Commission provided a recommendation of approval of an identical amendment to Tract 1834 on a 3 to 2 vote and the City Council voted in March of 1996 to approve the amendment to Tract 1834. There was discussion regarding the requirement of the by -laws; the concept of a sliding scale for fees; the number of potential future applications that may occur; and how the GenCom fees were assessed. Chairperson Tappan opened the public hearing. Don Ritter, Shelter Construction representing Ottse - stated that the applicant appreciated the assistance staff has provided. He stated that Tract 1997 is the last unrecorded tract of this group and they request Planning Commission approval of the amendment. With no further comments from the audience, Chairperson Tappan closed the public hearing Commissioner Deviny expressed concern with the impact of the Rancho Grande tracts on the City and the need for them to pay their fair share. He referred to page 4 of the Addendum and the fact that further residential development in Rancho Grande would impact Brisco Road interchange to an unacceptable level. Commissioner Keen stated that both this and the previous request were to implement policy as set by the City Council. Community Development Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck stated that the Council had set the policy that if the map was not recorded the applicant could petition for reduction of fees, the Planning Commission would have to make specific findings regarding the environmental document to deny the request. Commissioner Lubin stated that he was opposed to reducing the fees by such a significant amount. There was discussion regarding the need for a 4 -1 vote; a possible adjustment to the rate schedule; possible basis for denial; concern with reducing fees; difference between residential and commercial impacts; and the rationale that the City Council used when reducing the fee. After further discussion by the Commission regarding the above issues, the following action was taken, to adopt: Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 July 16, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1571 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RANCHO GRANDE SUI3DIVISION AND TIIE ADDENDUM FOR AN AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1997 AND SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 90 -04 IIAS BEEN PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT On a motion by Commissioner Lubin, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Deviny, Titus, and Tappan NOES: Commissioner Lubin ABSENT: None Commissioner Keen called for a "point of order" regarding making a motion and then voting "no" on it. Commissioner Lubin stated that it was appropriate if the motion was made for purposes of moving the item forward, he stated that in further discussion he would have again expressed his negative feels toward reducing the fees. RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1572 A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1997 AND SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 90 -04 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF JAMES WAY AND WEST OF LA CANADA IN THE "RANCHO GRANDE" PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, APPLIED FOR BY OTTSE, I On a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Titus, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Titus and Chairperson Tappan NOES: Commissioner Lubin and Deviny ABSENT: None Commissioner Deviny stated that he felt the addendum was in compliance with CEQA but he was against reducing the fee. Community Development Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck stated that the item would be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for certification of the Addendum to the EIR but noting concerns with the amendment to the Vesting Tentative Map. Staff advised the public of the right to appeal this project decision. 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 July 16, 1996 NON - PUBLIC BEARING - REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION, CLASSIFICATION OF PROPOSED USE IN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; ELMER GARZOLI, APPLICANT; 410 EAST BRANCH STREET Associate Planner Lori Rosenstein presented the staff report. The applicant has requested Planning Commission interpretation of an ambiguity in the Development Code regarding a proposed use in the Village Commercial district. The proposed use would consist of the retail sale of small farm and yard maintenance equipment, all terrain vehicles, jet skis, and sporting goods with outdoor storage. The current use is an art gallery with auxiliary retail sales and classes. Staff referred to the Development Code table which lists allowable uses. She stated that after review staff determined that the proposed use, which includes vehicle sales was not within the purpose and intent of the Development Code and the General Plan. The applicant has prepared a letter describing his proposal use, which was attached to the staff report and this evening there are pamphlets being presented to the Commission indicating the type of equipment that is in question. Staff indicated that if the Planning Commission determined that the use was appropriate, a Conditional Use Permit would be required prior to the use being instituted as it would constitute a change in use and would be more intensive than the existing use. Staff recommends that the Commission approve Resolution #2, which finds that the proposed use is not permitted in the Village Commercial District. Commissioner Deviny asked where the boundary line was for the Village Commercial District was located. Staff indicated on the map that it was approximately four lots away from this proposed use. Although this was not a public hearing, Chairperson Tappan invited the applicant to address the Commission. Elmer Garzoli, - stated that he had been looking for a location for this type of business within the Arroyo Grande area. He sold tractors in Santa Maria for approximately 20 years and stated that he will not be dealing in heavy machinery. He stated that he would utilize the front of the building for some outdoor display of jet skis and lawnmowers, the business would serve both residents and tourists. He requested a favorable interpretation by the Commission. Bob Lund, president of the Village Improvement Association, - stated that the Board of Directors had taken a vote and recommended that the Commission agree with the staff interpretation that the use was not in conformance with the intent of the Village Commercial. Commissioner Keen asked if any equipment repair was intended. Mr. Garzoli stated that he would probably do warranty repair on small pieces of equipment. Commissioner Keen expressed concern with this type of business in the Village Commercial District and stated that perhaps the Chamber of Commerce could assist in locating another site. Commissioner Titus stated that her main concern was with impeding traffic; Commissioner Lubin stated that he had a concern for the image of the Village; Commissioner Deviny stated that he could see the need for the business but not in the Village; and Chairperson Tappan stated that he could see no similar use in the Development Code table, he also stated that he had referred to the Village Design Guidelines and could find no support for this type of business. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 July 16, 1996 The following action was taken, to adopt Resolution #2: RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1573 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PROVIDING AN INTERPRETATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT A BUSINESS WHICH INCLUDES VEHICLE SALES IS NOT A PERMITTED USE IN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT On a notion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Keen, the Planning Commission, by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Deviny, Keen, Lubin, Titus and Tappan NOES: None ABSENT: None NON - PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FOR CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION RELATED TO FENCE /RETAINING WALL HEIGHT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94 -538 (PUD PERMIT) AND LOT LiNE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 94 -521; FARROLL ROAD GROUP, APPLICANT; 1131 FARROLL AVENUE Associate Planner Scott Spierling presented the staff report. He discussed the background of this request and stated that the position of the applicant is that the fence /wall height is in substantial conformance with the original approvals for the project. He presented an overhead showing the approved grading plans and stated that they had been revised to grade the lots to the street thus affecting the height of the fences on top of the retaining walls. While reviewing the revised plans, the Public Works Department determined that the request would require a variance as it was substantially different than the Planning Commission approved plans. Craig Campbell, Public Works Department stated that staff agreed with the proposed change to the drainage plan due to the benefit it would create. He stated that the applicant initiated the change to avoid a drainage ditch along the rear of the lots which would have had to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Although this was not a public hearing, Chairperson Tappan invited the applicant to address the Commission. Edwin Dorfman, 289 La Cresta, stated that in the Landscaping Plan for the front entry on Farroll Road the wall height was presented at approximately 10' and that did change to fence over retaining wall. He stated that the Morning Rise project was intended to present a better home at an affordable cost and that by utilizing a zero lot line then could provide homeowners with a 10' usable side yard. He stated that they felt the PUD process allowed variable standards and that during the architectural review process the 6' fences were clearly indicated and than the change was in the retaining walls of various heights which the City had approved. He requested Planning Commission approval of Resolution #3 with the findings of Resolution //2. 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 July 16, 1996 Jim Garing, Garing, Taylor & Assoc. stated that in addition to being the engineer on the project, he was a financial partner. He reviewed the background of the approvals and stated that he believed the PUD process allows deviation from the everyday standards in order to provide more efficient use of land. He discussed the project Conditions of Approval (COA) that support his contention; presented overheads of the retaining wall /fence combinations; discussed changing the drainage on the lots to the street and how it was achieved; discussed staff interpretation of Development Code regarding "fences, hedges and walls "; expressed differences between "garden wall" and "retaining wall "; stated objections to variance requirement; presented photographs of walls /fences previously approved by Planning Commission that were higher than 6'; discussed COA //40 which required annexation into Arroyo Grande Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1 and the Parks and Recreation determination that the CC &R's should be revised to make the Homeowners Association responsible instead; discussed the entryway area and the COA that allowed the Planning Director to approve the treatment; and requested Planning Commission approval of Resolution {i3 with the findings of Resolution #2. The Commission discussed the change in the drainage of the lots from the rear to the front; the necessary approvals for the front entryway; wall heights along Farroll; treatment for walls in a backyard as opposed to those viewed by the public; responsibility for maintaining entry landscaping; need for variance and requirements; need to clarify height of retaining wall in future approvals; need for a better definition in the Development Code for retaining walls; concept of substantial conformance; and, COA 1/12 which allows Planning Director approval. The Commission took a short break. After further discussion by the Commission regarding the above issues, the following action was taken, to adopt: 'i th the fol1oWiii (_alid:in RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1574 A RESOLUTION OF TI-IE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PROVIDING AN INTERPRETATION THAT THE MAXIMUM RETAINING WALL /FENCE HEIGHT ALLOWED PURSUANT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94 -528 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 94 -521 IS AS SIIOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR THE PROJECT, BUT IN NO CASE SI - IALL EXCEED TWELVE FEET, FOUR INCHES (12'4 ") .................... ..aInI ng 1 ................. ttun..: eig * Exhibit A consists of the 3 drawings in the staff report. ill On a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Lubin, and by the following roll call, to wit: • AYES: Commissioners Keen, Lubin, Deviny, Titus and Tappan NOES: None ABSENT: None time Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8 July 16, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION /COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEMS ANI) COMMENTS A. Letter of Appreciation for Jean Beck On minute motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and by unanimous consensus, the Planning Commission endorsed the proposed letter. Chairperson Tappan indicated that he would ask that Commissioner Keen sign the letter as he was Chair during Ms. Beck's tenure on the Commission. B. Update of Projects • Community Development Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck advised the Commission that the Gen Corn project had been approved by the City Council; and • She advised the Commission that City agendas were now available on the internet. C. Proposed Special Planning Commission Meetings: • Thursday July 25th (6:30 p.m.) Joint Meeting with City Council and Traffic Commission regarding Great Street Program • Tuesday July 30th (6:30 p.m.) - Long Range and Short Range Traffic Reports D. Chairperson Tappan suggested that a letter of appreciation also be prepared for Commissioners Soto and Carr. He also requested input from the Commission regarding the proposal to reduce the number of members on City Boards and Commissions. Commissioner Lubin requested that the Commission recommend to the City Council that long time Commissioners be recognized on the next agenda. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Agenda Item No. II. A., Letter dated 7 -15 -96 from Bill Hart ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Lubin, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. to the special meeting on July 25, 1996. ATTEST: Luci`(le Breese, ommission Clerk AS 0 CON,TEN : Doreen Liberto-Blanck, Community Development Director William a aH ' Chairperson � erson P 1