Loading...
PC Minutes 1996-02-061 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairperson Keen presiding. Present were Commissioners Beck, Carr, Deviny, Tappan and Lubin. Commissioner Soto was absent. Associate Planner Scott Spierling was in attendance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - On motion by Commissioner Beck, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the regular meeting of January 16, 1996 were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST BY RICHARD DEBLAUW CONSTRUCTION FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, CASE NO. 95 -529, FOR A FOUR LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 170 SPRUCE STREET Associate Planner Scott Spierling presented the staff report. He described the project as proposed. Parcels 1 and 2 front on Spruce Street with parcels 3 and 4 off a common driveway to the rear. The proposed lots meet the requirements of the zone and allow room for future construction to also meet the Code. The applicant has requested waiver to the condition to underground utilities along the frontage; consistent with past approvals staff has drafted Condition #16 to address this issue. Public comment has been received regarding configuration of the lots (as proposed it is similar to other approved projects in the area); the amount of traffic generated (analysis shows that each unit will produce 10 new trips per day, one during the peak hour); and height of the units (an overhead transparency was used to show other two -story units in the neighborhood). The Staff Advisory Committee recommends approval of the project. Staff notes that there has been a change in the format of the Resolution: the Resolution has been shortened, Attachment A is the Conditions of Approval, and Attachment B is the Mitigation Measures Resolution for project. Staff has developed these standard conditions for conformity. Commissioner Carr asked if the two existing structures were going to remain and be refurbished? Associate Planner Spierling replied that there is a shop which,will be removed but the existing residence will remain and be refurbished. Chairperson Keen opened the public hearing. Richard DeBlauw, Applicant - stated that he agrees with the staff report but would prefer to retain the option of building either single- or two -story homes on the parcels. He stated that the existing home will be upgraded and improved. Dale Dunham, 160 Spruce Street - a neighbor and has no problem with the project being developed with two - story hones. He feels that Mr. DeBlauw builds a quality project which would be a fine addition to the neighborhood. He stated that the problem from traffic is more from the Sports Complex, City vehicles and people using the street as a shortcut. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 February 6, 1996 With no further comments from the audience, Chairperson Keen closed the public hearing and requested Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lubin stated that his concern was the shop and that has been addressed. Commissioner Deviny is appreciative that staff has developed standard language for the conduit question. He also questioned the time schedule for removal of the shop. Staff replied either prior to recordation or the applicant may bond for removal which would specify a time frame. Commissioner Tappan stated that in Attachment A, conditions #63 and #69 appear to be contradictory. After discussion with staff, it was determined that condition #69 was correct and in condition #63 the word "drainage" should be removed. He questioned condition #16 and after discussion, it was determined by the Commission that the words "and or boxes" should be included. He questioned staff regarding number of two story homes existing in the immediate neighborhood. Commissioner Carr suggested restricting the two story residences to the rear two parcels to address any concerns and for aesthetic purposes. He questioned Attachment B, condition #26 regarding notice of agricultural conditions. Staff and the Commission discussed real estate disclosure to future buyers of the homes. Commissioner Beck questioned which structures Mr. DeBlauw was going to remove. Mr. DeBlauw responded. Chairperson Keen stated that he would be in favor of restricting the two -story to the rear parcels and asked Mr. DeBlauw how that would affect him. The Commission expressed agreement with this concept. Mr. DeBlauw stated that he would prefer not to have the restriction and has no plan to place two -story structures on the front lots. After discussion by the Commissioners, the following action was taken: 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 PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 95 -529, LOCATED AT 170 SPRUCE STREET, APPLIED FOR BY RICHARD DEBLAUW CONSTRUCTION Add Attachment A - Condition #12d: Add Attachment A - Condition #70: ttl'S�ll" ��'S1<0 ' >Gt�tl S�I'E1� 1TQC1' RESOLUTION NO.. 96 -1545 A ll h�e tlses:siw stru 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 February 6, 1996 Amend Attachment A - Condition //16: Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the developer shall comply with Development Code chapter 9 -15, "Improvements ". All above ground utilities shall be underground. Above ground utilities on Spruce Street property frontage may remain above ground but prior to recordation of the tract /parcel map, the applicant shall install conduits!`atidk box for future underground utilities per the utility company specifications. Amend Attachment A - Condition ##63: Reciprocal access, utility and drainage easements may be required for parcels 3 and 4 prior to recordation of parcel map. The specific easements needed cannot be determined at this time with the information submitted. Re- number Attachment B - Condition #/26: Condition #6 On a motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Tappan, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Carr, Tappan, Deviny, Beck, Lubin, and Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Soto The foregoing Resolution was passed as corrected and adopted this 6th day of February 1996. Staff advised the audience of the appeal period on this project. Commissioner Lubin excused himself from the next item. NON PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION, OF DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 9- 01.050(B) REGARDING GRADING STANDARDS FOR RANCHO GRANDE .TRACT 1834 LOCATED NORTH OF JAMES WAY, BY SIIETLER CONSTRUCTION, INC. • Associate Planner Scott Spierling presented the staff report. He explained that the Planning Commission has been asked to determine whether "tract grading" for tract 1834 includes "home site grading ". Originally both the City and the developer intended to have a two phase grading plan: one phase when the initial tract and infrastructure was laid out and the second when the individual lots were sold and houses built on them. The applicant is interested developing this tract in another manner, by building and selling the homes. If this occurs there are several lots which cannot not rneet the required design standards. Sections of Resolution 2467 were provided for. the Commission prior to the meeting. Chairperson Keen inquired how many of the lots would not be able to meet the standards? Associate Planner Spierling stated that since full grading plans had not been completed, he was unable to answer that specifically. Chairperson Keen then inquired if the grading was done by the developer, would a person who purchased the lot then be able to grade the lot again. Associate Planner Spierling answered in the affirmative. Chairperson Keen asked the applicant to address the Commission. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 February 6, 1996 Darren Sheller, Sheller Construction, Inc., used the overhead to provide background of Rancho Grande development. He specifically addressed Tract 1834 which had been designated for 220 single family homes. He requested approval of Resolution #1; discussed how the other tracts were formed; reaffirmed their agreement with all conditions and mitigations of the tract; explained timing of the Design Manual .for homes; explained why he felt most buyers wanted homes which were already constructed; presented an exhibit which depicted the proposed grading; discussed phasing of the grading plan; and identified potential benefits to the City and the developer if Resolution #1 were to be approved. Commissioner Carr asked if fill had been imported from other tracts; what the average size of the lots was; if grading for all homes was intended to be done at once; and if the grading would end up as "stair step" type grading? Mr. Shetler responded no, they had attempted to use the fill levelly; the average in Tract 1834 east and west is approximately 12,000 square feet; they intend to phase the development into five segments for construction purposes; and there are very few walls that will be necessary. Mr. Shetler discussed the design manual for the tract. Commissioner Beck indicated her interest in maintaining the current trees and natural environment in the area, as well as grading during the dry season. Mr. Shetler indicated that they have a strong oak tree protection program and any grading done outside the dry season had to be approved by City Council. Commissioner Tappan indicated that the conceptual illustration appears to be on the more level lots and he is concerned with the affect on more steep slopes in the east tract. Mr. Shetler indicated that there were some areas of concern but retaining walls would be limited to 3 or 4 feet in height. Commissioner Tappan asked how many lots were in question. Mr. Shetler stated that he had no firm number but approximately 10 or 15 percent of the lots would be affected. He stated that they would have to come back and ask for exceptions for the lots in any case. Commissioner Deviny asked Mr. Shetler if he was asking to step outside the design manual to grade? Associate Planner Spierling indicated that the request was to grade the house pads as part of the infrastructure and street. Mr. Shetler stated that in some of the lots in previous tracts there had to be exceptions requested. In this tract the developer is attempting to avoid a double grading plan. Commissioner Deviny asked exactly how many exceptions had been granted for grading. Associate Planner Spierling indicated that he could not recall any exceptions specifically granted for grading and he discussed the condition in Resolution No. 2467 which allowed exceptions to be granted by the Community Development Director. Commissioner Deviny indicated that he had no problem with the grading being done at one time but was concerned with bypassing existing safeguards. There was discussion of approvals necessary for grading and drainage plans as well as the concern regarding a second grading being done on the house pad. Chairperson Keen indicated that his concern was with the re- configuration of grading if the tract grading is used as the "natural grade ". There was further discussion regarding phasing of the grading; the concept and tinning of the design manual; existing grading guidelines; "tract grading" vs "home pad grading "; need for two separate reviews by staff; distinction between tract grading and grading for home construction per Attachment C; and the difference between Resolution #1 and Resolution #2 regarding grading. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 February 6, 1996 Associate Planner Spierling indicated that Resolution #1 allows more flexibility for staff to work with the developer on the more difficult lots. Resolution #1 will allow the developer to present one grading plan and then staff will work with them to assure that the difficult lots conform to the design manual standards as closely as possible. Resolution #2 will require that there be two separate grading plans prepared. Staff can go with either Resolution, Resolution #1 would simply reduce the number of reviews that would be necessary. Commissioner Carr suggested some alternative language to Resolution #1 that would assure the design manual standard be conformed with as closely as possible. There was discussion of this concept. Don Ritter, Project Manager stated that no place in the approvals for the tract does it state that the house pads cannot be a part of the tract grading, the applicant is asking if the initial pads can be included. There is no definition of tract grading in the conditions of approval, they are not attempting to circumvent the design manual standards. He stated that they are attempting to work with staff to obtain a quality final product. There was discussion of the general conditions of approval for the project and how they addressed grading. After discussion by the Commissioners, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1546 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL PROVIDE AN INTERPRETATION THAT TRACT GRADING IN RANCHO GRANDE TRACT 1834 INCLUDES INITIAL GRADING FOR PREPARATION OF HOUSE PADS AND THEREFORE, IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE DESIGN MANUAL STANDARDS Amend NOW, TI IEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby recommends that the City Council provide an interpretation that tract grading in Rancho Grande tract 1834 includes initial grading done for preparation of house pads ath'.d th.`at siajc g :.::<. n di ; iii: »• . ;:;;:.:.:.;;;::.:: >:., <.> P : ... x.!datf. us . : d s is net Vv I0'znot subject to the design manual standards b a el i-ng must respect and blend with the natural environment attd aotironr to t( ie d gn in�trtli it 5fi It dt to the maximum extent feasible. AYES: Commissioners Carr, Beck and Keen NOES: Commissioners Deviny, Tappan ABSTAIN: Commissioner Lubin ABSENT: Commissioner Soto On a motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Chairperson Keen, and by the following roll call, to wit: The foregoing Resolution was passed as corrected and adopted this 6th day of February 1996. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 February 6, 1996 On motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Beck, and unanimously carried, staff was directed to take action to assure that the issue of double grading is properly addressed in the design manual standards. Mr. Shetler asked the Commission for some feedback regarding their project. Commissioner Lubin returned to the dias. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS A. Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for March 5th at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission has a special meeting at 6:30 p.m. prior to that meeting. B. Countywide Planning Commission Dinner (February 23, 1996 in Grover Beach), the Commission was asked to respond by February 14th. C. League of California Cities' Planners Institute March 20, 1996 through March 22, 1996, the Commission was asked to respond. D. Update of Projects • GenCom, Inc. was reviewed by the Architectural Advisory Committee on February 5th and has been continued to their March meeting; the Staff Advisory Committee will meet on the proposal on February 13th; and there is an EIR Scoping Meeting scheduled for February 15th on this project. • Frederick's Sphere of Influence Amendment will be going to LAFCO on February 15th. • Commissioner Carr inquired if there would be a report of the joint City Council /Board of Supervisors meeting provided to the Planning Commission • Commissioner Lubin inquired if there had been any information provided to the City regarding the former Von's site. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Notice of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Meeting for GenCom, Inc., Thursday, February 15, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. 2. Letter from Ruth Porter regarding Lopez Continuation High School 3. Information on "CEQA Workshop at the coast: to be held Friday, March 8, 1996. 4. Information on "Conflict of Interest" from Workshop held Thursday, February lst. (Only for Commissioners that were unable to attend the Workshop). 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission P age 7 February 6, 1996 5. Agenda Item M.A. "Excerpt from Resolution No. 2467 ". ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Lubin, and unanitnously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. to the next regular meeting on February 20, 1996. ATTEST: u i1 ; Breese, Commission Clerk AS TO CONTENT: Doreen Liberto lanck, Community Development Director Joh een, Chai : rson