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