Loading...
PC Minutes 1994-07-19ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 1994 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission net in regular session with Chairman Keen presiding. Present are Commissioners Tappan, Carr, and Hatchett. Absent are Commissioner Soto and Deviny. Planning Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck and Kurt Latipow, Director of Fire and Building, are in attendance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Tappan, and unanimously carried, the minutes of June 7, 1994, June 21, 1994, July 5, 1994 and July 9, 1994 were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None NON - PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST OF INTERPRETATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 92 -503, IN PARTICULAR CONDITIONS 10 AND 13 Planning Director Liberto - Blanck stated, because of Chief Latipow being called to fight a fire in Southern California, this item was continued from the last Planning Commission meeting, however, he was present to give an overview of his memo dated June 28, 1994. Ms. Liberto- Blanck also stated that the applicant was in the audience. Chief Latipow stated that when he came to the City of Arroyo Grande, they were operating under the 1988 Fire and Building Codes, which were not very restrictive. Re said that it was his practice to inform the applicant what to expect and what might be financial considerations. Chief Latipow went on to say that since this item came before Staff Advisory Committee, there have been changes made in the Fire Code. He stated that there was an attempt to officially amend and adopt the 1991 Fire and Building Codes in the City of Arroyo Grande, but he was unsuccessful in doing it and consequently, by default, the City is under the 1991 State of California Building and Fire Codes. Chief Latipow stated that there have been some revisions in the 1991 code, giving the City a tremendous amount of opportunity to work with developers on alternative methods. He went on to say that he wanted to work with the applicant and exercise the exceptions in the Fire Code. Chief Latipow stated some of the alternatives allowed by the Fire Code include modifying the requirements relative to access if the developer installs fire sprinklers, and reconsidering the distances of fire hydrants if the residences are fire - sprinklered. Chief Latipow stated that it was his understanding that the City Council felt that the alternatives and requirements that were presented within the Building and Fire Codes were adequate at this time, and he will return to the Council when the 1994 Building and Fire Codes are published. Chief Latipow said he was asking the Planning Commission to allow him to utilize the interpretations and exceptions that are in the 1991 Code which were not available in the 1988 Code, when this project came before him. g i4 , 1 _ 14* 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 July 19, 1994 Commissioner Carr asked Chief Latipow if his request for interpretation was for this project or was he seeking something broader to which Chief Latipow responded it was specific to this project. Commissioner Carr then referred to revised Condition 10, "Fire access must comply to the California Fire Code" because some of the commissioners are concerned exactly what that means. Commissioner Carr went on to say that his concern was major changes that the public would not have an opportunity to be made aware of. Chief Latipow responded that the State Fire Codes do have precedence over the Commission, due to the fact that the City has chosen not to adopt a fire code of our own. Chief Latipow then said that they expect the architects to bring plans that comply with the regulations of the various codes and that the State Code was quite clear as to what was required. Chief Latipow quoted from the 1991 Code, "when buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provision of this section may be modified by the Chief." Commissioner Carr commented that the quotation he made just said "fire access." Chief Latipow then stated that there was another section on specifications and dimensions. Commissioner Tappan said he was in agreement with Commissioner Carr and asked why he changed from a 20 foot access roadway, and would he be taking fire vehicles in even if fire sprinklers are provided. Chief Latipow responded that there are only three houses on this street and that fire sprinklers have proven to hold a fire in check to the particular building. Chairman Keen said that one of the items the Commissioners had discussed was their concern that when a project is conditioned in this manner and there is a change after the public hearings, the neighbors do not have any input. Chief Latipow responded that he felt his job was to work with the architect to bring in a project that meets the Planning Commissions intent of design, blends in the neighborhood, and still provide for life safety. He further responded that he would need to change the way he does Staff Advisory Committee, because the applicant may want to exercise some of the options, so the Planning Commission can see all the available alternatives. Commissioner Tappan said that on this particular project they did have lengthy public input and items discussed were the driveway, hydrant, drainage, and so forth. He further stated that as they consider a change, the public is not going to get what they expected. Chief Latipow answered that this project will be almost identical to what the public thought they were getting and the differences were instead of a 20 foot driveway, an 18 foot was being provided. Commissioner Tappan said that this was just one project and he was concerned that with future projects it could be a much larger change from what was approved. Chief Latipow said he agreed. Chief Latipow stated that often a project changes from the initial meeting and that in this particular case, the Fire Code changed, and he should have gone back through Staff Advisory Committee. Commissioner Carr told Chief Latipow that he did not have a problem with the changes he was requesting on this particular project, but was concerned about projects being changed after the fact. Commissioner Carr suggested the feasibility of perhaps having a list, such as items the Planning Commission does not care about, and does care about, and perhaps some limits when a changed condition would require returning to the Planning Commission for public scrutiny. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 July 19, 1994 Chief Latipow agreed such a list was appropriate but felt the Planning Commission should provide direction. Chief Latipow said that he did have a list he had prepared by direction of the City Council that lists alternative methods and this list is available in the Building and Planning Departments for applicants to look at when they are designing a project. One alternative provides that if sprinklers were installed there probably would be a lessening in the footage of the driveway. Commissioner Carr asked Chief Latipow if width of the driveway was lessened, was it his determination or did it go back to the code. Chief Latipow stated that if they chose not to use the alternative method of protection, it would go back to the letter of the code, which is 30 feet wide, 13.6 vertical clearance with a turnaround, but if they chose the alternate method he would make the determination based on the apparatus and the hazard. Commissioner Hatchett then asked if it were true that there was no written minimum standard. Chief Latipow answered that there was no written minimum, but that no fire chief would allow a minimum that would not allow access of the apparatus. Commissioner Hatchett questioned potential problems of using well water or water pressure to which Chief Latipow responded that they do not allow well water to be used, and if the City water system failed and the house caught fire, they would have to haul the hose up the driveway and the Public Works Department would be asked to bring the water pressure back up by using existing pumps. Commissioner Tappan said that like Commissioner Carr he too had no problem with the changes requested on this particular project, but reiterated that he was concerned about something coming back after it had been approved, and would like to see an and /or clause that would give the applicant a little leeway, but already written into the conditions. Chief Latipow said he agreed and suggested that perhaps when an applicant chooses to exercise one of the alternatives, that could be identified in the staff report to the Planning Commission that that particular alternative has been utilized on that particular project. Commissioner Keen asked if it were feasible at the staff meetings to at least get a commitment on the sprinklers and drives. Chief Latipow said it was his experience that the developer and architect are not ready at that time, so perhaps the item needs to be continued to another Staff Advisory Committee meeting. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck said something else that needed to be addressed was the additional grading and retaining walls that may be required to make a driveway wider after Planning Commission approval. She suggested that perhaps alternatives could be discussed with applicants. Chief Latipow concurred stating that there are times they start the grading and find out the geology reports were wrong and major changes involving drainage and grading are needed. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck said the Commission might want to consider recommending staff prepare standard conditions of approval. All City departments could have a session with the Planning Commission and agree to standard conditions that would be used on most projects. The Planning Commission would be updated on what each of the standard conditions mean. Ms. Liberto - Blanck continued that non - standard conditions would be identified with an asterisk. The Planning Commission agreed. Chief Latipow said he agreed. He pointed out that there was a problem because by the time the State Fire Codes are published and by the time he has an opportunity to see what they actually mean, write amendments, do the staff report, and get through the public hearing process, the deadline for adoption will have come and gone. 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 July 19, 1994 Commissioner Carr asked if the codes were administrative regulations or laws adopted by the legislature. Chief Latipow answered that the State Fire Marshall is legislatively mandated to develop codes and regulations relative to life safety. Changes to the code go through a public hearing process at the State level and the method with which it is adopted is regulated by the State. The following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 94 -1481 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PROVIDING AN INTERPRETATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NUMBERS 9 AND 10 OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NUMBER 92 -1380 FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 92 -503 On motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Hatchett, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Carr, Hatchett, and Chairman Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Soto and Deviny the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 19th day of July 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT Planning Director Liberto - Blanck provided an update on the Economic Opportunities Analysis grant applied for by the City. She stated that the City Council authorized the submittal of the application for a Community Development Block Grant for $30,000. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS One item mentioned above. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Hatchett, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 P.M. to the regular meeting on August 2, 1994. ATTEST: Nancy Brow Commission Clerk