Loading...
PC Minutes 1994-07-05ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 5, 1994 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Deviny and Keen. Absent is Commissioner Hatchett. Planning Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck and Current Planner Scott Spierling are in attendance. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIR FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994 -1995 Chairman Carr stated that before he stepped down he wanted to express his appreciation to both the Commissioners and Planning Staff, commending them for doing a very effective job in spite of budget constraints. Then on a motion by Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and unanimously carried, Commissioner Keen was elected as Chairman. On a motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and unanimously carried, Commissioner Tappan was elected to continue as Vice Chairman. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING - REVERSION TO ACREAGE CASE NO. 94 -519, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94 -522 (P.U.D. PERMIT) AND ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 94 -185, AT 319 & 351 ELM STREET, APPLICANT IS PEOPLES' SELF -IIELP HOUSING CORPORATION Current Planner Spierling gave a review to the Commission indicating various aspects and considerations on this particular item. He then briefly discussed the three resolutions before the Commission on this proposed project. Chairman Carr opened the public hearing. Scott Smith, Director of Programs for Peoples' Self -Help Housing, spoke requesting approval of this project. When Chairman Carr asked if he was satisfied with all the conditions, Mr. Smith stated he was very satisfied. Commissioner Tappan asked how long his organization plans to manage the property to which Mr. Smith answered although the project is conditioned for a minimum of 30 years (Condition 17, CUP Resolution), their intention is in perpetuity. Chairman Carr asked about the proposed use of the open area where parking spaces were originally proposed. Scott Smith responded that, as in other projects, the use would be for fruit and vegetable gardening by the tenants. When Chairman Carr questioned Mr. Smith about the necessity of the 8 foot fence, Dennis Thompson, architect for the project, approached the Commission stating the reasons for this request. This was followed by a discussion by the Commissioners and querying Mr. Smith and Mr. Thompson regarding the parking spaces and emergency generator. In discussing the latter, 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 July 5, 1994 Commissioner Keen pointed out that in the event of an earthquake, the first thing that is turned off is the natural gas, and stated his preference for propane or diesel for the emergency generators. The consensus of the Commission was that propane would work out best. Dennis Thompson then raised a question on Condition 37 regarding the standard Park Development fees. He stated that at the Staff Advisory Committee meeting, the Parks and Recreation Director encouraged them to try to get a waiver of the fee because of their on -site lounge and recreation room and off -site gardening area. Current Planner Spierling concurred that John Keisler did recommend that the applicant bring this up at the Planning Commission meeting and, in fact, Exhibit B with the vegetable garden, came after the Staff Advisory Committee meeting. Mr. Spierling explained that purpose of the Parks Development fees is to pay for parks that are needed to accommodate increased population, and if you have an on -site recreational facility for the occupants of that facility, off -site recreational facilities may not be needed, thus reducing fees. When Chairman Carr questioned the Commission's authority to change fees, Planning Director Liberto - Blanck stated that the condition could be reworded, suggesting "Prior to issuance of the building permits, the applicant shall either pay the Park Development fees of $1252.00 per unit or pay a reduced fee as agreed to by the Parks and Recreation Director." Commissioner Keen asked Mr. Smith if the manager would be a resident or from their staff to which Mr. Smith responded that it would be someone from their staff. Mr. Smith also pointed out that they normally have a back -up manager who is a resident, because a manager could not be expected to work a 24 hour day. Commissioner Keen then stated that his concern was regarding the limitation of the parking pointing out that the staff manager would need a place to park, as well as visitor parking. Further discussion was held regarding this issue and Mr. Smith gave reasons he felt that a reduced number of parking spaces would be adequate. Commissioner Soto then asked Mr. Thompson if he really understood what Condition 34 meant. Mr. Thompson answered that he did not and said that there is a hydrant on each corner, one to the north and one to the south, both within 250 feet of the applicant's property. Mr. Thompson said he had talked with Fire Chief Latipow and that Chief Latipow told him that he didn't think the applicant would have to supply one, but that he might require it; therefore Mr. Thompson said he wasn't sure what the condition meant. He ended by saying the impression he got was that the Fire Chief would not require another hydrant, but that he wanted to see more information. Commissioner Soto was concerned that it would be difficult for an applicant to budget when they were not sure of what was required. Mr. Thompson responded that fortunately they did budget for one hydrant. George Green, owner of the parcel immediately north of the project, spoke next, stating eventually he planned to develop his parcel. His expressed his concerns, namely; if the proposed garden area is later turned into a parking area it would be adjacent to his parcel and could create privacy, noise and lighting concerns; will the outside parking light illumination be focused, directed, or shielded to prevent disturbing the neighbors; did the eight foot fence surround the property; was curious if budgetary provision was taken care of for upkeep of the property; and lastly mentioned the generator and commenting that he would assume it would be tested at least monthly, and felt propane would be best. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 July 5, 1994 Chairman Carr asked if Mr. Smith wanted to reply to Mr. Green's concern regarding the applicant's financing for the maintenance. Mr. Smith responded that pride of ownership was the main concern of their nine board of directors in that they were all local community residents. He went onto say that they did take City Staff to see their other projects and felt Staff was impressed with the upkeep of then. Mr. Smith said they had regular reserve accounts that they put maintenance funds into; that the rents supplied the operating fund; that they contracted for professional landscaping services; and that their concern was rather that their neighbors would maintain their property as well as Peoples' Self -Help Housings' properties. With no further comments from the audience, Chairman Carr closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Soto's concern about what exactly the Development Code stated about the lighting, Current Planner Spierling stated that it was taken care of by the Development Code provisions which stated that a certain amount of illumination be provided for safety, but that another provision states it cannot extend beyond the project boundaries. Mr. Spierling also pointed out Condition 21(c) would insure compliance with the Development Code and thereby take care of Mr. Green's concerns. Commissioner Soto then said he felt Condition 37 should be changed as recommended and the other commissioners concurred. Chairman asked Planning Director Liberto - Blanck for the wording she had mentioned and she re- stated it, "Prior to issuance of the Building permits, the applicant shall either pay the Park Development fee of $1252.00 per unit or shall pay a reduced fee as agreed to by the Parks and Recreation Director." Commissioner Soto stated he wished that the Fire Chief was present, because of the new verbiage on some of the conditions of the Fire Department. Commissioner Tappan said that he agreed. Then, along with Chairman Carr expressing his concern, all the commissioners then discussed their concern with the wording of the Fire Department conditions. Commissioner Keen said he had a problem with conditions that were left open by any one of the departments to make the decision, stating the difficulty of a developer being able to access during the appeal period whether he feels it will be too expensive. Commissioner Keen questioned why Department Heads cannot make decisions prior to Planning Commission review, but can make them after the Planning Commission review. Commissioner Soto said he agreed with Commissioner Keen, but his main concern was that he did not really understand what the requirement on Condition 31 is, and felt it was not fair to the developer. When Commissioner Soto voiced his concern that the set of plans are before them and that perhaps the project was not going to match those plans, Planning Director Liberto - Blanck stated that the Fire Chief apparently approved the driveway access shown on Exhibit B. Chairman Carr asked what this "access" covered; all different kinds of access, such as roof access, door access, driveway access. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck said she felt it covered all of those, but that she really could not speak on behalf of the Fire Department. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 July 5, 1994 Commissioner Soto then asked if an automatic fire sprinkler system (Condition 32) was in the Development Code. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck said she was not sure, but would check into it. Commissioner Soto said that if conditions such as these were going to continue to happen, the Planning Commission needed to be educated so they would know what they were signing off on. Chairman Carr and others agreed; then Chairman Carr said that in addition to education, there needed to be some limits placed on some of these kinds of conditions that if they are going to be revised, it would have to return to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Thompson then approached the Commission stating that Conditions 22 and 23 were both "up in the air" for them, in that he spoke to the Police Department representative and the Fire Chief, who stated they would decide after the applicant received Planning Commission approval. On Condition 22 he said that the Police Department wanted to put some gates in, but that the Fire Chief didn't want them, but they could not come to a decision before this meeting, and would discuss it after the Planning Commission meeting. When Commissioner Soto queried him on Condition 23 and the external security, Mr. Thompson said it was his understanding that this would not be required, but now he sees the condition is listed. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck interjected that security systems in senior housing was in the Development Code to which Mr. Thompson responded that he understood that, but when he discussed it with the Police Department as to actually what that meant, he was told in 1992 and last month they would not require it. Commissioner Tappan asked Mr. Thompson if he had budgeted for it and he responded in the negative. Further discussion was held by the commissioners regarding Conditions 22 and 23. The commissioners felt that either 22 should be modified or deleted. Discussing this further with Mr. Thompson, the external security system was that there would be no fences, locked doors, security lighting in the parking lot, and a live -in manager. Chairman Carr then brought up Condition 31 and that his only concern was on the width of the driveway, that it not just be left open. Commissioner Keen felt that because of the sprinkler system, he felt the Fire Chief had agreed to one drive. However, Chairman Carr responded, he still did not feel comfortable leaving this condition so wide open. Planning Director Liberto- Blanck suggested that Chairman Carr might want to add "If the driveway access is different that Exhibit B, it shall be returned to the Planning Commission for review and approval" to this Condition. Chairman Carr asked Commissioner Soto about his concern over Condition 34 to which he responded that if it meant sprinklers and valving, he understands, but not as a requirement for another fire hydrant. Commissioner Tappan questioned the necessity for Condition 7 of the Variance. Current Planner Spierling responded that these would be low- income units for at least 30 to 40 years and that the applicant intends to keep them affordable in perpetuity, so that the condition may not ever be applicable. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 July 5, 1994 Commissioner Keen noted that it did not appear that a generator was mentioned in the conditions, to which Current Planner Spierling responded that it was in the Development Code. Commissioner Keen then brought up the possible problem of having it outside and the noise element at times it was being tested. Discussion was held by the commissioners and the applicant and it appeared it would not be problematic. Then following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 94 -1478 A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, APPROVING REVERSION TO ACREAGE CASE NO. 94 -519 APPLIED FOR BY PEOPLES' SELF -HELP HOUSING CORPORATION AT 319 AND 351 SOUTII ELM STREET, AND INSTRUCTING TIIE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Tappan, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Deviny, Keen and Chairman Carr NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hatchett the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 5th day of July 1994. The following action was then taken, adding to Condition 6(d), "as measured from the lowest point": RESOLUTION NO. 94 -1479 A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 94 -185, APPLIED FOR BY PEOPLES' SELF -IIELP HOUSING CORPORATION, AT 319 AND 351 SOUTH ELM STREET, VARIANCE FOR PARKING AND FOR FENCE IIEIGIIT On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Deviny, Keen and Chairman Carr NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hatchett the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 5th day of July 1994. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 July 5, 1994 The following action was then taken, eliminating Condition 22, amending Condition 31 by adding "If driveway access is a different than as stated on Exhibit B, it shall return to the Planning Commission for review and approval as a non - public hearing item ", and revising 37 to read "Prior to issuance of Building permits, the applicant shall either pay the Park Development fee of $1252.00 per unit or a reduced fee as agreed to by the Parks and Recreation Director ": RESOLUTION NO. 94 -1480 A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94 -522 AND THE ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, AT 319 AND 351 SOUTH ELM STREET, APPLIED FOR BY PEOPLES' SELF - IIELP HOUSING CORPORATION; ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MEASURES AND INSTRUCTION THAT THE SECRETARY FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Deviny, Keen and Chairman Carr NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hatchett the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 5th day of July 1994. On a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and unanimously carried, that one year from the date of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy this matter be brought back to the Planning Commission as an informational item. NON - PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST OF INTERPRETATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 92 -503, IN PARTICULAR CONDITIONS 10 AND 13 Chairman Carr asked Planning Director Liberto - Blanck if she would be presenting this item in the absence of Fire Chief Latipow. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck said she could not speak for the Fire Chief. Chairman Carr stated he did not feel comfortable making a decision without Chief Latipow present, and wondered when the project was approved with the Condition of a minimum of 20 feet, why the Fire Chief is now requesting a reduced width. He then asked if the applicant cared to speak. Larry Gin and John Husten both came forward and discussed these issues with the Commissioners. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 July 5, 1994 Commissioner Deviny asked if actually what the Fire Chief was requesting was that the Planning Commission give him the flexibility to interpret even after the fact, quoting the paragraph under "Recommendation" in his memo of June 28, 1994. Commissioner Deviny continued by saying he would not have a problem dealing with this particular request, but was concerned there needed to be limits, to which Chairman Carr agreed. Commissioner Keen voiced his concern as to what difference it made if he made the decision when he wrote the mitigation measure or when he does it six months from now. It was agreed by the Commissioners that they would feel more comfortable to have the Fire Chief present to answer questions. Chairman Carr asked Planning Director Liberto - Blanck what her opinion would be on the Planning Commission modifying these conditions or whether they even had the discretion to make that kind of change. Ms. Liberto - Blanck referred the Chairman to the memo to the City Council from the Planning Commission dated January 12, 1993, with attached Resolution No. 93 -1403. She stated that an item can come back to the Planning Commission for an interpretation and clarification. Commissioner Keen said that if an interpretation meant completely rewording or changing the condition, that was not an interpretation; that was changing the condition. Commissioner Soto added that even though the changes were minor, the Planning Commission should have an explanation from the Fire Chief. Commissioner Deviny felt if the Fire Chief was going to give them an interpretation or use his flexibility, then that should be what is presented to the Planning Commission for approval. Commissioner Deviny said he recalled projects with a minimum of 20 and 24 feet and was concerned about an 18 foot proposed driveway. Chairman Carr then stated that it seemed to him the Commissioners were having problems with what the Fire Chief was suggesting regarding how much flexibility he has in implementing the conditions on various projects. Commissioner Soto asked the applicants if they agreed with all other conditions and they stated they did. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck informed the applicants that since they had not yet recorded their map, they could come back to the Planning Commission requesting the $2,656 per residential unit traffic mitigation fee be reduce to $538 per unit. The applicants might want to look at all the conditions, especially the traffic impact fee and request amendment to Mitigation Measure #/6 and at the same time amend Conditions 10 and 13. The Commission concurred with Planning Director Liberto - Blanck's suggestion. The Planning Director stated that the public hearing would open the project up once again. After further discussion, on a motion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously carried, this item was continued until July 19, 1994, the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8 July 5, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT Planning Director Liberto - Blanck mentioned the.meeting on July 9, 1994 at 10:00 A.M. to the Frederick's Property, which would probably last about two hours. She stated that they keep in mind that there could not be any more than a quorum of the City Council or Planning Commission in any one vehicle and while in the vehicle there could be no discussion of the project as directed by the City Attorney. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT Commissioner. Deviny mentioned the excellent leadership they had enjoyed from Chairman Carr. There being no further business before the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Carr, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. to a special meeting on July 9, 1994 at 10:00 A.M. on the Frederick's Property. ATTEST: & II • - i_.. Nancy Brow Commission Clerk Robert W. Carr, Chairman