Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-05-161 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2006 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Fellows presiding; also present were Commissioners Brown, Ray and Tait; Commissioner Parker was absent. Staff members in attendance were City Manager, Steve Adams, City Attorney, Tim Carmel, Public Works Director, Don Spagnolo, and Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon ANNOUNCEMENTS: Request for the public to turn off their cell phones during the meeting. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes to the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commission Ray, approving the minutes of May 2, 2006, with one typographical correction; the motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Parker being absent. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: All correspondence received was related to Agenda Item II.A. Cherry Creek proposed project: 1. May 6, 2006, from Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street. 2. May 9, 2006, from Billie Tyler, 246 Garden Street. 3. May 9, 2006, from Noguera Tract residents. 4. May 16, 2006, from Polly Tullis, 236 Garden Street. 5. May 16, 2006, from Thomas Pask & Barbara Cretzler, 314 Noguera Place. 6. May 16, 2006, from The Mike Titus Memorial Committee. 7. May 16, 2006, from Mrs. Jeannette Tripodi, 521 E. Cherry. 8. May 16, 2006, from Sara Dixson and Molly McClanahan, Dixson Co. Trustees. C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04 -007; NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CASE NO. 04 -001; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04- 002; PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04 -002 ('CHERRY CREEK"). Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal for the development of fifty -three (53) new residential lots on a twenty -two (22) acre site in two phases. Ms Heffernon stated that Phase 1 of the proposed development is for a 38 -lot residential subdivision in a Planned Unit Development configuration of nine of the 22 acres; Phase II encompasses the remaining 13 acres PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 PAGE 2 where no development is proposed at this time; the updated Neighborhood Plan did not include "dirt Cherry" (the 15 foot wide access to the back lot) in the proposed East Cherry extension. Ms. Heffernon then gave details of the drainage plan, the proposed water and sewer lines, the open space area, which includes the proposed 130 -foot wide Ag buffer (for both sub areas), the vegetated bioswale, the area adjacent to the creek, a portion of the creek itself, and pedestrian paths located throughout the open space areas. Ms. Heffernon further stated that the Architectural Review Committee reviewed and approved the architectural style and design of the residential units (subject to the standards for historic districts). During previous public hearings, a number of environmental issues and questions were raised and the expanded Initial Study was to address these concerns. Ms. Heffernon advised the Commission that in making a recommendation to City Council, they should consider the environmental review presented prior to proceeding with deliberation on the Neighborhood Plan. Ms. Heffernon then stated that staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve the Neighborhood Plan, the proposed Development Code Amendment, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and Planned Unit Development, after providing direction on lot coverage and other issues identified, including approving the project as proposed, recommending one -story homes be changed to two -story, or recommending that lots be enlarged. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that if there are environmental issues that the Commission feels have been inadequately addressed, the Commission may recommend to the City Council that additional environmental analysis be conducted, that other changes be made to the Neighborhood Plan and /or project, deny the Neighborhood Plan and project, or provide other direction to staff. Don Spagnolo, Public Works Director, stated that the proposed drainage system for the project addresses some regional concerns the City has; the drainage design for this area included in the City's Master Plan study in 1999, was chosen to cover a 100 -year storm event (per the Development Code) and with these proposed improvements there is a possibility to eliminate some of the flooding hazards for the existing residents of Noguera Place. He described the storm -water bioswale, stated that there would need to be further studies and topographical survey to determine the size and depth for a detention basin, and that a weir structure at the north end of the drainage swale may provide some onsite detention. David Wolff principal ecologist for the project, on behalf of the City, gave a presentation and overview of existing conditions, impacts, and mitigation measures proposed for the project site. In reply to questions from Commissioner Tait, Mr. Wolf explained: • The applicant would first provide a riparian enhancement plan to the City for their review and approval; the proposed plan would be simple with mostly top of creek 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 PAGE 3 bank planting within the 25 -foot setback area using typical native species for habitat restoration; the City would monitor the plan. • In regard to the footpath proposed and concern with the steep banks of the creek and how would this be handled; the surface will most likely be permeable; the surrounding areas will be planted with native plant species to encourage the public to stay on the path. • M 4.5 Re the pond turtle, and concern with the less restrictive measure being used, the requirement for just one pre- construction survey is more in line with this species; surveys for the red legged frog and steelhead trout have not been proposed as they occur throughout the creek; we presume they are there and regulatory measures will be taken that are necessary to get a permit. In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait, Ms. Heffernon stated that to date the only response they had received, regarding State public agency review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, was a letter from the Department of Conservation. Answers to questions from Commissioner Tait: Mr. Spagnolo: re concern that the gauge construction is an impediment, it was his understanding that the structure would be removed and replaced with a more streamlined and environmentally friendly construction, with a gauge on the outflow to enable adjustment; the drainage solution chosen was the one that was thought to achieve the best regional benefit. Ms. Heffernon: City zoning was first established in the early 1960's and the first residential zoning in 1972 (earlier information is not available). Mr. Spagnolo: there is still funding available (from a former settlement) that could be used for the City's portion of a regional drainage solution for this project. Mr. Spagnolo: re APCD's recommendation that all access roads to this development must be paved, only the part of "dirt Cherry Avenue" that leads up to the tract and the part that connects to the established road system will be paved. In reply to a question from Commissioner Ray, Mr. Carmel clarified how the City obtained (through legal process) a drainage easement for a portion of East Cherry Avenue. After some discussion with staff, Commissioner Brown requested staff review whether the drainage easement (across the Dixson property) was done on an emergency basis and if there was any environmental review at that time. In reply to Commissioner Brown's concern that the proposed drainage would not be able to handle the width of water (and siltation) that would sheet across the property in a 100 -year flood event, Mr. Spagnolo explained that as part of the drainage analysis the water that comes out of Newsome Springs was taken into consideration and the size of the pipes chosen directly relate to this; in addition, due to the grade of the property, ponding would occur first, water would slowly migrate towards the low point, then the bioswale, and finally flow into the collection area. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 Commissioner Brown, referring to Attachment 11, (information from CEQAdocs.com) of the staff report, asked if the thrust of the report indicates that a jurisdiction could do a CEQA analysis (beyond zoning) as to the value of the loss of a prime resource, whether or not it's prime soil and whether it needs to be mitigated? Mr. Carmel agreed that Attachment 11, the "LESA" analysis does go beyond zoning and stated that the policy (1564.7) links up with the provision of CEQA that allows jurisdictions to establish their own CEQA thresholds. Commissioner Fellows, referring to the letter from Sarah Dickens and Marianna McClanahan, Co- Trustees, Gorden Dixson Trust, referencing the 72" culverts and where they would connect to and who would maintain them, asked staff for clarification. Mr. Spagnolo explained that the last design that he had looked at showed them connecting to the grassy area in front of the box culvert that goes under the road and through the biofilter. Chair Fellows requested that the Commission be provided with a more detailed plan in the future to help clarify some of these questions. Chair Fellows asked staff if the City could gain an easement across the entire part of "dirt Cherry" in the future, so there would not be two Cherry Avenues (if the project is approved)? Staff replied that the Planning Commission could recommend this to the City Council. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Erik Justesen, RRM Design Group, gave a detailed description of the project and history of their application, addressed the Neighborhood Plan and sub area 2, the Nouguera resident's request for a more substantial barrier between the subject property and the Noguera Tract, and their concerns with the height of the proposed residences on the lots next to their Tract. John Knight, RRM, Project Manager, gave some further background information; addressed the density and the drainage; explained that the purpose of the bioswale is to capture the first flush in the lower flow storms not the 100 -year storm; explained how the concern with access into sub -area 2 had been resolved; re the concern of the Noguera' residents about the proposed two -story for sub -area 2, he explained that they are proposing to have the first story setback 15 feet, the second story setback an additional 10 feet (staggered setbacks), or restrict all these homes to one story (if this is chosen they would like to have an increase in the lot coverage); most of the other issues have already been addressed in the staff report. Dan Takacs, traffic engineer, Higgins and Associates, described the details of their study for the project area and in conclusion stated that according to their analysis, with the project trips added to the road network, the intersections would continue to operate at an LOS 'C' or better. 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 In reply to questions from Chair Fellows, re the Dickens /McClanahan letter and the bioswale, Mr. Knight pointed out the location of the bioswale, the proposed size of the pipes (three 72 "); they would be designed for a 100 -year storm with a velocity of 1,100 cubic feet per second. In reply to questions from Commissioner Tait re clarification on the width of the bioswale, Mr. Knight stated that one option discussed is to remove the pedestrian path from beside the bioswale and locate it in the bottom of the channel to make it flatter, wider, and more effective. 8:00 p.m. The Commission took a 10- minute break Public Testimony: PAGE 5 Rachel Shoemaker, 206 Mason Street, stated the traffic problems should be dealt with before considering more residences be built; crosswalks need to be dealt with (she has seen people almost killed at intersection of Nelson and Traffic Way (crossing at the intersection of Poole and Fair Oaks is often blind due to parked vehicles; a stop light is required at Cherry Avenue. Sarah Dickens and Molly McClanahan, Dixson Trust, 769 Branch Mill Road, addressed concerns stated in their letter to the Commission; asked that part of "Condition No. 6 be changed: "No new uses or structures shall be allowed in the Agricultural buffer area, unless approved through the CUP process ", remove words "unless approved through the CUP process ". In summary, they requested a continuance of consideration of the proposal to address the following issues: a. A separate hearing on the Newsome Springs drainage alternative. b. A clear direction on lowering the density and the use of a PUD. c. Direct staff to develop a modified LESA model that is tailored to Arroyo Grande's prime soil lands. d. A permanent resolution to the existing 15 -foot "dirt Cherry Lane" as part of the application, Neighborhood Plan, and Agricultural buffer. Reuel Estes, 811 East Cherry Avenue, resident of proposed sub -area 2, stated that the 130 -foot buffer is a taking and will not protect the public; previously he had no problem with the farm, but the new tenants claim they have "a right to farm" and they have been using pesticides /fungicides quite often (even when the winds are not suitable); organic farming might be a solution; if an earthquake occurred a retaining wall by Newsome Springs would really cause some damage; when the Noguera residents bought their property they knew there was drainage there and now want it deeded back to them. However, it is being proposed that an easement be put on his property that he cannot use; in the future he may not develop his property, but he would like the zoning in the proper way; if a higher density is put in then it may make the price of the units more affordable. Commissioner Brown asked if the issue of the 130 -foot buffer all the way PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 PAGE 6 across Mr. Estes' property (sub -area 2) had been resolved for him? Mr. Estes stated that it had not been resolved, but they were open to negotiation if they were approached in the right way. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, urged the Commission to deny the application for the project stating the following reasons: the project requires a full EIR; the environmental concerns are significant; the traffic study is outdated and insufficient; the East Village Neighborhood Plan does not adequately address the future development in sub -area 2; the strong entry feature for the access points to the Village, proposed for sub -area 1, do not fit in with the Village; the proposed bioswale will not serve the use it is intended for; the project and the neighborhood plan are not consistent with the General Plan; a separate hearing should be required to decide if the parcel should be subject to a PUD. Ms. Martin further stated that she had done a good faith estimate of the project site including the area in the creek, and had figured out that no more than 21 homes should be allowed for the proposed medium density; the City should take the leadership on the ownership of "dirt Cherry"; the Air Pollution Control District requires all access roads to the development be paved; the Mitigated Negative Declaration is incomplete — it does not mention that the loss of prime soils is a Toss of significant natural resources and there is too much monitoring required (up to 5 years) and it is too vague. In conclusion, she stated objection to the deviance from the General Plan (especially the density); the last rural residential land should be properly planned; she would like to see East Cherry straight and paved; less density: four estate lots and no more than 20 additional units in Phase 1 (total of 24 units); the General Plan should be followed rather than allow a PUD where it does not belong. Greg McGowan, 432 Garden Street, is in support of residential use of the site, but suggested the following changes: 1. Noise and dust causing activities should be limited to 9:00 — 5:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday. 2. Re traffic: believes that traffic will find other ways through the neighborhood if they have a long wait at an intersection — this should be reviewed. 3. The density may seem more dense because the three existing Tots are being included. 4. The 25 -foot setback adequately protects the creek, but zero buffer is being provided for the riparian corridor. 5. Concern with how the grading for the storm drains would be done without altering the top of creek bank; one solution may be to use a direction drill to bore down to eliminate disturbance of the creek. 6. MM 4.2 for native restoration is a great idea, but confused on the planting sheet (L -1.0)— as it contains largely cultivars and aesthetic planting, not native; maybe this could be integrated into the restoration plan. 7. He would oppose the access down to the creek; it is very steep and dangerous and does not think neighbors would try to get down there. 8. He cautioned the City and applicant that from the mitigated negative declaration there did not appear to be impacts to listed species, but the discussion today 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 PAGE 7 indicated that there may be impacts and presence of these species — a deferral mitigation is illegal under CEQA. Kevin McCarthy, 222 Garden Street, stated concerns with traffic through the entire neighborhood; that the increased traffic flow would affect both pedestrians as well as drivers; asked that these traffic issues be considered. Michael Block, 505 Ide Street, stated concerns that East Cherry and Allen Street will not carry the increased traffic load (he worked for Caltrans for 36 years); traffic will filter onto Ide Street (which during the last year has changed to families with young children); also has concern with flood waters- as the sewer on his property is lower than the other houses on the street; in 1995 the flood water came right up to his property. Mike Kelley, 322 Noquera, stated concerns with traffic; agreed with Mr. Block that traffic will divert to other streets; does not agree with traffic report on number of trips that would be generated; the City has responsibility to do something about Cherry Lane and Traffic Way intersection; does not want to see the project go through until the traffic problem is solved; re the storm drains, there needs to be a design compensation to keep debris out of them. Pat Sanger, 530 Los Olivos Lane, (exits onto Cherry Lane) stated concern with the traffic; does not understand why a section of Cherry came into existence where residents cannot park onto the street and have to back out into traffic, and if a bus or mail delivery truck stops traffic piles up behind them; Allen Street cannot be called a thru road- if traffic is parked on both sides two cars cannot pass; this project will impact the Village and traffic needs to be addressed in a serious way. Larry Turner, 323 Noquera Place, stated he had attempted to file an appeal of staff's recommendation to the Commission (prepared by the Mike Titus Memorial Committee), but the City rejected it; he would like clarification from staff. He described the neighborhood concerns with the proposed residential development and he would like the hearing continued to allow further discussion. Lynn Titus, 404 Lierly Lane, stated she and her husband had worked long and hard on the General Plan Update; there are items in the plan that should be directed by the City, not the developer — such as the East Village Neighborhood Plan; at the neighborhood meetings the developer was advised that the General Plan calls for 7,200 sq. ft. lots and paving "dirt Cherry" should be part of the plan (the City should take charge of this); the applicant cannot make an Ag buffer from land that he, or the City, does not own; she does not agree with Ag. Buffers; does not want the 8 -foot high block wall (proposed along the Ag buffer) abutting her rural wooden fence; the lots for this area should be a minimum of 7,200 sq. ft. consistent with the residential neighborhoods in the Village and zoning in the General Plan; asked the Commission to deny the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 PAGE 8 Jamie Ohler, 126 Allen, stated concerns with traffic problems on Allen Street and Cherry Avenue; believes the subdivision is a good idea and will be an asset to the Village , but traffic is a concern; there should be less parked cars on the street and the traffic at the intersections needs to be addressed; the traffic is not a 'C' it's an 'F'. Polly Tullis, 236 Garden Street, read the letter submitted to the Commission for the record; it contained information on the heritage of the Village, the history of the Stillwell property, the fact that at least five of the nine acres designated Phase 1 are Class I, prime soil irrigated farm land (in production from 1913 - 1987); no development should occur; there were inaccuracies contained in the mitigated negative declaration; she agrees with Colleen Martin's comments; Phase 1 should require a complete EIR; only one home per acre should be built, or the land sold and other alternative uses for the land be made, such as hands -on community outreach, historic sustainable agric- tourism using no pesticides as benefit to all, or other rural purposes consistent with the RR zoning. Greg Burdar, 201 Garden Street, builder /developer, stated concerns about traffic that this project would produce; concern with the proposed three 72" pipes and believes there would be serious issues with them; agrees that East Cherry will need to be improved with sidewalks and parking before the project goes forward. Chair Fellows closed the hearing to public comment. Commissioner Brown stated that due to the volume of material they had received he would like more time for review and suggested that the item be continued; he basically considered this a new project. Commissioner Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to continue the matter to a date certain. Commissioner Ray proposed a motion to recommend that City Council review the requested interpretation from Mr. Coker, regarding whether Phase 1 is prime soil, before the Commission reconsider this proposed development. Commissioner Brown stated it was the duty of the Commission to make their interpretation before recommending to the City Council. The Council will then ultimately decide whether or not the Commission is correct. Chair Fellows agreed that the Commission needed more time for review due to the huge volume of public testimony. Commissioner Ray requested that the Newsome Springs residents also be noticed when this project is renoticed for the next hearing date. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to continue the discussion to the July 18, 2006, regular Planning Commission meeting, open the public hearing and renotice the item. 1 1 1 a "s eNo App. Names Address D escription $' _ Action ,Planner 1. TUP 06 -010 Jeff Strickland 1200 E. Grand Ave. Nature's Design Center, Open House and Art Show for Uniphi Foundation A. K. Heffernon 2. TUP 06 -011 Gospel Lighthouse Church 710 Huasna 1200 E. Grand 1026 E. Grand 1570 W. Branch 497 Fair Oaks Fundraiser cherry sales. A B. Soland 3. PPR 06 -008 Wiley /Butcher 201 Wood Place To allow continued use a non- conforming 2 residential unit.. A T. Ricard 4. VSR 05 -016 D. Osborn 448 Allen Street Demolition of an existing one car garage and construction of a two -car garage and 2 floor dwelling (approved by ARC) A. T. Ricard 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, Ray and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Parker III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. IV. A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE MAY 2, 2006: VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ray, Brown, Tait, and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Parker PAGE 9 The Planning Commission had no concerns with the approved Administrative Items. The Commission took a five - minute break. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Ms. Heffernon advised the Commission that the first meeting in July falls on the July 4th holiday and asked the Commission if they would like to meet on an alternative date. After discussion the Commission decided they would prefer to have just one meeting in July. Commissioner Ray made a motion to cancel the July 4 meeting and meet next on July 18, 2006. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 V.III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Ray. ATTEST: LYN REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: /vm" ih a -� R • B STROO G, COMMUNITY DEVEL ' PMENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the Planning Commisstion meeting of June 20, 2006) CHUCK FELLOWS, CHAIR PAGE 10 1 1 1