Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-01-31MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 31, 2006 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows, Parker, Ray and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENTS: A request for the public to turn off their cell phones during the meeting. AGENDA REVIEW: No requested changes to the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of January 3, 2006 were approved on a motion by Commissioner Fellows, seconded by Commissioner Parker, with the following requested changes: Fellows: • Page 7, should state ...Mr. Young verified the "width" of the path as being 12 feet. Ray: • Page 8, should be, Sherry Gust, Archeologist (not Architect). Parker: • Page 10, 3rd paragraph, 1 bullet: Change wording to state, "...would rather see this coming in as two phases "; 2 bullet: Change the word "everything" to "buildings"; 7 bullet: Add the word "designations" at the end of the sentence; Add the word "somewhere" at the end of sentence. The motion was approved by a 5/0 voice vote. Commissioner Parker requested the minutes of January 17, 2006, be pulled and considered at the next regular meeting - February 7, 2006. Commissioner Parker made the motion, seconded by Chair Brown; the motion was approved on a 5/0 voice vote. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Memo from Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, regarding TTM 05 -003 & PUD 05 -007: Changes to draft Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures. C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. CONTINUED FROM 01 - 03 - 06: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 05- 003 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 05 -007; APPLICANT — CCRED; REPRESENTATIVE — JASON BLANKENSHIP; LOCATION — FAIR OAKS AVE (vacant lot east of Arroyo Grande Hospital). Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for continued review of a mixed -use development, proposed in two phases, on a 5.5 -acre site. Highlights of the report focused on the Phase 1 proposed to include thirty (30) town homes and over an acre PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 31, 2006 Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 2 of open space to be offered as dedication to the public (14,000 sq. ft. of common open space and approximately 9,000 sq. ft. of private open space). Phase 1 is subject to the Office Mixed Use (OMU) standards and the Design Overlay OMU -D -2.20, general mixed - use standards, PUD standards, agricultural buffer and creek setback requirements. Phase 2 conceptually consists of a medical office complex with up to 120,000 sq. ft of floor area and subterranean parking and will go through a separate discretionary and environmental review once detailed plans have been submitted. Ms. Heffernon then listed the items of concern that were discussed during the January 3, 2006 meeting; stated that the applicant had submitted additional information based on these issues; in response to issues raised on the Ag buffer, a report prepared by Firma verifies that the Ag buffer should be measured from the other side of the creek and not from the small piece of land located northeast of the property which is not viable for any agricultural production. Ms. Heffernon stated that modified Mitigation Measure 2.2 explains that the zoning interpretation on creek setback area for the Ag parcel located northwest of the creek should be Public Facilities (a small portion of land was inadvertently shown as Ag); lot 31 was conditioned to be dedicated to the City as public open space and would include creek channel, creek setback area, Ag buffer and pedestrian trail easement. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon explained that after discussion with some Commission members staff had made some recommended changes to the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures and these had been handed to the Commission this evening. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 05 -003 and Planned Unit Development 05 -007 to the City Council. Chair Brown asked for clarification on why they now had to make a recommendation to the City Council and why the Commission could not make the decision on this. Mr. Strong explained that City Code states that any action requiring City Council approval converts final action of the project, by the Planning Commission, to an advisory recommendation to City Council. Gary Young, 28 Mesa Alter, applicant, introduced their consultants who were present to answer Commission questions. Jennifer Martin, Architect, LGA, described the changes that had been made to the project to address the Commission's concerns voiced at the meeting of January 3, 2006. Gary Boringer, VP for Strategic Planning, Catholic Health Care West, gave the history and intent of overlay; stated that the 75/25 percent designation was put in place after the initial recommendation of 50/50 percent designation; they had worked with the developer and staff during the last nine months to develop this project. In conclusion, he explained that their goal is to continue to safeguard the area around the hospital and develop a facilities plan and options for the future. The phased development is based on the 75/25 percent PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 31, 2006 PAGE 3 allocation of uses which gives us flexibility and time to develop. We want to meet the needs of the hospital and the community and be sensitive to the neighbors. David Foote, firma, showed the latest landscape plan which included a sketch of the pathway alongside the units. His discussion focused on concerns raised by the public and Commission at the last meeting. He stated that they had looked at the Queensland Report for guidance on the setbacks for the Ag buffer and had addressed the concern regarding fire hazards by recommending trees that the County recommends for both Ag buffers and low fuel areas and emphasized that the landscape would be irrigated; he clarified the proposed plant materials (trees) to be used and showed how they should look when mature. Barbara Washington, 621 Cerro Vista Circle, stated concerns that the development will impact the natural feel of the creek area; asked if Fish & Game would be monitoring this area; stated 30 two -story homes will be an intrusion on the creek and existing neighbors; this is the only open space in the area and natural plant species should be left alone, open areas kept open (not over - plant). Bardhyll Nushi, 641 Cerro Vista Circle, spoke at length and stated concern with the change that the project has taken and with the fact that the Commission could now only recommend to City Council due to the interpretations required; asked how could this be allowed to proceed to Council when the whole scope of work for Phase 1 is based on Phase 2 (Phase 2 seems inappropriate and inconceivable). Chair Brown stated that the general idea behind the overlays is that it is a planning tool to determine what the ultimate possibilities may be. Mr. Nushi continued: If Woodland Drive is not going through why is the parcel still being divided in half; asked that the site be re- looked at getting it back to 50/50; still has concerns that alley (pathway) is a security issue and only having a four foot fence will allow people to look right into the houses; the real issue is that the pathway goes up to 15 feet because of height of houses; the buildings are too close to the pathway to create a user - friendly alley; there is a need to back away from the pathway and lowering the fence does not help; the path will be in the shade most of the day due to the structures but trees will soften it. In conclusion, Mr. Nushi stated concern that the decision to not allow Woodland Drive to go through should be permanent not temporary; he showed a sketch for an alternate design which included a small park; he requested the applicant revisit the project and set the bike path further away from the homes. Scott Washington, 61 Cerro Vista Circle, stated he walks to school every day along the pathway and expressed his concerns that wildlife would be affected; the buildings are too close to the creek; crime rate in the area will increase; having the fencing along the path is unsafe; he plays with his friends every day at the health park and this area may not look too nice with gates. Darlene Mack, 576 Woodland Drive, stated a concern that even though the applicant said that Woodland Drive would not go through to S. Alpine, the staff report states that this will be revisited again with Phase 2; she asked if this would have to go to a public hearing to be changed? Chair Brown stated there would be additional public hearings. Robert Berryhill, 629 Cerro Vista Circle, stated his concern that the new houses will be too close to existing houses; the walkway /bikepath will be narrower due to the addition of the landscaping (trees) each side of the path; it would be too narrow for two bikes to pass. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 31, 2006 PAGE 4 Debra West, 159 S. Alpine Street, stated concern that this project will radically change the open space area; Arroyo Grande is giving away their open space especially in the central area; she understands the need that the hospital may have for the extra space, but the City needs open space that is natural (not drainage basins and PUD's). Patrick Kelley, 187 S. Alpine Street, third generation in his house, stated concern with the future and concern for the safety of children with the potential increase in traffic. Gabe West, 159 S. Alpine Street, stated concern that he will be walking the path when he goes to high school and wants it to stay safe; he has concern with walking to school on the roads due to traffic. Piper Adleman, 606 Cerro Vista Lane, stated concern that her four children will not be safe walking to school on the proposed path if it becomes an alley; it will invite graffiti and other problems; they already have to drive really slowly on the local streets as there are always a lot of children playing in the streets around her neighborhood. Chet Williams, 649 Cerro Vista Circle, stated concern with traffic congestion (increasing every day); asked if they will have parks coming into the area for the children; the open space is the only area children have to play; with the proposed heights of units he would no longer be able to see the path with children walking to school; he could see problems in the future. Christina Coffman, 220 S. Alpine Street, stated concern that the area is changing; other new projects in the area have built small parks for the children, but this project does not include a park; he would like to keep the small town atmosphere. Colleen Nushi, 646 Cerro Vista Circle, asked those in the audience who were there to support her and her husbands' comments to stand up (approx. 20 people stood up); she stated her main concerns were that the Woodland Drive decision to not go through was not a permanent one for the sake of the safety of their children; if it is not stopped now it will have a dramatic impact on our children. Ravann Crouse, 637 Cerro Vista Circle, stated concern with loss of safety and agreed with a lot of the issues addressed by others. Darlene Mack spoke again, stated concern with traffic issues on Halcyon and Grand Ave; if Woodland Drive ever did connect to Cerro Vista drivers would be taking a short cut to get to Fair Oaks for the High School or the freeway; traffic in the morning and afternoon at school times already backs up to the mortuary and Grand Ave. In reply to a question from Chair Brown, Mr. Young stated that the Commission would have to listen to public input and make a decision on Woodland Drive; the trail, riparian corridor and creek areas will remain the same and the proposed development will not affect any of these areas; Woodland Drive will be a political decision. Commission questions to Mr. Foote: Brown: • Asked for clarification on the rendering of the path showing landscaping and lighting. Mr. Foote described the rendering in detail and explained why they had chosen this specific line of site, described the view from different directions and from the proposed units. Tait: • Is there a concern that roots from the proposed larger trees will lift the path or the neighboring property; would having deciduous trees cause a lot of leaf drop? Mr. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 31, 2006 Foote: In areas like this we put the trees in a barrel to intercept the roots and get them to grow down; the trees do not have to be deciduous. • Why choose the London Plane tree over California Sycamore? Mr. Foote: The California Sycamore is more irregular, and susceptible to blight at certain times of the year causing them to drop leaves early, but this does not endanger them. • In reply to another question, Mr. Foote stated the windows on the second story of the units are for bedrooms /offices. Fellows: • Since the bio- swales have been removed what will be put in their place? Mr. Foote: He had not been updated on this change, but there could be a connection from the interior loop street to the public path. • The ARC recommended good size fruit trees in the parkway, adjacent to Woodland Drive, why are the trees small now? Mr. Foote: This comment from the ARC may have been missed; he would look at the minutes, but they can put larger trees in. Tait PAGE 5 • Re the public concern with losing open space and the natural feel of the creek; he thought the plans actually enhance these areas, but asked for a comment on this. Mr. Foote: Under most zoning codes a pathway would be required along the creek with enhanced landscaping. In this case, the existing path will be enhanced with native riparian vegetation, adding to the natural feel of the creek and providing a more effective buffer. Brown: • Is the current vegetation along creek sufficient to create enough vegetation for the Ag buffer? Mr. Foote: He would definitely say so; it is 100 feet plus wide. Tait: • Re the triangle portion of land that is not being zoned Ag land, is this no longer a concern where the five units are proposed? Mr. Foote: It is not a concern with this new designation. • For irrigated row crop the County requires a 200 -500 foot Ag buffer; how do you justify not doing this here with the irrigated row crops? Mr. Foote: Basically because the creek and the integrity and density of this riparian corridor provide a major barrier. • Mr. Foote's reply to another question: The prevailing wind pattern (drift) from the farmland is towards the other Ag land, to the east, and is not such a big concern. Fellows: • The Queensland report recommends a non - combustible edge to both sides of the Ag buffer and a specific plant make up to protect people who live adjacent to the farms; what does an Ag buffer do to protect the residents? Mr. Foote: It intercepts dust and spray and also the trees have some ability to trap particles and airborne spray. • Had they noticed the gap in the Ag buffer? Mr. Foote: They had noticed it and they propose to plug the hole with trees on their side. • Will firma guarantee that the Ag buffer will not burn down? Mr. Foote: No one would guarantee this, but it will provide protection. Brown: • What can be done within the creek easement to improve the long -term vegetative quality (not in the boundaries of the residential project)? Mr. Foote: The City manages this area by mowing, but everything in that area could be enhanced by more native plants. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 31, 2006 Tait: Tait: PAGE 6 • What is the time frame for maturity of the proposed trees. Mr. Foote: The trees will be managed by the City, but with good irrigation oak trees can double their size in 6- 8 years; the sycamores can double their size in about 3 years. • Are the trees (mentioned above) specifically for the Ag buffer to intercept? Mr. Foote: These trees serve well for Ag buffers and low fuel zones; he would recommend a mix of both California Sycamore and London Plane trees, especially in a native environment. • There are at least three Eucalyptus trees in the area of the creek; should these come out? Mr. Foote: Unless clearly mandated, it is best not to get into the creek area; the Eucalyptus in this area are not out of control; the pros outweigh the negatives. Parker: • MM 4.7 re enhancement of the pathway: Will there be any creek enhancement in this area? Mr. Foote: Because of the concern with fire, we are trying to balance this concern by planting native plants and trees in the area. Mr. Young stated he was intending to object to this mitigation as it does start a new path and it would not be desirable to have a path down to the creek due to grafitti and other public nuisances taking place down there. Mr. Strong stated that Ms. Heffernon's memo suggests deleting this mitigation measure (MM 4.10) and replacing with language to state "To combat unwanted creek access and foot traffic that disturbs riparian vegetation, the applicant shall offer to dedicate a trail easement to the City, subject CDFG approval ". Parker: • If the trail were given to the City, would the City have to enhance it? Mr. Strong: It was not intended to be a trail and the City could determine it unsafe and preclude access— Fish and Game will be the determining factor. Tait: • How can access be prevented? Mr. Strong: Fish & Game or the City can prevent or restrict access with additional deterring vegetation, such as poison oak. 8:20 p.m. The Commission took a 10- minute break. Parker: • MM 4.6 has been deleted so is there no longer a riparian habitat plan? Mr. Foote: This measure was primarily related to potential storm drain improvements in the bank, but a condition can be imposed to widen the enhancement area out to the riparian edge to get more plants in there and can occur along the whole frontage all the way down. • He was disappointed that MM 4.6 had been deleted; the developer should submit a riparian /landscape restoration plan to the City and it should be monitored by Fish & Game. Ms. Heffernon: This mitigation measure is very specific about doing improvements to the drainage (the outfall to the creek); we are not clear if the applicant can obtain permission to do work on property that does not belong to them; PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 31, 2006 PAGE 7 MM 4.3 (in the memo) does relate to this, but she would not be opposed to putting some of the information (that was struck in 4.6) back in if preferred. Parker: • She would like to see MM 4.6 put back in (even if it only applies to restoration after the erosion mitigation) to ensure that there will be a restoration plan if anything is done in the creek; she asked Mr. Foote if he would be in charge of a plan? Mr. Foote: That would be fine, but he explained that the City would be required to monitor this with the applicant and Fish & Game. Brown: • He would also want to see a restoration plan as the City is the responsible party to see that this is done. • Asked for clarification on the parking for the project. Ms. Martin clarified the number of parking spaces and short-term parking in front of the units plus the distance allowed for maneuvering in and out. Mr. Strong commented that parallel parking in this project should not be encouraged; there is ample and safer parking in the garage space; the entire driveway is a fire lane. Brown: • He is concerned that residents would not have a way to parallel park in this project. Parker: • Why is a handicap space required for residential? Mr. Grant, LGA, explained that 10% of town homes are required to have ADA accessibility; near the park is the most logical, but it can be moved if required. • The City's PUD calls for 2 -car garages (covered parking) and 1 /2 space per unit; however, she does not know of any other approved PUD that has no driveway (1/2 space only for guests) and no parking on the street; staff states this is enough parking, but she does not feel that it is. Mr. Strong: This project meets the City's minimum standards for both resident and guest parking for this density; (this is a multi - family PUD); if the parking expectation is to allow parking in front of the garage or the equivalent to off - street, then the General Plan and mixed - use and multi family zones will not work; the Community Development Department is in the process of amending the Development Code; as yet the mixed use and multi family districts and the PUD standards have not been updated; most of the projects that are pending are generally higher density, mixed -use projects, and none of them will meet the expectation of parking in front of the garage; if this is required none of them will be approved and we will then be back to the conventional single- family subdivision design. Fellows: • Would the internal streets be open to neighborhood foot traffic (like children going to school)? Ms. Martin: They will be. • Will material samples go to ARC. Ms. Martin: They will. Commission questions to Mr. Young: • CC &R's should contain a regulation that prohibits the four -foot fence (on the developer's side) from being raised. Mr. Young agreed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 31, 2006 Tait: PAGE 8 • Re the public comment regarding Woodland Drive, the gate, and putting a park like area in: Could this be considered given that the emergency access would still need to go through? Mr. Young: The proposed design for a park that Mr. Nushi submitted, would not be feasible because Public Works wants the right -of -way, that the project will dedicate, to align with the existing portions of Woodland Drive. Mr. Strong stated that the City could require a specific landscape treatment in addition to the 20 -foot wide asphalt path; this could be required of the applicant. Ray: • What will happen with the small triangle shaped piece of property, at bottom of the plan, if access becomes an issue? Mr. Young: In the future this may have to be dealt with by the City. Parker: • Had Mr. Young heard from the Fire Department regarding whether the emergency access is needed? Mr. Young: The Fire Chief is comfortable with the 20 -foot wide access with either bollards or a gate included; he had not discussed whether it was needed. Brown: • If bio - swales disappear what will happen to those areas? Mr. Young: If we go with the vaults then the bio - swales will be landscaped; we may take one of those areas and make a trail that connects the road down to the creek easement for our residents. • Special Cond. #9: You are already over the total living and work related square footage totals? Mr. Young: Explained how they arrived at the percentages in the report. Ray: • Expressed concern at the way the percentages were arrived at; at the last meeting the Commission was told that all the calculations were based on the 120,000 sq. ft. for the medical offices and now you are stating the opposite. Mr. Young: In discussions with staff, this is the way we were advised to calculate; he agreed that they were 5,000 sq. ft. over when considering the 75/25 percent. Brown: • Asked for clarification on Condition No. 54: Mr. Young: The way the drainage is proposed would not work. Mr. Devens: Confirmed that this condition may have to be amended after it has been reviewed, as it may be infeasible. • Concern re Condition Nos. 57 & 58: Mr. Young: Explained how the existing 48" storm water pipe was working; the City is asking us to mitigate the erosion; so as not to disturb the creek, we are proposing that we slurry the bottom and sides of the pipe with concrete and on the outfall we are proposing to add language to state that the developer will contribute up to $10,000 cost towards fixing the current City problem, thereafter the developer and City shall pay their respective pro -rata shares; where we tie into the 48" pipe we have agreed to pay for installing a new manhole and fossil filter (the City will maintain it). Tait: • Condition No. 57 what mitigation measure will cover this? Ms. Heffernon: The new language for MM 4.3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 31, 2006 PAGE 9 Parker: • MM 4.3: The language should be more specific to state a streambed alteration permit shall be required from Fish & Game to put rip -rap in the creek. Brown: • MM 4.6, asked for clarification. Mr. Foote: Recommended that rather than change 4.6, more language could be added to 4.7 that explicitly defines the extent of what the enhancement and restoration needs are and if the Commission's intent is to have it on the other side of the path (between the path and the riparian area) to make it more comprehensive they could recommend this. Parker: • 4.6 deals with after the repaired rip -rap is put into the creek; would you be allowed to go into the creek to increase habitat? Mr. Foote: The applicant does not own the land and the City does have an easement for drainage, but the landowner may agree with this. Ms. Parker: 4.6 could be put back in with a sentence to state, "as long as it is acceptable to the applicant ". Ms. Heffernon stated that they would not require the applicant to do something that is not acceptable. Ray: • MM 8.1 conflicts with conditions 61 regarding construction times. Ms. Heffernon: condition No. 61 is only for purposes of public inspection for Public Works. Tait: • Is it typical to have Monday through Saturday for construction times? Ms. Heffernon: It is what has been done discretionarily in the past. Commission questions to staff: Fellows: • Concern with the bollards; will they keep motorcycles from going through? Mr. Devens: If pedestrians can get through then so can motorcycles; there are some ways to install poles in a jogging pattern to stop this. Mr. Strong: He would rather not see a design where a bicycle would have to be lifted to get through; it could be signed to warn motorcycles not to go through. • Why is there a choice between Bio- swales and vaults? Mr. Devens: Staff's ultimate preference is to have vaults installed, but due to the constraints did not have enough details to decide this before the meeting. • MM 3.14, concern with the "where feasible" language. Ms. Heffernon: There are some instances where this cannot be done in some instances based on the design. 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray to continue the discussion to 10:30 p.m.; the motion was approved on a 5/0 voice vote. Parker: • Does there have to be an emergency access through the residential property? Mr. Strong: The Fire Chief would want a secondary access and the neighborhood to the north would also need secondary access. • Why does the whole project need to go to City Council when there are only two issues that they need to consider? Mr. Strong: The Development Code states the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 31, 2006 PAGE 10 requirement. If any aspect of a project requires City Council approval, then the whole project must be decided by City Council. Tait: • Asked for open space calculations clarification. Mr. Strong: The table does not contain a description of public open space; the Code shows inconsistency; open space does not all have to be usable; the PUD standards do not have any reference to public open space and whether it has to be usable or not. • Why can't a combination of bio - swales and other methods be used? Mr. Strong: If other systems were used in conjunction there would no longer be a bio -swale opportunity; bio swales are not beneficial in some areas; staff wants to come up with the best management practices for this location. Brown: • Is there a successful office mixed -use project with similar density to this that we have done in the City? Mr. Strong: There are a couple of residential PUD's, but not without some parking in front of the garages; staff has done research in other areas (example San Luis Obispo) that has similar mixed use projects that are functioning well with less parking. Commission Comments: Tait: • From public comment he felt it would be nice if a small park could be provided that would still allow emergency access. • He is okay with the pathway; maybe go with evergreen trees. • The public has a major concern with Woodland Drive going through; we something about this. • There needs to be a riparian restoration plan. • He is fine with the parking. • Open space issues will need to be resolved "down the line ". • Pretty good project. Parker: • She supports Woodland Drive not going through; would like to see both ends closed and have a park on both ends; if it is narrowed down in this area maybe it could have more greenery on either side. • The pathway does not look like it will be a problem; re does not know how to make public concerns on safety resolved; she would be uncomfortable with the privacy issues (re the fencing) if she were to own one of the units; the pathway could be removed, but then the public would lose it altogether. • The Ag issue seems to have been worked out; she would recommend to City Council to follow through on looking at the rezoning, especially as it is not prime Ag land. • The HOA should have some rules enforcing the parking inside the garages; suggested mitigation to have no oil changes /washing of cars etc. because of the impact on the creek. • She recommends creek dedication to the City Council. • Supports the project; she is pleased with all the changes and research that has been done. • She is glad to see the public area of walkway remain public. need to do PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 31, 2006 PAGE 11 • Re the Ag issue: Is comfortable with the setback of 175 feet -plus, and that they were keeping out of the 25 -foot setback all along the creek. • Would like to see the couple of changes discussed in the mitigation measures regarding the riparian plan done if possible; agrees that 4.6 should be put back in with language discussed. Fellows: • MM 2.1, transfer disclosure statement: This is not enough warning to a purchaser of the property; a bold statement to warn potential buyers that they are living close to farmland. • Condition No. 23, (one tree every 75 feet is too far apart), change to one tree every 35 feet, and they should be trees of stature like liquid amber or oaks. • He would like to see the real material samples go to the ARC. • He would like to see at least one walkway from the internal driveway to the creek (where the bio- swales were proposed). • If bioswales are not as effective as vaults then vaults should be used. • Make -up of the Ag buffer is pretty close; augmentations discussed by Mr. Foote should be added and fire resistant plants should be used, even in the backyards of the units that are backing up to the pathway and Ag land and take it back to ARC for review. • He has been confused by the public's comments on the pathway; he considers it an amenity and when lighted it will be safer than it is now; anyone going from S. Alpine to the elementary or high school can just walk down Woodland Drive and not go down the path. • Regarding the design of the five homes that back up to the homes on Cerro Vista Circle, it is a goofy idea to have a sunken garden where someone can jump over the fence into the backyard; these five units should be smaller, the back yard larger and further away from the pathway and have a common sense six foot fence on the same level; also the units should not be so tall because of the houses behind. • It is a great idea that the applicant has agreed to put in the new manhole and filter the water. • The one tree by the tot lot should be saved (native California Walnut). • He would love to have a park, but the City cannot afford to buy it as a park or afford to water it. • He is not sure about the parking; a middle ground would be good and maybe the project should not be so dense; however, if we don't have dense infill maybe we will have sprawl. Ray: • She is conflicted about the project; Mr. Young presented a very good project with complex problems and she appreciated the packet that she received this week with color renderings etc. • The primary focus needs to be on the future success of the hospital; the hospital has stated they are happy with this proposal, but the following were her reasons for not being able to support the proposed project: If Phase 1 is approved as presented what happens with Phase 2: The merits of a 120,000 sq. ft. project have not been discussed or presented for public comment; there are two variances being made for this proposal 1) we are going from area of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 31, 2006 PAGE 12 land to area of square footage and, 2) we are fudging on this; she has a problem making a such a huge jump. There are no examples throughout the City showing that this can be done, no examples of subterranean parking and the costs involved in doing this. The staff report for Phase 2 will have to include environmental review, substantial transition areas and subterranean parking; what if this is not financially viable; for this alone she could not recommend approval of this project to City Council. What if the applicant builds out Phase 1 and sells off the land for Phase 2; the profit margin from Phase 1 to offset the cost in Phase 2 would be lost. The applicant has done a great job with the residential portion, but in good conscience for the City she could not approve Phase 1 as it might make Phase 2 infeasible and might even preclude something else being built in Phase 2 if that land is sold separately. Brown: • Agreed with Commissioner Ray that on some measure we are dealing with an unknown, but on looking at this property in it's entirety and City Council's desire to do the overlay to help the medical facilities this is a good first step. We cannot determine the financial future of the hospital; the percentages of 75/25 & 50/50 are just a rough planning tool; the overlay planning tool is not set in stone. • He has a concern about parking, but he is starting to come around to accepting higher density projects. • This City has not dealt with office mixed use with a parking element so he has a concern with this issue; with a reduction of units some additional parking could be provided. • He could vote for this project based on Mr. Strong's representation that he can bring some discussion to Council regarding the successfulness of this project at this location. • He wants MM 4.6 put back in. In reply to a question from Chair Brown, Mr. Strong stated that regarding MM 2.2 if the Commission supports the interpretation, and the Council concurs it would not require a Development Code Amendment; the preference would be to return to the map in the Development Code that designates the creek area as Public Facility, then the Ag boundary would be the east side of the creek. Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to recommend approval to City Council of the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development with the following amendments included: • The modifications to draft conditions of approval and mitigation measures contained in the memo from Ms. Heffernon, dated January 31, 2006. • Amendment to condition of approval No. 23: Change one tree every 75 feet to one tree every 35 feet. • Reinsert MM 4.6, amended as discussed. • Modify MM 4.7. with language that explicitly defines the extent of the enhancement and restoration needs in the riparian habitat area beside the path. • Delete MM 4.10. .., C asePNo ,; ;; App Name Address;„ ,ea Description _ Action Planner ,. 1. MEX 05 -016 Patricia Marr 266 W. Branch Permit existing garage conversion to living space. A R. Foster 2. ARCH 05 -019 SCHS 134 S. Mason New garage /storage building to match existing house. A R. Foster 3. TUP 06 -001 Amgen Tour of CA. Passing thru Arroyo Grande Part of the Inaugural Tour of California. A J. Bergman 4. MEX 06 -002/ VSR 06 -004 Reece Benson 558 Paseo Minor exception for front yard setback (18') and retaining walls (up to 8'). A J. Bergman 5. PPR 05 -026 & VSR 06 -001 Dave Sturges 130 & 132 Short St. Mixed use project. A J. Bergman 6. MEX 06 -003 Nanci Parker 1127 Vard Loomis Lane Minor exception for front yard fence height. A J. Bergman 7. VSR 06 -002 D. & G. Shetler 1575 Chilton Street A new 2 -story residence replacing an existing single -story residence. A B. Soland 8. MEX 06 -004 Rivera & Son Excavating 547 Ladera Place Replacement of failing retaining wall with a similar concrete block wall varying from 4 -8' in height. A. J. Bergman 9. MEX 06 -001 Jerold Berg 555 Palos Secos To allow an elevator to encroach into the setback. A T. Ricard PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 31, 2006 and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06 -1991 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 05 -003 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 05 -007 TO THE CITY COUNCIL, APPLIED FOR BY CENTRAL COAST REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON FAIR OAKS AVENUE (EAST OF ARROYO GRANDE HOSPITAL) The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Brown, Commissioners Tait and Parker NOES: Commissioner Fellows and Ray ABSENT: None Commissioner Fellows stated he could not vote for this motion for three reasons: 1) The location of the proposed five units next to the path is not fair to the existing homes, 2) The backyard situation is not acceptable, and 3) The units should be further away from the path so an alleyway is not being created. III. NON- PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. CONTINUED FROM 01- 03 -06: PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 05 -011; APPLICANT — RICK WHEELER; LOCATION —189 BRISCO ROAD. Due to the late hour the Commission agreed to move consideration of this item to the next regular meeting February 7, 2006. IV. A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE JANUARY 17. 2006 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 31, 2006 The Commission unanimously agreed that they had no concerns with any of the administrative approval items. Mr. Strong stated the items would be approved after a 10- day appeal period. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Mr. Strong asked for a Commission member to volunteer to be a representative on a "Sales Tax Advisory Committee ". Chair Brown volunteered to represent the Commission on this committee. Mr. Strong stated the first meeting is scheduled for February 15, 2006 at 7:00 p.m VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ATTEST: L N REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION -VI/4e 1 TIM BROWN, CHAIR COMMUNITY DEV OPMENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of March 7, 2006) PAGE 14 1 1