Loading...
PC Minutes 2009-08-181 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 2009 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Ray presiding; also present were Commissioners, Brown, and Ruth. Commissioners Barneich and Keen absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Assistant City Engineer, Mike Linn, Planning Manager Jim Bergman, and Planning Intern Darryl Mimick. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None AGENDA REVIEW: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chair Ray asked that approval of the July 21, 2009 minutes be continued to the next Commission meeting when Commissioner Keen is present and that page 3 of said minutes, include the residents' added testimony that was different from the previous public hearing. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AFTER AGENDA PREPARATION: 1. The following was received after agenda preparation: a letter and petition received from concerned residents of Brisco Hill dated August 14, 2009 regarding Item II.B. stating opposition to application' 077 - 061 -016, General Plan Amendment /Development Code Amendment/Tentative Tract Map (TTM 3015) as proposed using existing Hillcrest Drive to provide new public street access from /to the proposed development. 2. Emails received from Gwendolyn Melton regarding Item II.B. possible surplus property access from Montego Street. 3. Tentative Tract Map for Tract 3017, (Pearwood Basin) detail of road extension, prepared by Garing, Taylor & Associates, dated August 15, 2009. 4. A letter from Emily Howard and Christine Klopfer, regarding Pearwood Avenue. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 09 -003; APPLICANT — OAK PARK PLAZA — 1532 WEST BRANCH STREET. Staff report prepared by Planning Intern Darryl Mimick. Darryl Mimick presented the staff report giving an overview of the project. Mr. Mimick stated there have been some minor alterations to the proposed sign, which he presented to the Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal for new signage (monument). Staff answered Commission questions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 18, 2009 Chair Ray opened the Public Hearing for public comments. Bruce Severance of Sign Craft, indicated that since Architectural Review only minor corrections were made to the sign dimensions. Mr. Severance indicated sign would be illuminated from sunset to mid - night. Julie Galvin, R Poltl & Associates, Property Management of the complex, said the sign will operate from dusk to mid -night and some light will be kept on for security purposes, and in keeping with the request of Pacific Gas and Electric for commercial centers. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to adopt a resolution approving Planned Sign Program Case No. 09 -003, with the following modification to the conditions of approval: • The sign shall only be illuminated between dusk and 12:00 AM by the means of a synchronized electronic timer. RESOLUTION NO. 09-2087 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 09 -003, APPLIED FOR BY RANDY POLTL & ASSOCIATES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1532 WEST BRANCH STREET (OAK PARK OFFICE COMPLEX) The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Ruth and Chair Ray NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Barneich and Keen the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of August 2009. PAGE 2 B. PRE - ANNEXATION, SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ADJUSTMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NOS. 09 - 001; TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS CASE NOS. 09 -003, 09 -004, 09 -005, 09 -006 AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; APPLICANT - CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION - SEVEN PROJECT SUBAREAS WITHIN THE CITY - This item is continued from April 7, May 5, July 7 and July 21, 2009 meetings. Staff report prepared and presented by Rob Strong, Community Development Director. The Planning Commission will consider a recommendation to City Council on a proposal by the City of Arroyo Grande to pre -zone and annex one property accessed off of Pearwood Avenue; removal of three Mobile Home Park properties accessed off South Halcyon Road from the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), to reflect actual water resource allocation from Oceano Community Services District; and changes in General Plan Land Use designations and zoning (GPA/DCA) for a total of nine (9) properties within the City of Arroyo Grande for General Plan consistency of Public 1 1 1 11 i 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 18, 2009 PAGE 3 Facility designated properties and to provide additional infill housing opportunities. Subareas 1, 2, 4 & 5 involve four (4) separate residential subdivision tentative tract maps which are also being considered at this time. The project subareas include: 1) Prezone /Annexation /GPA/DCA/TTM for four (4) residential lots, and one Public Facility open space parcel, Pearwood Avenue and Huasna Road (APN 047 - 125 -002); 2) GPA/DCA/TTM for Hillcrest Drive for 15 residential lots (APN 077 - 061 -016); 3) SOI change for South Halcyon Mobile Home Parks (APN's 075 - 011 -037, 039 & 040); 4) & 5) GPA/DCA/TTM for one (1) Multi - Family (MF) lot and two (2) four -lot residential sub - divisions, City and County Regional Center properties, (Portions of APN's 007- 011 -040; 044 & 046); including an Open Space /Conservation Public Facility overlay and easement on a part. 6) GPA/DCA: South Court land Street Public Facility designation and zoning for existing drainage basin (APN's 077 - 131 -030 & 031); 7) GPA/DCA: City Hall, East Branch Street (APN's 007 - 492 -004 & 007 - 493 -019). This project also includes clean -up amendments to the General Plan and Development Code to allow various commercial retail and recreational uses (including drive - through in the Regional Commercial district) and to revise the definition of "Agricultural Land" for Code consistency. Community Development Director, Rob Strong, presented the staff report stating that this is the fourth of the anticipated five public hearings for the seven subareas. He stated at the July 21, 2009 continued public hearing from April 7 and July 7, the Planning Commission provided direction on three of the four subareas involving tentative tract maps for Subarea 1, Subarea 4, and Subarea 5. Mr. Strong referred to the addition of the letter and map presented to the Commissioners this evening. He said the map has an additional cross section, which is the only change to the Tentative Map. He said at the last meeting there was discussion of the road alignment in its proximity of the redwood landmark tree at 216 Pearwood Avenue, the height of the slope bank, the width of the road and what it would do the existing slope. Also shown on the map is Section AA. Mr. Strong stated if the GPA, Zoning and Annexation were approved, the Tentative Map would have to return to Planning Commission. The one area which appeared to be unacceptable or requiring further consideration of alternatives is Subarea 2, involving proposed disposition of the vacant portion of land east of the City's Reservoir No. 2 Public Facility (PF) property and including a 1.0 acre portion of undeveloped sloping Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) property owned by the Mankins family, and two vacant hillside Multiple Family (MF) parcels owned by Hillcrest Land Company, the combination subject to a fourteen lot Multiple Family (MF), Planned Unit Development subdivision proposed by Hillcrest Land 'Company, TTM 3015. The Planning Commission hearings on July 7 and July 21 indicated that the subdivision design, with a new public street extending from narrow and steep sloping substandard segment of Hillcrest Drive was one desirable and that Multiple Family Residential development should be accessed from the private road and access easement using PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 18, 2009 PAGE 4 Stonecrest Drive to El Camino Real. He said among the emails received was from the owner of the vacant lot, indicating she is not interested in exchange of her property for a Single - Family lot to the north and feels that the property developed from Montego would be inappropriate. Mr. Strong stated there is a petition with a substantial number of residents opposing the access using Hillcrest Drive, which was received after the agenda packet was distributed to the Commission. Mr. Strong stated that the City is pursuing a Safe Route to School grant for a pedestrian path along Hillcrest Drive and will consider signing "No Parking" on either side of Hillcrest Drive. The City just completed intersection improvements at Montego Street and Newport/Hillcrest intersection. The question tonight would be if the land use as Multi- family proposed by the City would be more appropriate with or without the disposition of the property that is currently the east half of the reservoir site. Mankins proposal has to be resolved and the access remains from Hillcrest Drive. The tentative map currently pending is appears to be unacceptable to the Commission due to the circulation and not the land use. Mr. Strong stated that Stonecrest residents were notified of the GPA/DCA but there has been no revised notice sent to Stonecrest HOA or any other surrounding areas because no revised TTM has been submitted. Mr. Strong asked for feedback on the Subarea 2 land use change and the two "clean- ups" to GPA and text changes of the "ag land ". Commissioner Ruth asked how many houses can be built on the Zogata Tract 1187. Mr. Strong said the adjoining lot could have a primary and second unit but a parcel map to allow two lots is proposed. Chair Ray opened the continued Public Hearing for new information /comments. Emily Howard, Pearwood Avenue, read a letter, which was presented to the Commission signed by Ms. Howard and Christine Klopfer, referring to the intent of the City's General Plan, regarding annexation, water, agricultural, protection of open space land, growth development. She stated if the Planning Commission follows the General Plan, she feels this project should not be approved. She said the City's Sphere of Influence does not include to build out to the five acres northeast of the City bordered by Pearwood Avenue and Huasna Road. She talked about the County's "Smart Growth Principals" which would be appropriate for this project. She said recent changes to the state annexation laws now require service plans that demonstrate the ability of the City to serve the annexation area as well as a financial analysis of the service ability. She asked if said reports have been complete and if so what are results and may the public have a copy, this project should not be approved due to the historical, and the intention of the City Council of 1985 and referred to the eminent domain proceedings. She said the property was to be used for drainage and flood control. 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 18, 2009 PAGE 5 Donna Nelson, Pearwood Avenue, responded to the letter presented at the July 21, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, by Mr. Klempke. She said that the 7.2 acres are owned by the City, found no citations issued to the neighbor, since the 1800's, this has been a natural ponding area, said there was a water issue for the proposed 44 home development and trailer park previously rejected, and this land is outside the City's Sphere of Influence. She asked if the Klempke's plan is to develop the 17 acres and if the City wants to open this Pandora box. Commissioner Brown said he appreciates when a person reads the General Plan and that is where the Commission gets direction from to a large degree. This still fits in the same frame work that was described and that the concerned citizens are doing the right thing by being vigilant. He said as long as the City can prove the drainage as currently configured will handle the 100 year flood he supports the proposal. Commissioner Ruth said there is a lot of subjectivity and still feels this is a good project. Chair Ray added that discussion of the slope bank and road widening near the tree was appreciated. Mr. Strong has indicated that this will be addressed in more detail when the map is considered after annexation. Chair Ray noted that no action will be taken at this meeting and that action will be taken at the September 1, 2009 meeting. Mr. Strong said he is still concerned with any 2005 flood claims and does not recall any evidence to that affect: He is not aware of any flooding since any improvements done by Canyon Crest to the City's outlet. It was the consensus that the Commission supports the proposal for Subarea 1 as long as the drainage as currently configured will handle the 100 year flood. Engineer Jeff Emerick, representative of Garing, Taylor & Associates, Elm Street, stated he has a long history with this property and stated he was the design engineer for Canyon Crest and designed the outflow pipe down to the creek, has reviewed the drainage calculations he prepared from approximately ten years ago and it is still the same and was designed for 100 year storm. It is anticipated that this project will require additional dirt to make it work and that dirt will come from the basin, which will provide additional capacity and additional protection from the flood. Commissioner Ruth asked how much will the additional dirt scar up the existing landscape. He said the basin now is silted up and the basin could be excavated three or four feet and the soil will be used for the build up of the proposed road extension across the basin area. Je Willkomm, Sierra Drive, asked staff's recommendation of ingress /egress onto Hillcrest Drive due the narrowness of the road and safety hazards. Mr. Strong stated he was trying to summarize previous hearings., Based on testimony received at the previous hearings of July 7 and 21, 2009, Commission direction is this subdivision access appears to be unacceptable or inappropriate from /to Hillcrest and suggested access be from Stonecrest. Mr. Strong stated he concurs with the suggestion. He said PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 18, 2009 PAGE 6 Mr. Mankins has not modified his map to access from Stonecrest but is willing to consider access from both Hillcrest and Stonecrest. This is. a Commission concern with the access from Hillcrest and not the land use proposed by the City, but without access the land use is premature. It is up to Mr. Mankins to make the change and not staff. Ms. Willkomm asked if Mr. Mankins resubmitted the map, would he have to pay fees. Mr. Strong said the proposal submitted was a contingent offer to the City and the application fees were waived. Mr. Strong said that if there were any proposals, the City Council would have to determine if they are superior. The City would respond to Mankins' offer positive or negative before it would consider any other offers. Joe Wolosz, Hillcrest Drive, said Mr. Mankins has the easement that goes back to the water tank. People have to walk in the middle of Hillcrest. He does not like density, and said that the Planning Commission should require Mankins to prepare a Master Plan. Installing curb, gutter and sidewalks on Hillcrest does not make since, and he is opposed to the project. Rod Hatch, Sierra Drive, suggested to start negotiating, asked if the City Council was involved in the negotiation with Mr. Mankins, questioned why fees are being waived, how much are fees, where is the money coming from to widen Hillcrest Drive if subject property is approved. Mr. Strong responded the Tentative Tract Map application fees would be approximately $5,000 - $10,000 and the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning $5,000 - $10,000. The proposed offer was submitted to the City Council in closed session and no decision has been made. Lou Palangi, Sierra Drive, asked if residents from Stonecrest were contacted. Mr. Strong stated he was unable to contact the HOA but recently wrote to the HOA agent, but has not received any response. Karen Phillips, Sierra Drive, said Hillcrest is a rural road and likes it the way it is. She said normally the developer is required to install curb, gutter and sidewalk, the new road needs access from Stonecrest: 14 homes is high density for that area, wants constructive growth, and is opposed to the project. Paul Fordyce, Montego Street, said project is not appropriate for the ingress /egress onto Hillcrest Drive, the road is unsafe, narrow, and improvements will cause a lot of cost to the neighbors or the City. Greg Marquez, Sierra Drive, concerned with traffic, especially in the morning as people are leaving for work and children walking /bicycling to school, Hillcrest gets local traffic and traffic from across the freeway, and opposed to the project. Commissioner Ruth clarified that this piece of property only has use for someone bordering Hillcrest Drive, Stonecrest Drive or Montego Street. She asked if the Commission is approving Mankins proposal. Mr. Strong responded that the General 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 18, 2009 PAGE 7 Plan Amendment and zoning can be considered anytime the City wants to evaluate alternatives. She said Mankins project is not acceptable. Commissioner Brown asked if this can be done at a later time and do we loose anything by waiting? Mr. Strong said if the Commission recommends against the GPA, zoning, and Tentative Tract Map, the City Council could decide different than the recommendation. He said the Commission direction is needed so staff can prepare the resolution for the, September 1, 2009 meeting. He said the General Plan can be changed four times a year and there is no limit to the zoning or Tentative Maps that can be proposed. He said only because of the pending offer that a map was submitted. Chair Ray said she is opposed to the ingress /egress onto Hillcrest but the land use to Multi- family is appropriate. She said the recommendation to City Council should be to deny due to unacceptable access but she would support if ingress /egress could go through to Stonecrest. It was the consensus of the Commission to deny but that the Commission supports the land use to Multi- family if access other than Hillcrest was provided. Subarea 4 &5) Chair Ray opened the Public Hearing for public comments, but hearing none closed it. Mr. Strong said he needs the Commission decision on whether or not Multi- family is appropriate. It was the consensus of the Commission to support Subarea 4 and 5 as is. Mr. Strong said that there is one change to the sentence to definition of "ag land" referring to land "in production ". The property that initiated the concern was Dorfman's on Traffic Way and Cherry Avenue but if the land was not currently farmed it would not be an issue. It was the consensus of the Commission that all Commissioners be present for this item for further discussion. Commissioner Brown talked about General Plan policies that state "prime ag soils" are a natural resource. He said that "ag land" in the General Plan specifically suggests the City come up with a method to prioritize. He is asking that the next staff report briefly discuss these issues. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff present a staff report including prime soils and other definition of "ag land" if this part is removed. Case No App. Address Description Action P lanner 1. PPR 09 -009 Nathan & Linda Belch 1488 E. Grand Ave. Child Care Facility A. J. Bergman 2. VSR 09 -003 Todd Lintner 602 Gaynfair Terrace For a second story expansion A. J. Bergman PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 18, 2009 I.V. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION /NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE JULY 7, 2009: The Commission had no comments /concerns. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Chair Ray wished Commissioner Ruth a Happy Anniversary. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. ATTEST: 10(24-4-6 tA/12,Lo-kv DEBBIE WEICHINGER, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (Approved at the 9/1/09 meeting) PAGE 8 1