Loading...
PC Minutes 2009-07-211 1 1 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Ray presiding; also present were Commissioners Barneich, Brown, and Ruth. Commissioner Keen absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, and Assistant City Engineer, Mike Linn. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None AGENDA REVIEW: None MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 2009 6:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barniech, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of July 7, 2009 with the following modifications: • Page 5, change the name from Hash to "Hatch ". • Page 5, Subarea 4 & 5), last paragraph should read "The Commission concurred with proposal of Subarea 4 & 5 and asked to see the CC &R's for the four lots that are contiguous to the Recreation Center and stated that this is only public discussion and no Public Facility project is being approved at this time." A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AFTER AGENDA PREPARATION: The following was received after agenda preparation: a letter and pictures received on July 17, 2009 from Linda and Paul Klempke, Huasna Road, regarding background information concerning the Pearwood Basin. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. 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 (Continued from July 7, 2009 meeting) Community Development Director, Rob Strong, presented the staff report stating that the staff report focuses on the four subareas which include potential tentative tract maps and attempts to update the Commission from discussion of April 7, 2009 and July 7, 2009 to any changes or response to questions that were made at the previous meetings. He stated that there was a meeting on July 1.5, 2009 with the Pearwood Avenue residents regarding the proposed General Plan /Development Code Amendment 09 -001 and Tract 3017 located at the Pearwood basin property owned by the City adjacent to the Pearwood Avenue neighborhood. The intent was to share information. He said no conclusion was made at that meeting. He further stated that there were two PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 21, 2009 PAGE 2 items from the July 7, 2009 meeting that were not fully discussed, which included the definition of Agricultural Land and potential refinement to the table of uses currently allowed in the Regional Commercial (RC) and the General Plan policy that also affects RC development. He said staff is seeking preliminary direction from the Commission and we will also have a future public hearing on August 18, 2009 for further response to questions or concerns raised. On September 1, 2009, staff will present a resolution certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration. As of this date, no comments have been received that raise issues that have not been addressed in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Strong briefed the Commissioners on Subareas 1, 2, 4 & 5 involving four potential 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 Hillside (RH) lots and one Public. Facility (PF) open space parcel near Pearwood Avenue and Huasna Road (APN 047 - 125 -002); 2) GPA/DCA/TTM for fourteen (14) Multi- family lots near Hillcrest Drive and City Reservoir #2 above Stonecrest Tract 2328. (APN's 077 - 061 -016, and added parcels 077 - 051 -052, 053 and part of 061); 4) & 5) GPA/DCA/TTM for four (4) Single Family Residential lots and one (1) Public Facility lot on the southeast side of Old Ranch Road at West Branch Street (APN 007 - 011 -040), involving 5.0 acres owned by City of Arroyo Grande. GPA/DCA/TTM to subdivide South County Regional Center County owned properties into three(3) Public Facility lots with a Conservation /Open Space and drainage maintenance overlay and easement; one(1) proposed 2.0 acre Multiple Family Residential lot; and four(4) proposed Residential Suburban lots. (APN's 007 - 011 -044 and 046) near West Branch Street, Rodeo Drive and Mercedes Lane. Also included in this project are 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. Mr. Strong stated at the July 7, 2009 public hearing, continued from April 7, the Planning Commission agreed to consider any additional initial environmental studies or other information submitted by staff or public, particularly concerning subareas 1, 2, 4 and 5 involving tentative tract maps. It was further determined that public hearings would again be continued to August 18, 2009 and September 1, 2009 when a final Mitigated Negative Declaration, Resolution and appropriate conditions of approval or denial regarding proposed Tentative Tract Maps would be presented for recommendation to the City Council. He provided the supplemental information regarding each of the four subareas for Planning Commission consideration, public hearing discussion and requested preliminary direction to staff. 1 1 A 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 21, 2009 PAGE 3 Subarea 1) During Commission discussion the following issues were raised: questioned whether or not the City staff or Jeff Emerick, Consulting Engineer is confident that that the drainage as currently configured will handle the 100 year flood. Mr. Strong said two engineers (Jeff Emerick and Craig Campbell) confirmed the drainage as currently configured will handle the 100 year flood. Commission questioned the proposed road next to the redwood tree and the idea of having the City construct/oversee road so the redwood tree is not harmed and Mr. Strong responded that this detail could be a condition of approval for the proposed Tentative Tract Map after annexation. Commission questioned what does the phrase "borrow pit" mean? Mr. Strong responded that the City had previously proposed voluntary removal by allowing for export of material to increase the capacity of the drainage basin. Commission asked staff to comment regarding slope bank rather than retaining wall for the extension of a road from the end of Pearwood Avenue and Mr. Strong responded. Chair Ray opened the Public Hearing for public comments. The following people spoke adding to their testimony from previous public hearings in opposition to the project: Rick Nelson, Pearwood Avenue; Christine Phillips Klopfer; Emily Howard, Pearwood Avenue; Dona Nelson, Pearwood Avenue; Harvey Palmer, Pearwood Avenue; and Diane Deering, Pearwood Avenue. The issues and concerns raised include: the drainage line is 18' from the landmark tree not 11 feet, request the area be kept in its natural state, concern with a water shortage, drainage issues, quality of life with new development, stated there was a referendum in the 1980's, new street would be approximately 18 — 20 feet from a resident's bedroom, covered the dated material that was attached to the Commission packet, asked how would the letter and pictures received on July 17, 2009 from Linda and Paul Klempke, impact the Pearwood basin. The following people spoke in favor of the project and presented a letter and pictures regarding background information concerning the Pearwood Basin: • Linda Klempke, Huasna Road Paul Klempke, Huasna Road Commissioner Barneich spoke in favor of the concept of the proposed zoning. Commissioner Brown would support the project if the City can prove that the ponding basin can handle the 100 year flood, but is not convinced that is the case. Commissioner Ruth supports the annexation and zoning. Commissioner Ray said the issue regarding the tree should be re- examined and presented at the next Commission meeting. With regard to the Tentative Tract Map, she would like Consulting Engineer Jeff Emerick at the next meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 21, 2009 PAGE 4 Mr. Strong summarized that there appears to be the consensus of the Commission favorable to the General Plan Amendment and the prezoning to Residential Hillside, but that the subdivision cannot be considered in detail until Local Agency Formation Commission approves annexation. A draft resolution will be prepared for the September 1, 2009 meeting for action as that is the earliest the Mitigated Negative Declaration can be certified. Jeff Emerick will be asked to attend the next Commission meeting to discuss the drainage basin and road extension near the redwood tree issues. Subarea 2) The Commission discussion questioned whether it is possible to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment but not the Tract Map and staff responded yes. Mr. Strong mentioned that the developer proposed a compromise that would have access to both Hillcrest and Stonecrest Drives, but did not want to revise their subdivision map to access only Stonecrest Drive since it could create different neighborhood opposition. Chair Ray opened the Public Hearing for public comments. The following people spoke adding to their testimony from previous public hearings in opposition to the project: Larry Harlan, Hillcrest Drive, stated he was not aware if this project was presented to the Traffic Commission for their recommendation. Je Willkomm, Sierra Drive, asked if three adjacent properties on Montego Street might be interested in the surplus City land. Rod Hatch, Sierra Drive, opposed the idea of accessing both Hillcrest and Stonecrest. In response to question of how much the City might receive for the land, Mr. Strong indicated there is an offer of approximately $100,000 but that the City could still consider alternative offers. Mr. Hatch agreed with Larry Harlan that the proposed project should have been presented to the Traffic Commission. Paul Fordyce, Montego Street, expressed concern with traffic in /out on Hillcrest Drive and suggested a pedestrian walkway /bikeway for another entrance to Ocean View School. Lou Palangi, Sierra Drive, asked about the schedule for potential GPA/DCA and future sale. Alan Vogan, Hillcrest, expressed concern with Hillcrest Drive being a substandard but busy street especially when children are coming from school. Commission discussion on Subarea 2): included details regarding proposed road improvement and access alternatives. 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 MINUTES JULY 21, 2009 Mr. Strong commented that the potential sale may not be considered without approval of the proposed Tentative Tract Map. Commissioner Barneich stated she is not in favor of this map with the access as is: access should be through Stonecrest. Commissioner Brown stated he is not ready to approve or deny any alternatives until we hear from the residents from Stonecrest. Commissioner Ruth stated the proposed Tract Map is unacceptable but she likes the concept of Multi- family with access to Stonecrest. Commission Ray also favored the change in use, if it had access in /out of Stonecrest. It was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed subdivision should not be approved unless alternative circulation /access is proposed for Subarea 2. The Commission took a break at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened at 8:10 p.m. Subarea 4 &5) Chair Ray opened the Public Hearing for public comments. Caryn Maddalena, County of San Luis Obispo Rural Property Manager, clarified the concept and character of Work Force Housing. She provided the Commission with a copy of the County Planning Department's Affordable Housing Standards but said it would be premature to say how the County might subdivide or develop the Multiple Family property, which would be subject to City approval. Sue Schmandle, Mercedes Lane, and Bonnie Young, Mercedes Lane, have no objection to development of this County land as long as it is similar with the homes existing in the neighborhood, expressed concern with parking, traffic and possible development of apartments on the proposed Multi- family parcel. Joe Schmandle, Mercedes Lane, opposed development and suggested compliance with the CC &R's and single family use including the 2 acres. Vincent Bozanich, Old Ranch Road, concern with excessive traffic and said this proposal does not fit the neighborhood as Multi- family and asked if the County made a proposal to make this single family residential or only want to develop Multi- family. Commissioner Brown stated it is wrong to assume maximum density of 18 units of Multi- family. Commissioner Ruth stated she is fine with the four houses, not opposed to the Multi- family concept, but would be concerned about traffic and parking. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 21, 2009 PAGE 6 Commissioner Barneich said the two acres is more appropriate for Multi- family, especially Work Force Housing, definitely a transition area, cannot vision single - family homes, abutted up to the County yard. Chair Ray, said Multi- family zoning is a natural transition and that open space, parking, etc will be reviewed when a project is proposed. The benefit of the MOU is the City would get a Police Station site at reduced cost that will benefit every single resident of the City and that needs to be taken into consideration. It was the consensus of the Commission to support the land use designation, proposed zoning, and Tentative Tract Maps and draft a resolution regarding Subareas 4 and 5. Clean up amendments: Commissioner Barneich likes the potential air quality phrase related to drive -in commercial uses in the Regional Commercial district. Commissioner Brown expressed concern about the clean up language (prime soil and ag land) with regard to the issue of mitigation in the future and asked staff to explain the proposed change regarding lands in ag production. Mr. Strong said if the property is designated in the General Plan as agricultural and /or is zoned agricultural regardless of whether it is in production, the City requires mitigation. Commissioner Brown stated that he is unwilling to vote affirmative on any change without additional public hearing specifically on that issue. Mr. Strong said this was specifically noticed, published and mailed as an additional hearing item for July 7, 2009. The mitigated negative declaration does discuss this particular issue and this is the second public hearing since July 7, 2009 and will be heard again on August 18, 2009 and September 1, 2009. Commissioner Brown indicated that he will not be here on August 18 but would like to be part of the discussion, as he was part of the General Plan Update and would like full staff discussion in reports that come forward between now and September, 2009 so that it gets a full airing. Mr. Strong said he would outline other alternatives as part of September 1 hearing prior to Resolution. Commissioner Barneich asked if prime soils could be discussed. III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None Chair Ray stated that she wanted discussion of the "Action Minutes' to be put on tonight's agenda. She questioned if the minutes of the July 7, 2009 were action minutes. Mr. Strong reported yes. She stated that if "Action Minutes" are used there may not be sufficient information for the Commission and staff in the future. She 1 1 1 1 A 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 21, 2009 PAGE 7 expressed concern about items coming forward later and the minutes not having sufficient information. The commentary will be missed if the minutes are "Action Minutes ". The Commission relies on past minutes. Director Strong explained due to cut backs, and allocation of time for preparation of the minutes to the past level of detail is problematic. DVD videos are on file for the last ten years. The Commission did not like the idea of having to refer to DVDs. Staff proposed a combination of discussion issues and action minutes. The clerk will attempt to prepare the minutes in more detail i.e. identify Commissioner that raised the issue. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Commissioner Barneich referred to Pearwood and the issue Commissioner Keen brought up regarding the water and buildout — asked for clarification of using 99 percent of the City's water. Strong said he thought Commissioner Keen was referring to the assumption of reduced per capita consumption. Actual water use exceeds this assumption and there is not sufficient current supply resources to enable "build -out" unless per capita consumption is reduced to 160 gpd. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:45: p.m. ATTEST: •g,04A:; (A )V,r- v— vi 4,A DEBBIE WEICHINGER, d SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO C NTENT: ROB STRONG COMMUNITY DEVEL • PMENT (Approved at the September 15, 2009 meeting) CAREN RAY, ° IR BLANK PAGE 1 1 1