Loading...
PC Minutes 2008-05-06MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2008 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chair Keen presiding; also present were Commissioners Barneich, Marshall and Tait; Chair Ray was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planners, Teresa McClish and Ryan Foster and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Strong announced the formal resignation of Commissioner Marshall who had accepted a job in Napa and this was to be his last meeting. He thanked Commissioner Marshall for his service to the City during his year in office. AGENDA REVIEW: Vice Chair Keen requested that Non - Public Hearing Item III.A be reviewed prior to Item II.C. to facilitate the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No minutes to approve. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Franchesca Corvery, Mercedes Lane, stated she walks to the stores in the WaI -Mart center with her two young children in a stroller, but has to share the road with buses and cars due to some missing sidewalk; she asked if the missing sidewalk could be installed, specifically a small section of Rodeo Drive towards W. Branch Street and then a section on West Branch Street towards Brisco Road. Vice Chair Keen advised her to contact Public Works and they would be able to tell her their schedule for putting in these specific sidewalks. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AFTER AGENDA PREPARATION: 1. Received May 2, 2008, via email from Mark Vasquez stating his concerns regarding item II.B. Variance 08 -002. 2. Received May 3, 2008, via email from Mark Vasquez stating his concerns regarding item II.B. Variance 08 -002. 3. Received May 6, 2008, letter from Joachim Linnemann, stating his support of item II.B. Variance 08 -002. 4. Received May 5, 2008 memo from Anna Unkovich, stating her concerns regarding item II.C. VTTM & PUD 01 -001 (Tract 1998). 5. Received May 5, 2008, memo from Don Dirkse, stating his concerns regarding item II.C. VTTM & PUD 01 -001 (Tract 1998). 6. Received May 6, 2008, report from Dave Ragan, Arborist, regarding his evaluation of select oaks for transplanting, item II.C. VTTM & PUD 01 -001 (Tract 1998). 7. Received May 6, 2008, fax from Mark Burnes, regarding item III.A. Time Extension 08 -003. 8. Received May 6, 2008, email from Mark Vasquez stating concerns on the staff report regarding item II.B. Variance 08 -002. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 PAGE 2 9. Received May 6, 2008, memo from Nanci Parker, Board Member of the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District, commenting on item II.C. VTTM & PUD 01 -001 (Tract 1998). 10. Vic Beeler, 565 Easy Street, stating concerns on item II.C. VTTM & PUD 01 -001 (Tract 1998), hand delivered at the meeting. 11. Don Dirkse, 637 Asilo, stating concerns on item II.C. VTTM & PUD 01 -001 (Tract 1998), hand - delivered at the meeting. 12. Anna Unkovich, 637 Asilo, stating concerns on item II.C. VTTM & PUD 01 -001 (Tract 1998), hand - delivered at the meeting. III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 08 -003; APPLICANT - G. & C. SUGARMAN; LOCATION —1136 EAST GRAND AVENUE Associate Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report for consideration of an application for a one -year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 06 -001 and Planned Unit Development 05 -010. Although this was not a public hearing item Vice Chair Keen opened the hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. Mr. Foster explained that the only objection to the Time Extension had recently been withdrawn via a letter from Mark Burnes. In reply to a question from Commissioner Barneich, he would check with the City Attorney regarding a request in Mr. Burnes letter not to allow release of any copies of documents from the applicant's file. Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barneich, to approve the one -year Time Extension Case No. 08 -003 for Tentative Tract Map Case No. 06 -001 and Planned Unit Development Case No. 05 -010, located at 1136 East Grand Avenue, applied for by Gerald and Christina Sugarman, and adopt: RESOLUTION 08 -2062 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 08 -003 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 06 -001 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 05 -010; LOCATED AT 1136 EAST GRAND AVENUE; APPLIED FOR BY GERALD AND CHRISTINA SUGARMAN The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote. AYES: Commissioners Marshall, Barneich, Tait and Vice Chair Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Chair Ray the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6 day of May, 2008. 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 PAGE 3 II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 08 -003; APPLICANT — ARROYO HOTEL LLC /GARY WHITE /STEPHEN COOL; LOCATION — 1400 WEST BRANCH STREET Community Development Director, Rob Strong, presented the staff report for consideration of an application to divide an approximately 2.68 acre site into two parcels of 2.21 acres and 0.47 acre associated with the previously approved Hampton Inn /Restaurant project. In conclusion, Mr. Strong stated that the City Council would adopt the Final Map upon Commission approval of the Resolution. In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait, Mr. Strong confirmed that the conditions and mitigation measures from the previously approved Tentative Parcel Map and Planned Unit Development had not been changed. Vice Chair Keen opened the hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. The Commission had no further comments or questions. Commissioner Barneich made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to approve the Tentative Parcel Map, and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 08 -2063 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 08 -003 LOCATED AT 1400 WEST BRANCH STREET AS APPLIED FOR BY STEPHEN COOL AND GARY WHITE TO CREATE TWO PARCELS ON A 2.7 ACRE SITE FOR A RESTAURANT AND HOTEL The motion was approve by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Barneich, Tait, Marshall, and Vice Chair Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Chair Ray the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6 day of May, 2008. B. VARIANCE CASE NO. 08 -001; APPLICANT — BILL & VIOLA COCKSHOTT; LOCATION — SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WHITELEY AND IDE STREETS Associate Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report for consideration of a variance to reduce the required street side setback from 15 foot to 10 foot for a new single - family home in the Single - Family (SF) zoning district within the D -2.4 Overlay (Village). In conclusion, Mr. Foster recommended that the Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Variance Case No. 08 -002. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 Mr. Foster then answered Commission questions for clarification on the variance process and the setback requirements. Vice Chair Keen opened the hearing for public comment. Jennifer Martin, architect LGA, gave a brief description and history of the proposed project. Lenny Grant, architect LGA, spoke regarding comments recently received on the proposed project, explaining that the majority of the proposed home is setback further than 10 ft and why the design required the areas of 10 ft. setback. Bill Cockschott, applicant, stated they had proceeded with the proposed project with incorrect information received from City and they cannot afford to revise it; he disagreed that their proposed design would not fit with the character of the Village; the Village Design Guidelines includes Spanish Eclectic as acceptable. Wanda Curry, 226 Whiteley (lives directly across the street from the applicants, spoke in support of the proposed project including the 10 ft setback). Vice Chair Keen closed the hearing for public comment. PAGE 4 Staff then answered further questions from Commission regarding the timing of the Development Code updates that changed the setbacks in the D -2.4 areas that affected the proposed project and findings for a variance. Commission Comments: Tait: • Looking at the site he does not see that the proposal with the 10 ft. setback is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood on Ide Street. Marshall: • Under the circumstances and the history of this proposal he believes that findings for a variance can be applied here. • He feels comfortable with allowing the 10 ft. variance because only a portion of the length of the side that faces Ide Street requires the 10 ft. setback; however he has concerns that someone else could buy this property and acquire the variance and propose another design. Mr. Strong explained that the Commission can grant a partial variance for a street sideyard setback involving only a portion of the home (and tied to this specific proposal). Marshall continued: • This street sideyard setback is different from other homes on Ide Street due to it facing out onto the street and it lines up with other homes on the street (with all the other homes on Ide Streets you are looking at the front yard setbacks). Barneich: • The house is very nice - looking and the Spanish design is done with a lot of taste. • Appreciate that it is more difficult to design on a corner lot. 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 PAGE 5 • In respect to the variance findings - older lots are small and many are not standard so size is not a compelling reason to allow the Variance. • Concern that allowing this variance and reducing the setback may set a precedence — she cannot make the findings for the variance. Keen: • When looking down the street and visualize the 10 ft setback, you need to take into consideration that that the setback starts from the property line and the property line is over 5 ft from the street, so this sets back the house further than you may think it to be. • He does not think the variance would give any special privileges to this property and he would be willing to approve this variance. Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen to recommend to City Council approval of a partial variance, to be no Tess than 25 percent at10 ft. for no more than 20 ft along the front street -yard setback, and adopt the Resolution. The motion failed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marshall and Vice Chair Keen NOES: Commissioner Barneich and Tait ABSENT: Chair Ray 7:05 p.m. The Commission took a 10 minute break. At this time Commissioner Tait recused himself from the meeting due to a conflict of interest in Item II.C. C. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01- 001; APPLICANT CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT; LOCATION - NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, presented the staff report for consideration of a revised application to subdivide a 26.9 acre parcel in the Rancho Grande Planned Development District into 15 clustered single - family residential lots and one 22 -acre permanently preserved open space parcel. Ms. McClish then went over the history of the project to bring the public and Commission up -to -date and then gave details of the revised project design, explaining that many of the impacts had been avoided or reduced by clustering the units outside of the Pismo Clarkia area and the majority of the riparian corridor. In addition, the applicant has revised the engineered grading design to move away from terraced flat pads to a design of custom Tots proposed for custom home design after the infrastructure has been put in place (in answer to concerns expressed at the last City Council consideration of the project). Ms. McClish then gave details of the Design Manual and the requirements for homeowners and Home Owners Association (HOA). She gave details of the final PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 PAGE 6 Design Manual explaining that it would return to ARC for final approval as would each home design; additions to the CC &R's had been made regarding water conservation, fuel modification, drainage and open space requirements (for the open space parcel); revised emergency access routes; a mandated trail connection through the site; a proposed alternate emergency access (easement) through lots 2 & 3 connecting to the Easy Street neighborhoods. Ms. McClish then explained the remaining issues for the site and the proposed enhancements and stated that through studies it had been found that there were many different site constraints that had dictated the design of the present proposal. The 2 Addendum to the EIR was prepared in relation to the project after the project had been revised. John Rickenbach, Rincon Consultants, gave the history of the environmental review for the proposed project and stated that the Revised Final Subsequent EIR was certified in April 2004; the addendum to the EIR was circulated and comments were responded to; this project no longer has a Class 1 impact so it does not have the same mitigation measures included in the prior document, and does not include a Statement of Overriding Considerations Ms McClish then described the preliminary tree plan (included in the packet) and concluded by stating that the applicant is now proposing to plant 44 trees for the 11 oak trees to be removed in addition to transplanted trees. She then discussed slopes and slope stability concerns, explaining how the project stays away from much of the sloped terrain of the site, although as proposed it will require filling of a gulley onsite that will modify slopes that are existing currently. In conclusion, Ms. McClish stated that staff is recommending the Commission review the Addendum and recommend approval to the City Council of Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development 01 -001 as conditioned and including a mitigation monitoring plan contained therein. The Commission fielded questions to staff and John Rickenbach regarding the emergency access, riparian enhancement plan, the oak tree replacement and how the gulley was being evaluated. Mr. Rickenbach agreed that portions of lots 7 & 8 could be included in Table 2 for slope impacts. Ms. McClish clarified items included in Exhibit "B" and stated that Condition No. 18 could be modified to include a wall height of four feet as specified in the Design Manual; Condition No. 24, Alt "A" is preferred regarding the HOA. Condition No. 36 may be modified for use of the well during project improvement as follows: "Prior to final map approval, the City Council must authorize any change in the use of the on -site water well and the County Health Department approval is required for any well abandonment/conversion. The applicant shall be entitled to use the water well for construction or irrigation purposes until offered for dedication on the final map or other instrument." Condition No. 42 would be corrected to state "span culvert"; Condition No. 44 would be clarified by modifying the language to state that the sidewalk is on the northeasterly side of the street; it was also noted that Condition No. 14 & 15 had been duplicated. 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 PAGE 7 In regard to concerns expressed by Commissioner Barneich that the gulley is rich in plants and that the oak trees appear to be very old, Mr. Rickenbach explained that in general this is an area that does not have an elevated level of protection for issues identified in the EIR though there may be jurisdictional issues; Mr. Devens commented on the four -foot wall requirement; regarding Lot 12 there is space between the trees to get a driveway and the house may need to be pushed further into the corner; regarding the constraints with respect to building these houses, the alternative would be to stair step and grade the entire lot, make flat pads and either build or sell the lot; this proposal would enable all the improvements to be included, but the specific homes would be designed with the particular lot slope in accordance with the Design Manual specifying the character intended for this development; Mr. Devens explained storm water runoff from the site, the drainage system that the applicant has designed; and he does not see a problem. Vice Chair Keen opened the hearing for public comment. Dennis Law, attorney for Castlerock Development, went over the history of the project addressing some of the concerns expressed. He stated that the HOA would be the best means to address enforcement of the mitigation measures and that as drafted the City would have the right to enforce them also; the set -up for the current project would be the same as Tract 1997, property owners will be able to come up with their own designs, the key being property disclosures to home buyers; water all mitigated for in 1991 by Castlerock. In addition this project will be subject to City neutralization fees; we are also providing the well on the property to the City and this will provide 50 -60 acre feet per year (the project will utilize 7 -10 Acre -ft.). Lot 1 is where the well is located and the unsightly tanks should be removed. In conclusion, he stated that the State mandates that the Community must provide housing and there has to be good cause to reduce density. David Wolf, biologist for the project, gave an overview of both the proposed Mitigation and the Enhancement Plan to achieve restoration goals for the site. In reply to a question from Commissioner Marshall, Mr. Wolf stated that in his opinion the gulley does not appear to be the result of an ongoing drainage connection that appears there and there is a small area that potentially may be considered jurisdictional. In reply to a question from Commissioner Barneich regarding the impacts of sediment from the gulley to Meadow Creek, Mr. Wolf stated that the gulley contribution probably is not significant and the erosion from the impacted area of Eucalyptus trees is more of a concern; regarding the occurrences of Pismo Clarkia; in addition, Mr. Wolf stated that Pismo Clarkia is an edge species and likes the fringe of the oaks. Jason Tyra then showed views of the proposed development from a number of different angles using a computer model. Dave Ragan, Arborist, clarified how they would be able to preserve the roots of a specific oak identified as impacted, and assured the Commissioners that the impacts PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 PAGE 8 from grading would not affect the other oaks; using local acorns is not critical, but there are enough oaks that are bought at nurseries that have done well. From his experience 15 gallon oaks are not a good idea, but trees planted from deep tube - rooted seedlings will be stronger and bigger. Patrick Smith, 641 Asilo, stated two concerns, 1) the proposed dense cluster of minimal sized lots is entirely out of character with the surrounding properties and the General Plan, 2) the accountability and long term financing that will allow the development of this sensitive area needs to be better defined before being recommended. Further concerns were expressed regarding the small lots, steep grades, building restrictions in the area, required setbacks. The proposal is far too sketchy and incomplete at this time to recommend approval to the City Council. Mary Ann Otter, 641 Asilo, stated concerns with staff report and is not in agreement that this proposal fits the character of the area due to small lots; 7200 sq. ft. cannot accommodate a large house. Due to the fact that they will be custom homes all that's being built here is a road and infrastructure - no actual houses are being designed. Inconsistencies regarding Castlerock's letter, CR33 and CR8 conflict; CR36 11 re MM 32 conflict; CR3712, MM H3A the developer is asking for it to be deleted and this is an important drainage control issue and needs to be resolved; CR36 MM G4, why was the soils analysis not already done; how will the HOA be maintained with only 15 home owners, especially in the future; the houses should be predefined so as to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; approval of this plan is designed like a "pig in a poke" and needs more definition before approval. Don Dirskse, 637 Asilo, stated there is an environmental issue that has not been answered by the Castlerock, Rincon, or staff regarding the disappearance of a ground spring and the mysterious installation of a drain line on the southeast corner of Tract 1998 (starting thru the proposed lot #10), it may have diverted spring water from the wetlands as stated by Rincon in their report; Feb 2004; why was the drain line installed and was it not properly permitted by the City and purposely installed to reduce the wetland areas and reduce or eliminate Class 1 impacts; this is a huge concern for this project and no answers have been provided. Anna Unkovitch, 637 Asilo, after 10 years of parenting this land the environmental concerns of this site have not been addressed; concerns still exist that mature oaks are being destroyed, the Pismo Clarkia and the riparian areas are being invaded setbacks not honored and now we have slope issues and a gulley being filled; she asked that the Commission hold firm on the protections that have already been established for future generations. Chuck Fellows, 202 Canyon Way, staffs and Castlerock's answers to his questions: • Mr. Devens explained that the pipes had been removed by Castlerock and the City worked with another property owner to rectify the discharge 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 PAGE 9 • Mr. Devens stated the fill dirt for the gulley would be timed with the commencement of grading and soil would have to be found for this purpose. • Mr. Ragan gave the dimensions of the deep tube - rooted seedlings and stated that he was pleasantly surprised the oaks came back at the Hampton Inn as they did get attacked by the Oak Bark Beetle in the early stage of growth; the box sizes that were planted were on the small size. • Mr. Tyra explained that Tract 1997, 1994 and 1132 were all custom home developments, Rancho Grande homes (in the PD area) are primarily custom homes; Tract 1834 was the only area that was a Tract development — the homes were sold with the property. Mr. Law addressed the issue of the capped pipes and stated that they were illegal and then addressed the issue of siltation stating that there will be erosion control during construction and the lots would be stabilized with vegetation until the houses are built. Vic Beeler, 565 Easy Street, stated that his neighbor's drain line was not illegal, but that Castlerock put in an illegal drain to stop the run off into the gulley; the gulley is a huge hole and where are they going to get the dirt to fill it; height limits are a concern on the property next to his and it looks as if they could be worked right into his view; there should be no two- story's; the houses will be built on stilts with each one trying to go higher than the next; he does not believe the lots will be sold to private individuals. Vice Chair Keen closed the hearing for public comment. 9:45 p.m. The Commission took a five - minute break. Commissioner Barneich made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to continue the meeting past the 10:00 p.m. until a conclusion of the item being discussed; the motion passed on a 3/0 voice vote. In reply to a question from Commission Barneich regarding the idea that the houses may be built on stilts, Ms. McClish said it was more likely stem walls with landscape buffers would be the style. Mr. Devens stated that one idea might be to partially bury a portion of the story on the high side of the property and a then have a portion of the wall on the low side. In reply to a question from Commissioner Barneich regarding the grade of the lots, Mr. Rickenbach agreed that if the gulley gets filled none of the lots would exceed 20 %. In reply to a question from Commissioner Barneich regarding the drainage pipes, Ms. McClish explained that drainage from offsite property had been coming onto the property and the applicant had been trying to deal with it; staff and County Health had been concerned as the quality of the water is poor (similar to leach line quality), but to conclude, this has now been taken care of. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 PAGE 10 In reply to Commissioner Marshall regarding the individual lots that would be sold, Ms. McClish explained that prospective buyers of individual lots are required to be made aware of the conditions of approval, the CC &R's, the Draft Design Manual, the Mitigation Monitoring and Recording Plan; in addition the design of homes would be required to be approved by the Community Development Director with a recommendation from the ARC. In reply to a question from Commissioner Keen, Ms. McClish stated that after review of the Design Manual yesterday the ARC recommended approval of it and requested the final come back and with the condition that they review the homes. In conclusion, Ms. McClish stated that clustering of the lots and the grading plan is in direct response to some City Council comments in prior review. Commission Comments: Marshall: • He is now involved after this project has been through a lot, but that is the advantage of coming in late as many concerns have been addressed; the basic step of getting rid of Class 1 impacts is a huge improvement and extremely important; it is not possible to prevent this site from being developed. • He is concerned about the community's lack of favorable perception of the proposal for a lot sales subdivision development as this is routine in the County and this one will have more constraints upon the individual homes on a builder; the Design Manual should address any concerns. • He is minimally comfortable with the grading of the site as proposed, but he is not opposed to it. • The computer generated 3 -D model is very good and he felt assured that public views around this project are sufficiently protected with this proposal. Barneich: • Given the constraints of the project it's a very tough to develop, she appreciates the fact that it has come a long way and a lot of work has gone into it; she appreciates that the applicant has now reduced the amount of units as the prior proposals were outrageous. • She is struggling to approve this project, but she knows that some homes will be built here; all the mitigations measures sound great on paper, but she finds it hard to believe that all these will be followed and that all will go as planned. • She feels that the 15 home project is barely getting by; could we do better, she is not sure, but she still is concerned about how the custom homes will fit in with all the constraints. • She likes the riparian enhancement plan and the work that has gone into it; she appreciates the Pismo Clarkia avoidance and that there are no Class 1 impacts. • There are fewer houses — that is good; she likes the extension of the pedestrian path and that it will link across up to La Canada. • She likes the idea of transplanting smaller oaks, but not sure if they will survive. 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 PAGE 11 • She does not like the filling in of the gulley; she is not confident this is the right thing to do and what impact it will have in the future; lot 2 is still in the riparian habitat so maybe this needs to go away. • She does not like the removal of the large and extremely healthy oak trees in the gulley. Keen: • He is impressed that the Class 1 impacts have been avoided. • The project has progressed a lot since he was first associated with it over the years. • Over the years the whole process was to reduce the number of impacts, make lots smaller and cluster them and get them out of the impacted areas, and now the public comments are that the lots need to be bigger, they need to be spread out over the property so we are going backwards to what originally brought us to where we are today. • Putting custom homes on these Tots is really necessary because the constraints for each lot will be different and with the Design Guidelines the builder will design for the constraints on each property. • He is in favor of filling the gulley as it gives a place to build this cluster of houses without impacting the Pismo Clarkia and riparian habitat. • The HOA should be modified to reflect the conditions of approval in the Resolution. • He is in favor of changing the size of the oak required in the mitigations as it is more evident that the smaller trees do better. • The drainage line that is behind houses on the south side of the property is a good way to remove the drainage that will accumulate. • The City needs to investigate if they can use the well and how much treatment the water would need to make it feasible for use. The Commission and staff had a discussion on lot 2, the constraints, and the fact that only the lot line infringes on the 50 -foot buffer. In conclusion, after review of the constraint map, Mr. Law stated that the 50 -foot buffer from the wetland and riparian area only just touches the corner of lot 2. Ms. McClish stated that it is better to keep the property line outside of the buffer. Ms. McClish then went over the Commission's requested modifications to conditions: Commissioner Barneich suggested some changes to the tree mitigation as follows: • Change the condition to specify that "locally raised seedlings in deep root tubes" is used in place of the 15 gallon trees. • Tree #1128 to be preserved if determined feasible by Public Works and the Parks and Recreation Department. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Keen, to recommend that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map & Planned Unit Development 01 -001, the CEQA findings updated to reflect the condition modifications as follows: • Exhibit 'B ", condition of approval #18 note the 4ft. wall height requirement. • Condition #24 regarding bonding requirements and the functioning HOA: Keep Alternative "A" and to read the same up to the question marks then add language to state the CC &R's shall include a provision, subject to City Attorney approval, requiring that the developer maintain common area including designated open space, until the HOA includes a minimum of eight property owners. The developer shall fully bond for said maintenance obligation; remove Alternative "B ", regarding the maintenance district. • Condition #27 which includes the tree mitigation plan can be reworded so that the mitigation focuses more on smaller trees. • Condition #36 regarding the well, the applicant shall be able to use water for construction and irrigation prior to dedication to the City. • Condition #42, note that the culvert is a clear span culvert (not a box culvert). • Condition #44, note that the sidewalks are on the 24 -foot portion on the northeasterly side. • Delete condition #15 as this is a duplicate of condition #14. • Modify the mitigation plan to require locally raised seedlings in deep root tubes instead of 15 gallon trees; update CEQA findings to address this. • Preserve tree #1128 as determined by Public Works and Parks & Recreation Department, and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 08 -2064 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, INSTRUCT THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 01-001 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01 -001 LOCATED AT JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote. AYES: Commissioner Marshall and Vice Chair Keen NOES: Commissioner Barneich ABSENT: Chair Ray the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6 day of May, 2008. PAGE 12 NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: SINCE APRIL 15, 2005: CaseNo _ App. sw .Address' , , . , Description Actiai i tanner 1. PPR 08 -002 Spyco Construction 201 Brisco Rd Structure for vehicle cover at San Luis Ambulance A. J. Bergman 2. PPR 08 -003 S. Earth Recycling 1562 W. Branch A CRV recycling center A. J. Bergman 3. PPR 08 -004 Scott Trees 871 E. Cherry Ave Construction of a greenhouse A. J. Bergman 4. MEX 08 -003 Arnold Garcia 472 Golden West PI 1% deviation from lot coverage allowance to add 23 sq ft room addition to primary dwelling A J. Paulding 5. MEX 08 -004 Frank Alvarado 341 Walnut St Partial conversion of two- car garage A R. Foster 6. ASPR 08- 001 Ladera Plaza /Mark London 1200 E. Grand Ave Illuminated signage using goose neck fixtures. A. K. Heffernon TUP 08 -007 Euphoria Flowers 601 E. Grand Ave Set up to sell roses for Mother's Day on May 10 & 11. A. K. Heffernon VSR 08 -003 Thomas Korman 1400 Blueberry Addition to existing second story over garage A. K. Heffernon 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 At this time Commissioner Tait returned to the meeting. IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION/ The Commission had no concerns with the Administrative Items. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. PAGE 13 VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Vice Chair Keen thanked Commissioner Marshall for his valuable service on the Commission and wished him luck in his future endeavors. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Mr. Strong gave an update on upcoming City workshops. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. on a motion by Vice Chair Keen, seconded by Commissioner Marshall. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 ATTEST: LYN REARDON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION TO C • TENT: / OffS RO = STR COMMUNITY D • PM - T DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of May 20, 2008) PAGE 14 H KEEN, V E CHAIR