PC Minutes 2007-09-041
1
1
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 4, 2007
6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with
Chair Ray presiding; also present were Commissioners Barneich, Marshall, and Tait;
Commissioner Keen was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community
Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planners, Kelly Heffernon and Ryan Foster,
and Public Works Director, Don Spagnolo.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
AGENDA REVIEW: No changes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Barneich, to approve the minutes of August 21, 2007 with a request to
include comments made by Chair Ray in respect to Item II.B., CUP Case No. 07 -002. The
missing comments were made after Commissioner Marshall's comments on Page 4, and
were related to requesting that no more gravel be added to protect future claims of litigation
(for Mr. Haugen); the motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote.
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Letter received August 30, 2007 from Earle Balgeman regarding PUD 04 -001 &
VTTM 04 -004 (Agenda Item II.D.) included in the Agenda Packet.
2. Letter dated August 31, 2007 from Barbara Freel regarding PUD 04 -001 & VTTM 04-
004 (Agenda Item II.D.) emailed to the Commissioners.
3. Plans received September 4, 2007 for Item II.B. regarding CUP 07 -005 & ARC 07-
006.
4. Letter received at the meeting dated September 3, 2007 from David Sullivan.
II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06 -003 AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 07-
002; APPLICANT — RANDALL RUSSOM; LOCATION — 474 COACH ROAD
Associate Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report for a proposal to demolish an
existing single - family home and detached garage and phased construction of a new single -
family residence with attached garage, with a temporary secondary residential unit (to be
used by the property owner during construction of the entire project) on a 10,950 square -
foot lot in the Agricultural (AG) zoning district; the final phase of the project would be
conversion of the secondary unit to living space by removal of the kitchen. The applicant is
open to putting in a vegetated buffer at the rear of the property; no plant materials have -
been specified. However, a condition has been included to require the final landscape plan
go to ARC for review and approval. In conclusion, Mr. Foster stated that staff recommends
that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution approving the conditional use permit
and variance.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 4, 2007
PAGE 2
Mr. Foster answered questions from the Commission regarding exemption from CEQA,
Section 15302, the Ag buffer in respect to this property, and why conversion of the
secondary unit to living space was required.
Chair Ray opened the public hearing for comment.
Randy Russom, applicant, stated that the phasing is being requested for the proposed
project strictly for economic reasons by the owner.
Chair Ray closed the public hearing to comment.
Commission comments:
Barneich:
• She is okay with the project, the setbacks, and the vegetative buffer.
• Suggested that the project not come back to Planning Commission for their feedback
on the vegetative buffer, but that staff should research other cities to see how they
have dealt with similar projects, then consult with the applicant and then approve a
landscape plan consistent with the results of this research.
Tait:
• Agrees with Commissioner Barneich to look for more professional expertise on the
vegetative buffer.
• He is not really in favor of large homes near agricultural property, but he can
approve this.
Marshall:
• He concurs with staffs evaluation of this being exempt from CEQA; when you live
on property that is zoned agriculture you do not need to be buffered from the
agriculture.
Ray:
• Agreed with the Commissioner's comments, but would suggest that the applicant
could change their minds and keep the secondary unit as there is some economic
value there.
Mr. Strong stated that the City should require that a "right to farm" disclosure be included as
a condition of approval for future protection in the event that the occupants of the property
change.
Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by Chair Ray to approve Conditional Use
Permit Case No. 07 -001 and Variance Case No. 07 -002 as presented, with a condition be
included for disclosure of "the right to farm" and the vegetative buffer be reviewed by staff
after research on similar projects, and adopt:
RESOLUTION 07 -2042
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO.
06 -003 AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 07 -002, APPLIED FOR BY RANDALL
RUSSOM, LOCATED AT 474 COACH ROAD
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 4, 2007
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Marshall, Chair Ray, Commissioner Barneich and Tait
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Keen
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4 day of September, 2007.
Chair Ray closed the public hearing to comment.
PAGE 3
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 07 -005 & ARC 07 -006; APPLICANT —
JAMES SEVERANCE; LOCATION — 522 EAST BRANCH STREET (Continued
from August 21, 2007 meeting)
Community Development Director, Rob Strong, presented the staff report for the continued
discussion on the proposed conversion of 3,813 sq. ft. of flooring store and warehouse with
addition to a 2,700 sq. ft. professional office and 1,200 sq. ft. townhouse /residential dwelling
unit including additional on -site parking. Mr. Strong explained that after the discussion at
the previous meeting it was determined that Option 3 was the best choice for this project;
mixed -use parking reduction with the use of a Minor Exception has been utilized for this
project. In conclusion, Mr. Strong stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission
adopt the Resolution approving the conditional use permit and the conditions of approval
outlined in Exhibit 'A'.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Barniech, Mr. Strong clarified where the nine
parking spaces would be located on -site.
In reply to a question from Chair Ray, Mr. Strong explained that a look -back clause would
be difficult to require as this property is in transition of ownership and use, but conforms to
City development standards if approved as proposed.
Chair Ray opened the public hearing for comment.
Jim Severance, applicant, explained the history and how difficult it has been in trying to get
the building completed. In reply to a question from Commissioner Marshall, Mr. Severance
explained that they would like to do something temporary to help screen the big blank wall —
maybe some small trees.
Commission comments:
Marshall:
• He is satisfied with the progress made since the last meeting and that the project is
now self- contained.
• Mixed -use parking does result in parking at different times of day.
Tait:
• After reading the staff report Option 3 is the best choice; he appreciates how the
staff and applicant worked on this since the last meeting.
Barneich:
• She likes the newly proposed residential unit — it fits well here.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 4, 2007
• She would like to see some screening on the large blank wall as it may be a couple
of years before there is something next to it.
Mr. Strong stated that the property line is too close to allow any openings; temporary
planting would probably be on De Blauw's property; it could go to ARC in an advisory
capacity.
After discussion, the Commission agreed to let the applicant consider some options and
come up with something to help screen the wall. There was a suggestion for Italian
cypress.
Ray:
• Would prefer not to have a condition added to require screening of the blank wall, as
this property is in ownership transition and it would have to be on DeBaluw's
property and would only be a temporary requirement.
• Suggested that some indoor storage be built in as there is not much on the property.
• She can approve this as it is now.
Marshall:
• Appreciates Chair Ray's comments, but would like to see some screening done
(without involving the property next door) to improve the visual situation and that this
could be left to the applicant to work out with staff or ARC.
Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barneich, to approve
Conditional Use Permit Case No. 07 -005 & Architectural Review Case No. 07 -006 and
require that the applicant have a plan to break up visual impact of great wall - details to be
worked out with staff, and adopt:
RESOLUTION 07 -2043
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO.
07 -005 & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 07 -006; LOCATED AT 522
EAST BRANCH STREET, APPLIED FOR BY JAMES SEVERANCE
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Marshall, Barneich, Chair Ray and Tait
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Keen
PAGE 4
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4 day of September, 2007.
C. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 07 -001; APPLICANT -SANDY ARNOLD;
LOCATION — 597 VIA LA BARRANCA
Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented a proposal to subdivide a 1.52 -acre flag lot
into two parcels consisting of approximately 20,900 and 45,300 square feet. The site has
an average slope of approximately 19.4 %, is zoned Residential Suburban and meets all
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 4, 2007
Development Code requirements. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff
recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving the tentative
tract map.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait, Ms. Heffernon explained that there is a
turnaround required by the Fire Department; there are no specific conditions required for fuel
modification; there is no major tree removal required for this proposed project.
Chair Ray opened the public hearing for comment.
Sandy Arnold, applicant, stated she would answer Commission questions.
Commissioner Marshall stated concern that the sloped area below the house (the new
parcel) is an "L" shape and it did not look like part of that parcel. Ms. Arnold agreed that
unless it was graded it could not be used for much except for maybe keeping a horse.
Chair Ray closed the public hearing to comment.
Commission comments:
Barneich:
• She is ready to approve this project.
Tait:
• He can also approve this project since his concerns regarding fire have been
addressed.
Marshall:
• Still has concern that because of the "L" shape part of the parcel; it seems a bit
driven by the grading of the existing house, but he can still support this.
Ray:
• Regarding Commissioner Marshall's concern she thinks the "L" shape will just feel
like part of the open space.
• She can approve this project.
Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barneich, to approve
Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 07 -001 as presented, and adopt:
RESOLUTION 07 -07 -2044
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 07-
001, LOCATED AT 597 VIA LA BARRANCA, APPLIED FOR BY DALE AND
SANDY ARNOLD
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tait, Barneich, Marshall and Ray
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Keen
PAGE 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 4, 2007
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4 day of September, 2007.
7:00 p.m.
The Commission took a 10- minute break.
D. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04 -001 & VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04 -004; APPLICANT — D. B. & M. PROPERTIES, LLC;
LOCATION — 415 E. BRANCH STREET (Continued from August 21, 2007
meeting)
Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the proposal for a commercial retail, office
and residential development giving a brief history of the project. Ms. Heffernon stated that
in October, 2006 the City Council denied the project without prejudice and an addendum
was made to the EIR for the project outlining required changes. Parking is considered
adequate for a mixed -use project. The project was continued from the August 21, 2007
Planning Commission meeting to address flood plain elevations. In conclusion, Ms.
Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider an
addendum to the certified EIR and adopt a Resolution recommending approval of the
project to the City Council. A Condition of Approval should be included to require an "all -way
stop" at the corner of LePoint Street and Crown Terrace for safety reasons; and Condition
#8 should be deleted, since the gate between the commercial and residential uses is no
longer required.
Mike Peachy, architect for the project, gave a very detailed presentation using a three
dimensional model of the redesigned proposal and addressing concerns expressed by the
City Council at their October 2006 meeting, and also addressing the concerns of the
neighbors.
The Commission had questions for Mr. Peachy, the applicant, and staff:
PAGE 6
Commissioner Marshall explained that due to the fact he had not been involved in previous
considerations of this project he had a number of concerns:
• Are the elevation figures correct, especially with respect to the flood elevations? Mr.
Spagnolo: The existing flood elevations look fairly accurate.
• Regarding the proposed Resolution, Page 5, Condition #10, the storage cabinets
need to be elevated; Page 6, Condition #23, regarding root barriers to protect
sidewalks, suggest that it should be changed to state "all sidewalks" within the public
right of way; Page 9, Condition #46, regarding extending the installation of Village
style streetlights along Crown Hill, Crown Terrace, and LePoint Street, this seems
unnecessary and conflicting with the environmental review (should be low profile
lighting). Ms. Heffernon: There is no problem with limiting the lighting to Crown Hill
(there should be some lighting to provide a safe route to walk downtown at night);
Page 10, Condition #8, in respect to improving LePoint Street, this should be
modified to reflect a shorter and narrower street? Mr. Spagnolo: This is a standard
condition, but it will probably work out to be a standard half width road.
• As recommended in the Village Design Standards, will exposed aggregate be used
in the sidewalk? Mr. Spagnolo: This style would only be used on E. Branch Street —
not continued around the corner.
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 4, 2007
Tait:
PAGE 7
• Condition #51: Where will pedestrian ramps be installed? Mr. Spagnolo: The ones
adjacent to the project will be constructed with the project; the one mentioned in this
condition is across the street and included as a separate issue.
• Condition #54: This should be revised to include installation of an "all -way" stop sign.
• Have all the concerns discussed at the City Council meeting in October 2006 been
addressed in the new design? Mr. Spagnolo: He thought they had been; the turn
pocket for the entry on Crown Hill is still incorporated; speed bumps were included
as an option for traffic calming, however, installation of the stop sign should address
this concern; a request from the business owner of "Chameleon" asking for
assurance that access to their business would remain open during construction will
be adhered to; however, advised that a condition be included to make sure this was
addressed.
• Mitigation Monitoring (MM), Page 18, 4.4.3, regarding the rail bed. Ms. Heffernon:
The rails are proposed to be installed in the landscaped area (for historic reasons)
and also a plaque. Ms. Barneich: Debbie Black (landscape architect) had explained
to her that the rails will have gravel around them to deter growth over them and there
is a plan to have a plaque near the front of the building towards the plaza which will
explain what used to be there.
• Page 6, Condition No 17, is it typical to require the project to go back to both the
Planning Commission and the ARC? Ms. Heffernon: Only if the Planning
Commission feels it is necessary.
• Page 6, Condition #21, the wording re CC &R's should be corrected to state "prior to
recording the final map" rather than "prior to final occupancy ".
• Are any green building techniques being considered? Mr. Peachy: They can
certainly integrate them into this project and they are already using these techniques
on many projects now.
• Do the garage doors need flood proofing? Mr. Peachy: In a flood event they will
keep out large items, but not flood waters; however, raising the storage units is a
good idea; the buildings have been designed with the raised portion not to displace,
but to allow water to flow through.
• Regarding bioswales and the fact that getting water offsite quickly is a priority, there
will need to be a very good filter to allow this. Mr. De Blauw: They are open to
biofilters, but the water in this area may not give good percolation and may slow
down the movement of water off -site. The best approach is to get the water into the
creek while being sensitive to the bioswale.
• It looks as if there are only two bike racks. Mr. Peachy: He was not aware of this,
but more bike racks could easily be added.
• If the pedestrian path is concrete or a sealed decomposed granite (DG) why not
have something permeable being as it is so close to the creek? Mr. Peachy: The
intention is to have something permeable and they are looking at new products to
address this.
• The Resolution, Condition #9, states some of the trees may be transplanted on or off
site. Ms. Heffernon: This is to allow flexibility - this is just a preliminary landscape
plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 4, 2007
PAGE 8
• MM 4.3.29, third bullet, regarding water retention, should this be included? Ms.
Heffernon stated this should be deleted — no onsite detention is required for this
project.
• In October 2006, the applicant provided additional information to the City Council
which stated, "the drainage evaluation indicates that the peak flows are being
reduced through reduction in impervious surface area" — asked for an explanation.
Mr. De Blauw: Public Works had determined that there was not a requirement for
retention basins as the proposed project is below the flood plain and in addition it is
reducing the amount of impervious area; Geo Solutions soil's report verified this.
• Will the DG footpath be 10 -feet from the top of the creek bank (within the 25 -foot
setback)? Ms. Heffernon stated that the City has approved semi - impervious paths
within the creek setback area (25 feet) previously.
• MM 4.3.18: Who will monitor for wildlife during construction? Mr. De Blauw stated
this is done by a qualified consultant.
• Will there be a footpath down to the creek? Ms. Heffernon stated it is a
recommended mitigation measures in the EIR, but the Commission can recommend
to City Council not to allow this
• With the design allowing water to flow through the site would seismic shaking affect
the buildings differently? Mr. De Blauw explained that the buildings are always
designed for seismic activity; there will be more borings done to substantiate this.
Barneich:
• After discussion with staff and Debbie Black (landscape architect), incorporation of
bioswales on -site could be located next to the parking garage between the
residential structure and one towards the creek next to the sod; Department of Fish
and Game or Army Corps of Engineers would have to be consulted to make sure
this would be okay; she would like to have this explored. Mr. Peachy: This could
work well for the low flow event and nuisance flow.
• Ms. Black has stated her preference for using DG, so she hoped they would go with
this for the path.
• Is the yellow color a true color? Mr. Peachy: Lighting affects colors, but we will note
that a warm yellow is preferred.
• Will there be an interpretive plaque about the railroad? Mr. Peachy: This could be
done and they would probably involve the Historical Society.
• Will there be street trees shown on the plan? Mr. De Blauw: They are planning on
street trees every 50 feet; if the existing Cypress trees are retained on the north side
there will be no requirement in that area.
• How will the improvements be done where the two crosswalks meet on LePoint
Street and Crown Terrace? Mr. Spagnolo: This corner has yet to be addressed and
improvements made with a handicap ramp; with respect to the intersection Le Point
Street and Crown Terrace, in front of Barbara Freel's house, there will be no
improvements directly in front of her house, but this area will need some
modifications made on the southwest corner within the City's right -of -way.
• Looking down Crown Terrace there could be one streetlight where the driveway
comes out onto Crown Terrace (with Police Department approval).
• MM 4.3.14, who follows up on this to make sure that the pre- construction survey is
done? Ms. Heffernon: The City will be following up on this.
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 4, 2007
PAGE 9
• Could some of the residences be made smaller (to make them more affordable) and
some larger? Mr. De Blauw explained that taking the square footage out does not
necessarily reduce the cost; they had considered using elevators to reduce size, but
this would not reduce the cost; 2,200 sq. ft. may not be too excessive as they have
small yards.
• The pedestrian path (next to the creek) that comes out between units 7 & 8, ends up
nowhere, have you talked to Mr. Brown regarding using the little alley as a
connection to Branch Street and doing decorative paving across the parking lot? Mr.
De Blauw: Mr. Brown is aware of this, has been very cooperative regarding the
whole project, and this could probably be done.
Ray:
• The Commissioners had asked all of her questions except one: On DP2, #11, it
shows an elevation change with a fairly significant drop, how will this work? Mr.
DeBaluw: There is a shoulder and slope which provides a margin.
Chair Ray opened up the public hearing.
Jack English, Le Point Street, stated he was representing Earl Bagleman who was unable
to attend this evening. He then read a letter (already received by the Commission) written
by Mr. Bagleman, stating concerns with the density of the proposed project, parking,
building heights, and suggesting changes to the project.
Barbara Freel, read a letter from David Sullivan, who had recently purchased a condo on Le
Point Terrace and who was unable to attend the meeting. The letter stated concerns with
the nuisance of construction during sleeping hours (he works nights), impairment of his
scenic views and disruption of the serenity of the location.
Barbara Freel then spoke for herself, stating that she was really pleased to see the time and
effort put in by the developer for this project and the changes made after the previous
meetings. However, she still is troubled by the 45 -foot commercial building and the scale
and mass of it at end of the Village.
Carol Fulmer, LePoint Street thanked everyone for listening to her concerns and addressing
some of them. She still has the following concerns: She does not want a sidewalk on the
north side of LePoint Street and would like to discuss this with the City; she does not want
street lights on LePoint Street; regarding undergrounding of utilities because she has two on
her small lot which may impact her house; construction noise and pollution are also a
concern, and she would like to know the hours that this will take place.
Camay Arad, Allen Street and business owner of the "Chameleon" store stated she was
very excited about this project; it fits in beautifully in every aspect. She would like to be
assured that her business will not be blocked during construction and that the dust will be
controlled (she would like this to be formally included in the conditions).
Mike McConville, East Branch Street stated that this is a great project and the developer
had done a fantastic job; 2,200 sq. ft. is not too large; the paths next to the creek are
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 4, 2007
PAGE 10
important; the cost for the improvements on the other side of the street should be born by
the City; he would like to see both sides of the creek banks cleaned up.
Duane De Blauw, stated that without the encouragement of VIA and staff they would not be
here tonight; it had been a lot of work and a long toil to get to this point.
Chair Ray closed the public hearing to comment.
Commissioner Barneich asked staff to address the concerns of Carol Fulmer. Mr. Spagnolo
stated that regarding no sidewalk on LePoint Street, this would have to be discussed with
Carol Fulmer as he was not sure how this would work for wheelchair access; PG &E would
have to be consulted regarding the undergrounding of utilities. Ms. Heffernon confirmed
that construction hours would be Mon -Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and the inspection time will be
7:00 am. - 5:00 pm.
Commission comments:
Barneich:
• A lot of great changes have been made since the Council looked at this last year and
the architect has done a great job.
• Ms. Black has put a lot of thought into the landscape plan and has put in real trees
(no bushes).
• She likes the residential component, the infill housing, and thinks this will be a great
place to live.
• She likes the recreation area, with picnic table and play structure.
• The Cypress trees may not look right, but suggest that they could be thinned, some
taken out, and some other species mixed in with them.
• Bioswales need to be incorporated into project to reduce the amount of runoff.
• The yellow color should be warmer,
• The pedestrian path is important, even though it is Mr. Brown's property, to make the
whole project walkable; there definitely needs to be delineation in the asphalt with
some decorative paving or colored concrete to lead pedestrians safely through the
parking lot.
• Streetlights: Needs to be specified to have the very minimum that the Police
Department requires.
• Street trees need to be located every 50 feet to help screen.
• She appreciates the public outreach that the developer did.
• She is ready to approve the project with minor modifications.
Tait:
• Would the six -foot DG footpath be accessible to the public? Ms. Heffernon: It would
be.
• He agreed with Commissioner Barneich's comments on this project being infill and
meeting smart growth principles.
• MM 4.2.1, under air quality, he recommended adding (at the end of the first bullet)
that reclaimed non - potable water should be used whenever possible.
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 4, 2007
PAGE 11
• MM 4.3.13, he recommended adding "as determined by a qualified biologist" after
the requirement that stockpiles be kept far enough from the banks of the active creek
channel.
• The insufficiency of the culvert under Branch Street to pass water in a 100 -year flood
is an important issue and fixing it with shared cost should be looked into.
• MM 4.7.1, under Hydrology and Water Quality, he would like to see this study
submitted and completed with a neutral third party engineering firm and included in
here to otherwise he would not be able to make finding #5.
• He was very impressed with the visuals, but he still has a concern with what the
project will really look like.
• There are still questions on the speed bumps, bioswales (agrees they will work for
low flow situations).
• A decision on whether to keep the footpath down to the creek needs to be made.
• A quote from a citizen's letter from last year's meeting, "Let's be particularly careful
to preserve the unique character of the area and ensure it's development is
consistent with the rest of the Village ", he would like to see this followed.
Marshall:
• He could see that this project has been through a lot and he's glad that he is viewing
this after it got good.
• He agreed with the other Commissioners that the project looks good.
He stated the following items are still to be addressed:
• Add a condition to address concerns regarding maintaining access to the business
"Chamleon ".
• Update the condition to make clear that the intersection of Crown Terrace and
LePoint Street becomes and all -way stop sign.
• Delete the reference to the gate in the middle of the project, Condition #'s 8 & 56.
• Condition #10 regarding storage cabinets in the garage need to be elevated, a
reference to the flood study, as determined by the project engineer, should be
added.
• He agrees with Commissioner Barneich's comments regarding the lights; take out
the reference to Village style lights on Crown Terrace and LePoint Streets and
replace with the minimum of lighting required for public safety.
• He agrees with the concept of adding a pedestrian connection through the central
parking area to the recreation area by the creek and connecting through to Branch
Street.
• He agrees with placing street trees every 50 feet instead of 75 feet, about watering
the stockpiles with non - potable water, and about having a biologist determine the
limits of the creek bank.
• There needs to be more discussion on the final colors and whether they should
come back to both Planning Commission and ARC.
• The Cypress trees can support the idea of thinning and mixing other trees;
• Bioswales could be just a basic feature of the landscape design.
• Public Works staff can do the flood analysis and address the concerns.
• Speed bumps could be put in later if required.
• He would rather not see a path all the way down to the creek.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 4, 2007
PAGE 12
Ray:
• I trust staff and the developer to deal with the issue of the flood analysis.
• She agrees that speed bumps do not need to be included now.
• She wants the footpath down to the creek as the public will go down to the creek
anyway and this is the right place to do this and the right thing for families.
• She agrees with Commissioner Barneich regarding the lighting to have the minimum
per Police Department requirement and that it is downlighting, not at the height of a
typical street light (important for people like Mr. Sullivan).
• She wanted to make note of the proposed lovely trash enclosure design .
• She complimented the architect on the fantastic renderings and complimented the
staff, Commission, and developer on all doing a fantastic job without which this
project would not have gone forward.
Chair Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barneich, recommending the City
Council approve the addendum to the previously certified FEIR for the project and approve
Planned Unit Development Case No. 04 -001 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04-
004 with the following amendments to the Resolution:
1. Condition #54 — this should include the all -way stop.
2. There should be agreement reached with Carol Fulmer.
3. Strike Condition #'s 8, 56, MM 4.3.29, bullet 3 & MM 4.4.
4. Condition #10 should be more specific in respect to the flooding reference regarding
the storage cabinets.
5. Condition #23, should include all sidewalks.
6. Condition #46, the minimum lighting required by the Police Department, specify
down lighting and not regular street lights.
7. Add a condition to protect Chameleon's business, regarding the parking and the
dust.
8. Condition #17, strike the requirement for the Planning Commission, but not the ARC
from this requirement.
9. MM 4.2.1, include non - potable water to be used whenever possible.
10. MM 4.3.13, should state the storage should be set outside the setback area, rather
than determined by a qualified biologist.
Add the following — not presently part of the conditions:
11. Bioswales as feasible.
12. Historic markers to be reviewed by ARC.
13.Thinning or removal of the Cypress trees as necessary.
14.Have a path across the parking area for pedestrians even if it means losing a parking
space.
15. Street trees every 50 feet.
Discussion:
Commissioner Barneich, regarding the bioswales, she would like to replace "as feasible"
with "if The Department of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers allow ".
Commissioner Marshall suggested Commissioner Barneich's request be added to Condition
#59.
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 4, 2007
Commissioner Barneich — she would like to see more bike racks.
Commissioner Tait - the footpath adjacent to the creek should be DG. He did not agree
with having a footpath down to the creek as there are many questions that have not been
answered.
Commissioner Barneich stated that after listening to the comments from Commissioners'
Marshall and Tait on the footpath down to the creek, she would concur with them on this
issue.
Chair Ray stated that any reference to the footpath would be struck from the motion.
The Commissioners agreed to go forward with the motion as stated, and adopt:
RESOLUTION 07 -2045
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
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROJECT, 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. 04 -004 AND
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04 -001, LOCATED AT 415 EAST
BRANCH STREET, APPLIED FOR BY DB & M PROPERTY, LLC
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Ray, Commissioner Barneich, Marshall, and Tait
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Keen
PAGE 13
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4 th day of September, 2007.
III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None.
IV. NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE AUGUST 21, 2007: None.
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 9:55 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 4, 2007
ATTEST:
LYN REARDON- SMITH,
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO C
TENT:
ROB TRONG, .
COMMUNITY DEVELOPM = NT DIRECTOR
(Minutes approved at the PC meeting of October 16, 2007)
CAREN RAY, HAIR
PAGE 14
1