Loading...
PC Minutes 2007-06-051 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 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, Keen and Tait. Commissioner Marshall was absent. The staff member in attendance was Acting Community Development Director, Teresa McClish. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. AGENDA REVIEW: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve the minutes of May 15, 2007 with the following modifications: • Pg. 6, 5 bullet, add beginning quotes before "that policies and ordinances ...." The motion passed on a 4/0 voice vote. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. I.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Updated Development Code and General Plan Amendment resolutions. 2. Letter dated June 4, 2007 from Steven Puglisi regarding the preliminary alternative for creek setback ordinance. 3. Letter dated June 5, 2007 from Roger Briggs, of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, regarding the creek study and setback requirements. 4. Agenda for Special Joint Meeting of City Councils of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Pismo Beach on June 7, 2007 regarding Green Building. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 06 -009; APPLICANT — TONY JANOWICZ; LOCATION — 795 CHERRY LANE Staff requested this item be continued to the June 5 Planning Commission meeting. B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 07 -001 and DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 07 -003 (Creek Resources Protection); APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE Acting Director, Teresa McClish presented the staff report for consideration of proposals and alternatives to amend the General Plan and Development Code to establish and implement creek protection policies and development setbacks for applicable properties adjacent to creeks in the City of Arroyo Grande. Proposed creek setbacks range from 50 -feet applicable to Meadow Creek and the East fork of Meadow Creek, 35 -feet applicable to Arroyo Grande Creek and Tally Ho Creek, and 25 -feet applicable to all other creeks in the City. She then answered technical questions of staff. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 5, 2007 7:40 p.m. The Commissioners took a 5- minute break. Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 2 Stephnie Wald, Salmon Enhancement representative, spoke in support of the General Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment. Chris Diedricksen, 582 Newman Drive, expressed concern about a neighboring project at 605 Eman Court, which has had flooding and erosion problems. (In response to his question, Ms. McClish answered that project specific comments can't be made if not listed on the agenda. In general, projects accepted before the moratorium would not be subject to new restrictions. She reiterated the proposed A.G. Creek setback is 35 feet.) Mike Miner, owner of Miner's Ace Hardware and other property near the creek on Cherry Lane, urged Commissioners to stay with the 25 foot setback (instead of the 35 foot average) in the Village. He felt more than that could be considered a taking, there is already sufficient governmental oversight of creeks, top of bank is not as subjective to identify as edge of riparian habitat, 25 feet is already a significant distance, and the creekbed on Cherry Lane hasn't moved since Lopez Dam was built. William Kapp, 617 Woodland Drive, read a letter to Commissioners suggesting a different route to creek protection (on file in Community Development Department.) Chair Ray closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission comments and questions: Barneich: • 25 feet is not an adequate setback per expert recommendations. • The amendments are necessary and timely. • The 35 foot average Village Core setback needs to be reworded, and the minimum there should be 25 feet instead of 20 feet. • There should be future discussion of buffer management, as recommended in Creek Study Alternative 2. Keen: • The Village minimum setback of 20 feet would only be a small part of the project in order to average 35 feet. • The first duplicative box of Exhibit "A" can be deleted, but the other can be kept. • He's not worried about the wording "where feasible ", above the second duplicative box of Exhibit "A ", as questioned by Commissioner Tait. • In 16.44.050 section C, walls shouldn't be flatly denied, because there may be cases where they are needed, such as the recent project where a small retaining wall provided for drainage to the street instead of to the creek. • In 16.44.050 section F.1.a., there needs to be clarification on fill, because it could add an extra 5 feet to the building setback if proposed adjacent to the setback. Ms. McClish explained the circumstances where this provision would be helpful. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 5, 2007 PAGE 3 • He supports both proposed DCA and GPA amendments. • He expressed concern about the average 35 foot Village setback due to the number of existing structures extending beyond that, but recognized those existing buildings would be grandfathered. • In regards to the Scolari project letter, it seems the project would still be feasible under new code requirements. • He prefers Creek Study Alternative 1 for now, with further adjustment to be done as needed when the item returns for further Planning Commission discussion. Tait: • He supports both proposed DCA and GPA amendments, and noted "watershed protection is human health protection ". Setbacks are in the interest of property owners for protection from flooding and the natural creek processes, which are good for wildlife and fisheries. A watershed management approach is important, as drinking water starts in creeks, lakes and aquifers. • Wording "where feasible" should be deleted above second duplicative box. • The first duplicative box should be retained, because it is different than C/OS2 -1.2. • The second duplicative box should be retained, because it has stronger language. • He's somewhat concerned about the 20 foot minimum in the Village, and while not totally satisfied, thinks it would work. • He agrees with Keen's suggestion about allowing retaining walls as necessary. • He agreed with the RWQCB letter that if they choose Creek Study Alternative 1 (which is fine for now), he only would support it as an interim measure. Alternative 2 is more appropriate to protect aquatic resources in the City. Ray: • She supports both proposed DCA and GPA amendments, with some changes. • The first duplicative box can be deleted, but the second box should be retained. • Strike wording "where feasible" above the second duplicative box. • Per City Attorney instructions, she agrees with deleting wording "protected and" in the first suggested additional C /OS policy. • The minimum Village Core setback should be 25 feet (instead of 20), particularly since a recent applicant was stuck at 25 feet, which was the interim measure. Barneich • Change the last sentence of C/OS2 -1.2 to "Bridges are preferred over arched and piped culverts." After further commission discussion on wording, Ms. McClish requested that separate motions be made for the General Plan and Development Code Amendments. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, approving recommending to City Council the General Plan Amendment Case No. 07 -001 with the following modifications: • Retain both sections of Exhibit "A" that were boxed in by staff and noted as possibly duplicate information, in the interest of erring on the safe side. • In the last sentence above second box, strike wording "Where feasible" from the last sentence. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 5, 2007 • In section C/OS2 -1.2, change wording of the last sentence to read "Bridges are preferred over arched and piped culverts." • In first suggested additional policy, strike the words "protected and" per the instruction of the City Attorney, and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 07 -2033 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 07 -001, TO AMEND THE 2001 GENERAL PLAN AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT FOR CREEK PROTECTION RELATED POLICIES The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Ray, Commissioners Keen, Barneich, and Tait. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Marshall. PAGE 4 the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5 day of June 2007. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barneich, approving recommending to City Council the Development Code Amendment Case No. 07 -003 with the following modifications: • In section 16.44.050, under C.1.a.i., change wording to "the setback may be averaged within a proposed projcct ar a provide for an average of 35 feet within a proposed project area, but under no circumstance shall any portion be less than 20 25 feet." • In section 16.44.050, under C.2., change wording to "Fences and other structures such as culverts, walls and bridges," and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 07 -2034 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 07 -003 TO AMEND ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 16.04 AND 16.44 OF TITLE 16 TO ESTABLISH CREEK SETBACK STANDARDS The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Ray, Commissioners Barneich, Keen, and Tait. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Marshall. the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5 day of June 2007. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 5, 2007 III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION/ NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE MAY 15, 2007: ase No TUP 07 -009 Brave New Wares Development Group Address 1200 E. Grand Avenue Description Parking lot art & craft shows during the second weekend of each month; during holiday months twice a month. Action Planner T. Montgomery Ms. McClish corrected the action from "approved" to "denied ". The permanency of the requested retail craft shows does not meet the "temporary" provisions of the Temporary Use Permit (TUP) application. The applicant has been requested to submit a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for further processing. Commissioners had no comments or questions. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Barneich noted that she and Commissioner Tait attended the recent Smart Growth Workshop and she has reference material to share with the other commissioners. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: In response to Ms. McClish's question about commissioner availability, they all are available to attend the July 3, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. ATTEST: KATHY M DOZA FOR t'T REARDON -SMITH • REN RAY, HAIR SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: TERESA MFCLISH, ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of June 19, 2007) PAGE 5