Loading...
PC Minutes 2007-05-151 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 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, Marshall and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, and Public Works Director, Don Spagnolo. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes to the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chair Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, to approve the minutes of May 1, 2007 as written; the motion was approved on a 5/0 voice vote. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Additional Administrative Items: Temporary Use Permit Case No. 07 -008. 2. Information from Ryan Foster regarding a Storm Water Workshop on May 17, 2007. 3. Information from Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, regarding a Preliminary Alternative for Creek Setback Ordinance. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PROPOSED 2007/08- 2011/12 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Public Works Director, Don Spagnolo, presented the proposed CIP, gave some of the highlights of the report and recommended the Commission consider the program to determine consistency with the 2001 General Plan. In conclusion, Director Spagnolo recommended that the Planning Commission approve the five -year Capital Improvement Program and make their recommendation to City Council. Director Spagnolo then answered Commission questions for clarification on proposed projects in the report, the "sales tax debt financing" and the enterprise funds; explained that the funded projects will all move forward at the same time, the unfunded projects are included mainly from the City's Master Plan, as funding becomes available we move them up to the funded category. Although this was not a public hearing Chair Ray opened the public hearing and hearing none closed it. G ase,�No . ,.L lk App. , ;, Address_; p r�: . Y Yea escription. . ' .' -:- 41Action '•�" Planner MEX 07 -002 Larry Cooper 425 & 429 California Street Minor Exception to allow off street parking for a secondary dwelling unit on adjacent property and to allow primary homeowner to reside adjacent to the rental property. A. M. Meier MEX 07 -005 Dustin & Christina Pires 1064 Sunset Drive Minor Exception to allow parking for a secondary dwelling unit in the driveway of the main residence. A. T. Montgom MEX 07 -004 Tammy Moynagh 1131 Maple Street Minor Exception to allow waiver of City parking standards for single - family residence. D. T. Montgom TUP 07 -007 Marcelo Ferreyra 350 S. Elm Street (Elm Street Park) Temporary Use Permit to allow barbecue fundraiser in Elm Street Park on June 9, 2007. A. T. Montgomery PPR 07 -005 Aaron & James Pinard 1229 E. Grand Avenue, #B Health & Wellness Center in an existing retail building. A. J. Bergman PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15, 2007 Commissioner Marshall stated that the County does not include their Planning Commission in consideration of the CIP. The Commission had no further comments. Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barneich, approving recommending to City Council the 2007/08 through 2011/12 Capital Improvement Program. AYES: Commissioners Marshall, Barneich, Keen, Tait, and Chair Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION/ NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE MAY 1, 2007: PAGE 2 1 Additional Administrative Item No. 6: Temporary Use Permit 07 -008; Heacock Trailers & Truck Accessories, Inc: To allow for the storage of new trailers on the lot behind 220 Traffic Way. Administrative Items Review: Commissioner Keen asked for clarification on Item No. 1, MEX 07 -001. Director Strong explained that the property owner is proposing to add secondary dwellings at both properties; the MEX is to allow the owner to be an onsite manager as well as owner of both units and to have the supplemental off - street parking to be at 429 California (there is no room at 425 California); there will be a covenant recorded to this effect as long as the owner resides on the one property. The Commission had no further questions of the remaining five Administrative Items. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, presented a document to the Commission entitled a Preliminary Alternative for Creek Setback Ordinance. Ms. McClish explained that this was a result of one part of the recommendations in the Arroyo Grande Creek Study, and 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15, 2007 PAGE 3 she would like to introduce it and receive any comments from the Commission. The complete study would be presented to the Commission and the public next week for the June 5, 2007 Public Hearing. Ms. McClish then proceeded to go through some of the concepts and perspectives that were used in development of the study, stating that one of the four main focuses of the study is to try to make sure policies are integrated in with the bigger picture of the watershed. Three documents that staff relied upon in preparing the study were: • The Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Management Plan - compiled with a lot of public comment and stakeholder involvement. • The Habitat Conservation Plan & Environmental Studies — prepared by the County of San Luis Obispo. • Documentation from Swanson Hydrology, including what is going on in terms of sedimentation coming down through and derived from areas in our City on downstream areas of the flood control channel. Essentially the Creek Study acknowledges commonly held issues in our City creek system: • We are continuing to alter our creeks. • We have sedimentation issues. • We have localized flooding areas possibly affecting some downstream areas. • We have several areas of invasive plants in our streams. • There are some areas with a loss of riparian habitat. • We have an overlooked area of cultural resources. • We have some conflicts in existing General Plan policies regarding our recreational trails, where they should be and where they are not necessarily practical (in some of the residential areas). The focus of the study has been on four issue areas: 1. Watershed based consideration. 2. Buffers and habitat protection. 3. Stormwater and drainage. 4. Integration with policies for water resources. The schedule for consideration of the Creek Study is as follows: The Creek Study document will be distributed next week; a workshop has been scheduled for Wednesday, May 30, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers; the first public hearing by Planning Commission will be held on June 5, 2007. The City is under a time constraint for an ordinance that contains setback standards and which expires at the end of August. Therefore, the ordinance will be considered first and the Creek Study can remain in draft form until the above issues have been discussed at subsequent hearings. Ms. McClish then discussed creek setbacks and stated that after research it was found that many districts have implemented overlays; setbacks and form of measurement PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15, 2007 PAGE 4 varied greatly in different districts of California. Staff is proposing to keep measurement from "the top of creek bank" or "edge of riparian habitat ", whichever is further, to provide for riparian corridor habitat protection and also to provide for meander of the creek. The ordinance will contain recommendations similar to the version being presented tonight. An alternative included in the Creek Study includes implementing a creek overlay district with a management area approach (which would be a more comprehensive ordinance that may be considered in the future). The basic setbacks remain the same in between the alternatives: • Implementation of a setback from Arroyo Grande Creek and Talley Ho Creek (our primary creeks) of 35 -feet from edge of top of bank or edge of riparian habitat, whichever is further. • A 50 -foot setback is being proposed for Meadow Creek and the east fork of Meadow Creek. • For areas within the Village Core Downtown or Village Mixed Use Districts staff will be proposing for allowing the averaging of setbacks. The recommended ordinance is simple although it is included with the existing flood plain management ordinance (the flood plain management ordinance is very convoluted). It is not as flexible as the alternative in the Creek Study; a variance would be required for an exception. Setback considerations for the different creeks in the City are: • Areas with steeper slopes or deeper banks need larger setbacks. • Where there is a larger flood plain area on creeks that do not have steep banks, it is consistent to allow for a larger setback so that building will not take place in the flood plain. • Where there is existing riparian vegetation or concrete channels. • Regulated Blue Line streams (federal designation for creeks): One of the City's Blue Line streams is what used to be a creek behind WaI -Mart and drains into a drainage basin and goes underground and will not be regulated. • Habitat: Buffers will provide a healthier creek and a corridor for wildlife; it's better to have some than none even with more intense infill. • The largest setback is Meadow Creek and the east fork — a 50 -foot setback, primarily due to the erosive soils that exist in the City and the sedimentation in Pismo Lake; this should be feasible to implement due to the open space areas and large lots. • The Arroyo Grande Creek is deeply incised and there is an alternative in the Creek Study to consider having a setback that is double the length of the creek bank and then adding 20 -feet (to account for the long and steep banks); this could equate to an 80 -foot setback, but there would be the availability to have a lesser setback to the minimum of 35 -feet with a restoration plan included in a development proposal. • The Talley Ho Creek has a 35 -foot setback proposed in the ordinance as most of the residents are in the 100 -year flood plain. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15, 2007 PAGE 5 • In the Village, in order to allow for policies for economic development, there are some averaging provisions. Commission Comments and Questions: Marshall: • How focused is the Creek Study document on watershed issues? Ms. McClish: The document includes the following water -based approaches: 1) An MOU with all the jurisdictions involved in watershed related activities hopefully to be implemented in the coming months; 2) Policies to be included in our General Plan for directions to address areas outside of the City — mostly County to the north and south, addressing some of the issues that are shared across our borders. • There is a need for clarification (regarding setbacks) on what can and cannot be done with the area between the Creek and a structure. Would an alternative include this? Ms. McClish: Yes, it could, and it would help clarify language in the Development Code. Tait: • Who was involved with the creek technical work group? Ms. McClish: There were monthly meetings with City staff, a member from the Natural Resources Conservation District (NRCS,) and Central Coast Salmon Enhancement. Mr. Strong stated that the focus this evening is to present a simple, but protective approach with this ordinance. The Commission should study the additional alternatives and criteria and then refine the basic protection that is currently being proposed. When the Commission meets on June 5, 2007 for the public hearing they should be prepared to make a recommendation in order to get an ordinance moved forward to City Council on June 12, 2007. Tait: • Re Village infill, asked for comment on the relationship between watershed protection and higher density. Ms. McClish: Ideally, infill should be concentrated where it will have the least impact on riparian areas, to keep them open; some of the oldest areas are those on the creek and we may see some redevelopment coming forward for these areas — it will be a balancing act • Asked about new technologies such as the idea that riprap for stabilizing the creek bank may actually have a negative effect on the creek in some cases. Ms. McClish: Agreed that there are definitely new ideas coming forward and there will also be new storm water regulations for the City to implement — such as the NPDES Permit requirements (some of these considerations included in the study). • Is there some volunteer workgroups such as 'summer employment for youth' to help with maintenance of the Creek? Ms. McClish: Volunteer groups are a good way to go; we do rely on non - profits such as Salmon Enhancement to help clean PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15, 2007 PAGE 6 up the creeks. The Creek Study includes some discussion, but more can be done in this area. • How do we make sure we stay updated to comply with the latest regulations with our new policy? Ms. McClish: Best Management Practices will provide an opportunity for incentives and for more regulations; the City's Storm Water Management Plan is going forward to the Water Quality Control Board and will come to fruition very soon. • There are inconsistencies in the grading for setbacks so will this be addressed? Ms. McClish: Grading and clearing requirements have been outlined in the study — it is within the definition of development. • He likes the setback measurement "edge of riparian or whichever is greater ", but the lack of clarity might complicate things for the public. Ms. McClish: The report will use "riparian habitat" (a professional biologist would identify this). • What techniques will be used to incorporate low impact development (LID) into the plan? Ms. McClish: Those types of design standards are recommendations in the Creek Study with examples in the appendices of the plan — Vegetation Guidelines, being put together by our Intern, Megan Meier, working with Cal Poly in developing these guidelines; these include some LID techniques as well. • He liked the recommendation used by the Berkley Creek Task Force to use an holistic definition of a creek, and that "policies and ordinances need to acknowledge the interconnectiveness of creeks and watersheds if they are truly to be effective ", he hoped this would be part of the plan. Keen: • What about the existing buildings that are inside the setbacks, will they be non- conforming and what if they want to remodel or expand? Ms. McClish: Essentially we will defer to our Development Code section on Non - conforming structures, (allows rebuilding in the very same place if they are damaged by fire, etc. The two alternatives for our code address these differently — and may require a minor use permit for new structures and would be stricter. Mr. Strong: In the interim the proposed ordinance being recommended in the non - conforming provisions preclude expansion, except with a variance that findings for which can be made. Keen: • What will happen, if due to City policies, properties will not be able to build because most of their land is in the creek with just a little bit on the top? Mr. Strong: The City will identify the properties that will be most affected and these properties can apply for a variance. • Agricultural land is being worked quite close up to the creek south of Arroyo Grande — it will be difficult to stop farming within 50 feet of the bank. Mr. Strong: The City's General Plan attempts to not impose any regulations that would constrain agriculture; the Regional Water Quality Control Board may impose standards of BMP that cause agricultural properties to be managed differently. 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15, 2007 PAGE 7 Kristen: • During staff research what did other jurisdictions allow in the setbacks? Ms. McClish: It varied, some ordinances did not specify, some allowed exceptions for fences and porches - each with specifications, some allowed driveways. • Regarding averaging provisions for the Village Core and the Village Mixed Use area to maintain economic development, how will this be calculated? Ms. McClish: It has been specified in both the ordinance being reviewed tonight and also in the alternative. Ray: • What does the issue of "overlooked areas of cultural resources" refer to? Ms. McClish: It refers to the fact that the City may have more cultural artifacts or evidence from an earlier time in history near our creeks; it provides a process whereby a Phase 1, Cultural Resource Study condition can be acquired depending on the development. • Regarding averaging, why 20 feet and not 25 feet? Ms. McClish: 20 feet gives enough space for a trail and it allows for flexibility of design in the Village area. • Is there some underlying creek protection in the Flood Plain Management District? Ms. McClish: It is an unmapped overlay district. Some creek protection is included only for the purpose of flooding. The recommended ordinance will integrate setbacks for other reasons for creek protections. • In this preliminary proposal are the requirements for steep slope areas already included? Ms. McClish: They are included in the Study and used as a basis for setbacks. In summary, Chair Ray, stated that at their June 5 meeting the Commission should first endeavor to get the preliminary proposal (received this evening) passed, and second review the Creek Study (to be delivered next week). Mr. Strong agreed that this should be their focus. Commissioner Keen asked if the charts from the presentation would be included in their packets for the next meeting? Ms. McClish: They would be included. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Barneich stated she would be absent the second meeting in August due to a vacation. VIII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Mr. Strong informed the Commission that Applebee's restaurant and the Hampton Inn projects are progressing well. Mr. Strong reminded the Commission that the HRC was having a special meeting Wednesday, May 16, and there was to be bus tour of the D -2.4 Historic Character overlay District. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15, 2007 In reply to a question from Commission Barneich, Mr. Strong explained that Chili's restaurant is now in construction drawings and it will probably be next spring before the restaurant can open. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. on a motion by Chair Ray, seconded by Commissioner Keen. ATTEST: LY REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO C TENT: R RONG COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of June 15, 2007) )/.\ CAREN RAY, CtIAIR) PAGE 8