Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-08-151 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2006 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Brown stated that he had received ten additional correspondence items regarding the agenda from the Community Development Department today and he would like to delay the start of the meeting in order to give time for review. Chair Fellows agreed to adjourn the meeting for 10 minutes. 6:10 p.m. The meeting resumed. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Fellows presiding; also present were Commissioners Brown, Parker, Ray and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, City Manager, Steve Adams, City Attorney, Tim Carmel, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Request for the public to turn off their cell phones during the meeting. AGENDA REVIEW: The Commission agreed to hear Non - Public Hearing Item III.A. after Item I.C, and before Public Hearing Items. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Chair Fellows, to approve the minutes of July 18, 2006, with the following requested changes: • Page 5, spell out USDA once (United Stated Department of Agriculture). • Page 6, under Drainage, change name of easement from Myrtle to Branch Mill. • Page 6, under Prime soils, insert name of scientist and change some language to be more specific. • Page 7, under Drainage, include the names of experts who gave public testimony. • Page 10, first bullet, change word experts to volunteers. The motion passed on a 5/0 voice vote: Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Chair Fellows, to approve the minutes of August 1, 2006, with the following requested changes: • Page 1, Item I.B., No. 6, replace the word dated with from (in the first part of the sentence). • Page 5, under Fellow's comments, 2nd bullet, change language to state: "...suggest moving the four rooms at southwest corner upstairs, back over the single story, to the rear part of the building, in order to reduce the mass." • Page 5, 3rd bullet, change words parking problems to traffic problems. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2006 PAGE 2 • Page 5, 4th bullet, for clarification change language to state: "...one or two parking spaces could be removed as a test to see if the parking proved to be adequate; if after a year or so this works then landscaping can be added. The motion passed on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Ray being absent. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Otis Page, 606 Myrtle Street, commenting on agenda Item I.C. stated that this item should have been scheduled as a public hearing and duly noticed as such to allow public comment; not to do this may constitute a violation of the Brown Act. His remaining comments pertained to the history of the Cherry Creek project, specifically the fact that the Planning Commission had requested an EIR at their meeting of March 15, 2005, with no request to deal with any environmental issues, but the staff and applicants went forward and modified the project, prepared additional environmental studies, and this delayed the hearings until May 16 & July 18, 2006. Mr. Page handed staff a copy of his comments for the record. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Memo from Ryan Foster, dated August 15, 2006, officially withdrawing Public Hearing Item II.B. 2. Memo from Megan Meier, Planning Intern, requesting consideration of an additional Administrative Item: Temporary Use Permit Case No. 06 -016, S & S Homes request for a temporary Sales Office. 3. Colleen Martin, Arroyo Grande, her oral comments made at the July 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting re the Cherry Creek project. 4. Planning Commission minutes from March 15, 2006, requested by Colleen Martin to be distributed to the Commission re the Cherry Creek project. 5. Email from Colleen Martin, dated August 8, 2006, regarding her comments made at the City Council meeting of August 8, 2006, re the Cherry Creek project. 6. Email from Otis Page, dated August 8, 2006, re the Cherry Creek project. 7. Letter, dated August 11, 2006, from the Workforce Housing Coalition, San Luis Obispo County, in support of Public Hearing Item II.C., for a Planned Unit Development on Barnett Street. 8. Memo dated August 15, 2006 from Rob Strong regarding Administrative Item No. 3, Case No. ARCH 06 -002, Branch Street Deli, including a letter and tape from Twila Martin, 226 Miller Circle. 9. Letter dated August 15, 2006, regarding Administrative Item No. 3, Case No. ARCH 06 -002, Branch Street Deli, stating concerns with noise. 10. Memo from Rob Strong, dated August 15, 2006, regarding Hampton Inn & Suites grading and landscaping plans and permits for site preparation at Camino Mercado and West Branch Street. 11. Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Atkisson, re viewshed review for 190 Fairview Ave. 12. An amended Resolution of denial for Referral Item I.C. for Cherry Creek. 13. Copy of letter of Approval of Administration Item No. 2. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2006 PAGE 3 III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 06 -003; APPLICANT — COASTAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL; LOCATION —1220 FARROLL AVENUE Community Development Director, Rob Strong presented the staff report written by Planning Intern, Megan Meier, for a one -year Time Extension for Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 03 -004, for the operation of temporary classrooms. Mr. Strong answered Commission questions and after a short discussion stated they had no problem with this request. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to approve a one -year Time Extension for Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 03 -004, located at 1220 Farroll Avenue, applied for Coastal Christian School and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06 -2008 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 06 -003 FOR AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 03 -004, LOCATED AT 1220 FARROLL AVENUE; APPLIED FOR BY COASTAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Brown, Ray, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: None Community Development Director, Rob Strong, excused himself from the meeting due to conflict of interest on the following item. I.C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: RESOLUTION OF DENIAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04 -007; NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CASE NO. 04 -001; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04 -002; AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04 -002, LOCATED EAST OF NOGUERA COURT AND NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE (CHERRY CREEK); APPLIED FOR BY CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE Associate Planner, Ms. Heffernon, presented the staff report. Ms. Heffernon explained that Council members had stated that they wished to have the flexibility to act on the project as a whole and unanimously supported a request to place the project on a future Council agenda, along with consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation on the environmental determination. In order to implement Council's direction, staff had prepared a resolution of denial of the project, consistent with the Commission's recommendation on the environmental determination. She informed the Commission that the resolution had been modified to include a statement about the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2006 PAGE 4 Commission's environmental determination and to add a request that the project be returned to the Commission if the Council finds that the mitigated negative declaration is adequate. In reply to technical questions from the Commission Mr. Carmel explained: • The resolution does not take the place of the Planning Commission's recommendation to City Council on July 18, 2006; it is a matter of clarification and reflects verbatim what the recommendation was. • State law requires that the Planning Commission make a recommendation on Zoning Code changes with respect to the project; the City's Development Code asks for a recommendation from the Planning Commission on some of the other entitlements that are part of the proposed project. • The City Council has the ability to hear and act on the project, even absent a formal complete recommendation on the project from the Planning Commission; although the recommendation does complete the record, the Commission's role is purely advisory. • Regarding the proposed project there has been at least four public hearings where public testimony regarding the project was not limited to any specific project component; in Tight of this record the Planning Commission can make a recommendation; however if the Commission chooses to have more public input they can request to do so. • The Commission can request input from the Council on critical policy issues without actual denial or approval of a project; it is perfectly within the purview of the Council to decide to deal with these complex policy issues, streamline the project, and move it forward. Commission comments: Ray: • She prefers the first resolution rather than the modified resolution. • It is within the rights of the Council to decide to hear the project; there is enough interpretation and controversy with this project to send it to Council. Brown: • Agreed with Commissioners' Ray and Parker that it is within the rights of the Council to hear the project. • At least two of the Commissioners voted against the previous recommendation (July 18, 2006) and it would be consistent for them to continue to vote against either one of the recommendations that is put before them tonight. • Regarding Mr. Carmel's statement that public testimony was not limited during the Planning Commission hearings, there were a couple of issues that were never dealt with in public comment: 1) Drainage and how it ties into Newsome Springs; 2) CEQA requires an EIR when you have streambed alteration (the current drainage plan clearly indicates that would be the case for the seasonal creek that comes from Newsome Springs) and this has not been addressed by the Commission or Council. 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2006 Chair Fellows opened the hearing for public comment. Chair Fellows closed the public hearing. PAGE 5 • He does not believe that the resolution is helpful in any way; therefore he would like the resolution to be tabled and the original motion that was made (July 18, 2005) and approved, be sent to Council as is. Tait: • There is a need to address critical land use policies (Ag Element); the timing related issues should not be a concern of the Commission (it is not incumbent on the Commission to ensure that real estate developers make a profit on their investment). • His intention was not to deny the project, but the environmental effects are a concern and the negative declaration does not resolve these; a well thought out, planned project, does not die it gets better because of an EIR. • He prefers the amended resolution. Parker: • She understands that the City Council has the legal right to hear the project, but does not believe it is due to the controversy over the project. • The majority of the Commission denied the mitigated negative declaration so they would also have to deny approval of the project because the project would not meet the conditions of approval; she believes this is the reason the Council should take over the project. • She cannot vote to deny the project, which is what the resolution states; it needs to go through the Planning Commission process. • At the meeting of July 18, 2006, public testimony was closed, but the Planning Commission did not make their comments; the Commission has valuable information and an opportunity to pass this forward to the Council and she would not like the opportunity to be lost. • She cannot support the resolution to deny. Fellows: • Over a year ago the Commission sought the Council's clarification on whether the project would take prime soil out of production; that is why he voted for an EIR. • He believes it is time for the City Council to delve into the project and he is ready to move it on to the Council. Damien Mavis, applicant, stated he would like the City Council to have the opportunity to consider the project; he is available at any time for the Commission if they wish to discuss the project; he hopes they are aware that their concerns and comments have had an effect on the modifications made to the project to date. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle Street, stated he was under the impression that this item would not be opened for public comment tonight; since Council has decided that it is open to public comment it should be continued and noticed to all citizens within 500 feet of the project otherwise it will become a Brown Act appeal. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2006 Commissioner Ray asked Mr. Carmel for clarification on process. Mr. Carmel stated that Council had requested to look at the project as a whole, that they expressed the need to address critical policy issues; they requested staff to move the project forward; staff had requested the Commission first make a decision on the environmental determination; the Commission made a decision that they were not satisfied with the environmental review and requested an EIR for the project; once this finding was made the Commission could no longer make the findings necessary for approval of the project, as each action /entitlement requires a separate finding of no significant environmental impact. The recommendation by resolution is the normal process and is what State law and the City Development Code asks for. If the Commission cannot agree to adopt the resolution, staff will move the previous recommendation forward and this would in effect be a recommendation of denial. Commissioner Brown made a motion based on the previous 3/2 vote regarding the need for an EIR; stated the issue has already been put forward as a recommendation to City Council; the two resolutions presented do not reflect the motion that he made; he would like to table the previous motion and the following policy issues be addressed by City Council prior to any further discussion by the Planning Commission: • Regional drainage and how it ties into Cherry Creek. • Clarify what the threshold of a Neighborhood Plan should be. • Clarify the issue of prime soils. Further discussion ensued for clarification on the motion. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Ray made a motion to send the whole project forward to City Council. The motion failed for lack of a second. Discussion: Commissioner Parker stated that she could not deny the project and she could not recommend the City Council take the project because the Commission cannot make a decision on the project (the Commission has not yet discussed the project). Commissioner Brown made a motion to table the current motion and that the original recommendation made at the July 18, 2006 stand; Chair Fellows seconded the motion. Commissioner Parker stated that she did not understand what they were voting on. Commissioner Brown replied that there is no new motion to make and that the previous recommendation stands. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Chair Fellows and Commissioner Tait NOES: Commissioners Parker and Ray ABSENT: None PAGE 6 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2006 Mr. Strong returned to the meeting. PAGE 7 II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05 -013; APPLICANT — CINGULAR WIRELESS; LOCATION — 300 RESERVOIR ROAD (Continued from 06 -20 -06 meeting) Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for continued review of a wireless communications facility consisting of 12 -panel antennas mounted on a 35' tall monopine structure and installation of nine (9) equipment cabinets on a concrete slab along the water tank perimeter road, above Old Ranch Road adjoining the Methodist Camp. Ms. Heffernon explained that the applicant had been asked to submit a landscape plan showing fast growing plants and trees for screening the monopine (mitigation measure). The types of trees would have to be less than 35 feet tall so as not to interfere with transmission. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of the conditional use permit to City Council. Staff answered Commission questions. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comments. Gorden Bell, applicant, answered Commission questions, described the prior cell site locations previously considered, and stated reasons why Reservoir No. 1 was the best choice for location of their wireless communications facility. The Methodist Camp was looked at as a possible alternative site, but co- location would not be possible at this site. Chair Fellows closed the public hearing. Commission comments: Tait: • There should not be any visual problem, especially at the proposed height. • MM 13.2 should be revised to state "that the bark be extended the length of the monopine. • This facility is needed and it will be placed at an appropriate location. Parker: • She suggested language be added, under aesthetics, to clarify on the regular checklist that the screening can and will be mitigated by the planting of landscaping (to address neighborhood concerns). • This is the best site for the monopine structure as this is the least obtrusive of all the sites available. • MM 13.5: There should be fast growing trees around the monopine and the water tank to screen the impact to minimize the impact on the neighbors. Brown: • He understands the concerns of the neighbors in terms of the height. • The Economic Development Element of the General Plan requires the City to do what they can to encourage businesses in the community to become successful. The City is missing an opportunity to keep the Methodist Camp in the black and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2006 keep this beautiful site from turning into development. The information provided by the applicant on the alternative sites is old. Ray: • Her prior concerns have been addressed regarding whether the applicant has looked at enough sites. • Given the major differences in monopine height and the possibility of having co- location at this site, it is the best choice compared to the alternative site locations. Fellows: • The proposed site is the furthest away from any domicile, not near any school or church. • It will only be 35 feet tall. • He is okay with it. Commissioner Ray made a motion to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 05 -013. Commissioner Parker requested the following be included in the motion: 1. MM 13.5 - Fast growing trees around the monopine and the water tank to screen the impact. 2. Keep the height of the monopine at thirty -five feet to enable possible co- location in the future. 3. The changes on the Mitigation Negative Declaration should also be included under aesthetics, regarding possible incompatible use and change of visual character, that can and will be mitigated. 4. MM 13.2: Should to state: "the plans shall show simulated bark placed on the total length of the monopine". Commissioner Ray agreed to include the four items in the motion. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06 -2009 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05 -013, APPLIED FOR BY CINGULAR WIRELESS, LOCATED AT 300 RESERVOIR ROAD The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ray, Parker, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: Commissioner Brown ABSENT: None PAGE 8 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2006 the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of August 2006. 8:00 p.m. The Commission took a 10- minute break. PAGE 9 B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06 -004 & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 06 -003; APPLICANT — PARRAY McKENNA; LOCATION — FAEH STREET & EL CAMINO REAL (Continued from 07 -13 -06 meeting) Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, explained that escrow recently closed (since distribution of the Agenda) on this property, and the City now owns the above property. Therefore, TPM 06 -003 and CUP 06 -004 are officially withdrawn from Planning Commission consideration. C. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04 -005 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04 -004; APPLICANT — LENNY GRANT; LOCATION — BARNETT STREET Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report for consideration of the subdivision of 0.57 acres into twelve (12) lots and construction of ten (10) townhouses and two common Tots. Mr. Foster stated that the figures in the landscape plan did not include an open space area (a wedge- shaped piece) on the northern end of the site (along Barnett Street), but this area could go away if Barnett Street is realigned or widened; this is the first project in Arroyo Grande to complete the 'Green Building Checklist; due to the proposed project being in close proximity to Highway 101, there are noise impacts that need to be mitigated; there was an acoustical study prepared for the project with recommended mitigations to ensure the adequacy of long -term impacts to a less than significant level (to be added under the Conditions of Approval). In conclusion, Mr. Foster stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution with the included findings for approval of the proposed project. Mr. Foster stated that the City Manager /Redevelopment Agency Executive Director, had expressed concerns regarding the proposed projects lack of consistency with the City's Economic Development Program and Goals. Staff then answered some technical questions from the Commission to clarify information contained in the staff report. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Foster stated that the six changes requested by the ARC had been incorporated into the landscape plan. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Lenny Grant, LGA, described the history of their project and introduced persons involved with the proposed project who were present to answer commission questions: • Jennifer Martin, architect • David Foote, Firma • Margarite Bader, Workforce Housing Coalition PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2006 Chair Fellows closed the public hearing. Commission comments: PAGE 10 • Roxanne Carr, Workforce Housing Coalition Ms. Martin described the mixed -use project in some detail; gave live /work background information; gave highlights from their "green build" checklist; explained the support from the Workforce Housing Coalition; described the revisions made (ARC recommendations). Stating concern with noise from the freeway, Commissioner Brown asked Ms. Martin if they anticipated that there might be a need for some kind of a sound barrier in the future? Ms. Martin explained that the units had been designed and oriented to address these concerns; inside noise would be easily mitigated. In reply to a question from Commissioner Brown regarding whether they would do low or moderate income units, Mr. Grant stated that moderate price units would be preferable from a financial viewpoint, but this would be up to the Commission, but if they included low- income this could cause the other units to be higher priced. Commissioner Parker asked if foliage could be added to screen the vision from across the freeway. Mr. Foote explained there would be foliage to screen some of the units, but there is no place to put a tree where the gap is (near the corner of the last unit), due to the turn of the driveway, and to put foliage on the edge of the property line would involve Caltrans. In reply to questions from Commissioner Tait, applicant and staff answered: • To help mitigate noise there would be a mechanical ventilation system with a fan to circulate fresh air; no air conditioning is proposed. • No turf is proposed so drip irrigation would be appropriate. • The condition for collecting surface water runoff is standard and on a small project would probably not work. • Moving lot six forward will not impact the project. • The guest parking under the drip line of the oak tree, should not be life threatening to a healthy oak. To offset getting the pavement (cobblestones) in place, we will provide aeration tubes to allow air and moisture to enter; pollution should not be a problem either. Marqarite Bader, Workforce Housing Coalition, stated that they are unanimously in support of this project due to it being affordable by design and that it is a "green build" design; they would like to see more of these in the City. Roxanne Carr, Workforce Housing Coalition, stated her support of the project; this is the highest and best use of this site; it is a wonderful design; it is a small step to start to help provide low to moderate housing. 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2006 PAGE 11 Parker: • This is the last site for Highway Mixed Use (HMU), so this was a concern, but after seeing the site it is amazing that something has been found to fit this. • Agrees that this is the place for high- density and it is important to provide some smaller units for infill. • Noise mitigation can work and this project has a superior design team. • Live /work units are needed and these are a good design. • Glad to see the plans for a turnaround and support the option provided; would like to see a "no parking" sign posted. • Would like to see trees planted between the unit and the highway and would like the applicant to contact Caltrans regarding this. • Would rather go with moderate units in order to keep the other units down in price. • She supports the project. Tait: • Congratulated the applicant on having the first project in the City to complete the "New Home Green Points Checklist ". • After review of the site this is a good mixed -use project as it includes a live /work approach, green building technology, is infill, has access to public transportation, and The Workforce Housing Coalition supports this. Ray: • This is the place where high- density should be. • She likes the massing of it. • It's a really nice fit. • The proximity to the highway makes it more affordable. • Likes the design and how sound has been dealt with, the green building, and that this is a redevelopment project. Brown: • The project has turned out really well. • Concern that there may be visual impacts from the airflow system. • Has a concern that in the future residents may come back with complaints about the freeway noise. • He is very comfortable with the design. Fellows: • He loves the "green build ". • He would like the seven trees to be Liquid Amber, variety "Festival ", so they will not all be the same color. • The design has very much improved. • Units 1 thru 4 should have a disclosure that the green space may go away in the future. • The benefits of the project being infill: The owner may work from home so there will be Tess driving, the money will stay in the community, and it will save open space. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2006 Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to approve the Tentative Tract Map 04 -004 and Planned Unit Development 04 -004 with the following conditions: 1. An acoustical engineer shall verify existing on -site decibel levels to ensure the adequacy of long -term mitigation measures. 2. Disclosure shall be given to all future buyers regarding the potential for noise generated from US Highway 101. 3. Disclosure shall be given to all future buyers regarding the potential loss of open space located in the public right of way should Barnett Street be widened /re- aligned at a future date. 4. The project shall incorporate the 'alternative access' option as presented to the Planning Commission at its meeting of August 15, 2006. and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06 -2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04 -004 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04 -004, LOCATED ON BARNETT STREET, APPLIED FOR BY LENNY GRANT The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Tait, Ray, Brown, Parker and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of August 2006. IV. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE AUGUST 1, 2006: PAGE 12 The Commission stated they had no concerns with Administrative items Nos. 1. and 2. Administrative Item No. 3: ARCH 06 -002, Branch Street Deli Mr. Strong gave the Commission an update on the situation between the neighbors and C a a No. "" App Address . - ' Descr tion P � - , �- Action sue, Planner 1. PPR 06 -013 David Brannon 345 Sunset Terrace Drive (Sunset Terrace Mobile Home Park) Construction of a 1,675 sq. ft. multi- use room, 1,800 sq. ft. outdoor seating pavilion and a 1,860 square foot addition to the clubhouse. A R. Foster 2. VSR 06 -003 D. & S. Cozza 210 Tally Ho Demolition of an existing SF residence and construction of a new SF residence with RV storage, workshop & second unit. D M. Meier 3. ARCH 06- 002 J. Gutierrez 203 E. Branch Street Two (2) new trellis structures in outdoor seating area of deli. A R. Foster 4. VSR 06 -014 & ARCH 06 -006 F. Campbell 569 Crown Hill Construction of a new two -level single- family home in the D -2.4 Overlay. A R. Foster PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2006 Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to approve the Tentative Tract Map 04 -004 and Planned Unit Development 04 -004 with the following conditions: 1. An acoustical engineer shall verify existing on -site decibel levels to ensure the adequacy of long -term mitigation measures. 2. Disclosure shall be given to all future buyers regarding the potential for noise generated from US Highway 101. 3. Disclosure shall be given to all future buyers regarding the potential loss of open space located in the public right of way should Barnett Street be widened /re- aligned at a future date. 4. The project shall incorporate the 'alternative access' option as presented to the Planning Commission at its meeting of August 15, 2006. and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06 -2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04 -004 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04 -004, LOCATED ON BARNETT STREET, APPLIED FOR BY LENNY GRANT The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Tait, Ray, Brown, Parker and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of August 2006. IV. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE AUGUST 1, 2006: PAGE 12 The Commission stated they had no concerns with Administrative items Nos. 1. and 2. Administrative Item No. 3: ARCH 06 -002, Branch Street Deli Mr. Strong gave the Commission an update on the situation between the neighbors and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2006 PAGE 13 the owners of the Branch Street Deli. In conclusion, he stated that if the Commission feel they cannot approve this administrative item they can bring it to a public hearing; he suggested that they allow the Branch Street Deli to make the improvements, see how they work and if they are not working the Commission can decide whether to hold a public hearing on it. Commission and staff discussed this item at length. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment - members of the public had requested they be allowed to comment on this item. Twila Martin, 226 Miller Circle, stated concerns with the ongoing excessive noise from Branch Street Deli entertainment; gave the history of her complaints since 2000 and stated the Deli was not adhering to the times they had originally agreed to. John Gutierrez, owner of Branch Street Deli, stated he had never had a verbal agreement as to how many times they could have bands playing there; they were very aware of the concerns of the neighbors with noise and always advised the bands to keep the noise down; there are many other noises from events and businesses in the Village; they were proposing to install a sound wrap around the new trellis; the fire pit would be natural gas. 10:00 PM Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to continue discussion past 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Fellows said he would vote for this if the Commission would agree to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. The motion was restated to reflect this; the Commission approved the motion on a 5/0 voice vote. Commissioners Brown, Parker, Ray and Tait all agreed that the Branch Street Deli does a fantastic job, the music should be allowed to go on, but concessions should be made by the Deli in consideration of their neighbors, but the concessions should not be made formal. Commissioner Tait suggested: • The Deli try to keep the band noise down; • they choose appropriate bands and schedule them between 5:00 — 9:00 PM, May thru September, and • have consideration for their neighbors- keep them informed. Chair Fellows commented that the letter received by the City from Branch Street Deli, had contained some statements that were concerning and did not reflect that they had control over the bands that played there; he asked Mr. Strong if he had anything in mind for sound control. Mr. Strong stated that he believed it was possible to have sound material installed that would greatly help alleviate the noise and that the Deli was in process of looking at this; Branch Street Deli had been cooperative with the City and it would not be easy to issue PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2006 PAGE 14 a temporary use permit for these types of events; he was satisfied as long as they operate within the times they have stated; the Planning Commission can require a public hearing if they are not satisfied with requested improvements. The Commission had no further concerns and stated they would trust the decision of the Community Development Director. Administrative Item No. 4, VSR 06 -014 & ARCH 06 -006, 569 Crown Hill Commissioner Parker asked for an update and review on this item. Mr. Foster gave an update on the project and stated that item had been reviewed and approved by the ARC on August 14, 2006. The Commission had no further concerns on this item. Additional Administrative Item for the TUP Case No. 06 -016, 463 Bakeman Lane The Commission stated their unanimous approval of this additional item. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A request from Mr. Vasquez to revise a Condition of Approval regarding transplanting of existing fruit trees, for a proposed project at 125 Nelson Street. Mr. Strong explained that the City was not in favor of having fruit trees on their property due to the hazards of fruit being used as projectiles; therefore, they did not have a site to transplant the trees to. Mark Vasquez, representative, stated that due to the cost and logistics of transplanting the fruit trees he would like to request that this condition be removed (he had received an estimate of $50,000 to remove /transplant the trees). Chair Fellows expressed concern with the estimated cost and agreed that spending this much would be out of the question. However, he had been doing some research and may be able to get the trees relocated without boxing them and if the cost went from $50,000 to $4,000 how would his client feel about that? Mr. Vasquez stated that if the trees did not have to have boxed this could save a lot of money. Chair Fellows stated he would get some alternative ideas and estimates regarding the tree removal /transplanting. Mr. Strong stated that they would bring this item back to the September 5, 2006 Planning Commission meeting with some revised estimates and ideas. At that time the Commission could decide whether or not to remove the condition. Mr. Strong gave the Commission an update on the grading and landscape plans for Hampton Inn and Suites, considered by the ARC at their special meeting yesterday. He stated that it is the City's desire to see this project occur as soon as possible. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2006 VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Brown re- stated his concern with receiving so many additional items today (at such a late hour due to his working during the day). Mr. Strong apologized, but stated that many of the items were just communications from the public dealing with items that were already on the agenda. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. V.III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m., on a motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Chair Fellows. ATTEST: LYN REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CI NTENT:41 4w 41 • ROB ' TRO COMMUNITY DEVELOPM NT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of September 5, 2006 CHUCK FELLO' , CHAIR PAGE 15