Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-05-02MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2006 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Fellows presiding; also present were Commissioners Brown, Ray and Tait; Commissioner Parker was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planner Ryan Foster, Planning Intern, Brian Soland and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Request for the public to turn off their cell phones during the meeting. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes to the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of April 18, 2006 were not approved due to lack of a quorum. Commissioner Tait asked for a correction to Page 9: change name from Steve Pulp to Dr. Paulick. Chair Fellows, Page 12, under "Planning Commission Comments", second paragraph, first sentence, change "all along the freeway' to "throughout the City'. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter received May 1, 2006 from Gene & Peggy Hershberger, stating concerns with Agenda Item 11.13, TTM 06-001 & PUD 05-010, located at 1136 East Grand Avenue; petition signed by neighbors included. 2. Letter received May 1, 2006 from David Knokey, stating his support of Agenda Item 11.13, TTM 06-001 & PUD 05-010, located at 1136 East Grand Avenue. 3. Article of interest regarding "living streets" requested to be distributed to the Commission. 4. Memo from Associate Planner, Teresa McClish regarding Commission request at the last meeting for review of the sign ordinance in respect to flashing signs. 5. Distribution of the Planning Commission Journal. C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05-016; APPLICANT — CINGULAR WIRELESS; LOCATION — 1275 ASH STREET Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report for consideration of the replacement of an existing light standard within the Soto Sports Complex to act as a support structure for panel telecommunication antennas and installation of outdoor equipment cabinets. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution approving the conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions of approval. Staff answered minor technical questions from the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 MINUTES MAY 2, 2006 Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. He reminded everyone of his previous request to the Commission, staff, applicants and members of the public that they make their presentations in a concise a manner as possible to help move the Agenda along. Gordon Bell, agent for Cingular Wireless asked for Commission questions. The Commissioners main concerns were: • If the height of the new light standard would be higher than the existing one and if the lighting of the field would be affected? Mr. Bell: the lights will be the same height and we will work with the Parks and Recreation Department on adjusting the lights to ensure they are not over lighting. • The danger of radio frequency exposure near the antennas. Mr. Bell: warning signs are placed right below the antennas for repairman requiring Cinglular Wireless to be notified before working on them; the power is then turned down. The Commissioners had no further concerns and stated they were glad to see that this looks like a light standard, is in fact a light standard and not a fake tree. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve Conditional Use Permit 05-016, and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06-1998 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05-016, APPLIED FOR BY CINGULAR WIRELESS, LOCATED AT 1275 ASH STREET The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, Ray and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Parker the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of May 2006. B. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 06-001 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 05-010; APPLICANT — BILL SADEK; LOCATION — 1136 EAST GRAND AVENUE Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report for review of plans to subdivide 0.9 acres, construct eight (8) townhouses and convert the existing single- family residence to office use. The ARC recommended approval of the project with some additional conditions requested that have since been incorporated. In conclusion, Mr. Foster stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution with included findings for approval of the proposed project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 2, 2006 PAGE 3 The Commission asked some technical questions for clarification of statements contained in the staff report and conditions of approval. Mr. Foster corrected his earlier answer to Commissioner Brown's question regarding affordable housing and explained that the way it was calculated in the staff report was erroneous; there was no density bonus for this project so the requirement would be one affordable unit plus an in -lieu fee. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing. Bill Sadek, applicant, stated that after listening to Commission, staff, and City Departments, they had made many modifications to their proposal; they also had two meetings with the neighbors and one of their concerns was that they were not happy with the pedestrian walkway or the Linda Drive egress — both ideas suggested by the Planning Commission at previous meetings. Mr. Sadek further stated that they had come up with the idea to make egress exclusive to the residents with a gate and clicker for access. The neighbors also had great concern with cars going the wrong way on Linda Drive and to mitigate they could put up more signs; in addition, they are working with the neighbor at 1155 Linda Drive (who lives right behind the project) to help with buffering from the project. He then distributed color renditions of the proposed project for Commission review. Mark Burns, 791 Price Street, co -applicant, stated he shared the concerns of the neighbors with regard to the safety issue of the one-way on Linda Drive; they had discussed creating a curve to block right turns (as mitigation) and suggested that a device be installed on the right turn to deter people from driving the wrong way. In reply to questions from Commissioner Tait, Mr. Burns stated the 4,380 sq ft of fescue grass would be irrigated and probably included in the CC&R's; the figures in the traffic report were included for both right and left turns onto Grand prior to knowing which turns would be required; the pedestrian pathway would not be used by any vehicles. Scott Shawl, Associated Transportation Engineers, explained to Commissioner Tait that a section of the walkway would be designed so as to allow a trash truck to drive over it. In reply to Commissioner Tait's further questions, Mr. Burns stated rain gutters would be installed for collection of surface water run off (MM 4.11); green building materials will be considered when they begin construction; the parking spots on Parcel B, fronting Grand Avenue would probably not be available for parking after hours as this area is under separate ownership; EDA engineering will design the drainage system and Public Works will review and approve it. Mr. Devens explained that once the water reaches the retention wall it just percolates into the ground. Commissioner Brown asked who would own the parcel that provides ingress and egress to the residential portion in the back? Mr. Burns stated it was under separate ownership, but that they would own an easement (in perpetuity of the life of the homes). Mr. Foster clarified that the City Attorney had advised that an agreement could be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 2, 2006 PAGE 4 crafted to allow the access to be moved over to one side of the parcel to address the concern of future development. Gene Hershberger, 1198 Linda Drive, stated his opposition to the project; he had presented a petition signed by many of his neighbors who oppose egress to Linda Drive and he believes people will use Linda Drive as a cut through; he has concerns for the safety of children and speeding cars not stopping at the stop sign; there is too much traffic already. Laura Krulewecki, 1110 Linda Drive & also speaking for Diana Bryant, 1112 Linda Drive, stated they are opposed to the development; she moved from LA four years ago to raise her family; her son walks to Ocean View School; children can play in their street now, except for after 4:30 p.m. when the traffic uses their street for a cut through and quite frequently drive the wrong way; anything that jeopardizes their quaint, safe quality of life is unacceptable so she is adamantly opposed to this development; people will use Linda Drive as a cut through just a she uses the 'Wet Pets" driveway every day as a cut through because of long waits on Brisco Road and Grand Avenue. John Bryant, 1120 Linda Drive, has lived at this address for 44 years, stated concern with high speed of traffic on Linda Drive; the sign for "Do Not Enter" is at the wrong end of the street"; there are too many new projects coming into this area that will increase traffic; Brisco Road is a mess; he had gathered all the signatures on the petition against this proposed project. Thomas Richiatti, 1150 Linda Drive, lived at this address 38 years, stated he realizes there is a real need for affordable housing and the mixed-use is a good idea, but it's not a good idea to combine mixed-use with private residential in the back; the trash truck should not be allowed to drive through; traffic from this proposed project should have to go out to Grand Avenue and he does not want Linda Drive to become a two-way street either. Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, reminded the Planning Commission that many projects throughout the City have been conditioned on the availability of water, especially residential projects, but he has not heard any discussion of the effects of the available water; he has also previously commented regarding using pervious paving for parking and his concern of the potential for leakage of pollution causing chemicals from the vehicles into the ground. Janice Moore 1155 Linda Drive, stated her property is right behind the proposed project; wanted to correct a statement that there is only 16 feet in the pathway not 19 feet as quoted earlier (originally came off her property); Linda Drive should not be used for people coming out of the proposed project; the driveway is small and is considered single-family property and would cause too much traffic and unsafe conditions for children; the driveway could be used for emergency purposes only (not trash trucks); if there is a gate it should only be accessible by key pad and possible installation of tire strips to stop cars going the wrong way; the walkway through to Grand Avenue is a concern as Grand Avenue has a lot of unsavory foot traffic that we don't need on Linda Drive. Laura Krulewecki spoke again stating that she did not understand how eight residential units could be fit into a single-family size lot and why the fire department would approve of this. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 2, 2006 PAGE 5 Mr. Burns stated that it was unfair of Ms. Krulewecki to deny eight other families the chance to come here to live and raise their children as she did four years ago. Commissioner Tait stated that there seemed to be conflict between the traffic report and public comment and asked the traffic engineer to comment. Mr. Shawl stated their data was received from the City and from traffic counts; they had not witnessed any cars going the wrong way; pedestrians were also counted going from Linda Drive to the crossing guards at Brisco Road and there were only two or three that were observed - school was open, and the crossing guard confirmed that this was a normal day (there was approximately a total of 16 children crossing on all four legs of the intersection during the hour). Chair Fellows closed the hearing to public comment. In reply to questions from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Foster clarified that the General Plan (updated in 2001) and the Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed -Use Districts contain policies that discuss pedestrian connections between neighborhoods for the new mixed-use land use and subsequent mixed-use zoning districts and this specific property was one identified as having potential for both infill housing and a pedestrian path in the "concept enhancement plan". In respect to the zoning, part of the pathway is single-family the remaining area is Fair Oaks Mixed -Use allowing up to 25 units per acre; the Fire Chief was adamant that the Cypress trees at the bottleneck be removed in order to allow a fire truck access; if a gate or bollards are installed this would be acceptable as long as it can be used in an emergency. Commission Comments: Ray: • She likes the changes to the common area. • Approves of the reduction in the building footprints and the reduction of the size of houses is really appropriate for an infill project. • She is satisfied with the 30% private open space. • Does not agree with egress out onto Linda Drive as there would be no real advantage to the residents of this project; would like to see it as emergency access only with whatever bollard or gate is appropriate. • She disagrees with ARC on their idea to lose the parking space and replace with landscaping; their idea was a good one, but as she does not want to allow egress on Linda and she does not want parking to become a big issue. • There seems to be both pro and con ideas on the use of permeable concrete and after listening to a discussion by the County Board of Supervisors and how the flood flow of the Arroyo Grande Creek has been affected by its use during the last 20 years, this does need to be studied. 8:00 pm The Commission took a 10 -minute break. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6 MINUTES MAY 2, 2006 Brown: • This project is very reasonable in terms of density; the alternative could be a commercial project and could create a lot more traffic. • He could not support a project without a pedestrian walkway; he does not buy the argument that unsavory characters would use it. • Re the access to Linda Drive, all of the public comment heard tonight included concern with bad conditions with traffic that are already existing, therefore, this project will not substantially add to this; he has no problem with the road for fire access; however, there is no guarantee that this road will not go through in the future; he can agree with whatever decision the Commission makes on access to Linda Drive. Tait: • Public comment tonight is saying they do not want egress onto Linda Drive, but not that they do not want the project. • It is nice to see an infill project with smaller square footage. • He is in agreement with the open space as it meets the mixed-use requirement. • He agrees with the ARC and believes the parking space should go to green space, as a parking space should not dictate how much open space there is. • He appreciates the design changes the applicant has made and their meetings with the neighbors. • He would like the tree replacement ratio to be higher than those stated in the mitigations. • MM 3.2: the last sentence should read, "reclaimed non -potable water shall be used", deleting "whenever possible". • He hopes the applicant will follow 14.11 re installing methods to control surface water runoff. Fellows: • He agrees with the other Commissioners not to allow traffic to go through to Linda Drive. • Public Works need to install a properly marked "One Way" street sign. • Agrees with Mr. Grant's comment that there are too many people in the world, but people have a right to buy a home and it is better to do infill than place people in residences outside of the town; this a wonderful example of an infill project and he agrees with Commissioner Brown that there could have been a lot more units on this site. • This project has a huge onsite storm water retention basin. • He understands that some of the Cypress trees are a problem, but he believes that some of the Mock Orange trees are marked to be removed and would like the ARC to review the trees so that as few as possible be removed. • The pedestrian pathway is a good idea and he does not see this as being a problem. • The architecture is good. • Smaller units will make it more affordable. • He can support project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 2, 2006 PAGE 7 In reply to a question from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Foster stated that regarding incentives being given for doing green building, the City is working with SLO Greenbuild and in the near future they intend to come up with ideas for incentives that the City can adopt; any reduction in fees would have to be approved by the City Council. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to approve Tentative Tract Map 06-010 and Planned Unit Development 05-010 with the following changes: 1. Fire Department access only onto Linda Drive for emergency only with a method to stop vehicular traffic from accessing this. 2. MM. 1.1: increase the replacement ratio of the trees from 1:1 to 2:1. 3. MM 3.2, water supply: last sentence to read, "reclaimed non -potable water shall be used", deleting "whenever possible". 4. The front portion of the property, in case of future redevelopment, to have a flexible easement (to be worked out with the City Attorney). After Commission and staff discussion the following conditions were added to the motion: 5. The type of construction to restrict vehicles on the pathway should be pedestrian friendly. 6. The ARC recommendation to replace parking space for green space should stay. 7. Condition No. 97: Public Works to agree to the in -lieu fee in place of the undergrounding. 8. Condition No. 9 should state that "The ARC are to review final landscape and site plans. and adopt: RESOLUTION N0. 06-1999 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 06-001 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 05-010; LOCATED AT 1136 EAST GRAND AVENUE; APPLIED FOR BY BILL SADEK The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, Ray and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Parker the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of May 2006. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 02-003 & LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 02-001; APPLICANT — RICHARD BLANKENBERG/FIVE CITIES VINEYARD CHURCH; LOCATION —1052 E. GRAND AVENUE Mr. Strong presented the staff report for reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit 02-003 and Lot Line Adjustment 02-001. He then gave the history of the project PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 2, 2006 PAGE 8 application and explained that both the applicant, Richard Blankenburg and the City failed to complete a required "new joint parking agreement" as specified in Condition No. 8 of Case No. CUP 02-003 and as a result, both the CUP and the LLA expired last year; however, the applicant was eligible for two more years of annual time extensions if requested prior to expiration. Action was taken to delete Conditions of Approval Nos. 15, 18, 19, 20, 22 & 23 from the Conditional Use Permit at the Planning Commission meeting of April 16, 2002, but were inadvertently not deleted from the Resolution. Additional provisions will be included as determined by the City Attorney. In addition, the public hearing notice stated there are two lots on the site when in fact there are five lots. Commissioner Brown asked if the Public Hearing notice contained errors could the Commission still take action on this tonight? Director Strong stated that the error was on the side of overkill and the notice was adequate. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Richard Blankenburg, 997 Magnolia, applicant, stated this is a simple lot line adjustment; the shared parking is working excellently; the new lot line will be at the center of the parking lot. He then described the parcel and gave some history regarding his application. Chair Fellows closed the hearing to public comment. Commissioner Fellows asked Mr. Blankenburg if they would plant a new tree to replace the one cut down? Director Strong stated that with the new executed parking agreement Mr. Blankenburg would be responsible for maintaining the parking lot and the landscaping as included in the original conditional use permit. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to amend Conditional Use Permit Case No. 02-003 and revise Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 02- 001, with the following conditions: 1. Delete Conditions 15, 18, 19, 22, & 23 from the Conditional Use Permit Resolution. 2. The parking agreement to be honored and the landscaping to be maintained. and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06-2000 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 02-003 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 02-001; LOCATED AT 1052 EAST GRAND AVENUE; APPLIED FOR BY THE FIVE CITIES VINEYARD CHURCH PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 MINUTES MAY 2, 2006 and RESOLUTION NO. 06-2001 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE TO APPROVE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 02-001; LOCATED AT 1052 EAST GRAND AVENUE; APPLIED FOR BY RICHARD AND KENT BLANKENBURG The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Ray, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Parker the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of May 2006. III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06-002; APPLICANT — SOUTH COUNTY VET CLINIC; LOCATION — 270 N. HALCYON The Planning Commission considered adoption of a Resolution of denial of Conditional Use Permit 06-002. The conditional use permit was considered and denied by the Planning Commission at their April 18, 2006 meeting. The Commission was unable to adopt the Resolution due to the absence of Commissioner Parker; there were not sufficient Commissioners present who had voted at the April 18, 2006 meeting to form a quorum. B. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 05-027 & VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 05-020; APPLICANT - PACE BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION; LOCATION - 123 WHITELY STREET The Planning Commission considered adoption of a Resolution of denial of Plot Plan Review 05-027 and Viewshed Review 05-020. The plot plan review and viewshed review were considered and denied by the Planning Commission at their April 4, 2006 meeting. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to adopt a Resolution to deny without prejudice Plot Plan Review Case No. 05-027 & Viewshed Review Case No. 05-020, and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06-1997 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 05-027 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 05-020; APPLIED FOR BY PACE BROTHER'S CONSTRUCTION; LOCATED AT 123 WHITELY STREET PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 2, 2006 AYES: Commissioners Ray, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Parker ABSTAIN: Commissioner Brown the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of May 2006. IV. A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE APRIL 18,2006: PAGE 10 1 Case 1. TUP 06-008 AGVIA 'Ad -dress; i*o, Village ro _ � Descri tion Christmas Concert and Parade x=, �4ction ,; A " Planner���„ , T. Ricard 2. PPR 06-007 Davinder Chhina 1540 E. Grand Restaurant use in new building A R. Foster After a short discussion the Commission stated they had no concerns with the administrative items approved. Final approval of these items will be in 10 working days. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Director Strong introduced Brian Soland, Planning Intern, who was responsible together with some help from staff for the preparation of the Bike/Pedestrian Plan that would eventually be included in the Circulation/Transportation Element General Plan Amendment in the future. Mr. Soland then gave a presentation of the proposed Bike Plan. He recommended more bike lanes throughout the City and pointed out the suggested additional bike paths; discussed the prioritization of projects for funding and how the bike plan would help the City gain eligibility for certain funding sources; showed how striping could be implemented to help accommodate bike lanes on City streets. Director Strong spoke regarding the Pedestrian Enhancement Plan discussed the 20 priority areas identified in the plan. He asked the Commission to review the plans before them and if possible go out and look at the proposals; he would welcome any ideas or suggestions regarding these proposals and after receiving recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Commission and Traffic Commission the Commission will be making a specific recommendation to the City Council as a part of the Circulation General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Tait asked Mr. Soland if he had been in contact with the bike community to get their input on this plan. Mr. Soland said he had been in contact with the head of the Bicycle Coalition of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo County Rideshare and they will have representatives at the next meeting to discuss this. Commission Tait then asked if we would have any trails in Arroyo Grande like the Bob Jones Trail. Mr. Soland said there are some areas such as Lopez (Hwy 227) that would be desirable for a trail system. Director Strong agreed, but stated that he would first like to see some focus more on the practical aspects such as widening road shoulders so people can move safely without sharing the roads with vehicles before attempting more ambitious projects. Chair Fellows thanked Mr. Soland for his good work stating that it was a great start. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 2, 2006 PAGE 11 Commissioner Brown stated there are two sections on Allen Street that are in need of repair, one is a 30 -foot section in front of the motel that remains unpaved, the other is located on the same side but at approximately 133 Allen where he had seen someone get hurt while walking to their car during the Strawberry Festival last year. This area is used as a bicycle route that children take to get to high school (he had previously informed Public Works about this). Director Strong presented a sign ordinance clarification memo prepared by Ms. McClish which addressed the Commission's inquiry at the April, 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting regarding the City's sign ordinance and the adequacy of provisions relating to moving or flashing signs in particular. Ms. McClish had recommended that since the current sign ordinance specifically prohibits signs that characterize motion, animation or brightness contrary to the intent of Chapter 16.60, staff does not recommend that an amendment to the sign ordinance is needed at this time. In addition, a comprehensive update of the sign code is planned in the future to simplify and clarify the sign ordinance. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: After discussion the Commission agreed to join Director Strong and Chair Fellows in rotation for lunch on the day of the Planning Commission to discuss the Agenda. Commissioner Ray volunteered to attend the first lunch meeting in June. VII. 'COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: Director Strong stated that there is a Creek Workshop scheduled for Wednesday, May 24, 2006 (since rescheduled to May 31, 2006) at 6:00 p.m. to be held in the City Council chambers. V.III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ATTEST: 44, " L14�5- LY REARDON-SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CO COMMUNITY DEVEL (Minutes approved at the PC MENT DIRECTOR of May 16, 2006) C 4;�_ CHUCK FELLOWS, CHAIR 1 1 1