Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-04-04MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 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 Parker, Ray and Tait; Commissioner Brown was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong and Assistant Planner Jim Bergman. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Request for the public to turn off their cell phones during the meeting. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes to the Agenda were requested. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of March 21, 2006 were unanimously approved with a requested change by Commissioner Parker: Page 9, under Parker comments: second bullet, end of sentence add, "...with the neighboring one-story homes" The minutes were approved by a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Brown being absent. Chair Fellows read a prepared memorandum, explaining that in future he would like to encourage the Commission, staff, applicants and the public to be as brief as possible when reporting and asking questions during Commission meetings; this would hopefully discourage long evening meetings, make more efficient use of the meetings thereby serving the community better. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 05-027 & VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 05- 020; APPLICANT — PACE BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION; REPRESENTATIVE — JOHN SHOALS; LOCATION —123 WHITELEY STREET Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report giving the background on the project and explaining that in April 2005 the Planning Commission was informed of the administrative approval of a Minor Use Permit to build a house on an existing lot within 5 -feet from top of the Arroyo Grande Creek. The Commission appealed this decision and a revised project featuring a 10 -foot creek setback was ultimately denied. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to City Council; after public hearing the appeal was rejected and the project denied without prejudice. The Planning Commission and City Council provided findings for denial and gave direction to the applicant related to design aspects consistent with adopted City policies. At the March PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAGE 2 21, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, the administrative approval of the Plot Plan Review and Viewshed Review was reported by staff; subsequently the Planning Commission voted unanimously to request that it be reviewed at public hearing as per the process stated in Municipal Code Section 16.12.155. The subject property is approximately a 14,804 square foot lot, which abuts and includes the Arroyo Grande Creek and was originally created in 1887. The proposed project for a single-family residence with a two -car garage is proposed to be two stories and 2,105 square feet of living area. The proposed house, at its closest point would be 15 feet from the top of the creek bank and a second floor of the building will be cantilevered over the first floor. Existing grading and a small foundation wall and fence will direct storm water runoff to the street, into a drop inlet upgraded by the applicant (with fossil filter insert). The most notable changes from the previous project is that the creek buffer has been increased to 15 -feet and the size of the house has been reduced by approximately 200 sq. ft. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission review the proposed project and adopt a Resolution approving the Plot Plan Review and Viewshed Review. Commission questions: Commissioner Ray asked for clarification on the Draft Mitigation Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration in regards to issues that related to the creek itself. Mr. Bergman: The issues related to the creek are addressed in numerous chapters, but there is nothing on the impact on the creek as a whole. Director Strong: This is a standard Initial Study checklist out of the CEQA Guidelines the creek is evaluated on the adjacent developments and what might impact the creek. In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait, staff replied: • Part of the second floor (cantilevered) would be 10 -feet from the creek. • The fossil filter will trap petroleum residue, but not pesticides. • The General Plan and Municipal Code does apply to this project, but this parcel was created before land use planning policies were formed. • MM 1.4 (for 15 -foot buffer) is for consistency's sake in case equipment is required in this area. • MM 1.5 grading within 15 ft top of bank —re inconsistency with MM's 1.2 & 1.3. appreciated this being pointing out. • No fueling or maintenance of equipment will take place on the entire site and water from concrete wash down will be collected with straw wattles and be taken away from the site. • MM 1.11: The applicant has to construct the landscape as it is shown on the plan in order to get the Certificate of Occupancy of the property and it would be included in a recorded document for future purposes. • MM 4.2: A document could be prepared if required to protect the creek from future lighting that would stay with the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAGE 3 John Shoals, applicant's representative, answered Commission questions: • He clarified that the second floor, cantilevered section, would be within 13 feet not 10 feet; if this is an issue the applicant has said that it could be eliminate. • Re the fencing: When we went out to the site it was a weekend in which there was projected rain, the biological study was underway and in order to make sure there was no erosion into the creek and no impact we directed the consultant to erect the fencing prior to the completion of it. • The 15 -foot setback: It is their intention to plant this with native plant species. • This project has a controversial history and he only came into the project recently. There has been some confusion on the applicant's behalf that may have contributed to the process being difficult, such as the lot being created (late 1800's) prior to the latest General Plan update. This was considered as an infill project and there was a misunderstanding that this would require a discretionary permit and be considered a new subdivision. • He agreed that the General Plan consistency does apply and they have tried to make a balance between protecting the creek and creating a home that is livable: The setback varies between 15-22 feet (averages about 18 feet) from top of creek bank. • Re public access: After review of the area they determined that existing homes are 10-15 feet from top of bank, so with the revisions that have made to the plan they believe it is now consistent with existing development plans in the neighborhood; there continues to be access from the end of Whitely Street to the creek. • Their survey revealed that there are 59% of homes in area are over 2,000 sq. ft. so this house is consistent with the neighborhood; floor/area ratios in this area average about 24% and this project is 14.2%. • Re viewshed. The design also respects the issue of viewshed from a public way. • Rincon consultants were hired at a great expense as the applicant wanted to get it right this time and is agreeable to the mitigation measures recommended by the Commission to minimize impacts to the creek. Further Commission questions to Mr. Shoals: Tait: • How will the wash -down water be prevented from going into the creek? Mr. Shoals: Straw wattles of plastic create a concrete wash to stop this running into the creek. Mr. Pace: Anderson Burton will build the concrete washout and there will be no oils or fuels on site - that will all happen off-site. • How can you have drought resistant and riparian plants on the same site? Mr. Shoals: Rincon has reviewed the landscape plan, but we can go back in and put in plants that have the same watering requirements. Tait: It is a good idea to have drought resistant plants, but the site calls for riparian and he is not sure how you can do both. Greg Soto, project architect: The plants are riparian that require very little water and there are some already at the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAGE 4 Parker: • Bank landscaping planting: It says native plants are to remain, does this mean that you intend to leave the invasive ivy? Mr. Shoals: It is their intention not to touch anything within the creek bank but to enhance the 15 -foot area from top of creek bank. • Why was the grading done after the Planning Commission requested that the grading be part of the mitigation plan and the applicant did said he was not going to be doing any grading? Mr. Pace: They did remove roots, the rest of the site had not been touched, grading is anything over 50 cubic yards; all they had heard was not to do anything to the creek, they put up the chain link fence and they have taken measures to effectively keep any water from running off the bank. Parker: Rincon's report, her view of the site and photographs of the site, show that six feet of earth has been removed and that the land was compacted and fill was brought in to build it up (six feet of earth) to the edge of the bank. Mr. Pace replied that he did not agree. • When the Commission approved the other two houses, one of the conditions of approval was that all the runoff from the house would go directly to Whiteley Street. She had a call from Fish & Game stating they were concerned and upset about the grading and that the houses were draining their runoff directly into the creek. Mr. Pace stated he completely disagreed with this statement — they drain into the street. Mr. Shoals: When he first saw the site he was also concerned and after questioning, Mr. Pace explained that the contractor had taken the soils from the other two sites and spread it over this site; they have discussed with staff how to identify what was the existing grade so that it could be turned back to existing grade and enhanced (a self-imposed mitigation); Rincon's determination was made without discussion with either Mr. Pace or himself, and they do not have this correct • Regarding the survey on the 17 homes the report does not indicate where these homes were? Mr. Shoals said they had gone a block or two in each direction from the assessor's map and they would be glad to provide their information to the Commission. Ray: • How far away from the chain link fence will the 18" fence be? Mr. Soto: The biologist has suggested that it be brought in two feet towards the proposed home. • Why was the lot line adjustment not done as suggested by City Council in the early stages of this project? Mr. Pace gave history, explaining that they had looked at doing the lot line adjustment, but this would have resulted in one good lot and two tough lots; what we now have is two good lots and one tough lot. • There are issues with the survey done by the applicant as after doing her own survey, within two blocks of the site, she found there are 39 properties that are not listed on their survey, including three houses that are directly across the street and are all less than 1,000 sq. ft. Why were the properties closest to this site not included? The information provided is incomplete and does not draw the conclusion that you are saying it is. Mr. Pace: When he did his survey it was a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAGE 5 difficult assignment as out of 70 addresses the Building Department could only find 3 or 4 houses with square footage numbers and even the assessors office did not have this information. Fellows: • There is a tree diagramed that he could not find on the key. Mr. Shoals: He would check this out. • What does the "very wet" comment in the borings indicate? Mr. Scott: At the time of the year this was taken the ground was wet, but the soils engineer explained that this would have no bearing on being able to provide a pad for the intended use of the homes. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing. Madeline Poulin, 139 Whiteley, stated she had no concerns with the proposed project, but would like a streetlight installed at the end of Whiteley Street for safety. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, stated a concern that if this project is approved it would set a precedent for size of building lots in the Village. She asked what the percentage of the structure was (versus the size of the lot) after the creek and creek setback area is deducted; stated that the cantilevered part of the structure should be considered as part of the footprint and included in the percentage. Mr. Bergman stated that in his experience he had never separated the calculations in this manner. Mr. Strong replied that if the setback were 25 feet the lot area would be 2,032 sq. ft. (including the front and side yard setback and for a 15 foot setback the net would be 1,1057 sq. ft. (inclusive of area for a garage); the standard is to consider the entire parcel Chair Fellows closed the hearing to public comment. Commission comments: Commissioner Tait stated that this project does not conform to the spirit or the letter of the General Plan; he does not agree that the proposed mitigation measures would protect the creek; he could not make finding number two, that "the proposed project conforms to applicable performance standards and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare"; what has been done to the site does effect the creek; if a lot line adjustment had been done initially this situation could have been prevented as the other two homes already built at this site, by the applicant, are too large. Commissioner Parker stated that the grading that had already been done was a huge issue for her; the developer had stated he was not planning on doing any grading so the conditions were ignored; there is no way of knowing whether or not soil has been brought in and what it contains; the Department of Fish & Game notified her of the drainage from the house next door; she disagreed with the developer that this would not affect the site. The developer should make restitution for ignoring these measures; the Commission should be provided proof that the fill that has been brought into the site, is clean and will not harm the creek; in future any negative declaration that goes forward PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAGE 6 for this project should be followed up to make sure the mitigations are adhered to, permits should be obtained (not be optional) and all agencies notified and responses adhered to; if this project goes forward a bond should be required and be in place until the project is complete and all conditions have been met; she could not approve the negative declaration as in her opinion it does not do enough to protect the environment. Commissioner Parker then gave her reasons for denial of the project, stating that they were mostly environmental and safety issues. Condensed comments: the proposed house could be redesigned to fit into the area; asking the property owner to scale down the house to fit with the environmental constraints is not a "taking"; a creekside trail should be allowed for; the project is too close to the creek bank; the invasive ivy on the creek bank at this site will have to be removed and needs to be a mitigation (replaced with native vegetation to hold up the slope). This is a better plan than the previous plan, but it needs more work. This building is maximizing the lot, is not consistent with the neighborhood, the Development Code, the General Plan, or environmental constraints; the developer needs to fit within these boundaries. Commissioner Ray stated that there is more compromise to be done; the Commission is not saying that nothing can be built here, but the applicant made a decision not to do the lot line adjustment, to build the other two large houses, and is now left to deal with this lot. After doing her own research she had found a number of homes on Whitely Street that were all very small and did not agree with the applicant that being required to build a 2,000 square foot house was "a taking"; there are flaws in what is driving this project; building a smaller house would fit in with the character of the neighborhood. However, it is unfair to ask the applicant to go back to the drawing board again. Some direction should be given to the applicant as to how a smaller house could be achieved: There should be nothing less than a 20 -foot creek setback, the area above the garage could be used to gain more square footage; the side yard setback could be reduced. Chair Fellows stated that the other Commissioners had made great points and he would only repeat the ones he felt were really important: Objective C/OS2, Ag Conservation and Open Space Element of the 2001 General Plan states "safeguard important and environmentally sensitive biological resources contributing to healthy functioning eco systems: The Interim Urgency Ordinance 574, states the City Council believes that it is in the best interests of the public to maintain protection of it's riparian resources in order to maintain equilibrium between the natural features of and manmade alterations to the City's creek and riparian environment, and details the necessity for adequate creek buffers. The Rincon report contained a lot of education on the importance and sensitivity of the creek, but he did not agree with the mitigations they offered; the staff report states a 15 -foot buffer, but patios and overhangs would project into this buffer; riparian woodland vegetation within the creek corridor should not be removed without Fish and Game streambed alteration and agreement; he agrees with Commissioner Parker's comment that some of this has already been done; a creek buffer is needed and 25 -feet may be too little; diffused lighting should be used; fertilizers and pesticides should be prohibited; the fossil filter installed is a good idea; the soils report is PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 satisfactory; the offer of dedication of irrevocable creek drainage is a good, but 5 -feet is not enough. Commissioner Fellows further stated that he agrees with Commissioner Ray that it is definitely possible for the applicant to build a home at this site; there have been homes built on 25 -foot lots. He suggested the size of the house be reduced to stay outside of the 25 -foot buffer and that it be moved a couple of feet into the 5 -foot setback so it is further away from the creek buffer; reduce the driveway to 18 -feet instead 20 -feet and move the house closer to the street; have a one -car garage with adequate on street parking; this will enable the house to be out of the 25 -foot setbacks and still make a reasonable profit. Commission Parker stated that in the event that this does come back her additional recommendations for further review by the Commission would include: The non-native vegetation (such as ivy) on the edge of the bank should be removed (as a mitigation); the landscape plan should come back after review by a specialist and prior to commencement; a sediment and erosion control plan should be reviewed by the City, specifically to protect waters and riparian resources. In addition, the mitigation for noise has not been addressed; it is important to keep patios etc. out of the buffer area; it might be better to pull in the berm a couple of feet and have some natural filtration on the other side of it. As long as the house fits into the neighborhood it would be acceptable to reduce the driveway to pull the house forward and redesign it to give extra room. Commissioner Tait agreed with the other Commissioner's comments, but stated he was not prepared to design the applicant's project. Commissioner Fellows stated that he believed about one third of the plants proposed were not native (he had not found them listed in the Guide to California Plants); within the 25 -foot buffer they should be native plants Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, denying Plot Plan Review Case No. 05-027 & Viewshed Review Case No. 05-020, located at 123 Whiteley Street, without prejudice, and that findings Nos. 1, 2 & 3 cannot be made. The Planning Commission directed staff to bring back a Resolution of denial. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Tait, Ray and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Brown Mr. Shoals asked if this action could be appealed? Mr. Strong replied that it could be appealed to the City Council and it is a 10 -day appeal period. 8:00 PM. The Commission took a 10 -minute break. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAGE 8 B. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05-005 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 05-004; APPLICANT — OHM OF THE CENTRAL COAST; REPRESENTATIVE — PERRY NARAN; LOCATION — 263 SPRUCE STREET Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report for review of a certified arborist report that was initially acquired to examine the Cypress trees and the approved development plan in the process of completing conditions of approval for project. The arborist's report stated that three of the trees are dead, four have structural problems and one appears to be in good condition, but development will have a negative impact on the root system. The arborist recommended removal of all eight trees, but did include recommendations to be implemented for tree number six if the Commission gives direction to save it. In addition, staff sought a second review by a certified arborist who concurred with the recommendations. Mr. Bergman further stated that staff recommends that the Aristocrat Pear tree and oak tree at the front of the property, between the first unit and the sidewalk, act as street trees and that they be upgraded to 24 -inch box specimen plantings as mitigation for the removal of the Cypress trees. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman recommended that the Planning Commission review the arborist report and adopt a Resolution altering the condition of approval number 106 to require the planting of a specimen Aristocrat Pear tree and oak tree. Commissioner questions to staff: Parker: • The arborist report says that the project impacts tree No. 6 (not that it is unhealthy); could the project be altered in order that it not impact this tree? Mr. Bergman: The arborist will answer this question. Tait: • He appreciated that there had been a second review by an arborist and was a written report prepared? Director Strong: It was a verbal report as he stated his conclusions were the same as Dave's Tree Service. Perry Naran, applicant, introduced Dave Ragan, Dave's Tree Service, to answer Commission questions. In answer to Commissioner Parker's previous question, Mr. Ragan explained that there is only one tree potentially worth saving, tree number 6, and it is one-sided and all the foliage is hanging out over Spruce Street; it is not known how much damage was done when the street and sewer underground utilities were put in; a sidewalk will be within 5 feet of the base of the tree and one of the buildings is going to be within 10 feet of the tree, so it will be tough not to impact the base of the tree. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Ragan stated that he would not recommend planting another oak as the area from Halcyon Road/Grand Avenue up to Farroll Avenue and over into Elm Street is a high concentration area for oak tree fungus. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 Commissioner Tait asked Mr. Ragan to explain the difference between upgrading to 24" box specimen versus 15 -gallon tree. Mr. Ragan stated that the main difference is a bigger curb appeal when the trees are first planted. Director Strong said requesting a bigger/costlier replacement tree also takes away the degree of incentive for removing trees. Commissioner Tait asked why the Aristocrat pear tree is good for the area? Mr. Ragan: He did not recommend the pear trees for a replacement as some of them are developing 'fire blight". Commissioner Fellows pointed out that the plan showed sidewalk in front of the existing development to the south rather than a parkway and asked if this was an error. Mr. Bergman agreed that it was an error. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing to public comment and hearing none closed it. Commission Comments: Fellows: • Suggested that the parkway continue and trees be planted in this area. • He appreciated the balanced report from Mr. Ragan. • Recommended that trees of stature be used for replacement trees; suggested Brisbane Box or Liquid Amber. Ray: • Explained that this subject is entirely outside of her expertise so she would listen to the other Commissioner's comments and then make a decision. Tait: • He appreciated Mr. Ragan's statement that he did not think another oak tree should be put in, but he would like the right trees put in. Parker: • She has no problem either way about removing tree number 6, but commented that the City has some wide streets with small stature trees and she would rather see more stately trees. Fellows: • The Aristocrat pear trees would be adequate for inside the project, but he would like to see two trees of more substance in the parkway. Ray: • Re tree number 6: It may look out of place if we only save this tree. The only way we will find out whether it is damaged during construction may be that it falls on a car or something? Mr. Ragan agreed that it may be a safety hazard and in his opinion removal is the best solution. Tait: • Are the roots of these trees intertwined and would tree number 6 be damaged when the others are removed? Mr. Ragan stated that the roots are intertwined and it could be damaged when the others are removed. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 10 MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 Director Strong stated that the ARC initially recommended that the trees be retained and the tree replacement be in the parkway location, so if the Commission would like the replacement trees in the parkway then it could be specified that two trees of the 24" box size would be provided and that they be selected from the City street -tree list; they would then become street trees and maintained by the City. Commissioner Fellows suggested that there be a parkway (with sidewalk behind the parkway) and two 24 inch Brisbane Box trees be put in this area as replacement trees and require all trees be removed for Public Safety (most trees are dead and the one tree left would be hazardous). Chair Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, amending condition of approval number 106 of Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 05-006 and Planned Unit Case No. 05-004, located at 263 Spruce Street and adopt: RESOLUTION 06-1994 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NUMBER 106 OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05-006 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 05-004; LOCATED AT 263 SPRUCE STREET; APPLIED FOR BY OHM OF THE CENTRAL COAST, LLC The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Fellows, Commissioners Parker, Ray and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Brown III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. IV. A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE MARCH 21,2006: a CaseA ._ Name;, , Address„ , ,;,- s. Decry tion a._ , ", Action;, Planner 1. PPR 06-004 Forces Beyond 168 Station Way Rock "N" Dog Restaurant. A J. Bergman Control, LLC The Commission had no concerns with Administrative Item No. 1, PPR Case No. 06- 004. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Director Strong stated that the Cherry Creek project had been deferred until the May 16, 2006 regular meeting, and asked the Commission if they would all be present to attend 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PAGE 11 the meeting. The Commissioners confirmed that they would all be present including Commissioner Brown. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Parker requested the Project Sign on the Cherry Creek site be updated and reinstalled. Director Strong stated he would inform the applicant. Commissioner Parker stated that there is a turn -around area that is used by PG&E on the right hand side of Hausna, just before Sunny Gardens, on ag property that the City has cleaned up, and since then someone has come back and removed vegetation and sprayed pesticides. Director Strong stated he would ask Public Works and the Parks and Recreation Department to respond. Commissioner Parker further stated that all the Willows have also been removed. Chair Fellows asked that this be put on the next Agenda so that the Commission will have an answer at the next meeting. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: Director Strong informed the Commission that Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman had given the City his three-week resignation and was leaving for a substantial promotion in another County. The City wishes that they could counter with a similar position. V.III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. to the next regular meeting on April 18, 2006. ATTEST: an Ra0k#t- LYf1 REARDON-SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: ROB STRONG COMMUNITY DEVELO MENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of April 18, 2006) CHUCK FELLOWS, Alii? 1 1 1