Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-02-21MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2006 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows, Parker, Ray and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Request for the public to turn off their cell phones during the meeting. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chair Brown requested that the approval of the minutes of January 31, 2006 be moved to the next regular meeting due to the fact that two Commissioners did not have the minutes with them and there were some corrections. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: � 3 4. Memo from Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, regarding public hearing item II.A: VTTM 04-006 & PUD 04-005 and modifications to the conditions of approval based on additional information received from Earth Systems Pacific. Memo from Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, regarding SLO Green Build Event on March 15, 2006. Staff report from Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, regarding the February 23, 2006 workshop to discuss potential amendments to the RR zoning and Design Overlay Districts within the City. Copy of a Certificate of Deposit in regard to public hearing item II.A. Chair Brown requested a five-minute break to study the materials just received. C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. CONT/NUED FROM 1-17-06: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-006, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04-005 & MINOR EXCEPTION CASE NO. 05-015; APPLICANT — RUSS SHEPPEL; LOCATION — OAK PARK BLVD. � JAMES WAY (OAK PARK PROFESSIONAL PLAZA). Commissioner Fellows requested that the Commission go back to their prior format in reviewing a project (ask staff questions after presentation of their staff report.) Chair Brown agreed to do this for this project. Commissioner Parker agreed with Commission Fellows, stating she would prefer to be able to ask questions of staff first. Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for review of plans to develop a 1.8-acre site with fourteen town-homes and eight condominiums in eleven buildings, and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 2 set aside approximately 4,000 square feet as open space next to James Way, which would provide a buffer against this busy street and the residential units. Ms. Heffernon then highlighted various aspects of the project, explaining that the design had been carefully balanced in order to meet parking, circulation, density, creek setbacks, open space requirements, and affordable housing requirements. Ms. Heffernon further stated that the Planning Commission had discussed the proposed project at a study session on January 24, 2006. Parking and circulation problems experienced within the Oak Park Plaza had been resolved and parking is more than adequate. Language had been added to Mitigation Measure MM 4.1 (regarding maintenance of the creek bank landscaping) requiring an independent consultant specializing in biological resources be hired by the City and paid for by the applicant to monitor mitigation for a minimum of five years. Maintenance responsibility of the six-foot wide pedestrian path had been addressed by additional conditions. Ms. Heffernon then discussed how the top of creek bank determination was made, the storm water filtration system, and that the conditions requiring pervious pavers have been struck due to the soil makeup on the project site. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the project plans, the staff report, the draft environmental determination, and adopt a Resolution recommending approval to the City Council. Chair Brown asked that the soils report, specifically the boring, be commented on by staff. Mr. Devens: For residential structures there needs to be deeper borings than for a parking lot; there is a condition to update the soils report. Commission questions: • Has the early morning noise from the existing Kennedy Health Club (loud music) and its impact on the proposed residential been considered. Ms. Heffernon: The Building Department would normally take care of this through adherence to the VCB. • Is there a time frame on when the pedestrian path will connect to the motel, the report says "eventually". Mr. Strong: At this time if is unknown as to when this would occur. � Commission comment: The open space lot is not centrally located and is acting as more of a buffer. Ms. Heffernon: If the open space was located in the central area it would push the units closer to James Way and skew the design of the units; there is quite a bit of private open space within the units with decks, patios and side yards; in addition they will have the use of the Kennedy Club Fitness Center. • How was the top of creek bank study (June 2004) funded and has there been any independent study. Ms. Heffernon: The applicant funded the study; fhere has been no independent study done. • Concern that the lighting plan, requested by the Police Department; would disturb the wildlife and neighbors. Mr. Strong: This is a standard request; we are not advocating nighttime lighting. • Commission comment: Live/work units (working out of the home) should be promoted and encouraged. • Map L1 has plants (three species), east of the footpath, that are very close to the riparian area/creek; he would like to make sure these plants are suitable for this area. Ms. Heffernon: We can add a condition to request that the landscape plan be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 3 reviewed by the Morro Group to make sure it is consistent with the wetland mitigation plan. • There are conflicting statements in the staff report regarding the in-lieu fees and the number of affordable units required. Ms. Heffernon: 15%, or 3 units plus in-lieu fee for the affordable units is the correct statement. • How will the construction effect the parking in the Oak Park Plaza; there are conflicting construction hours in condition numbers 19 & 60 and MM 8.1. Ms. Heffernon: The effect of construction on the parking should be referred to the applicant; conflicting construction hours will default to condition number 19 (8:00 AM-6:00 PM — Monday thru Saturday). Mr. Devens: The purpose of condition number 60 is to restrict hours for inspections to take place during City business hours. • Asked for explanation on condition number 57, request for HDPE pipe. Mr. Devens: This condition will probably be removed as it may conflict with what Fish and Game require. • Condition No. 58, what type of creek maintenance is being referred to? Mr. Devens: We are asking for access in the event that the City may need to perform creek maintenance in the future along this area, but the City would have to first get permits from Fish & Game. � Condition number 102: After review of the grading and drainage plans by Coastal San Luis Obispo Resource Conservation District if the project has already been approved how are the changes incorporated? Mr. Devens: If major changes are requested after project approval it may have to come back for public hearing. • MM 4.5: Asked for clarification on what the Meadow Creek corridor is. Ms. Heffernon: It is in the creek channel and the upper bank area. • MM 5.1: This is an important mitigation and should have stronger language to get the word out to all involved. Ms. Heffernon: This is a stock condition; we can add stronger language if required. • MM 6.1: Have the updated soils reports been completed yet and who will use these? Mr. Devens: No they have not been completed yet; Public Works will use these reports; the updated report will not come until the project is approved. • MM14.6: The wording "Stockpiles should be kept far enough from the banks..." is vague language. Ms. Heffernon: Agreed to include the same language as MM 14.1, first bullet (150 feet). Mr. Strong: This may cause a problem, as 150 feet is not too far from the existing Sheppel buildings and may obstruct the parking or interfere with construction; the intent is to avoid construction material and debris from entering the creek; it should be within the construction area, but not within the 25-foot top of creek bank. • MM14.11: What method is the applicant considering for collecting surface run-off water? Mr. Strong: The details are a part of project plans and not part of the concept that deals with specific design at this point. • Re item No. 7, Site Protection, Morro Group Report, how will the City protect and maintain this? Ms. Heffernon: The applicant will take care of this until established (first five years). Once established the native plants need little if any maintenance. • MM 14.6 (CEQA Neg. Dec.), Re Impact: Would the building of condos in this area rather than office mixed use affect the water usage? Ms. Heffernon: The General PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 4 Plan was based on mixed use for this particular property and was covered in the Program EIR. • MM 6.1, (Neg. Dec.): Doing further soil testing is not a mitigation to the CEQA document in itself. If further testing is done, and an impact is discovered, the mitigation to that impact would be listed as a mitigation measure. Ms. Heffernon: If it comes back with problems the project would need to be reevaluated. Mr. Strong: The condition is requesting that the soils report be updated, but if it is found that there is a foundation problem a different building technique may have to be used. • Re the Wetland Mitigation Plan, the bond is in place for two years, but the long-term maintenance plan is not clear. Ms. Heffernon: The Mitigation Plan is for mitigation of a man-made wetland; what needs to be clarified is what happens after the five years and what the City intends to do; the bond is not a City bond; we could add language that deals with erosion or siltation into the creek. • Are there any long-term mitigation measures to take care of erosion, sedimentation, and pollutants running into the creek after the period of construction? Mr. Devens: On site drainage will be collected and discharged to the creek through the two existing outlet pipes which will have filtration systems on them; they will collect hydrocarbons, but he was not sure about herbicides. • How will the trash collection be handled for the ten units near the creek, how will this work? Ms. Heffernon: The garbage pick-up has not been discussed yet; assume separate waste wheelers • Concern that there should be language included to protect the 25-foot setback in the future. Mr. Strong: The Council declared a moratorium on new projects and the top of bank definition may be redefined, so the rules are changing. • What will happen with the Fire Department double detector check valve? Mr. Devens: It will not be required; the units will be spinkled through the domestic service. • Will the mitigation planting on the creekside return to the ARC for final review? Ms. Heffernon: It is not expected to come back to ARC as it is required by the Army Corps or Engineers and is a delicately prepared restoration plan. • Is the meandering pathway all within the 25-foot creek setback? Ms. Heffernon stated it was. • Given that the proposed project is zoned office mixed-use (OMU), and is separately owned from the adjoining properties, how does it fit with the underlying zoning? Ms. Heffernon: There are two different densities under the OMU, one as mixed-use and one predominantly residential; the Oak Park Plaza is a master planned area and the zoning was not in place at the time of the original plan. Mr. Strong: The OMU district allows horizontal development, or vertical mixed use, or no mixed use; Mr. Sheppel owns the two office buildings in addition to the vacant residential property; this project is consistent with the OMU development standards and the allowed density for an all-residential project; we have not fully developed separate residential standards within the mixed-use districts. • Concern that the staff report states this project is of residential use on OMU zoning and that planned unit development (PUD) standards are being used to allow more flexibility; it appears that neither standards meet this project. Mr. Strong: The hybrid of a mixed-use project will combine both OMU and PUD standards; in staff's opinion PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 5 we think this is an appropriate combination that meets the infent; the City Council will make the decision. • Is it possible that a project could have been designed that could have had both office and residential on this property? Mr. Strong:. It could have been proposed, but housing would not have been provided at this site, as it would not meet the minimum density requirements. Commissioner Brown commented that the current standards do not fit these types of projects. Commissioner Parker stated that she disagreed with the discussion that in order to get high density (the objective of the General Plan) we cannot retain PUD standards of open space, why is high density always the goal? Would it not be better to look at the whole project and create a balance? Mr. Strong: If the Commission feels the density is too high they can recommend this to the Council. Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. Kim Hatch, Pults and Associates, introduced Kristi Flagg and Jesse Juliano, civil engineers, and Mr. Sheppel, applicant, who were present to answer questions, and circulated a larger copy of the mitigation plan to the Commission with cross section showing the erosion buffer zone- part of the mitigation plan (Morro Group); he described details of the maintenance plan and stated: • Regarding the trash pick-up; the residents would have to bring their trashcans out along to the edge of the buildings, on the street side; details of this would be worked out later. • Re the soils report: This is a padded out site and the original soils report was prepared for the master plan; the information being asked for is typical and the pad should be just fine the way it is. • Re the areas of construction: This should not be a problem as it will be mostly a fill project; any storage of materials can be done in the future parking lot that is well over 150 feet away. • Lighting on the pathway: We are sensitive to the PD issue of safety; we have low- level lighting that can be set on a timer; they were not intending to illuminate the area. • The need for open space is lessoned by the fact that every level has decks and small yards adjacent to them and the Kennedy Fitness center will be right there. • The concern with noise: The buildings will be built to mitigate the sounds as required. • The pervious pavers: He has not seen any data that these work and the soils engineer is not recommending these. Mr. Juliano described the proposed drainage and how it would collect the water from the site and explained that in effect the total run off from the site would be the same as it is today for the existing development. Mr. Juliano in reply to questions from Commissioners: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 6 • He does not have a preference for either corrugated or HDPE pipe. • The "useful life" of the existing corrugated pipe is approximately 50 years. • They would not be addirg more storm flow into the pipe; they are retaining onsite. • They had not looked in great detail at the water flowing down from area 1 toward the creek, but it could be directed back, away from the pedestrian path and creek; none of the drainage from the area that has buildings on it, will be flowing down to the creek. • Oil and hydrocarbons will be taken care of by the filters; prevention of use may be better for herbicides. • Re concern with MM 14.6 & 14.1, (stockpiles): The vagueness of the language for MM 14.6 could be corrected by the addition of language such as "shall be done per the erosion control plan and best management practices that are specified therein" rather than stating a specific distance. • Pervious pavers: Since we are providing storm water detention and mitigation for the increase in runoff, this is an additional reason to go without these pavers. • The high water mark is more of a"mean" taken from annual flow and not from an intense 100-year storm. Commission questions and comments to Mr. Hatch and the applicant: Commissioner Brown commented that the proposed units are two and three bedroom so given the project site where will the children go (besides the decks); he has a concern for the safety of children with the inherent traffic circulation problems at this site? Mr. Hatch stated they could play in the areas that have abutting garages; he does not see it as a safety issue anymore than with other similar projects he has designed (It was also mentioned that Rancho Grande Park is close by). Commissioner Brown stated re the original letter of credit, if the applicant was not able to follow through with the mitigations as determined, how would the mitigations be enforced and what is the present cost of this mitigation plan versus when the original certificate was opened (October 30, 2002)? Mr. Sheppel: This was not discussed in the workshop so we did not address it. The money is in the hands of the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Arroyo Grande; regarding the increase in costs, two months ago the Army Corps of Engineers reissued the permit, at this time they reviewed all the mitigations and the cost with no required changes. Commissioner Brown then asked Mr. Sheppel if he would be opposed to a condition requiring a bond to be posted by them equal to the current cost of the mitigation plan, less what is on deposit, prior to construction. Mr. Sheppel replied that he has no idea how the costs are calculated, nor how the Army Corps of Engineer calculates the costs. Commissioner Ray asked if color could be added to the paved area between the parking and the street to clearly delineate the areas where children might be. Mr. Hatch: There will be color and textual change in those areas. Mr. Hatch asked if Public Works condition number 108 could be more clearly defined and state "driveways" and not the overall project site. Mr. Devens: The wording can be changed to "drive isles, parking areas'; especially since the path will be solar operated rather than hard-wired. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 7 Mr. Hatch stated that regarding the request for water being retained for landscaping, the amount of water required to have any good effect would need to be quite large and there would not be space in this development for such storage (it,would have to be underground storage, be filtered and be a big expense); however, he would look into this and if feasible would try to accommodate it. Commissioner Tait stated the plants (he has concern with) on the landscape Map L1 are not part of the mitigation plan. Will the City review these plants? Mr. Hatch: The landscape architects were asked to provide plants that would be compatible with the mitigation planting, but they could relook at the plans. Commissioner Tait confirmed the three plants he has concern with are: Hebe, Rosemary and Grevillea. Commissioner Tait re MM 1.2 and the design alternatives for the condo stairway for ARC review and approval, would this cause a major design change? Mr. Hatch: We agreed to look at design changes and will bring back something to ARC to try to make it work. Commissioner Tait regarding the Morro Group Report, should some restoration work be done on the other side of the creek bank as well? Mr. Hatch: The main point of the mitigation plan was to resolve the issue of the wetlands and we are replanting an area required by the Army Corps of Engineers. Commissioner Tait stated his concern was that plants such as Pampas grass would regenerate very quickly on the side of the creek next to the project if it were not removed from the other side of the creek. Mr. Sheppel addressed questions that the Commission had during the workshop. • This project started after discussions with the City and myself and the concern with the parking on site; regarding the staging of the project he would first like to put in the upper parking lot, closest to Oak Park Blvd. (this would provide a staging site). � Mr. Bunnell, owner of the Case Grande, indicated that when our path is built, he would be building his. • There will not be any motion detector lights on the project. • Re the Morro Group Report and concern with erosion monitoring and contract in the future, in the opinion of the Army Corps of Engineers, no additional erosion control is required; the Army Corps of Engineers will monitor during the establishment period, even after heavy precipitation. • Environmentally this project will remove non-natives and the area will be better off, riparian habitat will be reestablished; families will benefit from this; the City has been given a path, which does not exist now, and it will link portions of the City; from a water control standpoint this will become a better site; this will be a fantastic demographic buffer and will add parking that this site needs; having a small office that integrates the residential is a big plus. Fellows: • Regarding the underground retention area, could the water be used in some way with a pump and filter for irrigation with respect to the water shortage? Mr. Devens: There has to be systems available because we do get requests all the time for people to install gray water systems. • Describe low lighting on pathway. Mr. Hatch: Solar powered directional lights, about 1% feet off the ground. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 8 • What will the pathway be made of? Mr. Hatch: Decomposed granite. • The path that meanders along the creek makes a turn and it may not be obvious that it's a public path that connects to K-Mart etc. Mr. Hatch: The path is an ADA compliant ramp, but we will definitely want to put signs to educate the general public on what the plants are and maybe a chain installed to stop infringement. Parker: • Regarding the path, is there any way you could put two entrances in from James Way to accommodate both ADA access and a direct access from James Way. Mr. Hatch: We could look at this as an option. • Sidewalks being provided in the development are mentioned in the report, but does not see sidewalks in the walking area to provide safety. Mr. Hatch: We are proposing to meet the State and Federal standards for a pathway that is accessible from the public right-of-way into their site; it has not been delineated with a sidewalk. Ms. Parker stated that one of the mitigations is asking for this to be done (No. I, Page 16). Tait: • The mitigation plan does not address invasive species at the other end of the creek so is not a full mitigation. Mr. Sheppel: There may be many reasons to ask me to do this, but we are doing an awful lot as is and wind will blow seeds over and there is a five year plus periodic requirement. Tait: It might be problem and he thought it should be addressed. Mr. Sheppel suggested that they could pull out the non-native from across the bank, but who would decide what should be pulled out; maybe the Parks and Recreation Director could help with this. Ray Bunnell, owner of Casa Grande Motel, stated his only concern was that the legal documents for his parking easements would be prepared and recorded to make the revisions; Mr. Sheppel and Mr. Hatch have worked well with him on this. He has concern with the traffic also, so would like to make sure the driveway is 24 feet wide, and that it is reasonably lit. Chair Brown closed the public hearing for public comment. The Commission took a five-minute break. Commission comments: Ray: • Her biggest concern had been with the 25-foot creek setback; the consensus of the City Council in 2004 was that the 71-foot mark was appropriate, and the project addresses all the reasons why we have a creek setback study. • This is a completely appropriate project for where it is located. • It is a fantastic design; the housing reflects the ideas of how society works at this time; the project is an obvious transition from full commercial, to senior and multi family, then into Rancho Grande. • She agrees with Mr. Sheppel's point that the City is going through "growing pains" and the City's Code will never be up to what is coming down the pipe for the next project, so the best thing we can do is to offer a project that is common sense. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 9 • She could not support asking the applicant to mitigate across the creek bank, as it is not his land, and thought they had been asked to do enough. Fellows: • He thought the study session fiad been a good idea. • The project seems to mitigate the damage done to the site during the last two decades; this is a very valuable part of the project. • The landscaping on the side of the creek with native plants looks good. • Taking out the Pampas grass across the creek would be good if the right equipment is available; suggested jute netting where the plants are removed. � Agree with Commissioner Tait that the east and west side of the path should all be native plants (no non-native plants) as it is within the 25-foot creek setback. • Agree with Commissioner Tait to reuse some of the water in the underground retention basin for drip irrigation, it would help the water shortage and may allow another development in the future. • The project helps the City with their housing requirements. • A notice should be posted in the driveway, along the pathway and from Mr. Bunnel's property stating, "Sensitive Creekside Site, Use of Herbicide's and Pesticides Prohibited (include civil code), maximum fine $1,000. • The low level lights along the pathway are good. • Agree with Commissioner Parker's idea of having steps down from the public sidewalk along to the meandering pathway. • The market will take care of who will buy the condos whether they have a yard or not • ARC conditions request to change Flax plants to Pittosporum; these should be Undulatum Pittosporum. Parker: • The 25-foot setback has been handled well; agrees with Commissioner Fellows concern with drainage going into the creek containing herbicides and pesticides. • Does not have a concern with the three story buildings as they are on the downhill side of the slope. • The lighting helps take care of safety issues on the pathway. • Would like to see sidewalks around the property to address pedestrian safety. • There should be a maintenance agreement that will cover beyond the five-year period. • She likes the way the units can be split up and the also rooftop play areas. • Does not support high density matched with high square footage; this project does not have balance; there is a potential for 24 families living here with nowhere for them to go — no open space, no trees, no greenery; if the square footage of the units were to be decreased, or one unit removed, open space, trees, and sidewalks could be included; these are the reasons she cannot support this project. • She cannot make the findings required for the tentative tract map; cannot make the required findings for a PUD; the standards can be deviated from if it results in a better project, but this design does not. Tait: • He agrees with the majority of Commissioner's statements. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 10 • The proposed hiking path should be linked to private properties such as K-Mart, Carl's Jr. and the motel, and later down the line to public property (James Way oak preserve and wildlife hak�itat) to make a nice trail system. • He would be more comfortable if the PUD and open space requirements were not so far off; the common open space proposed near James Way is more of a buffer than a usable convenient common open space; a path of common open space should be included within the center of the project, surrounded by the buildings, asked for in the Code. � The private open space using roof top patios is a good idea. � Re the top of bank determinations, he hopes the 71 feet recommended will be sufficient and that the study is correct. • The CC&R's/HOA should include a condition to direct residents from installing any kind of lighting next to the creek. • He does not agree with the ARC recommendation that the CA Sycamore be replaced with the London Plane - this is a major mistake; the London Plane is an exotic from Europe and the CA Sycamore is a native. • Agreed with Commissioner Fellows that the three plants on both sides of the path should be reviewed for suitability in this area. • The hours of operation for construction should be "Monday through Friday" for this site. • Additions and deletions: 1. MM 1.1, add "including riparian habitat" (at the end of the sentence). 2. MM 3.2, change last sentence to state "reclaimed non-potable water"; delete should and replace with shall throughout this measure. 3. MM 14.6, regarding stockpiling, make the language less vague. 4. MM 6.2, this is not a mitigation measure if this work is done during the rainy season, so need to change this language. 5. MM 14.3, delete the word "must';� there has to be a very good reason for construction to extend into the wet season. 6. MM 14.4, erosion control, this is too important a measure to have language such as "when possible", or "whenever possible". 7. He likes and agrees with what The Air Pollution Control District's letter includes: "when people can walk to nearby stores and work the traffic is reduced and the potential for mass transit use increases; the applicant should provide for some onsite bicycle parking (because of the three story buildings this would be appropriate); the project allows for infill". 8. The density is okay because it's infill and will prevent loss of farmland and open space. • If staff would make these changes he could support the project. Brown: He agreed with Commissioners' Ray and Fellows that this project provides a range of housing, but does not agree that the market will decide on who these are appropriate for; the current mix of three bedroom homes is a concern because the harsh reality is that with the present cost of housing a family would purchase these homes, whether or not they would be suitable; he believes that there is a pedestrian issue that has not been fully addressed and a safety issue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, recommending approval of the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, and Minor Use Permit, to the City Council with the following changes: 1. Connect the creekside path to the public sidewalk by way of an ADA ramp as well as • The project is good in terms of providing housing mixed with commercial; however, there is an inherent friction between the two uses that has not been dealt with to his satisfaction; there are specific findings that have to be made with a tentative tract map and a PUD which have not been made; for the proposed density there is not enough open space for the number of 2& 3 bedroom units proposed; with regard to the PUD standards, he believes a better project could have been developed; he would like to see a reduction in the size of the units. He does appreciate most of what has been done with this project - but it is just not there yet. If the open space requirements we currently have, are generally undesirable for mixed use projects, these standards need to be revisited; this issue still needs to be resolved by discussions with City Council, Planning Commission and public hearing and he cannot support this project until this is done; he does not believe the open space requirements have been met with this project. What happens when all these infill projects are densely constructed and we are left with no more infill projects; will we not have pressure to encroach on valuable farmland and on land south of the City of Arroyo Grande? He is happy with the top of bank issue and the mitigation plan, although it has no teeth (there should be a bond in place). '.'wherever possible". 8. MM 14.4, strike "vv�ea-pe�s+��e" and ,�����°nc�icr .,,,��;h�o�� 9. Elaborate on the APCD discussion in the Initial Study. steps. 2. Use the retained rainwater to satisfy a minimum of 25% of the landscape irrigation. 3. Use all native plants within the 25-foot creek setback area of the path. 4. Post notices (signs) on entrances to the property regarding the use of toxics, e.g. "NOTICE! Sensitive creekside site, use of herbicides, pesticides and (add anything else)... prohibited, Municipal Code Section..., maximum fine $1,000". 5. Include in the CC&R's, "No privately installed creekside lighting". 6. MM 1.1, add "... and riparian habitaf'. 7. MM 3.2 insert the word "shall" in place of "should" and remove the wording PAGE 11 Commission discussion Commissioner Tait stated he would like to have his requested changes and additions included. Ms. Heffernon stated she had made notes of all Commissioner Tait's requested additions and changes for staff and City Council discussion. Commissioner Tait stated that he also had a concern, as had Commissioner Parker and Brown, with the open space calculations, and would like to have something included that would provide a place for children to play that could be centrally located in the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 12 � The Commission had no further concerns and agreed to go forward with the motion, and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06-1992 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE VESTING TENTATNE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-006, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04-005 AND MINOR USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05-015 TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPLIED FOR BY RUSS SHEPPEL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON OAK PARK BLVD. AND JAMES WAY (OAK PARK PROFESSIONAL PLAZA) The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Fellows, Ray and Tait NOES: Chair Brown and Commissioner Parker ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21 st day of February 2006. III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. IV. A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE FEBRUARY 7, 2006 1. � MEX 06-005 � Samuel Gilstrap � 552 Paseo St. � Retaining wall up to 8 feet. � A � J. Be The Commission had no concerns with Minor Exception Case No. 06-005; there will be a 10-day appeal period. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Ms. Heffernon stated that the Cherry Creek study session had been rescheduled for Tuesday, March 14, 2006, from 12:00 — 2:00 PM. Commissioner Fellows stated he would be unable to attend this meeting. Commissioner Parker stated she would be unable to attend the Rotary Bandstand Celebration on Thursday, February 22, 2006; Commissioner Ray stated that previously she had stated she could not attend but would now be able to. VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: Mr. Strong stated that at the February 7, 2006 meeting, Time Extension Case No. 06-001 (Tract 2236), was changed from a staff recommended one-year time extension to a six- month time extension. However, after conferring with the City Attorney it was learned that the City Code, Section 16.12.150 states that time extensions should be granted in one-year � _� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 13 increments. Therefore, the Resolution approved for a six-month time extension would now revert to a 12-month time extension. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. to the next regular meeting March 7, 2006. ATTEST: L N REARDON-SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION -.-�' �iw_ �u�� � • �� AS TO CONTENT: ROB TR G, COMMUNITY DEV PMENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of March 7, 2006)' �