Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-02-071 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7, 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, Teresa McClish, Assistant Planners, Ryan Foster and Jim Bergman, 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: The minutes of January 17, 2006 were approved on a motion by Commissioner Fellows, seconded by Commissioner Tait. Commissioner Tait and Parker requested some technical changes to the minutes, copies of these were given to the other Commissioners for review and approval. In addition, Commissioner Parker requested the following word be deleted from the motion on public hearing Item II.D; Conditional Use Permit case No. 05 -017 & Variance Case No. 05 -006, 206 N. Halcyon, as this had been added by staff during discussion of the motion. • Condition No. 13, the final landscape and building finish plan to be reviewed by ARC prior to occupancy. Commissioner Ray stated that during discussion she had asked the specific question that if the Commission agreed to review by the ARC, would it hold up the Police Department being able to use the modular? Staffs answer was no, so that is why she voted yes on the motion; she would have voted no if this review was to be done before the Police Department even got the use of it. Mr. Strong explained that the City does occasionally allow temporary occupancy when the bulk of the required improvements have been completed; the intent was to complete the final landscape plan prior to either type of occupancy, so in this case the word "permanent" can be struck. However, there is a concern as there is already a delay in the placement schedule with the Police Department having to return to the ARC (and it is still not fully resolved); the City Council may consider an appeal related to the tree removal or schedule of occupancy as cost overruns are being created by these delays. Commissioner Ray again stated that this was not what she wanted to vote yes on as in no way did she want to hold up occupancy of the Police Department building. The Commission then voted 5/0 on a voice vote to amend the minutes as requested. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 2 II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 3, 2006: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05 -012; APPLICANT — SHARON BILLON, M.D. TRUST; LOCATION — 210 TRAFFIC WAY. Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report for review of a proposal for a new office building behind an existing CPA's office located in the Village Mixed Use D -2.4 Design Overlay District. He described the units in some detail and stated the project complied with all the Development Code requirements including the parking, and described the proposed landscaping. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit. Mark Vasquez, Norman & Vasquez Associates, further described the project and proceeded to answer Commission questions. Commission questions: • During Commission review of the Pre - Application there was discussion on a parking issue that related to the homes next door, has there been any further discussion on this? Mr. Vasquez: They had looked at this issue and there are means for a solution regarding access, which they are considering. • Asked for the ADA parking to be explained in more detail. Mr. Vasquez explained why the ADA parking had been located and designed in this manner. • Re Special Condition No. 26, re storm water runoff: If it would be a benefit to the neighborhood to put the filter at the end of the block but would cost the applicant more, could the City pay a portion? Mr. Devens: The City could pay a portion, but the condition has been written to allow the applicant to make the choice. • Condition No. 35, construction times, asked if the start time could be changed from 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM. Mr. Vasquez said he would prefer not to, but it could be changed if required. • Re the three residences at the north end of the project, there is a retaining wall, but what other methods are proposed for screening. Mr. Vasquez: There is a proposed retaining wall with a masonry fence and planting on the wall; the plants will attach themselves and it will become a green wall; the masonry is to give privacy and protect the residents from noise; there are also no windows on that side, also for privacy. • Re the proposed office building, will the lighting be screened? Mr. Vasquez: The lighting will be very low intensity. • During the Pre - Application Review there was a concern on the parking and space for cars backing up. Mr. Vasquez: They did an overlay study for the parking to ensure that vehicles would be able to maneuver to get in and out; there is one space that they could limit by marking it for a compact car. • At the ARC meeting there were five recommendations to be incorporated, had these been incorporated? Mr. Vasquez: They had incorporated all the items requested. • Would any work be going on by the Magnolia tree? Mr. Vasquez: He did not think so; they were trying to do everything at the south end of the project. Commissioner Fellows suggested that the finish on the new buildings should not be identical to that on the old buildings; he would like people to see a vintage building in front and a new building in the back. Mr. Vasquez: He did not see this as a problem. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 3 Commission questions to staff. • What is the City's preference for the best management practice to filter storm water? Mr. Devens: Staff would prefer replacement of the drop inlet (it would be regional rather than a site specific improvement), but the applicant felt that it was disproportionate to the project, that is why we gave them a choice. • Asked for clarification on the driveway and whether or not it was entirely a fire lane. Mr. Bergman: Described where the driveway extended to and stated that the Fire Department would want the whole lane marked as a fire lane. • Will there be a Fire Department check valve installed? Mr. Devens: Currently it is proposed alongside the street, but it has not been finalized; the Health Department has to maintain this and they do not want it hidden, but it can be screened with landscaping. Could language be added for this particular project re Commissioner Fellows concern with the check valve? Mr. Devens: The City does not own the actual valve and would have to obtain an easement from an owner to install on site. • Condition 45, re the retrofitting for increase in water demand created by the project should have language modification. Mr. Devens: This will be modified to, state, ..."off-site" high -flow plumbing fixtures.... Mr. Bergman stated that there are multiple departments within the City that have an interest in the check valves; when it comes time to review this issue they could evaluate this with the applicant and the various departments. Mr. Devens explained how the check valve and the fire department connection can be separate as long as the check valve is not installed remotely. Commissioner Fellows stated he had noticed that the fire department connection was already located on the plans, in the landscape area, so it should be able to be screened with landscaping. Mr. Vasquez: They also have a concern with the visual so that is why they put it in the landscape area. Commissioner Tait asked staff whether they could require that the applicant replace the existing drop inlet and install a fossil filter insert (Special Condition No. 26, B.). Mr. Vasquez: They would prefer to have the choice remain in the condition for the following reasons: • From an economic standpoint this would be a disproportionate cost for one project. • The applicant may or may not get reimbursement from the other properties. • The applicant would like both options available so that they can do some negotiations with the other properties. Commission Tait explained that he just wanted the best method available to be used; he could agree that Condition No. 26 remain with the two choices so as to allow negotiations to proceed. Commissioner Fellows stated: • He would like to be present when discussions take place regarding the Commissions concern on the check valve. • He would like to see the final landscape plans go back to the ARC for approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 2006 Commissioner Brown requested language to be added to Condition No. 11 (re Commissioner Fellows' concern) to state that the final design and location of the check valve and fire department connection should be worked out between the applicant and staff. Commissioner Ray stated that she did not think the hours of operation- 7:00 AM — 5:00 PM, should be changed as it was Monday thru Friday only (not Saturday), and Mr. Vasquez would prefer not to change these hours. Commissioner Parker stated that she requested the change from 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM because residents live at the property and she did not think they should be disturbed so early. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to approve Conditional Use Permit 05 -012 with the following conditions of approval modified: 1. Condition No. 35: Change the hours of operation to state, "...(Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM) for noise and inspection purposes. 2. Condition No. 11: Add language to require screening of the Fire Department connection and check valves for aesthetic purposes. 3. The final design and location of the check valve and fire department connection to be worked out between applicant and staff. 4. The final landscape plan to go to back to the Architectural Review Committee for approval. and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06-1989 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05 -012; APPLIED FOR BY SHARON F. BILLION, M.D. TRUST; LOCATED AT 210 TRAFFIC WAY The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Tait, Fellows, Ray and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7th day of February 2006. PAGE 4 III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. CONTINUED FROM 01- 03 -06: PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 05 -011; APPLICANT — RICK WHEELER; LOCATION —189 BRISCO ROAD Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report for review of conceptual plans to subdivide 0.57 acres into seven (7) lots and construct seven (7) three - bedroom townhouses (one deed restricted) as a planned unit development. He stated that this proposal is for Phase II of a 19 -unit PUD; Phase I is under construction; the ARC comments were supportive of the proposal, they liked the integration of the two Phases, and stressed that shared parking should be a consideration for the project. In conclusion, Mr. Foster asked PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 2006 the Commission for their comments and direction on the proposed project. PAGE 5 Larry Kramer, Civil Engineer for Cannon and Associates, introduced Claudio Gonzalez, LGA Architect. Commission questions: Parker: • How wide is the shared driveway? Mr. Kramer: It is just over 20 feet and will be a fire lane with no parking. • Can the six parking spaces for the Phase 1, approved project, be turned toward the roadway so that residents from across the street (Phase II) would feel more comfortable using them. Mr. Kramer: It would be very difficult as the driveway slope is about 15% (close to maximum); it would make it very difficult to get in and out of a car. • What is the backyard setback and what is behind this area? Mr. Gonzalez: The rear yard setback is 15 feet; the area behind is a storage yard and ambulance maintenance facility. • Asked for details on how the drainage system would work for Phase II and if it would be combined with Phase 1. Mr. Kramer: Phase 11 will have a separate drainage system; he explained how the water would filter and drain off the property. Tait: • Re the guest parking spaces, had permeable surfaces been considered for retaining on -site water? Mr. Kramer: This is something they could consider. Questions to Mr. Wheeler Brown: • Why had they chosen affordable units rather than the in -lieu fee? Mr. Wheeler: They had followed staff recommendations on deciding the affordable unit. In addition, he stated they would prefer not to have the permeable surfaces for the guest parking as they require more maintenance. Ray: • Re the affordable unit, the 1,300 square foot residence looks as if it is squeezed in between the 2,000 sq. ft. units and seems to stand out. Mr. Wheeler: Each unit will look different; we are cutting up the roof lines so the smaller unit will not stand out; the width of the smaller unit is only six feet less than the other units. Parker: • Clarified her earlier question: What is the measurement from the back of each unit to edge of the property line? Mr. Kramer: The rear yard set backs are different lengths, but the minimum is 10 feet. Although this was not a public hearing, Chair Brown asked if anyone in the public would like to comment. Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, stated a concern that permeable concrete or pavers for off street parking areas may allow leaking oil and other polluting fluids to go directly into the soil? Mr. Devens stated that with the permeable pavers there would be a potential for the oil to filtrate directly into the soil unless filtered before entering the retention basin; natural PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 2006 bacteria in the oils has a potential for breaking down the pollutants. PAGE 6 Fellows: • Maybe there is a need to consider having a filter for water to run through before it gets into the retention basin. Mr. Devens: That is typically the way they are designed; for Phase 11 we have not got into this type of design yet. Tait: • He liked the way the staff report contained the category "next step" and would like to see this included in staff reports in the future. • What maintenance is required on permeable parking? Mr. Devens: If the pavers have plantings in between they would need maintenance. Parker: • What is the difference between detention and retention basin? Mr. Devens explained the difference between detention and retention basins; and stated that this project will have a retention basin as they have to retain storm water on site (so does Phase 1). Fellows: • This is a good place for this project. • Will the applicant pay a traffic fee for the impact that this project will have on the Brisco underpass? Mr. Foster: The applicant will be paying standard impact fees, but this particular project would not trigger a traffic study. Commission comments: Ray: • She has no problem with this project. • She would like to see a little more square footage for the affordable unit. • The design and aesthetics are nice; the parking is fine. Fellows: • They really already reviewed this project when they approved the one next door; he also agreed that this project was fine. • He would like to see some lush landscaping as it is fairly crowded here and it may be shady, but the ARC will take care of this. Parker: • Does not think that these units match the existing homes in Phase I, they need to be smaller; this is multi - family, high density and we need to keep it this way. • Would like the parking spaces to be more accessible to the people who will be using them. • Mr. Ross' concern on the runoff on the permeable parking spaces should be considered. • Would like to see more outdoor area utilized by decks off the top floor, off the master bedroom, to make an area where fresh air can come in. • Has concern that there would be 19 units of families in a small area on a busy road and no place for children to go; if the units are made smaller then there could be room for a place for children to play or people to sit outside. Tait: • Prefer the onsite affordable unit; he is in favor of this. • The applicant should incorporate the best management practices on the drainage. • Like and agree with the ARC comments about this project. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 7 • Do hope the project will incorporate some green or sustainable materials. • The project looks pretty good. Brown: • Agree with Commissioner Parker on the size of the units, in a multi family, high - density district it makes more sense to have smaller units to match the existing project. • He appreciates the affordable unit, Mr. Wheeler stated that in regard to the square footage, he would like to clarify that the first 12 units in Phase 1 contain four that are 1,600 square feet, six that are almost 1,700 square feet, and two on the top that are 2,200 square feet. B. TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 06 -001 (TRACT 2236); APPLICANT — GREG NESTER; LOCATION — GRACE LANE, (LOT 182 AND PORTION OF LOT B OF TRACT 1390). Mr. Strong presented the staff report, prepared by Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, for consideration of a one -year time extension for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 02- 005 (Tract 2236); the time extension request was filed prior to expiration of the Tract Map. He would not like to see another year elapse before another time extension is requested; Public Works staff has concerns at the rate at which the applicant pursued the final map. He recommended that the Commission either continue the request to the next meeting giving time for discussion with the applicant for a shorter time extension, or grant the time extension for a six -month period. He had not discussed the recommendation with Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon or City Attorney, Tim Carmel, and it was previously recommended that the time extension be approved for one year. Although this was not a public hearing Chair Brown asked if there was any public that would like to speak and seeing none closed the hearing to the public. The Commission stated concerns that the staff report did not recommend a shorter time extension even though staff was now recommending this. Mr. Strong stated that the Commission could grant a one -year time extension, but staff was expressing a concern that the City does not want to arbitrarily grant one -year time extensions when the applicant have not pursued, to the maximum extent possible, completion of the map in the two -year period that is initially granted. Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve a six -month Time Extension Case No. 06 -001, for Tract 2236 and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06 -1990 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A SIX -MONTH TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 06 -001 FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 02 -005 (TRACT 2236); LOCATED ON GRACE LANE (LOT 182 AND PORTION OF LOT B of TRACT 1390); APPLIED FOR BY GREG NESTER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 2006 Commission discussion followed regarding concern with what the staff report recommended versus what staff was now recommending. Mr. Devens explained that when an applicant has not been as diligent throughout the first two years as he could have been and then realizes he has to file for a time extension, this puts a lot of pressure on staff. Mr. Strong stated he did not mean to single out Mr. Nester as the only applicant that has this perception of time extensions being automatic; however, he does not want to set a precedence that the City will automatically grant a time extension and that there needs to be substantial reasons to grant one. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Brown, Commissioners Parker, Fellows, Tait and Ray. NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7 day of February 2006. IV. A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE JANUARY 31, 2006: None. The Commission took a 5- minute break. PAGE 8 V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Creek Study, report presented by Associate Planner, Teresa McClish: On September 27, 2005, the City Council adopted Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 572 prohibiting development of properties adjacent to a creek or areas within 25 feet of top of creek bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, to allow staff to study all foreseeable ramifications of allowing the development of these areas. The suspension was extended by ordinance on November 8, 2005 and is effective until September 24, 2006. A preliminary workplan for the creek study was discussed at the Planning Commission on October 18, 2005 and the City Council on November 8, 2006. As previously discussed, the City has some limited requirements for certain discretionary projects specified in Title 16 (Section 16.64.070.R) relating to the dedication of easements for sensitive areas, including 25 feet from top of creek bank. The Council directed staff to consider alternatives to remedy inconsistencies with current City policies, particularly concerning those related to safeguarding important environmental and sensitive biological resources, preventing sedimentation, erosion and alteration of streambanks, and pursuing possibilities for recreation and trail dedication for the benefit of the public welfare. Staff has researched guidance for urban watercourse protection, collected data on factors influencing creeks in Arroyo Grande, surveyed setback policies for other jurisdictions and is developing policy alternatives to address the following objectives identified in the preliminary workplan: 1. Protection of the creek corridors and their associated riparian zones as part of the City's natural landscape; 2. Promote a watershed -based policy framework for managing surface -water runoff; and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 9 3. Establish a regulatory and administrative framework for what has already been developed and what can be developed along creekways, and how and under what conditions further development can proceed. The draft creek setback study is tentatively scheduled to be available for public review during the second week of March with a public workshop tentatively scheduled on March 16, 2006. The study and alternatives will be provided to the Architectural Review Committee on April 3, 2006 and the Parks and Recreation Commission for their meeting on April 12, 2006. A Planning Commission public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 18, 2006 to review preferred alternatives and develop recommendations for City Council. Commission questions: Brown: • Will you deal with alteration of stream banks? Ms. McClish: We are focusing on keeping development out of the streambank area and then providing a buffer area; the streambank itself is under the jurisdiction of Fish and Game; consistent enforcement policies will have to be considered when this does happen. Tait: • The determination of "top of bank" has been an issue for the last few projects, how will this study determine the top of bank? Ms. McClish: We will include a definition in the Code that everyone feels is applicable to this jurisdiction. • Re the high non - conformance of the 25 -foot setback along Tally Ho Creek, will anything be done about this? Ms. McClish: It is important data to have; there are several structures, some that we counted, that are right on the verge and we will make an approximation; if we adopt a buffer that is very wide then we will have a lot more non - conforming structures- something we do not want. • Setback distance may have been based on habitat and the categories listed were regarding the presence of fish, what about the presence of amphibians, birds and mammals? Ms. McClish: More information can be given on the Class 1 (fish bearing), Class 2 (aquatic life other than fish), and Class 3 (not supporting aquatic life) stream characteristics. • Could you define what economically and beneficial use of properties to determine buffer flexibility is? Ms. McClish: There are many policies in the General Plan to try to satisfy and if we have a property coming forward with a beneficial use we need to make sure we do not have over - restrictive policies that prevent a project that would otherwise satisfy the intent of the policies of the General Plan. • In July 2005, the City Manager had some questions on the East Village Plaza creekbank setback, would these questions be answered in the creek study? Ms. McClish: We hope to answer all of those questions. • He had a concern regarding flexibility of the creek setbacks and asked what had been found out after study of this issue? Ms. McClish: We hope to base the setbacks on the fact that we are a small City and only have a handful of streams to consider and may be able to apply stream specific setbacks. Parker: • Do you have task force helping out on this? Ms. McClish: She does not have a "community task force"; consultation with City staff, the RCD, at the NRCS and some other agencies that have completed recent studies, some including public comment; she hopes the upcoming public meeting will serve to garnish additional input, but she would encourage any public members who wish to contribute. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 2006 • How does this study effect the projects that are now going forward that are located on the creeks? Ms. McClish: The projects that are in the pipeline will not be subject to any of these recommendations, but the information provided along the way will be helpful. • She was really glad to see the City coming up with a policy and it will be very helpful. Fellows: • Had Caltrans been consulted yet? Ms. McClish: Not yet, but she would put them on the list. Ray: • She was amazed at the amount of work done on the study in such a short time. Brown: • He expressed concern regarding the statement of "not having jurisdiction over the streambanks ". Nanci Castle, resident of Morro Bay, stated that creeks are very near and dear to her heart; she lives very close to the creek in Morro Bay and has had her home flooded in the past; creeks and development are not the best mix and there are risks inherent on living on a creek; as much as she loves habitat and biologists and their concerns for the habitat, increasing debris in the creek slows the water down and causes water to rise in the developed areas; the issue of who is going to keep the creeks being cleaned out will hopefully be resolved as time goes by; the velocity of the water going through the developed areas is very important for flooding; she would like to see the workshop televised for the public. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Fellows suggested that the Commission routinely take a break at 8:00 PM and 10:00 PM at future meetings. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ATTEST: AS TO CONTE T: LYN REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION OPMENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of February 7, 2006) TIM BROWN, CHAIR PAGE 10