PC Minutes 2006-01-17MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 17, 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,
Assistant Planners, Jim Bergman and Ryan Foster, and Public Works Engineer, Victor
Devens.
ANNOUNCEMENT: Request for the public turn off their cell phones during the meeting.
AGENDA REVIEW: The Commission agreed to hear non - public hearing item III.A. first as
the applicant's representative had traveled from the Bay Area.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to approve the
minutes of December 20, 2005 as written (with one request to change the spelling of "Knit"
to "nit" in nit - picking; the motion passed by a 5/0 voice vote.
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Memo from Rob Strong, Community Development Director, to the Planning
Commission regarding the Discussion Item: Major Project Study Sessions.
C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None.
II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. CONTINUED ITEM: PUBLIC WORKSHOP TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES FOR
THE MODIFICATION OF DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICTS D -2.3, D -2.9 AND D -2.10
(DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04 -005); LOCATION — IN THE
VICINITY OF MILLER WAY AND VIA LA BARRANCA.
Staff requested the Commission continue this item to a special public workshop scheduled
for February 16, 2006, at 5:30 p.m.
Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to continue the
above item the public workshop scheduled for February 16, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. The motion
was approved on a 5/0 voice vote.
B. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04 -006 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CASE NO. 04 -005; APPLICANT — RUSS SHEPPEL; LOCATION — OAK PARK
BLVD. AND JAMES WAY (OAK PARK PROFESSIONAL PLAZA)
Associate Planner, Ms. Heffernon, stated that the applicant had requested this item be
continued to the meeting of February 21, 2006, provided that a study session can be held
with the Planning Commission prior to that date (already scheduled for January 24, 2006).
Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows, to continue the above
item to the regular meeting of February 21, 2006. Commissioner Ray stated she may not
be able to attend the study session January 24, 2006. Mr. Strong suggested that
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2006
PAGE 2
Commissioner Ray forward any questions she may have to staff after review of the staff
report, but prior to the meeting of January 24; the motion was approved by a 5/0 voice vote.
III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
A. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 05 -015; APPLICANT — SO. COUNTY
VETERINARY CLINIC; LOCATION — 270 N. HALCYON
Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report for review of conceptual plans to
demolish an existing veterinary clinic and construct a new two -story clinic on the south end
of property. Mr. Foster discussed the parking, and stated that a Development Code
Amendment may have to be pursued, or a Variance, based on the physical aspects of the
property; the ARC reviewed the project January 4, 2006, and they were supportive of the
overall design of the building, but indicated that they would like to see all onsite Eucalyptus
trees retained even if it would require some specialized foundation system to do so. In
conclusion, Mr. Foster stated staff would like the Commission's direction on the parking and
the trees (City preference would be to replace the Eucalyptus trees with Redwood trees).
Chair Brown requested the applicant speak first, explaining that this was not the normal
format; after that they would take public comment and then the Commission would ask their
questions.
Mr. Sim, SIM Architects & Joseph Echeverri, Project Manager, presented a model of the
proposed project and described the layout; stated their biggest issues are the parking and
the trees on the back portion of the site; for safety reasons they had been advised that they
should be removed.
Commission questions:
Tait:
• Asked whether the roots of the Eucalyptus could still move and cause damage in the
future even if they were engineered not to? Mr. Echeverri stated they were not sure,
but with new trees they could have more control right from the start; they had been
advised that even if the Eucalyptus are trimmed they would then become more brittle
and could break much easier; Redwood trees would be more indicative of the area;
many of the trees are on the property line and they would need to work with the
Police Department on this issue.
Mr. Echeverri clarified that the all of the trees on the Rena Street side of the property were
to be removed; there is one tree that they would like to retain (in the corner on Halcyon
Road)
Parker:
• What are scuppers? Mr. Echeverri: They are part of the rain gutter system for
architectural detail.
• What is the applicant hoping to achieve with this proposal? Mr. Echeverri: These
proposed changes would make all the rooms a little larger; the veterinary clinic will
not have more doctors, but they hoped to make everything more useable and
efficient.
• The Eucalyptus trees are gorgeous and do create a good buffer, if these are
replaced with 24" boxed Redwood trees, will it take 20 years for them to reach a
good size? Mr. Echeverri replied that they had not figured this out.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2006
PAGE 3
Fellows:
• If they keep the old building while the new one is being installed, where will people
park? Mr. Echeverri: They hope to work with the neighbors to have the least impact
while the transition is taking place.
Brown:
• What should the parking requirements be for a use like this? Mr. Foster: Staff has
been researching this and feel that we have a body of evidence that will support the
parking.
• Where does the staff presently park? Mr. Echeverri: On Rena Street; there are
about eight spaces at any one time; the peak period of business is late in the
afternoon when patients are discharged; the business parking requirement has not
changed much over the last ten years and there should be enough parking with the
new building.
Nikki Cassidy, 724 Cornwall Avenue, stated that the Veterinary Clinic has been a good
neighbor and parking to date has been no issue; during the day residents are at work; her
concern is with the night time lighting from the Police Department — it is very bright and if
the new building is set back and closer to their house they would get even more light; she
likes Redwood trees.
Further Commission questions:
Ray:
• Would there still be adequate parking with this new plan if Halcyon is widened in the
future and if they lost two spaces also. Mr. Foster explained that the new plan would
provide enough parking.
• The corners of the western side of the building look as if they are on the easement
line. Will this create a problem for the City? Mr. Foster stated that it would end up
being back of sidewalk and because it is mixed -use zoning it will be adequate.
• Is the parking plan the latest plan? Mr. Foster stated it is the latest plan and the
applicant wants to stick with this one.
Tait:
• Will the new plan take away any of the landscaped area at the front? Mr. Echeverri:
It will reduce from the original plan a little, but because this is the Gateway area we
will add the sidewalk around the corner, get more green area, and maybe have a
bench against the fence.
Commission questions and comments to staff:
Tait:
• How big in circumference is the tree for the 24" boxed trees? Mr. Strong described a
tree at City hall, recently planted, that was the same size and stated that Redwoods
do very well in Arroyo Grande.
• Will a parking problem be created due to Operating Engineers building. Mr. Foster
replied that the project is parked sufficiently.
Ray:
• Appreciate the public concern on the lighting; this should be revisited as the project
progresses.
• The building design is a Gateway concept, quite appropriate, and a nice addition to
this part of town.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2006
PAGE 4
• The final design of the parking, the impact on the Gateway and the residents, would
be her main concerns.
• The architecture and the design of the proposal are quite pleasing.
Fellows:
• Would like to see the parking located behind the building as this is the Gateway.
• Arroyo Grande is a tree City, but every time a tree is in the way we do not work
around it; it would be a waste of resources to remove 11 mature, attractive
Eucalyptus trees, of three different species (none of which are the troublesome
Bluegum), and then wait 10 -15 years for the Redwood trees to reach the same
height.
• He would rather see a smaller building, further away from the property line; suggest
if some root and top pruning of the trees was done they could co- exist.
• He could not support the project for these reasons.
Parker:
• Appreciate the applicant coming forward with the new parking plan, but has concern
that the square footage of the building is being doubled; there are only three parking
spaces being added; could not support a plan that promotes all the parking on the
residential area.
• This is a well - established office building and this could be a good plan.
• Re the landscaping: Important to have a buffer between the parking and the
residential area and would encourage a buffer with large bushes or some trees to
soften the parking structure to the residential side.
• Not sure about the trees; could support the Redwood trees if they are fast growing.
• Does not think the aluminum and metal screening is suitable for Arroyo Grande;
suggest create different layers by insetting the windows or using wood.
• Likes the signage incorporated into the wall; it fits in better.
• Appreciate the fact that the residential areas have been taken into consideration and
the proposed building has a low profile on that side.
• Likes the building itself and the large windows.
Tait:
• Thanked the architect for the model.
• He would like to have some expert opinion on the trees before he could make a
decision on this.
• Appreciate the new parking plan and one parking space added; has concern with
this being the Gateway.
• The outdoor lighting should not be intrusive to the neighbors.
• They may have to work with the Police Department on the Eucalyptus trees.
• Overall he liked the design.
Brown:
• Thanked the architect for bringing the model and suggested that they bring a visual
sample of the proposed screening for the Commission.
• Re the parking, he would like to see some data as to what is successful for this type
of business to determine if it will be sufficient to justify the reduction.
• Re the lighting he would like to see if there is anything the Police Department can
do to reduce the lighting for the neighbors.
• Concern that there be a residential feel on Rena Street.
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2006
• He is okay with the loss of the Eucalyptus as he understands the problems with
these; if some of them that can be saved on the perimeter this should be looked
into.
The Commission had no further comments.
Mr. Echeverri stated they would work with staff on the parking issue.
PAGE 5
C. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05 -005 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CASE NO. 05 -004; APPLICANT - OHM OF CENTRAL COAST, LLC; LOCATION —
263 SPRUCE STREET
Assistant Planner, Mr. Bergman, presented the staff report, for consideration of a Planned
Unit Development and Tentative Parcel Map to divide a 20,370 square foot property into
four lots and to construct four detached residential units and gave detailed description of the
proposed the project including the landscape. Mr. Bergman further stated that the staff had
included a condition of approval that final landscape, site plan and elevation details return to
the Architectural Review Committee before building permits are issued. In conclusion, Mr.
Bergman stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution
approving Tentative Parcel Map 05 -006 and Planned Unit Development 05 -004.
Commissioner Fellows commented that the seven "Spruce trees" in the sidewalk easement
were in fact Cypress trees.
Mitchell D., architect and Perry Naren, representative, introduced themselves to the
Commission.
Commission questions:
Parker:
• Asked if there was only one balcony on the second story in the font of the building
and did the units have to be so large (over 2,000 sq. ft.)? Mr. Naren: There was
only one second story balcony off the front; the applicant felt that the market
warranted the over 2,000 sq ft. residences; he did not know this type of tree.
Tait:
• Asked for clarification on the type of tree on the landscape plan and if it had to be
removed? Mr. Naren did not know the type of tree.
• What was planned for the side yard? Mr. Naren: the side yard would be turf, not
gravel.
• Advised that the proposed plants that were to be planted under the three
replacement oaks would need to be a good match, as oak trees do not like irrigation
spray.
Fellows:
• Asked staff how the increased storm water runoff would be retained on site? Mr.
Devens explained how this would work.
• How many of the changes requested by the ARC at their December 5, 2005 meeting
have been completed? Mr. Naren: He did not know if the three trees along the
northern property line had been added yet as he had not seen the landscape plan,
but all the other requested changes had been done; the porous paving would only be
done for the guest parking.
Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2006
PAGE 6
Karen Bady, owner of a PUD on the north side of the property (261A), stated she was
representing owners of the Oak Village HOA; they are thrilled and delighted that the
property is going to be developed; the biggest concern is the existing fence on the north end
of the property, belonging to the HOA, that needs to be replaced soon; they would like to
coordinate and make sure there is only one fence and that there will not be a gap between
her deck and the fence. Ms. Bady than asked what a trained bauer vine is, and if this is a
formal Planned Unit Development would it have a Home Owner's Association?
Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, re the permeable concrete requested by the ARC, stated
that you could not use this over a vault.
Kristen Barnriech, ARC Committee member, stated that the permeable concrete was for
guest parking only, not the driveway.
Mr. Bergman stated that condition No. 105 asks that the final landscape plan go back to the
ARC for review to make sure everything has been taken care of.
Chair Brown closed the hearing for public comment.
Mr. Bergman explained that a "trained bauer vine is a plant trained in a certain manner to
grow on a wall or trellis.
Commission questions to staff:
Tait:
• Thanked Mr. Bergman for a very thorough staff report.
• How would the proposed sidewalk relocation save the Cypress trees? Mr. Bergman:
On the apartment building side there is an area of dirt with sidewalk built around it;
the ARC suggested that the sidewalk come in towards the building and then as it
gets toward the driveway will realign with part of the established alignment of the
sidewalk on Spruce Street; there are seven Cypress tree at present.
Asked for information on the following Conditions of Approval:
• No. 13: Are there any known cultural resources in this area? Mr. Bergman: There
are no known cultural resources in this area.
• No. 22- what is the Bateman Bottleneck ?: Mr. Devens: It is essentially "a
wastewater capacity line not owned by the City ".
• No. 23- re retaining and treating storm water on site. Mr. Devens explained how the
underground infiltration basins would work and stated that there needs to be enough
of them to meet the minimum volume; there would be two installed.
• No. 40- which measure do most applicants choose? Mr. Devens stated most
applicants choose measure (b) the in -lieu fee.
• No. 60- where is drainage zone A? Mr. Devens: Drainage Zone A is located west of
Halcyon Road and mostly south of Hwy 101.
Parker:
• No. 21- how does this work: Mr. Devens: The site is currently serviced by a well
and a septic tank and not connected to public services; the applicant will be putting
four new residences into the City system that were not there previously.
• No. 56 —could the wording be changed so that the tree well is not the only option?
Mr. Strong: The Parks and Recreation Department has a standard requirement
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2006
when trees are placed in close proximity to curb, gutter and sidewalk; if the Cypress
trees are retained they do not have a deep root system and could damage a
sidewalk.
Fellows:
• No 85 & 86- are both these necessary? Mr. Devens explained that it is a standard
condition to have all buildings sprinkled and agreed that 86 could be eliminated.
• Exhibit A, No. 8, dust control, who will monitor this: Mr. Devens: This condition is
from the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and Building or Public Works would
probably monitor this and this could be made more specific in the future.
Brown
• The staff report contained the Planned Unit Development standards; he liked this
format and appreciated the information.
• Is it standard to have the fence surveyed? Mr. Bergman: It should not be difficult to
find out if the fence is on the property line or not.
• Would the guest parking spot be blocked when pulling into unit 4? Mr. Bergman:
The applicant is proposing more than the required parking; it could be designed to
have additional two car parking spaces in front of the garage or it could be signed to
not allow parking in that area.
• Fire access: Will the curbs be red all the way round and would this be enforced?
Mr. Devens: It would be red - curbed and the fire lane is enforceable.
Tait:
The Commission took a 5- minute break.
Chair Brown stated this should be able to be worked out together with the neighbors.
PAGE 7
• No. 15: Mr. Bergman: This comes more under the aesthetics and is a little vague;
the Commission could make a request on this one.
• Re the coast live oak recommended for removal; it states that the City Arborist
concurs with this report, but there has not been any written determination. Mr.
Bergman: He had discussed this with the City Arborist and he had confirmed this.
• This is a small scale PUD and the only common area is the driveway; would there be
a maintenance agreement between the four owners; suggested something be added
regarding the fire lane also.
Parker:
• Re the fence, will there be two fences and would they work with the apartment? Mr.
Naran: They would not put a fence right up to the condo's fence; their plans call for
the existing chain link fence on the south side to be replaced by a wooden fence.
Ray:
• Re the neighbors on the north side, is there anything that prohibits them from
creating a one -foot space (safety issue). Mr. Naran stated that this would be highly
undesirable.
Commission Comments:
Fellows:
• The project is a good idea as this site is a real eyesore now.
• The units as planned are too large and are not a good transition.
• Saving three of the healthiest Cypress trees is a good idea; move the sidewalk
closer to the first unit, trees are more important than sidewalks; the Council should
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2006
PAGE 8
decide if it is important and fund some extra to Parks and Recreation or Public
Works to replace sidewalks; the oak tree is in bad shape and if the loss is mitigated
removal of this would be alright; to reduce the damage to concrete leave the three
Cypress trees with a parkway; don't surround the bases of the trees with concrete.
Parker:
• Also appreciates the staff report with the addition of the PUD information.
• There are so many good things about this project; it provides enough parking for
each unit and one extra space per unit; and appreciate that you took all ARC's
comments and worked them all out; the driveway is a little narrow, but there is plenty
of room to turn around; seeing the project that is located a short distance away was
really helpful.
• Concern with the fact that this is zoned multi - family and would rather see smaller
units in here and provide more choices for people; these 2100 sq. ft homes are not a
good transition- apartments on one side and condos on the other side; with only ten
feet between the two story buildings it may get noisy; like to see five smaller units in
here (one might have to be low income).
• Regarding the trees, would like to save the three Cypress that are not dead.
• Likes the side loading driveways and the one unit with balcony going out to the front;
would like to see more balconies incorporated into the units.
Tait:
• No 29 on construction activities: Likes the fact that it is Monday through Friday.
• Agrees with Commissioner Parker that these homes may not fit in with the
neighborhood.
• Cypress trees are not the best looking trees; not sure if they should be removed, but
if an Arborist could evaluate he could decide; when the sidewalk goes in this may
also affect the health of the trees; the sidewalk realignment seems very close to the
trees and there should be a parkway area around them.
• Re the apartment building to the south there is a 20 -foot setback, but placing these
large, two story homes next to another two story- he was not sure he would want to
live in a place like this; backyards are small and noise could be a problem.
• He would like his previous concerns with the landscaping addressed also.
Fellows:
• Was there any discussion regarding putting in five smaller units? Mr. Bergman:
This was suggested early on, but the applicant's idea was to build units that look
more like a single family house because they sell better.
• The Cypress trees he would like saved (from right to left): Tree number three is
viable, the furthest tree on the left is also healthy and there is one in between also
healthy; prune the roots and put in a linear root barrier (where the sidewalk starts)
and leave the dirt parkway.
Ray:
• Agree that these two units are too big, but they have met all the requirements so this
will ultimately become a market issue.
• If a motion is made she would like to make a provision in the common driveway
maintenance agreement regarding the fire lane.
• Re the trees, she does not have an opinion either way, but if we keep them we need
to honor what the City has suggested and provide for this by making sure the owners
have to maintain them and that the City does not incur the cost to keep them.
Brown:
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2006
and adopt:
RESOLUTION NO. 06 -1986
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05-
005 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 05 -004; LOCATED
AT 263 SPRUCE STREET; APPLIED FOR BY OHM OF THE CENTRAL
COAST, LLC.
PAGE 9
• The project is okay; there are different housing needs; there is not enough green
space, but in this particular neighborhood it does fit.
• He would like to see staff reports in the future include a discussion about parking in
front of garages and how it works.
• He wants to save the trees clearly defined as savable; the only way that he could
approve this project is to include a condition that specifically delineates what the
landscape plan is, that it come back to City staff with the proviso that if there is any
discussion of cutting down the trees this portion of it would come back to Planning
Commission.
• He has a concern with the survey and the neighborhood fence, but staff should work
this out.
• Agrees with removing condition no. 86 and Fellows comments on Exhibit A.
Parker:
• Staff mentioned that the sidewalk tree area would be the last to be addressed;
maybe trees could be trimmed, the dead ones removed, the project go through, then
it could be readdressed to see how the trees are doing. If they are not doing well it
could then be decided what to do.
Tait:
• He would need to get more info before making a final decision on cutting the trees
down. Mr. Bergman: This is consistent with what the Parks and Recreation has
suggested.
Brown:
• Restated his request to return this to the Commission is the trees are recommended
to be cut down.
Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, member of Traffic Commission, has concern that the trees
are fairly large; many more people will be coming out of the driveway than before; the trees
up against the curb will be in the line of site of oncoming traffic and could be a potential
public safety issue by impeding vision.
Chair Brown closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Chair Brown, to approve with the
Tentative Parcel Map and Planned unit with the following changes:
1. Condition of Approval No 8 to be changed to state a time limit to clarify.
2. Eliminate Condition of Approval No. 88 (already covered by condition number 85).
3. Save three of the healthiest tree and include a parkway.
4. If the trees are to be removed; the decision will need to come back to the Planning
Commission.
5. Add provision re line of sight (re traffic) and the tree that is furthest from the north.
6. Common area maintenance agreement to be a fire lane designation
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2006
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Fellows, Brown, Parker, Ray and Tait
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17th day of January 2006.
PAGE 10
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05 -017 & VARIANCE CASE NO. 05 -006;
APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — 206 N. HALCYON
Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report for review of a proposed
expansion of the City Police Department, involving a modular building and six off - street
parking spaces on Rena Street. It would include a small landscaped area in the front facing
Halcyon. The ARC reviewed the plans January 4th and recommended the following
changes and additions:
1. Place a screen wall in front of the modular building that faces Halcyon. (The Police
Department does not want to add the screen wall as it could be potentially
dangerous for someone to hide in.)
2. Revise the landscape plan with a landscape architect and final review to be with the
ARC. (The Director of Parks and Recreation said the Department preference would
be to replace the Eucalyptus one to one with 24" boxed Redwood trees, which are
easier to maintain and do not pose such a safety hazard, or the Eucalyptus trees
could be trimmed, but they then may loose much of their esthetic value.)
3. Retain all living Eucalyptus trees on site that are proposed to be removed.
4. Place a time limit on how long the office building is to be used. (This would become
an issue of enforcement; the long -range plan is to replace the Police Department,
but it is contingent on funding sources and ultimately Council decision.)
In conclusion, Mr. Foster stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
the attached Resolution with the included findings, approving Conditional Use Permit 05-
017 and Variance 05 -006.
In reply to a question from Chair Brown, Mr. Foster there is no proposed new lighting and
the existing lighting could perhaps be shielded or a directional Tense used to focus light
where it needs to be (not on the neighboring properties).
Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment.
Craig Hendricks, representative, stated they could address the existing on site lighting to
help mitigate complaints from the neighbors and could still serve the needs of lighting the
perimeter of the Police Department; they are very concerned with the request for the
screening, but are more than willing to do the landscaping to mitigate the appearance of the
front of the modular from the Halcyon side; there is also a three foot screen wall to the rear
to screen the parking spaces on the north of the parking lot; the foundation for the modular
is for an eight year period and there are no existing funding sources for the remodel of the
police department; this is an interim solution to severe overcrowding inside the offices.
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2006
Chair Brown closed to hearing to the public.
PAGE 11
Commission questions and comments to Mr. Hendricks:
Fellows:
• The tree canopy branches appear to be hanging over about 15% of the modular.
Mr. Hendricks explained that the concern is that the steel roof is 22 gauge, which is
pretty thin.
• How tall is the modular? Mr. Hendricks stated 9 -10Y2 feet tall.
Parker:
• She realizes that the Police Department is short of funding but is there any way a
wood roof structure could be put on top of the building for safety purposes since the
roofing material is reportedly not strong enough. Mr. Hendricks replied that they
were already over budget.
• Since one Eucalyptus has already been removed it is possible that there is no
canopy hanging over the roof of the modular; if the trees are kept trimmed and a
sturdier roof would this help? Mr. Hendricks stated he had numerous discussions
with the Parks and Recreation Director; to trim these trees would be a nuisance and
would also make them unattractive. Commissioner Parker stated that if they were
pruned properly they would not be unattractive. Mr. Hendricks stated that the picture
showing the overhanging branches is a recent one.
• Is there a funding plan for a new facility in 5 -10 years, besides the possible sales tax
increase? Mr. Hendricks explained that there is no funding plan for this now; we will
be in this facility until there is a funding source identified for the expansion.
• Asked for clarification on the trees to be removed. Mr. Foster stated the tagged
ones, and they are mostly on the City side of the property line.
• She liked the green space proposed between Halcyon Road and the modular; hoped
that this would match the landscape at the Police Department. Mr. Hendricks stated
that the intention was to duplicate the landscape in front of the Police Department.
• Is there any way to put bushes between Halcyon Road and the modular for
screening and still make it safe. Mr. Hendricks said the proposal for that area was to
put at least two 24" boxed Redwoods in.
Brown:
• He was comfortable with the loss of the Eucalyptus trees; he would like to see a
landscape plan come back to the ARC for review,
• He could support moving forward with this proposal, but with the hope that this is
truly a temporary fix; we will find out if our City stands behind our Police Department
when it comes to asking for an increase in the sales tax to help pay for a new Police
Station.
Tait:
• In regard to Commissioner Fellows' comment that he could not support findings
number two and five, he believed that once the landscape plan comes back and we
see that the buildings are appropriately screened, finding number two could be
made; re number finding number five (on cutting the Eucalyptus down), there are
differing opinions and he asked for a final word so that the Commission could
support number five.
Fellows:
• No matter what the landscape plan is this modular would not be acceptable to
people who care about the community; he did not think the modular could be
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2006
Tait:
• Is there funding available to make the modular look nicer?
Chair Brown closed the hearing for public comment.
PAGE 12
screened or made less ugly with a couple of trees and bushes; the City needs to
make it fit in for the next 8 -10 years; maybe some architectural features could be
added to the modular.
Parker:
• Would want to make sure that the Variance finding number four: "The granting of a
variance shall not constitute a special privilege" is met. All other modules that have
gone through the planning commission have had a "look back" provision as a
condition of approval. It is important to review modular units at some point. Perhaps
eight years when the modular base needs to be replaced.
• Agrees with Commissioner Fellows on screening the modular with greenery, and
Chair Brown's comments regarding ARC review; would like a condition that
screening is done to make the modular look nicer and important to have an arborist
report on all of this, which would include a look at saving the trees.
Mr. Strong made a suggestion:
• Condition number 14, could state that the CUP be reconsidered in eight years from
the initial building permit.
• Condition number 15, could state that the final landscape and building finish plan be
reviewed by ARC after the initial planting by the City, and an independent arborist
report is received regarding the Eucalyptus trees.
Commissioner Ray stated she was prepared to make a motion.
Commissioner Parker asked why the initial landscaping would be done before being
reviewed by the ARC? Mr. Strong explained that the ARC had reviewed the plans and had
requested a screening wall; the City is not supporting a screen wall in front of the Police
Department as this could be a safety issue; he believes that landscaping could achieve an
attractive visual screen; if the modular is painted to be more consistent with the Police
Department and the veterinary clinic, the ARC could then recommend the final treatment.
Commissioner Fellows stated that the ARC requested a landscape architect to design the
landscaping and that it comes back to the ARC before it is installed.
Mr. Strong stated that condition number 15 could be modified to state that this be done prior
to occupancy; if the ARC finds that the landscape plan and arborist's report is inadequate
they can recommend directly to the City Council.
Commissioner Ray commented that the screening is a safety issue for the Police
Department, but for the ARC it is an aesthetics issue.
Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to approve Conditional
Use Permit 05 -017 and Variance 05 -006 with the following conditions:
• Condition number 14, state that the conditional use permit be reconsidered eight
years from the initial building permit.
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2006
• Condition number 15, state that the Architectural Review Committee review the final
landscape and building finish plan after the initial planting by the City.
• That an independent arborist report be required regarding the Eucalyptus trees.
The motion failed on a 2/3 roll call vote, with Chair Brown, Fellows and Parker voting
against.
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Chair Brown, to approve Conditional
Use Permit 05 -017 and Variance 05 -006 with the following changes:
• Condition number 15, the final landscape and building finish plan be reviewed by
Architectural Review Committee before the initial planting.
• That the Eucalyptus trees be determined to be safe or unsafe, pruned or not pruned,
removed or not removed by an unbiased (outside the City), third party arborist.
• Condition number 14; include a "look back" provision that the conditional use permit
be reconsidered eight years from approval.
Commissioner Parker asked for further discussion and stated she would like this to go back
for review to the ARC prior to occupancy so the modular construction can move forward; it
does need an arborist report; not necessarily one from outside the City, expressed concern
that the trees may be a safety issue; the City needs to find this out.
At the request of Chair Brown, Mr. Strong clarified the motion:
Commissioner Fellows restated the motion, with Chair Brown seconding amending the
changes as follows:
• Condition number 15: The final landscape and building finish plan be reviewed by
Architectural Review Committee prior to occupancy.
• That an independent arborist evaluate the necessity of the removal of the Eucalyptus
trees and that the report be made available to the ARC.
• Condition number 14, to include a provision that the conditional use permit be
reconsidered eight years from approval.
and adopt:
10:20 p.m.
RESOLUTION NO. 06 -1987
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO.
05 -017 AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 05 -006; LOCATED AT 206 NORTH
HALCYON ROAD; APPLIED FOR BY THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Fellows, Brown, Parker, Tait, and Ray
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17th day of January 2006.
PAGE 13
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2006
The Commission took a five - minute break after which the Commission unanimously agreed
to continue the meeting until 10:45 p.m.
III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
B. TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 05 -004; APPLICANT — S & S HOMES OF THE
CENTRAL COAST; LOCATION - PARKSIDE, TRACT 2310 -2
Mr. Strong presented the staff report prepared by Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, for
review of a request for a one -year time extension for Tract 2310 -2 (expired November 25,
2005).
Commission questions:
Chair Brown asked if the request for the time extension was timely? Mr. Strong said it was
and explained that the time extension request automatically extends the application for a
60 -day period.
The Commission had no further questions or comments.
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve the
time extension and adopt:
RESOLUTION NO. 06 -1988
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE -YEAR TIME EXTENSION CASE
NO. 05 -004 FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 02 -002 (T2310 -2);
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FARROLL AVENUE BETWEEN OAK
PARK BOULEVARD AND GOLDEN WEST PLACE; APPLIED FOR BY S & S
HOMES OF THE CENTRAL COAST
The motion was unanimously passed on a 5/0 voice vote.
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17th day of January 2006.
PAGE 14
IV.
A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE JANUARY 17, 2006:
A public hearing is not required for the following items unless an administrative decision is
appealed or called up for review by the Planning Commission through a majority vote:
Re Item No. 3, Chair Brown stated a concern that the applicant may have expectations or
entitlement once the demolition permit is approved?
Mr. Bergman stated that the applicant does have an active application in place with the City
for a Minor Use Permit (a Plot Plan Review and a Viewshed Review).
ase No.
1.
2.
3.
MEX 05 -017
PPR 05 -028
Demo.
W 1
pp. Name
Robert Harris
James Wood
Dave Sturges
Address
245 Walnut Street
1167 E. Grand
Ave.
130 -132 Short St.
Description _
Legalize prior garage conversion.
Establishment of a professional
office in an existing building.
Demolition of rear house.
Action
A.
A.
A.
Planner,,,;
T. Ricard
Brian Soland
J. Bergman
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2006
PAGE 15
Chair Brown stated a further concern why a 12 -foot unobstructed driveway is acceptable in
this instance. Mr. Bergman stated that he would make it very clear in the staff report and
details explaining staffs position.
In conclusion, Mr. Strong stated that staff does advise an applicant not to demolish a
building until a project is approved and in this case the applicant chose to do otherwise.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. Major Project Study Sessions
Mr. Strong stated that the memo handed to the Commission at the beginning of the meeting
explained the study sessions.
Commissioner Ray stated that she may not be able to attend the first study session on
January 24, 2006, from 3:00 -5:00 PM. Mr. Strong requested that she review the staff
report and send in her comments.
The Commission agreed that in future the study sessions should be scheduled for the
second and forth Tuesday of the month from 12:00 - 2:00 PM.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS:
VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP:
VII. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. to a special adjourned meeting on Tuesday,
January 31, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. to continue discussion of the TTM and PUD for Phase 1 of
the Fair Oaks OMU and adjacent to Arroyo Grande Hospital.
ATTEST:
LYN REARDON -SMITH
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
ROB ST'ONG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT DIRECTOR
(Minutes approved at the PC meeting of February 7, 2006)
1