Loading...
PC Minutes 2005-03-01MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 - 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows, Keen, Parker and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community development Director, Rob Strong, Assistant Planners, Ryan Foster and Jim Bergman, and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: The Commission agreed to move non - public hearing items IV.A, IV.B, and public hearing item III.B. to be heard first. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of February 1 & 15, 2005 were approved with one correction to minutes of February 1, to remove one statement under "Commission Comments" on a motion by Commissioner Fellows, seconded by Commissioner Tait and on a 5/0 voice vote. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter from Nick Alter, received February 28, re Cherry Creek Project, located at East Cherry Ave and Myrtle Street. 2. Letter from SLO County, Public Works, received February 28, re Cherry Creek project. Handed in at the beginning of the meeting: 1. Memo from Andy David re Parking Credits (received at the meeting). 2. Letter from Otis Page, dated March 1, 2005, re Cherry Creek project. Additional letters provided to the Commission at the start of the meeting by Commissioner Parker. 1. Information received by Commissioner Parker from Brian Trautwein, Environmental Analyst with the Environmental Defense Center re the Cherry Creek Project. 2. Letter from the Environmental Defense Center to Don Spagnolo, dated May 11, 1998, re Newsom Springs Drainage Project Negative Declaration. 3. Information from Commissioner Parker re the East Cherry Traffic Study. 4. Copy of letter from Grace Stilwell to City Council, dated March February 25, 1997. 11. A. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE FEBRUARY 15 2005 1. 2. 3. None None VSR 05 -002 Address` 135 Whiteley 125 Nelson 294 Tally Ho Rd i escrtption _ Demo of SFR in Village Demo of SFR in Village 2nd Story addition to SFR Action A A A Ianne J. Bergman R. Foster R. Foster MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 Commissioner Fellows requested Consent Item No. 2 be pulled for discussion. PAGE 2 Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to approve Consent Agenda items 1 & 3; the motion was unanimously approved on a 5/0 voice vote. Commissioner Fellows stated it would be a mistake to pull this house down as it was part of the historic fabric of the Village and the Design Guidelines and Standards require that this be taken into consideration; he would like it to go before the ARC first as he believed that part of the building could be saved and reused. He requested input from the Brisco family that occupied the property during the 1930 or 40s. Mr. Strong suggested it be reported to the ARC and be reconsidered at the next Planning Commission meeting. In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker, Mr. Strong said that after a fire the building was rebuilt in 1926; Gorden Bennett has reviewed this house and found no specific historic significance or unique character to the house; this was a previous reported demolition and had no contest when there was a project proposed by the current owner (the property was now to be under new ownership). Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing for comment. Preston Thomas, buying the building, stated that the building was more an eyesore and he hoped to improve the neighborhood with a new building. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to continue Consent Agenda item No. 2 to the Planning Commission meeting of March 15, 2005. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Fellows, Parker, Keen, Tait and Vice Chair Brown. NOES: None ABSENT: None NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: IV. A. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 05 -001; APPLICANT — HUNTER'S LANDING COFFEE COMPANY; LOCATION 1156 EAST GRAND AVENUE. Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman presented the staff report to consider review of drive through services and proposed renovations to the coffee shop. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman requested that the Commission review the original Conditional Use Permit for the drive -thru, give direction to staff and Architectural Review Committee regarding landscape, parking and rear yard design. In reply to Commission questions Mr. Bergman stated: 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 • He had not contacted the business at the rear to regarding any conflict they may have with the proposed changes to driveway and parking. • This building would be similar to the other "Hunters Landings" located in Nipomo and San Luis Obispo. • The applicant would give information regarding the stacking of cars in the driveway and location of the trash container. • Re concern for the proposed ADA access to the building: A redesign for the ADA access would be reviewed and Building Department would be consulted for a solution. • Regarding the new powdered green metal roof, there are no specific design guidelines for Grand Avenue. • The applicant's lease is very short — 60 -day notice from the landlord so the applicants are concerned about how much they invest in the project. • The circulation and parking will be reviewed by the ARC. Vice Chair Brown opened the Public Hearing for comment. Josh Blair, designer for the proposed changes: • About three cars can be stacked up before they obstruct East Grand Avenue sidewalk. • There is no dumpster on the property, but the trash containers will be screened from view (from Grand Avenue) with a fence. • ADA access has been located in the closest accessible space to the building for safety; there is not much room to put wheelchair access on the right -hand side of the building, but they will review this. • The ARC will review the additional parking and landscaping. • There are no plans to put anything on the roof of the building. • No final decision has been made on stamped concrete or asphalt for the driveway -up lane. Vice Chair Brown closed the Public Hearing. PAGE 3 Commission Comments: Keen: • He was surprised at amount of work that had already been done before they had reviewed it. • Concern for the type of swing sets to be installed; bright plastic would not be appropriate for this location. • Although the design of this project is nautical, he did not think that Palm trees were appropriate; in the past the ARC has not approved Palm trees (they are non - native). • The building looks fine; he agrees with Commissioner Parker that the wheelchair ramp at front door is not in the best place. Parker: • Concern with the wheelchair ramp for safety reasons and would like a different location be considered with help from staff. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 • She liked the design: looks better than before. Fellows: • The proposed design is an improvement over what is there now. • If it is possible to secure a long -term lease he would like to see the "sea of concrete" changed. • He has no problem with the Palm trees; a lot of non - native trees grow faster and may have a better look. • If there is only room for three car stacking someone should keep an eye on this so it does not become a problem. Tait: • His concerns had already been addressed by the other Commissioners. Brown: • He agreed with Commissioner Parker's comments regarding concern for the wheelchair access. • He agreed with Commissioner Keen regarding the Palm trees and the fact that they had been planted before their review. The Commission had no further concerns. B. PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTION OF REVISED PLANNING COMMISSION BY -LAWS, RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1956. Mr. Strong explained that approval of Resolution No. 05 -1956 would amend the Commission By -Laws, Section I, G.b. to state that "A motion will be required to continue discussion of agenda items after 10:00 p.m. ". Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to amend the Planning Commission By -laws and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1956 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDING THE BY -LAWS The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Fellows, Parker, Keen, Tait and Vice Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None the forgoing Resolution was adopted this 1 day of March 2005. PAGE 4 The Commission took a five - minute break to review the additional information received at the start of the meeting regarding Cherry Creek (item III.A). Mr. Strong excused himself from the following item due to conflict of interest and left the meeting. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 ,PAGE 5 III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. (CONTINUED FROM 02/01/05 MEETING) DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04 -007, VESTING . TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04 -002, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04 -002, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 04 -001; APPLICANT — CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC; LOCATION — EAST CHERRY AVE & MYRTLE STREET. Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report for the continued review of a new development and Neighborhood Plan (NP) for a 22 -acre area bordered by East Cherry Avenue, Myrtle Street, and Arroyo Grande Creek. The staff report addressed Commissioner comments from the February 1, 2005 meeting regarding: • Drainage and Water Quality • Sewer • Traffic • Circulation • Agricultural Buffer Interpretation • Additional Ag Buffer Information • Class II Soils Classification vs. Prime Soils • Other Agency Permits • Affordable Housing Requirements • Right to Farm Notice Additionally, comments and clarifications addressed in response to a memo from Jim Dickens to the Commission were: • Neighborhood Plan • General Plan Inconsistencies • Negative Declaration • Newsom Springs Drainage Project In conclusion Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of the project to City Council and that staff further recommends that the Commission consider the alternatives depicted on the tentative map for the internal lot configuration and the road alignment for East Cherry Avenue and recommend the preferred layout. Development Code Amendment be processed provided that the Neighborhood Plan is considered adequate. Commission questions to staff: Parker: • Re final landscape plans — what credentials and experience has the City Arborist had in working with environmental plantings and if they are not knowledgeable in environmental planting could we get someone who is? Ms. Heffernon — the City has a certified arborist. • Is there a drainage issue in subarea 2? Victor Devens — re mitigation for Newsom Springs, there is no issue. Ms. Parker — so there is no water runoff from the ag issues that run into subarea 2? Mr. Devens - he would have to look at an overall topo map of the ag land and see what the drainage patterns are. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 Tait: PAGE 6 • Exhibit IV, asked for clarification on why new poles were being put up. Mr. Devens — there are two poles being relocated; he explained which they were and stated PG &E would not put anything down on creek bank, but it may end up in the 25 foot creek set back. Ms. Parker said that it should be addressed before PG & E put a pole in a 25 -foot riparian area. • Will the City Water Plan be in place before this project is approved and if not could this jeopardize the status of our current water supply? Mr. Devens — said the City is securing additional water supplies and explained what the City is doing to acquire more water; the project could be conditioned not to grant occupancy until extra water is acquired. • Mitigation 3.5, page 7, re air pollution mitigations, asked if the City expects the wheel washers etc. to be used? Mr. Devens explained the various methods used and that the City does oversee this. Ms. Heffernon — this is a soft mitigation from APCD and they could be consulted if there was concern. • Why is the bridge being eliminated and what is the City basing the elimination on? Ms. Heffemon — there was no consensus to pursue it and Parks and Recreation does not want the maintenance and the neighborhood does not want it, but the Commission can suggest further discussion. Fellows: • What is staffs position on abandoning the Noguera Street property owner's backyard easement? Mr. Devens — The abandonment is not being considered at this time. • Will the project convert prime ag land to non -ag land use and why is the initial study checklist phrased this way? Ms. Heffernon — it is a standard question to try to get issues resolved. • Ownership of buffer maintenance later etc. Ms. Heffernon — the HOA would be responsible for all maintenance. • Mitigation MM4: Does this also refer to the Walnut trees, as they exist now? Ms. Heffernon — it should say "and native trees" (Walnut trees are not protected). • Re Page 4 of the staff report: Traffic surveys for the City have underestimated at least one project for the City, how close would we be to LOS 'D' at build out of this project. Mr. Devens said he would have to do some research to answer that question. • Re Page 3 of the staff report asked for clarification on the 2 sentence regarding pollutants in the creek. Mr. Devens — this is a nexus issue (an existing problem is being taken and added to this project) and more research needs to be done. • 2.2 new mitigation measure states the 4 lots adjacent to the buffer should be single story, but Attachment 10 (design guidelines) conflicts with this as it mentions 2 story windows. Ms. Heffernon — said the design guidelines as proposed to be amended is what staff is recommending and probably needs more discussion. • There are 19 pages of mitigation measures, how can the City enforce all of these concerns? Ms. Heffernon — the City does the best they can and all departments do go out and check on them and they are important to include. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 PAGE 7 • The Arroyo Grande Creek wildlife corridor adjacent to the property site does contain habitat for steelhead and the red legged frog, would the Endangered Species Act come into play, particularly if the 72" drain pipes are depositing ag runoff including pesticides into the creek which is their habitat. Ms. Heffernon — the applicant will be required to consult and obtain permits from both Federal and State departments such as CA Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife etc. • Re cultural resources: Are the results of the Phase 2 sub surface testing available yet? Ms. Heffernon — not at this time, but before this proposal goes to Council, Phase 2 testing should be done to determine if there are any archaeological issues with this project. • Re the vegetative screening for the Ag buffer: Should a condition be added that the vegetative screen must be effective in reducing airborne pollutants prior to occupancy (a wall would not be effective). Ms. Heffernon — suggested the City could request the landscape plans be signed off by an outside consultant to ensure that the screening is sufficient. • Loss of prime ag land under CEQA is considered a significant impact so if the project converts prime ag land to non -prime ag land why is this considered an insignificant impact? Ms. Heffernon — the subject site is not agricultural land and is not being converted (it is prime soil for residential use). Parker: • Reminded staff that she had submitted a list of consultants who would be glad to help with choosing correct buffers to decrease pollutants in the air and ground. In reply to another question from Commissioner Parker, Mr. Devens stated that the existing 15" and 12" City Sewer line interconnected in the area of Fair Oaks and Hwy 1 at Valley Road, has been identified in the Capitol Improvement Program and we have been assured that this sewer line does have adequate capacity and occupancy of this project should not be the trigger for this line to be replaced. Brown: • What environmental review was done was done at the time the drainage master plan was approved. Ms. Heffernon — she did not know what level of review was done. • The concept plan for subarea 2: Was there any discussion as to how that would be part of a condition of approval for the NP? Ms. Heffernon — a reduced density in subarea 2 is not being proposed. • Is there a condition of approval to build the homes above the 100 -year flood plain in subarea 2. Mr. Devens said he did not know about subarea 2. • How is the hydrology going to work in the case of a 100 -year flood event if the pipes are 17 feet plus under water? Victor — the outlet elevation was being selected based on trying to be above the base flood elevation for the area. • Page 7 of the Newsom Springs report: He had concern that the City was making recommendations for a drainage plan for this property that is a regional issue; the recommendation was based on the Master Drainage plan or the Newsom Springs Report (which Public Works states in a memo is "informational only "); MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 PAGE 8 conditions of approval also state that the hydrology report is to be done after the project is approved. • Because this property is not zoned Agriculture is it not subject to overriding considerations? Ms. Heffernon — stated that she did not believe it was subject to overriding considerations. • Concern that the staff report stated that the proposed project neither resolves circulation nor does it preclude future road connections. Ms. Heffernon - ultimate connections will be decided upon in the future; we show where secondary access could be. Mr. Devens - agreed that there are other possibilities other than the 227 bypass. • The Cherry Ave alignment: What is staff's opinion on the curved route? Ms. Heffernon — staff would like to see this not curved; like to see the East Cherry Avenue extension be a public right -of -way. Tait: • Mitigation measure 4.16 does not state when the survey of trees (prior to removal) by a qualified biologist should be done; The Morro Group report states this should be done from March 1 — August 31 this date should be added to the measure. Ms. Heffernon — agreed that this should be added. Vice Chair Brown opened the Public Hearing for comment: John Knight, RRM Design Group, discussed four key issues: Traffic, the Regional Drainage Plan, the Neighborhood Plan, Ag Coordination; he stated the archeological study for Phase 2 was completed and was included in the binder (monitoring was the only recommendation); gave an update on the Neighborhood Plan meeting; he presented a new plan for the proposal received from Jim Dickens and stated the neighborhood was not interested in this. In conclusion, he stated that emergency access would be reviewed in the future as part of Phase 2. Eric Justason, RRM, gave a brief summary of the agricultural issues; discussed the Ag Buffer Study, prepared by Dameon and Brad and a publication regarding Agricultural Buffer Policy that they collected during their research. He discussed the research they had conducted on ag buffers and the and the need to protect farming and residents and reduce impacts from farming operations to minimize complaints; he described the design of the ag buffer, the proposed wall and landscaping proposed; explained that there was 127 feet separation between edge of crops to first habitable structure. In conclusion he asked the Commission to give clear direction as to what is needed if the Commission feels that they are not providing sufficient protection. Ed Harrison, 441 Lierly Lane, concerns: 1) alternative plan from Jim Dickens would put a road on three sides of his property 2) East Cherry Lane to Traffic Way is already a bad road with no parking, the traffic study did not look at these things and it is not a good plan to add more traffic to this street and needs to be addressed. The applicants have done a very good job of communication and have been sensitive to the neighbor's desires. 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 PAGE 9 Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, gave history of flooding on Tally Ho Road (Tally Ho Road twice flooded) and stated the water is similar to what comes out of Newsom Springs; the new houses raised up will not get flooded, but the adjacent houses will; use the mitigation measure money and build a dam in Newsome Springs and work with the County. JR Hoffmeir, 765 Branch Mill Road, discussed an email on the comparison between Australia and USA ag buffers. Linda Osty, 309 East Cherry Avenue, previously Commissioner Brown had asked that the applicant recalculate the size of Tots and she had not heard anything about that. However, her main concern was with congestion on Traffic Way and East Cherry Ave this is a huge problem. The project looks great but we do need to look at this for the future. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, re her parents property at 404 Lierly Lane, stated that when the 2001 General Plan was approved she had been assured by Council (on a handshake only) that 4.25 units per acre was too much; she believes Cherry Creek is part of something bigger; it is impossible to approve Cherry Creek without getting a better idea of what type of density is planned for the remaining nine owners; density should not be more than the smallest property existing now (1/4 acre). Other issues of concern were fencing material (does not like the proposed wall); does not like the two story, 4 units backing into ag land; concern with traffic and width of the road at Traffic Way. In conclusion, she asked what project will it take to "break the camel's back "? Carol Hoffmeir, 465 Branch Mill Road, has concern with the proposed 2 -story homes adjacent to the buffer; buffer will need to be bigger for future pesticide production, trees will need to be taller for protection; the Negative Declaration for the Coker Ellsworth project required buffer protection that never happened; what happened here, so how do we know that this will happen with this proposal. Nora Looney, 444 Lierly Lane, her property adjoins this proposal; she just received a copy of Jim Dickens proposal and does not support having a road straight through her property. She does support the Cherry Creek proposal and commended the developer for working with them; they have had successful neighborhood meetings. The pedestrian walkway ends up in her backyard and will not work; she would like the Commissioners to come out to look at the property. She has mixed feelings on the bridge, it needs to be reviewed and Lucia Mar consulted; road alignment is a big issue and she would like to see it dedicated to the City. She was interested in hooking up to the sewer, but did not like the language in the mitigation, which states, "I must " (within a certain time - frame). The offer of private easements from the developers was great; better alignment is needed where Cherry Avenue meets Branch Mill Road and a 3 -way stop sign. One -story units would be better than no windows on a two story. It is unfair to require the developers to have the buffer screening with 5 -year old trees when people live there now with no screening. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 PAGE 10 Otis Page, Myrtle Street, asked who in the City made the determination that this site is considered to be residential and not agricultural. Ms. Heffernon — staff made the determination as it is written in the General Plan. He stated he was in favor of this plan but not the configuration — density is too high, two story not acceptable; he discussed the circulation; the traffic analysis is understated and the traffic calming not adequate; he would like to see one -way into the project; there has been no analysis in the traffic study of the bridge that is being considered. Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, stated concerns that 1) there is significant runoff from existing ag land and this is not the responsibility of this development — owners of the land should mitigate this, 2) requiring a developer to provide ag buffers five years in advance of starting building would not be legally defensive for the City, 3) the current traffic analysis did no counts on Cherry Lane or Traffic Way showing number of cars moving down Cherry Lane to Traffic Way and none on the traffic moving to freeway at this time; it is the City's responsibility to improve this stretch in conjunction with development and not the developers. Jim Dickens, 769 Branch Mill Road, discussed drainage and stated that moving forward with the current proposal would preclude any future discussion about looking into the possibilities of a Newsom Springs detention basin (that would have multiple benefits). He questioned the claim that with this proposal no changes are being made as to what is being discharged into the Arroyo Grande Creek; a 100 -year flood event could cause 900 cu. ft. per second traversing Branch Mill Road (the Dickson Ranch would have to take care of this) and no one knows what would happen in subarea 2. He stated that an appropriate hydraulic report should be conducted before the project is approved; no environmental review was done on the Drainage Master Plan and we were told that when a project comes forward the questions will be addressed; so a drainage analysis needs to be completed. Re circulation: the staff report states the proposed project would not preclude future road alignments, the 227 by pass was put to rest two years ago; in the General Plan Update regional relief routes were discussed; if approved the project would preclude routes for the future. Mr. Dickens stated that the intent of his alternative conceptual Neighborhood Plan was merely to show how multiple factors could be incorporated within the subject property site; his goal was to show that there are different alternatives, look at all factors and deal with subarea 2. He recommended the Commission look at the Ag study from the applicant; the Queensland Report recommends a minimum of 40 meters for landscape buffers to mitigate between agriculture and residential. In conclusion, he asked the question — at what point as more and more neighbors move in do the farm operators have to be more and more mindful and at what point does it become an economic burden. Eric Justason stated that regarding drainage, it is not possible for the project to take care of a 100 -year flood; our proposal addresses a long- standing drainage issue, but there is a limit to what we are able to do. Tony Janowicz, 445 Lierly Lane, stated he though this was a good project that needs much further review to resolve all the issues; he asked that sub area 2 be looked at a later date; he would like the ability to split his property at the density given to him. 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 The Commission took a 10- minute break. 10:00 p.m.: Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to continue the meeting to 10:30 p.m. The motion was unanimously approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Fellows, Tait, Keen, Parker and Vice Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None PAGE 11 John Knight stated that it did not make sense to do environmental studies for sub area 2 at this time. Commissioner Keen asked Mr. Dickens re the 150 -foot buffer, what data was he basing the information that a 150 -foot buffer would be adequate versus the 100 -foot buffer with vegetation. Mr. Dickens — the County Ag Commissioner recommends this to allow for protection (even though the exposure may only be a perceived) to alleviate complaints that impact farming operations; additional distance will decrease perceived effects of any kind of exposure and lastly it is The Queensland Report's recommendation. Keen to Mr. Dickens: • In his opinion did he believe that in five years the environmental impact from pesticide use will only get better? Mr. Dickens — he could not say that, but even if they were 100% organic they would still have complaints- fertilizer smell, dust etc. that is why we need more space. • Re drainage basin, should it be the applicant's responsibility to buy the land and build it. Mr. Dickens — absolutely not. • Should the farmers have any responsibility for drainage of their waste into the local creek? Mr. Dickens — they have 100% of responsibility for everything that leaves their property. Parker to Mr. Dickens: • Does the buffer accommodate for natural events when a farmer is spraying. Mr. Dickens explained how the County Ag Commissioner's department regulates pesticide use and permit conditions include adverse weather conditions; the most important issue for a buffer is to create a comfort zone for the average person to live and as more and more people move into the area it becomes more difficult to educate people and we do not know what tomorrow may bring; it may be helpful to bring a representative in from the County Ag Commissioner's office. Parker to John Knight: • Asked for clarification on the parking plan. Mr. Knight — we revised the plan to demonstrate that there could be parking on both sides of the street; East Cherry has parking on one side only at 32 feet (requested by the Public Works and Police Department); further up East Cherry near Phase 2 we have not presumed any widths, but the areas that will need parking would need wider street. • Asked for clarification on the fence heights for the yards. John Knight — yard fences are proposed to be six feet neighborhood fences. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 PAGE 12 • Is there a reason why the Vanderveer property has been subdivided from the rest of the proposed project and has a stone wall all around and a gate? Mr. Knight — Myrtle Street will not go through because of the creek, it was the desire of the person who is purchasing the house and the large lot that is behind the house. • Concern that when driving into this project from East Cherry the street is proposed to be named Myrtle and could get confusing. Mr. Knight — the Fire Department identified how the streets will be named. • Re the General Plan walkway conception, why can't the trail be put on the creek side? Mr. Knight — if we did it would have to dead end, but we are proposing a small pathway along the creek along with some other alternatives. • Will the 72 feet drainage pipe have a grate on it and be cleaned out periodically? Mr. Knight — there will be a grate and the City will clean this out. • Asked for clarification on the site runoff from the project. Mr. Knight and Mr. Devens explained how this would be taken care of. • Tait: • Will the Palm trees near one of the proposed homes will they be removed? Mr. Knight — they will be removed. • Asked for clarification on the Buffer surveys. Mr. Mavis — explained that originally they talked to everyone in the neighborhood, left the questionnaire with them, but none were returned, so the second time they went out with a new questionnaire and these have been included. • Asked for clarification on the width of the proposed Buffer. Mr. Mavis — the buffer they are proposing is 100 -feet from property line to property line and 115 feet from property line to the edge of first habitable structure. Fellows: • Circulation plan for 2 Phase asked for clarification. Mr. Knight — at the neighborhood meeting we gathered the information, but no street widths have been presumed. • Asked about the storm water collection basin mentioned in the letter from Linda Chipping? Mr. Knight — described the basin and stated it had to be fenced for safety reasons. Brown: • Re the Buffer study, asked why language was used relating to the "evolving agricultural buffer". Mr. Damien — when this was originally started this study it was unclear. • Re the Buffer issue, asked where does the study discuss the 100 -foot buffer in conjunction with the "current intensity of ag use and possible future uses ". Mr. Mavis — the basis of this came from the fact that we are going to be providing a higher performance buffer than what is currently there. • Where in the material does it describe that 100 -feet is adequate? Mr. Mavis — recommendations from the Ag department's office and it is a good minimum for pesticide access -start at minimum. • Re the proposed level of development including, subarea 2, how does the density fit the 100 -foot buffer and where is the supporting information? Mr. Mavis — based on the fact that there are 6 -8 Tots that will be directly effected by the buffer. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 • During the presentation that there a comment that there has been an attempt to zone this area back to agriculture, where did this come from? Mr. Knight — comments we received in the packet regarding an attempt to identify this area as prime ag land and they had presumed it was for the purpose of converting back to agricultural land. Commissioner Brown stated that there had been no such suggestion to zone this area back to Agriculture ". • Re drainage, on what basis was it determined that it was adequate, especially as there is a condition of approval suggesting a study should be done. Mr.. Knight — we decided on this design because it was the City's; we believe it is above and beyond our responsibility, but we are willing to do it to get this proposal through the City; there was no environmental review done for this. Vice Chair Brown suggested that this project be continued to the next meeting, but he did not wish to close the public comment. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to continue the hearing to March 15, 2005 and that it be placed first on the agenda. AYES: Commissioner Fellows, Tait, Keen, Parker and Vice Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Keen made a motion to adjourn. There was no second. C. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 05 -004; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — VILLAGE CORE DOWNTOWN AND VILLAGE MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS. Due to the late hour this project was not heard. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to continue this item to the May 3, 2005 meeting. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Fellows, Tait, Brown, Keen and Parker NOES: None ABSENT: None PAGE 13 B. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 03 -001; APPLICANT — S & S HOMES OF THE CENTRAL COAST; LOCATION — SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND COURTLAND STREET. Staff requested continuance of this item to the March 15, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission. After discussion on the upcoming meetings and project status the Commission made a motion. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 Vice Chair Brown made motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows to continue Specific Plan Amendment to April 5, 2005. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice Chair Brown, Commissioners Fellows, Keen, Parker and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: None V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR MARCH 15, 2005 MEETING: No discussion. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. to the Special Joint Meeting at 6:30 p.m. March 14, 2005 with the Traffic Commission and City Council. ATTEST: A TO C • NTEN / i144 -11 Il L Ov ROB RO ` , COMMUNITY DEVEL LXN REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION PMENT DIRECTOR (Approved at PC meeting of March 13, 2005) PAGE 14 1