Loading...
PC Minutes 2005-02-011. ARCH 04 -012 MEX 04 -010 Valerie Kline 411 Allen Street 3 uncovered spaces — no garage Approved J. Bergman 1 1 1 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 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, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: The Commission agreed to hear Item III.0 before item III.B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve the minutes of January 18, 2005 with comment from Commissioner Keen that Resolution No. 05 -1948, should have been adopted with a roll call vote and not a voice vote. The motion was approved by a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Tait being absent from that meeting. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Agenda Item III.C: Letter from HCD left out of Agenda packet regarding Housing Element Amendment Adoption. 2. Email dated February 16, 2004, from Marcia Alter, re Walmart. 3. Letter from Otis Page Jr. re Creekside Estates. 4. Letter from Larry Turner re Creekside Estates. II. A. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE JANUARY 18. 2005: Vice Chair Brown requested that in future staff provide a brief description for each item on the Consent Agenda so the Commission would be better informed. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve the Consent Agenda item No. 1. The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Fellows abstaining. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 PAGE 2 III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 05 -001; APPLICANT — LADERA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT; LOCATION — 1400 EAST GRAND AVENUE. Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report related to a proposal to allow an auto parts store to locate in an existing building in the Town and Country Shopping Center. He explained a possible discrepancy in the Development Code and that staff would like to receive clarification, in the form of an interpretation from the Commission. He concluded by stating that if a retail auto parts store without on -site installation of parts is determined to be an allowed use in the Gateway Mixed Use zoning district, staff believes that the required findings for a plot plan review can be made and the project approved. In reply to questions from the Commission staff replied: • There is only one large franchise auto parts store in existance in the City. Vice Chair Brown opened the hearing to public comment. Joan Scharin, representative for the property stated: • auto zone was interested over a year ago but have no specific tenants with interest at this time. Vice Chair Brown closed the public hearing to comment. Commission Comments: Keen: • Council had set policy very clearly that auto parts stores were not appropriate in the Gateway Mixed -Use district and that this was an oversite when the Development Code was updated. Parker: • She understood the difficulty that the property owners may have in renting this out. Fellows: • Before hearing these comments he thought that there would not be a problem with having an auto parts store next to Dollar store. Tait: • He also had not seen a problem with having an auto parts store here unless auto parts were being installed on site, but hearing past history could change mind. Brown: • He agreed with Commissioner Keen, but thought the auto parts store that had been previously denied (on a corner) had been more of a visibility problem. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, providing an interpretation that auto parts sales without installation services is not an allowed use in the Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) zoning district and asked staff to return with a change in the Development Code in the Gateway Mixed -Use district. 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 AYES: Commissioners Keen, Parker & Vice Chair Brown NOES: Fellows and Tait ABSENT: None PAGE 3 Vice Chair Brown informed the applicant that he could appeal the Commission's decision to City Council. The Commission took a five - minute break. C. HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE (Continued from December 7, 2004 meeting). Mr. Strong presented the staff report for Commission consideration of amendments and clarifications to the City adopted 2003 Housing Element based on comments from the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). A discussion followed with questions from the Commission on program Al 1-1 regarding Density Bonus regulations for affordable units. Mr. Strong stated that he would consult with the City Attorney to clarify any inconsistencies. Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing to comment. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle Street, stated he had followed this complex issue and he had conversations with the State regarding how they audit the performance of City's (who hate the process) and the answer was that it is a "matter of trust "; he thought this was profound. Steve Ross, Garden Street, asked about 30 year deed restrictions and stated seniors may not live to see this and wondered what would their heirs do if they do not have the financing to buy? Mr. Strong explained that a resident would have to qualify to have ownership or City has first rights. Linda Osty, 309 E. Cherry Avenue, stated her concern with in -lieu fees; suggested mobile homes where lower income people could own their own land and there would be more control over the monthly fees and not have to worry about deed restrictions and assessments. Vice Chair closed the public hearing to comment. Commission Comments: Keen • He thanked staff and the LHTF for all their hard work in trying to satisfy the State. • He could not see any problem with the document as it was presented. • He would like Al 1 -1 clarified with City Attorney. Parker: • Commended staff on the complex document. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 • Pleased that the City is working on lower income housing. • Like to see more affordable places without 30 -year restrictions. Tait: • He agreed with the other Commissioners. • Had no problem with this document with the exception of A -11 -1. Fellows: • Great accomplishment and lot of thought and a lot of work had gone into the document. • Have to agree with the conclusion that we may not see a lot of affordable housing. Brown: • Workforce — verses affordable? Mr. Strong - at present there are no RHNA programs for workforce housing. • He could approve the document as currently written, but it may need to have amendment at a later date (A11 -1 clarification). • He praised staff for all their hard work in particular Ms. Heffernon. The Commission agreed that they could approve the document, but requested staff to clarify that the proposed inclusionary affordable policies are consistent with State density bonus laws prior to Council adoption. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows, to approve the amendments to the 2003 Housing Element and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1950 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND ADOPTION OF THE 2004 -05 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Fellows, Vice Chair Brown, Parker & Tait. NOES: None ABSENT: None the forgoing Resolution was adopted this 1 day of February 2005. Mr. Strong excused himself from the following item due to conflict of interest and left the meeting. The Commission took another five - minute break. PAGE 4 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 PAGE 5 B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04 -007, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04 -002, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CASE NO. 04 -001 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04 -002; APPLICANT — CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC; LOCATION — EAST CHERRY AVE & MYRTLE STREETS. Commissioner Brown requested a continuance of this item to a date certain to give more time for review of the very large amount of information presented to them for review. Commissioner Fellows agreed that a continuance was in order, but would first like to hear comments from the Commission and the public. Ms. Heffernon then presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal for a Neighborhood Plan (NP) to coordinate street, drainage, water, sewer, agricultural buffer and open space considerations, and ultimate development of 83 new residential lots on 22 acres in two phases. She stated Phase I is a proposed 37 lot residential subdivision in a Planned Unit Development configuration for 9 of the 22 acres; also proposed are two open space lots and a 100 -foot wide agricultural buffer; Phase II encompasses the remaining 13 acres where no development is proposed at this time. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends the Commission adopt a Resolution recommending approval of the project to City Council and consider alternatives depicted on the tentative map for the internal lot configuration and the road alignment for East Cherry Avenue and recommend the preferred layout. Commission questions and discussion: Fellows: • Is there a way to collect an in -lieu fee for the proposed pedestrian bridge over the creek. Ms. Heffernon - an in -lieu fee program could be instituted. • Is there any increased community benefit over the E. Cherry Avenue alignment? Ms. Heffernon - it is the City's position that we would like to see E. Cherry Avenue deveoped to it's full width including the existing 15 foot wide dirt access road and we would like this issue resolved before Phase 2 is entered into. • Mitigation 5.3, page 31, asked which "owner" shall be responsible to register the residence in the California Register of Historic Places? Ms. Heffernon - it is the property owner and this issue can be clarified in the mitigation measure. • Are there retention basins in the plan? Mr. Devens - in this area onsite retention of water is not required as the entire watershed drains to the creek. • Page 4, a) the Initial Study check list regarding ag. resources, staff has marked off "insignificant impact ", but the Ag Commissioner's letter states "the projects site soils are almost entirely prime soils..." Ms. Heffernon - the project is not proposing to convert an ag use to a non -ag use, since the use has always been residential (staff's interpretation). • Page 4, also in regard to the Ag Commissioner's statement, asked for an explanation of the relationship of Class 2, non - irrigated and prime soils. Ms. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 PAGE 6 Heffernon — the project soils are designated as Class 2, non - irrigated soils; prime soils occur when Class 1 and 11 soils are irrigated, such as with row crops. Parker: • The Commission is being asked to approve the NP (Phase 1 and Phase 2), without receiving any information on Phase 2. Are all the residents in favor of the new zoning? Ms. Heffernon - the new zoning land use for this property was adopted with the General Plan Update and all the infrastructure will be provided; the details will be addressed when someone comes forward with a subdivision in Phase 2. • By removing Myrtle Street as a through access road, Phase 2 would only have access through Cherry Avenue, should there be two access roads for a PUD? Ms. Heffernon - Myrtle Street has existing constraints and in this instance there would only be one access street, unless an emergency access is required by the Fire Department. • Concerns re the Neg. Dec., water quality, the runoff from the ag, taking away the water percolation and allowing everything to run through two 72" pipes before going into the creek; what happens when no response is received from WQCB. Ms. Heffernon - the applicants are required to obtain separate permits from the various agencies who will handle these types of issues. Mr. Devens explained how the pipes would work, that they would not allow contamination because of the high water velocity and that the proposed drainage solution is being done to solve a historic problem. • Do the houses that are already in Phase 2 have a 100 -foot buffer as designated in the General Plan? Ms. Heffernon - they are considered legal non - conforming, they could have accessory structures, but no habitable living space closer to the buffer. • Is there any area near the bridge location that could be considered for a drop off location /turnaround for the school? Ms. Heffernon - the applicant could provide more details on this. Brown: • Initial Env. Study, Page 36, Newsom Springs Drainage Report listed as reference, asked if the Commission could have a copy of this report. Mr. Devens - the analysis of the report is in draft form, but he would ask Don Spagnolo if it could be given to the Commission. • Condition #67, of the Resolution: there is no discussion of the relation to Subarea 2 or a time frame the Commission would need more information for the next meeting. Mr. Devens - they cannot condition to connect to property outside of the project, but the applicant has agreed to provide the appropriate easements in the event the City has to enforce the connections. • Condition 104, page 16, asked if the existing culvert at Huebner Lane was to be used for the storm drain? Mr. Devens - the applicant had been informed by the City that it would not be efficient to use this. • Does the change in direction of the water flow and Condition No. 103 trip the need for an EIR? Ms. Heffernon - it would not in staffs opinion (both questions) and explained why. 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 PAGE 7 • Is the road width on East Cherry Avenue to City standard and what is the proposed circulation? Mr. Devens - it would be at typical dimensions for travel and parking lane width; there has been no discussion on the ultimate extension of E. Cherry Avenue, but there are several potential locations. Mr. Brown said he would like to see staff comment and clarification from Public Works on what the City's intent is for this road in terms of circulation. • Re overlay of 100 -feet on sub area 2 properties, asked Ms. Heffernon for clarification on staffs interpretation of what is allowed in the buffer; thought it was clarified at City Council. • What is the buffer plan for sub area 2 that is required as part of General Plan LU 2 -7 (it was not mentioned in the NP)? Ms. Heffernon - it would be whatever is determined by Planning Commission and City Council, and agreed that whatever is approved for Phase 1 would apply to Phase 2 and would be done at the time someone comes forward with a discretionary project. • Asked for clarification on the creekside trail along sub area 2. Ms. Heffernon - the NP does discuss the alternatives. • How does the current use of prime ag soil change the fact that it is prime ag soil? He requested the next staff report contain clarification as to why this property falls under the need to provide like preservation. • Asked if it was normal to see approval from the agencies that require permits and if there was a condition of approval re this? Mr. Devens — the City does receive verification of approval from the WQCB. Ms. Heffernon - the applicants are required to obtain permits and referenced the Initial Study (which are considered conditions of approval). Brown requested that they be put in the conditions of approval and the specific agencies named. Parker • Re theTraffic Study: There has been a significant increase in traffic accidents at East Cherry and Traffic Way since the pool and Coker Ellsworth property went in. Like to see some figures for coming from East Cherry onto Traffic Way (especially making a left turn toward the freeway); a 22% increase in traffic is going to cause a problem. Ms. Heffernon - the traffic engineer will be able to answer these questions at the next meeting. Mr. Devens stated he would clarify this specific question with the traffic engineer. Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing. John Knight, (project manager), Damien Mavis and Brad Vernon (applicants) each gave a presentation. John Knight addressed the amount of homes proposed, the existing units and parks, inclusionary/affordable housing units, the existing homes, two of which would be retained having some historical value, the two sub -areas and the various ownership; their efforts to inform the neighborhood of the proposal, the landscaping and the fencing. Damien Mavis addressed the NP and the policies, how subarea 1 would interface with sub -area 2, street access, water and sewer infrastructure, the creekside path, open MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 space, regional drainage associated with the proposal (explaining that this project resolves a serious regional drainage problem for the City). Brad Vernon addressed the ag buffer, how it would work, their efforts to get feedback from the existing neighbors, pesticide applicators, County Ag Commission, farmers and other cities and jurisdictions. He stated how they had increased the City's buffer requirements; that according to County Ag the 115 -foot setback complies with all but one of the chemicals that are to be used. Toulone requires a 300 -foot setback if used more than one time in three years, but has typically has been applied every 6 -7 years. They are proposing to have a 115 -foot buffer from a residential structure to the property line; described the buffer and landscaping (to screen pesticide and dust along the property) with an 8 -foot wall; homeowners would be notified of the "Right to Farm Ordinance "; City staff has approved their design; they had addressed pesticide use and drift, noise issues, dust, crop theft, animal intrusion and lights. The Commission took another five - minute break. PAGE 8 Cliff Branch, owner of the other two parcels in subarea I, stated the applicant's representatives had done a terrific job; he was very impressed with the design and the NP. Lyn Titus, 404 Lierly Lane, stated that consideration should be given first to the traffic on Cherry Avenue and the NP should be looked at first, not the subarea I development; this is prime ag land, but the ag buffer will not allow a view of crops growing and this is the joy of living in this area. Sara Dickens, co- trustee of the Dixson Trust, sited the Co Ag Commission's letter which addressed their recommendation for a 200 -500 foot buffer between residential and agricultural uses and that they do not feel the drainage solution is resolved in a manner helpful to the farming operation. Linda Osty, 309 E. Cherry, stated she was glad to be talking about the entire project; lives right in front of the ag property with no buffer; has concerns with the traffic (especially at school times) and even to turn right onto Traffic Way is really difficult; all of the traffic is concentrated at this intersection. Kendall Medina, 851 E. Cherry, just outside of Phase 2, concurred with concern about the traffic and the proposed increase in homes; appreciated Commissioner Browns statements re what will happen with East Cherry, does not want E. Cherry to go all the way through as safety will be decreased; wants it to remain as a private road. John Oberg, 613 Grove Court; 12 houses on 2,800 sq. ft. lots is unacceptable, eight would be better; concern with the drainage pipe and the unintended consequence of pushing farmland closer to his house; their will be a lot more pressure on the sewer system, like the concept of putting in the ag buffer first. 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 PAGE 9 Steve Andrews, 465 Tanner Lane, project looks good, his main concern is where Cherry Lane hits Traffic Way - you see many near accidents near the swim club and a 3 -way stop sign will not take care of this. The study only looked at streets near the project and need more analysis to be further away; something needs to be done or this will become a liability for City. Larry Turner, 323 Noguera Place, gave congrats to everyone, looks like a good project, likes the NP; this project has the best drainage solution he has seen yet; would like the tract lots adjacent to Noguera to be single story homes and would like to see the easement on Noguera be removed. Otis Page, spoke for Don Shorts, 610 Myrtle, who requested the Commission to expedite the reduction of the 10 foot easement behind his house and require the developer to have onsite parking during the construction to relieve conjestion; asked where the 10,000 gophers would go who will lose their homes? Otis Page, submitted a letter to the Commission and stated: • Development of this project would be a contradiction in terms of the present Council and erosion of open space prime soil ag land; asked how could this be justified with the denial of the Vanderveen's development of their land which has Tess than prime ag soils. • He was in support of this project, but asked that the density be four homes (in the center) not eight and that they abide by the 7,000 foot criteria and discount the use of the Vanderveer home and the other developed property. • Agree the Noguera easement should be released, and that the housing facing Noguera be one story. • The traffic circulation analysis (specifically on Myrtle) does not make sense and the traffic engineers should meet with the neighborhood. Ella Honeycutt, Director Coastal Resource Conservation District, read a report from the Coastel Resource District stating concerns with the buffer; flooding potential for the Dixson farm; pesticide use in the future could be a problem; 85% of AG citizens support protection of farmland; nothing less than 200 feet for a buffer should be acceptable. Glen Mark, 855 Olive Street, stated that the City should not forget to look at the potential impact on phase 2. Bill McCann, 575 Crown Hill, the project would only lose four lots on Cherry Avenue if the bigger buffer is chosen; would like to have the Public Hearing comment period continued to the next meeting. Polly Tullis, 236 Garden Street, stated she appreciates the potential development of open space and thought in the intial plan there was more open space near the creekside; would not want to see a turnaround near the bridge as it would encourage more school drop offs for Paulding School and cause traffic to go back down Myrtle; MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 PAGE 10 thought the gate for the estate not in character with the Village (does not see any other gated communities in the Village). Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, stated that the Cherry Avenue problem between Railroad and Traffic Way needs to be addressed before further development: it is non- conforming as a residential street and is now being proposed as a feeder street. Eric Justason, RRM, spoke at length, describing the process involved in developing the project and stated that a myriad of issues was involved in putting this together during the last two years and the goal was to strike a balance and provide housing. Vice Chair Brown closed the public comment. Commission Comments: Keen: • All the problems had been discussed during the meeting. Parker: • Agreed with Commissioner Keen and would rather wait until the next meeting to make further comment. Fellows: • Center homes of the development are they affordable and intermixed. Mr. Knight explained the requirement and stated they would be mixed in and unidentifiable. • Eight homes instead of 12, is their a consensus on this (concern with parking)? Mr. Knight — at this time there is no preference — eight may be more in character with the surrounding neighborhood. • The Stillwell Home — asked what the plan is for this? Mr. Knight - the plan is to try to fix it up, put it on a new foundation and relocate it to a site next door. • He would like to see it on a local Historic Register. • Asked how long it would take the buffer to look like what is shown in the color depictions? Mr. Knight - about five years; that is why a wall has been suggested as an interim buffer. • How will prospective future buyers be made aware of the "right to farm? Mr. Knight - they would look into it. Tait: • Asked for clarification on the statements regarding Dixson farm and flooding, the drainage and how this would enable farmland to be brought back into production and would like to hear what the Dixson Ranch owners feel about this. • Would like a copy of the questionnaire on the buffer before the next public hearing • Would like to see a copy of the "Great Valley Center" document regarding buffers. 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Brown: • Re the ag buffer study: He would like to see substantial documentation provided as to how the conclusions were arrived at; the study needs a lot more work before being recommended to City Council. • Like further comment on the 25% rule for affordable units. • Re the pedestrian bridge: He would like to know how the process took place to make this determination. • His biggest concern was the NP, but sub area 2 is almost left out of the picture. He would like to see a conceptual plan that truly integrates sub -area 2. • To reduce the agricultural interface the density should be lowered. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to continue the public hearing to the meeting of March 1, 2005, and requested staff and applicant to return with information requested during discussion. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows,Tait, Brown, Keen and Parker NOES: None ABSENT: None IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. PAGE 11 VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. Asked for an update on Tract 1769 — the Busick Tract. Ms. Heffernon stated the department had not received any further communication on this. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR FEBRUARY 15, 2005 MEETING: No discussion. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Tait. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 ATTEST: L REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO C • NTENT: RO: S RONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Approved at the meeting of March 1, 2005) PAGE 12 TIM BRO N, VICE CHAIR 1