Loading...
PC Minutes 2004-03-161 1 1 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 - 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Guthrie presiding; also present were Commissioners Brown, Fowler and Keen; Commissiioner Arnold was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planners, Kelly Heffernon and Teresa McClish, Assistant Planners, Ryan Foster and Jim Bergman, Planning Intern, Andrea Koch and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: The Commission agreed to hear Item IV.A first, Time Extension Case No. 04 -001, (a short item at the end of the Agenda) as applicants were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of March 2, 2004 were unanimously approved on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Arnold absent. I. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Memo from Rob Strong giving an update on CUP Case No. 02 -013, Farm Supply /Loomis, located at 1039 El Camino Real 2. Plan shown to scale (Exhibit 'A') for Item IV.B, Pre - Application Review Case No. 04- 004, location — re proposed subdivision at 756 Myrtle. 3. Letter from Jim Dickens, 76 Branch Mill Road, representative of the Dixson Ranch Agricultural Preserve re Pre - Application Review Case No. 04 -004. II.A. MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE FEBRUARY 3. 2004 - SUBJECT TO 10- DAY APPEAL: None to report. Mr. Strong stated that Written Communication No. 1 was a report of an administrative interpretation, unless appealed within ten (10) days following this meeting, the previously approved Conditional Use Permit Case No. 02 - 013, will enable the completion of the entire 10,000 square foot retail building and 2,950 square foot upper office and storage building as a single phased project. IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 04 -001; APPLICANT — CALVARY CHAPEL OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION —1133 MAPLE STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Planning Intern, Andrea Koch. Ms. Koch gave an overview of the staff report; requested the Commission to consider approval of a one -year time extension for Conditional Use Permit 01 -01, approved March 19, 2002 by the Commission; requested that permission for phasing of the project be granted; stated Public Works had added a couple of conditions regarding storm water to the project; stated church acitivities will be held at another location during construction when onsite parking is infeasible; the applicant plans to begin project construction in April 2004. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 PAGE 2 In reply to Chair Guthrie, Victor Devens, Public Works, explained the additional conditions and the purpose for them. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public. Dave Will, General Contractor, stated they had addressed the drainage issue; addressing the phasing would help the project move forward. In reply to questions from the Commission Keen, Mr. Will confirmed that phasing will go forward and further time extensions will not be required; all the demolition will take place at the same time; a school had been rented for the overflow parking while construction takes place. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to the public. Staff answered further questions; the Commission stated they had no further concerns. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to approve the time extension, and adopt: RESOLUTION 04 -1919 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 04 -001 FOR A ONE -YEAR TIME EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 01 -013, APPLIED FOR BY CALVARY CHAPEL OF ARRYO GRANDE The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Fowler, Brown and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Arnold the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16 day of March, 2004. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. VARIANCE CASE NO. 04 -002; APPLICANT — SAMUEL GILSTRAP; LOCATION — PASEO STREET, LOT 24. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster. Mr. Foster presented an overview of the staff report. In conclusion Mr. Foster stated the Community Development Department recommends that with respect to the portion of Paseo Street that fronts Lots 11 -18, the City reject the offer of dedication in exchange for a bicyle access easement that would connect to Hwy 227 and the City would maintain emergency access as it currently exists; there is no easement in place that would give Lots 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 PAGE 3 15 -24 the ability to access Hwy 227 were the emergency access gate removed; staff also recommends that the applicant work with the adjacent property owners to provide water service for Lots 19 -24; before final approval ingress and egress arrangements for lots that cannot access Hwy 227 will need to be addressed. Staff answered Commission Questions and Comments: Brown: Had problem with making Variance finding #3 (frontyard setback). Keen: Could not make Variance finding #6 not consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. Guthrie: Asked for clarification on widening of the road and the impacts on the lots. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public. In answer to questions from Samuel Gilstrap, the applicant, Mr. Strong gave an update on installation of the utililites; stated that the neighboring Jensons would have to grant utility easements before improvements could take place and this should be resolved before going to City Council.. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing for public comment. Commission Comments: Keen: • Had a problem with the no parking in front of the garage; this would not be acceptable; he could agree to a five foot setback. • Could not make the variance for finding No. 6. Nan: • Does not like really high retaining walls; there is onstreet parking so could accept the no parking in front of the garage and could make the findings for the variance. Brown • Although it would be expensive to keep the garage where it was in the previous design he could not make variance finding No. 3 in regard to the setbacks and agree with Keen that they have created another problem with finding No. 6. • If the front yard setback remains then he would have to deny the variance. Guthrie: • Not a safer solution to have the car coming straight out from garage onto a blind corner and downhill — could not make finding for variance on public safety. • Agreed with Keen on suggestion to change the design. • Had concerns with the acceptance of pedestrain bicycle path. • Widening the 20 feet on the private drive for the remainder is essential • There should be participation in development of water line as well as the sewer linefor the entire area Keen: • Suggested that the garage could be moved back to the back wall so that it would concealed by the house and this would address concerns with the retaining walls. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 The applicant replied to Commission Comments. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen to continue the Variance to a date cerain of April 6, 2004; the motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Arnold being absent. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) CASE NO. 04 -001; APPLICANT — AFL TELECOMMUNICATIONS (SPRINT PCS); LOCATION — 200 HILLCREST DRIVE. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon. Ms. Heffernon gave an overview of the staff report for consideration of a CUP to install six (6) panel antennas at 46 feet on an existing 62 -foot tall monopine installed by Nextel Communications in July 2003. In addition: • The antennas would be painted to match the existing Nextel antennas, to blend with the branches on the monopine. • Placement of equipment cabinets in the northewest area of the parcel, located outside of the existing chain link fence; enclosed by an 8' tall chain link fence with wooden slats and screened with landscaping. Ms. Heffernon answered Commission questions. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing for public comment. Tricia Knight , representative for Sprint PCS, answered Commission questions. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to public comment. The Commission had no problem with the proposal, stating that they were impressed with the monopine; the antennas blended in very well and hoped in the future that more carriers could be added. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to approve Conditional Use Permit Case No. 04 -001; the motion was approved on a 4/0 roll call vote, Commissioner Arnold being absent. and adopt: RESOLUTION 04 -1917 The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: PAGE 4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04 -001, APPLIED FOR BY SPRINT PCS AYES: Commissioners Brown, Fowler, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Arnold 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16 day of March, 2004. C. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 04 -003; APPLICANT — LARRY PERSONS; LOCATION — COURTLAND STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon. Ms. Heffernon gave an overview of the consideration of exterior design revisions to the previously approved Courtland Street Senior Housing Project, located on Courtland Street behind the future Santa Lucia Bank (currently under construction). She explained that on March 2, 2004 the Planning Commission requested that the project be brought to the Commission as a public hearing item to further review the proposed architectural style (Spanish /Mediterrancean) and contrast it with the previously approved architecture. Commissioner Brown stated he that the elevator towers were not shown on the renderings and he could not envision how they would look. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing for public comment. PAGE 5 Bill Issman, RRM Group, representing Larry Persons, explained that the plans were originally prepared for ARC and exact height of the towers was not an issue. Commissioner Keen stated his main concern was that the goal of the City is not to make the Grand Avenue corridor Spanish or Mission style; the building does not have to match existing styles and is the wrong way to go. Larry Persons apologized for not providing elevations showing the elevator and would do so if requested; described the further revised building in some detail answering some other Commisison concerns. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to public comment. Commission Comments: Keen: • Quoted from The East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan (EGAEP), to explain why he was not in agreement with the revised plans and stated the new style looks more massive than the originally approved !ans. Fowler: • Liked the original design, but the revised architecture may look better as it continues up the hill. • The height of elevator towers is acceptable. • Accepts staff and ARC opinions and added tjat ARC only seems to like two colors, tan and tanner. Brown: • Agrees with Commissioner Keen, prefers original style because it breaks up the building and is in keeping with the public input for this area ; he does not like to ignore the guidelines. • Elevatos height is probably justified, but there is no information provided yet. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 • He could not approve the revised design. Guthrie: • Went through guidelines and believes that set architecture is not desired, but did not want to exclude a specific design. • The courtyard with the walkways inside lends itself to this type architecture. • This is a superior design to the other. • He had a concern that the elevator towers could end up being a very tall element and might block some views. • Re the elevators: the front elevator is shorter and the back elevator is toward the interior of the project the impacts will be reduced. • He thought the scale of the project looked larger because of it's color. Mr. Strong stated the EGAEP serves as a preliminary guidance; is not adopted yet (workshop will be on April 7 for additional public input); stated the correct interpretation of the document was to avoid uniformity, not to exclude Spanish architecture. Commissioner Keen stated he was at the ARC when this was approved and they were not presented with an option, just asked to review the revision. 1 Motion: Commissioner Guthire made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to deny the appeal of the Architectural Review Case No. 04 -003, previously submitted and approved by the ARC on March 1, 2004; the motion failed on the following roll call vote: The motion failed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Guthrier and Fowler NOES: Commissioner Brown and Keen ABSENT: Commissioner Arnold 2 "d Motion: Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen to continue to the meeting of April 6, 2004, to see revised elevations and for the full Commission to be present; the motion failed on a 2/2 roll call vote. The motion failed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown and Keen NOES: Commissioner Fowler and Chair Guthrie ABSENT: Commissioner Arnold PAGE 6 Mr. Persons said if a decision goes forward after the next meeting this would be acceptable. However, if the revised proposal is not approved he would have concern with the bonding for the credits. 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 PAGE 7 Mr. Strong explained that the applicant has ten (10) days to appeal to the City Council on the lack of action. The Commission took a 10 minute break.. D. PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 04 -002; APPLICANT — TRIED AND TRUE TATTOO; LOCATION — 1037 E. GRAND AVENUE. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. Mr. Bergman gave an overview of the proposal for the tattoo parlor; he explained that the Development Code does not list "tattoo parlos" as an allowed use or specify an applicable permitting process. The Community Development Director tentatively approved Plot Plan Review 04 -002 subject to a 10 -day appeal period. At the March 2, 2004 meeting the Commission appealed the decision and requested a public hearing to determine if the use should be allowed and, if so, the appropriate permitting process (i.e. Plot Plan or CUP). Additionally tattoo parlors are being addressed as part of the ongoing Development Code Update. On August 26, 2003, the City Council approved an ordinance which included tattoo parlors within the definition of "Restricted Personal Services ". Mr. Bergman explained the options available to the Commission. Mr. Bergman answered a question from Commissioner Guthrie stated that at this time we do not have any other "Restricted Personal Services in the midway section along Grand Ave; at this time it is limited only to definitionh. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public. Gary Ellsworth, applicant, described the background and history of his application for a Plot Plan Review with the City; stated from the beginning he was led to believe that this type of business would be allowed in this zoning; he distributed photographs to show upgrades already done to the inside of the busines; stated he wanted to dispel some ofr the misconceptions about tattoo parlors; that tattoo parlors are now part of the American cultgure; that he has the support of the neighbors, and the businesses and that they would help bring more business to them also. He concluded by stating that the area is diverse; they are centrally located; the store hours would be noon to 7:00 pm seven days week; most of the clients are on an appointment basis so will not cause much traffic; they were ready to open and it was a hardship on his family to delay this decision. Commissioner Brown asked if they were regulated by anyone? Mr. Ellsworth stated the State does not regulate, but they were registered with the Health Department. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing for public comment. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle, not in favor of approval as this type of business was not suitable for Arroyo Grande. Shawn Gale, 20 street, Oceano, known the applicant Mr. Ellsworth personally for 20 years, she could verify that he was very professional would "raise the bar" for tattoo shops. In MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to public comment. PAGE 8 conclusion stated that if the Commission gives this business a chance they would not be disapointed. Malick Pearson, owner of Lady Luck Enterprises, next door business stated he was strongly in favor of this business and it would fit in perfectly with his business and was the best place for this business. Gina Rodrieques, worked in Fairoaks Pharmacy for 14 years, stated she was in favor of this business; believed this business would help other businesses in the area; it is better for young people to have professionally done tattoos, these are artists. Terry Pearson, mother Malick, Lady Luck Enterprises, stated her peception of tattoo parlors has changed totally since meeting these business owners and was in complete approval. Rob Casino, Partner, stated there is an alliance of professional tattooists that we cannot join until we open our business and they provide rules and regulations for tattoo parlors to operate in a safe environment. Commission Comments: Fowler: • For three years there has been a tattoo business above her book store and in that time there has no problems • No loitering • No noise. • They keep good hours. • There are no problems with the shared parking lot - turnover is fast, process does not take long in most cases. • The owners are a nice family and it has been a positive experience having this business over hers. • The idea of tattoos and "blighted" is probably a misnomer. Brown: • Has a concern with health issues and wished there was regulatory oversite. • Overall no problem with this business. • Owner gave a good impression and deserves a chance at this business. Keen: • Thought the concerns had been addressed and had no problem with this. Guthrie: • Agreed with Keen and had no problem either and questioned if this still fits the "Personal Services" category. Commissioner Fowler made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve Plot Plan Review 04 -002, as previously approved by the Community Development Directo, and adopt: 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 RESOLUTION 04 -1918 PAGE 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 04 -002 LOCATED AT 1037 EAST GRAND AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY GaRY ELLSWORTH The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fowler, Brown, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Arnold the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16 day of March, 2004. E. STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 04 -001; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — VILLAGE DOWNTOWN PARKING AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA. Staff reports prepared and presented by Community Development Director, Rob Strong. Mr. Strong stated that the Commission was to consider recommendation to City Council the proposed western expansion of the existing Downtown Parking and Business Improvement District and possible Le Point Street public access extension between Wesley and Nevada streets. He stated that the Traffic Commission met last night to consider this proposal and recommended continuation of this item to give time for further study and public input. However, as this was a noticed public hearing he would like to hear public comment and Commission recommendations. Mr. Strong answered questions from the Commission. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public. Earl Balginon, 505 Le Point, new to Arroyo Grande: • Asked how this proposal was advertised and how could he find out what is going on. Mr. Strong informed him of the required noticing, website and TPR. • He was not aware of a parking problem; he was always able to find a parking place. Chair Guthrie explained that the Parking Advisory Board perceives that there is a parking problem and specifically with some undeveloped Village areas that could cause a problem, if developed. Barbara Jean Hart- Hilliar, 116 Hart Lane (private drive): • She could block off and give access to other 3 people who use it. • Supports the Veternarian next door. • Would like to join parking district as would benefit me for this specific piece of land. • Has real concerns at being sandwiched between two travel ways. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 PAGE 10 • Not agree that this would be like Olohan Alley, concern with people coming thru this area. • Le Point very curvy and she has concern about safety; suggested widening it then clock the traffic. • She had been approached about Purvis property development, would miss the wildlife, but understand the need for emergency traffic to get thru (Purvis has said they would allow emergency vehicle access. • Strongly objects to Le Point going thru. Mark Ballitera, 242 Larchmont, wife owns business in centre of Village: • The Parking District collects moneys to maintain parking, maintenance might be better if private owners stayed out of the district and maintained their own parking. • Not an alley way and shoud not be compared to Olohan Alley. • The Police said it would be not be benefit to them, and the Fire Chief was not in attendance • This proposal should be scrapped now. • A bypass from Hwy 227 thru Tally Ho and up into Larchmont not a good idea as there is already too much traffic and it is already unsafe; already used too much and poorly maintained. • Public notice was lacking; only the minimum requirement was done because the repercussion from this proposal are huge. Lynda Deblauw, 257 Lepoint — not noticed either — agreed with everything Mr. Ballitera said. Otis Page asked if there had been a traffic study. Mr. Strong said there had not been. Mr. Otis expressed his concern on the effects of opening 227 and the substantial amount of increase in traffic this would mean (4,000). Howard Mankins, 200 Hillcrest: • There is a need to open up the town, people need place to park. • Suggested not putting Le Point Street thru now, but should designate it as going thru for the future. • Keep Le Point winding as a traffic calming device. • Should not keep putting off the decisions, but should look at what will be beneficial to all of us for the future and we need to pay for this. • Without parking your business will be dead. Catherine Evans, 237 Larchmont Drive: • Concern with traffic on Vernon and Larchmont; stated cars come zipping through and we live near a school. • Would like to have it monitored to know how much traffric is going through. • Likes the idea of Cherry Lane going the back way to 227. Gay Halspun, will be moving into 235 Larchmont shortly: • Traffic does zip" by; is used as a thru road for traffic going to Five Cities Center; backing out of the driveway is very dangerous. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 • There is a school close by and no sidewalks. • Would like the Traffic Commission to address this problem.. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to the public comment. Mr. Strong recommended continuation to allow time for further study. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Guthrie, Brown, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Arnold PAGE 11 Commission Comments: Keen: • Should look at some traffic studies to see what is going on. • Need other route to relieve traffic off Branch Street. • Is in favor of expanding the parking district — it should have been done before • Agree with Mr. Mankins that people stay away from Village because there is no parking. Fowler: • She attended the Traffic Commission last night. • Changes have to be made and we have to deal with the issues and make tough decision. . • Maybe cut off Larchmont at the end and would like to see Hart Lane blocked off. • Agreed with Mr. Mankins comments — we have to get some traffic off Branch Street. • The Parking District should be enlarged as recommended. Brown: • Agree that we should move forward on portions of this. • He has no problem with Parking District expansion. • He would defer to Traffic Commission opinions at this time for the rest of this. • Notice requirement is never what it is supposed to be even though he thought good effort had been made to do so. Guthrie: • If there is increased demand for parking based on changes in use we should ultimately be providing for it. • On putting Le Point thru: Sees it not so much as a bypass to Branch but as a more orderly development of the area between Mason and Wesley; could agree with Commissioner Fowler and cut off Larchmont. • We do need to find some sort of alternative and continue with the disucssion. Commissioner Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown to support the expansion of the Parking District as proposed, addressing the change in use and continue the study of the extension of Le Point. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 B. PRE - APPLICATION CASE NO. 04 -004; APPLICANT — DAMIEN MAVIS; LOCATION — 756 MYRTLE. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner — Kelly Heffernon. Mr. Strong excused himself due to conflict of interest. Ms. Heffernon gave an overview of the proposed preliminary residential subdivision and "neighborhood plan" for property located off Myrtle Street; bounded by East Cherry Avenue and Myrtle Street within a Neighborhood Plan designated area; explained the General Plan policy addressing a neighborhood plan; stated there are no specific guidelines or development standards for neighborhood plans and therefore staff has discussed using the specific plans as guidelines; the traffic analysis will be included as part of the Environmental Review for the formal project; in compliance with the newly adopted Agricultural Preservation Overlay District a minimum of 100 foot buffer area must be established that includes a 20 foot wide agricultural transitional landscaped area (can be either on the agricultural side or project side). In conclusion, Ms Heffernon stated the applicant has held three informal neighborhood meetings to gain feedback on various alternative designs for developing the project site and conceptualizing the Neighborhood Plan; compliance with Development Code standards will be determined through the Planned Unit Development process; Village Design Guidelines will be used as the primary architectural style; all the units will be subject to ARC review. Commission Questions: • Brown: Why have we gone from 7200 square feet to the smaller lots? Ms. Heffernon replied that the PUD process allows smaller lots when open space is proposed, as long as the overall density is not exceeded. The project is within the density requirements. • Brown: It may be the physical constraints that do not allow bigger lots. • Brown: Was there going to be some kind of public access through the agricultural buffer? Ms. Heffernon said that is what is being proposed. • Brown: The gate shown next to Lot 1 is to stop people driving into Lot 2? Ms. Heffernon said the applicant would address this. • Brown: There is a long history of drainage issues on this property. Victor Devens, explained there were 3 -4 options contained in the Drainage Master Plan; the City is looking for two 72" pipes to replace the ditch that currently runs across the property. • Brown: Is there a wall going around this property? Ms Heffernon: there was a request at ARC for fencing that can be seen through along Cherry Ave. Fowler: • Concern that the small lots may not be appropriate for this area. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing for public comment. PAGE 12 Fred Bauer, introduced Damien Mavis; stated he had asked him for help with neighborhood outreach; the feedback was amazing and all townhall meetings were positive and successful. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 PAGE 13 Damien Mavis, representative, explained the site plan and process that evolved to produced their plan; described lot sizes; the gate is for the benefit of lots 1 and 2 sharing drives and their will be no other gates; the 100 ft buffer runs through lots 11, 12,13, 14, 23, 24, 25 & 26, south of the line there would be no habitable structures; he asked for the feedback on project as well as ideas on the mandated inclusionary housing (duplexes were not looked on favorably in the neighborhood discussions). Corner lots were looked at for the inclusionary housing (split with two family homes on them) and would have smaller setbacks, but would have architecture conducive to the neighborhood. Commission Comments & Questions: Brown thanked the applicant for the outreach effort: • Ag. buffers — this is the first major ag. buffer we have dealt with since the 2001 General Plan: How did you determine 100 feet was enough distance? • Density: Is clustering justified? You knew what the constraints of the creek and farmland were and think you need to work within the constraints. How would this project be transitional and in keeping with other neighborhoods (this close to ag. operations)? • Read letter received from property owner; asked why the private 15' dirt drive, not owned by the applicant had been incorporated into the neighborhood plan when no attempt had been made to purchase it? Mr. Mavis agreed that they were aware of this and there is need to address this immediately. • The interconnecting bikeways and walkways - why aren't they closer to the creek? Mr. Mavis explained that this is just a concept extending sidewalk already there and thought the creek side a great idea. • Fence issue? Mr. Mavis: it is shown around the Vanderveer resident in keeping with the house (believes this is code on development of this size to have wall or fence). Commissioner Brown said this would help in terms of a buffer, but it may separate this development from the Village /community. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle, representing 20 -40 people on Myrtle Street: • The representations on densit made here are for the people who wish to develop the Stillwell property (high density area). • Green space is taking credit for what is on the creek (not belonging to them). • Traffic issue: do not use Myrtle; maybe time to use Cherry. • 1 would like more people to know about this proposal. • This is development of prime ag. land. • Jim Dickens is a strong supporter of ag. land and this area adjoins his farm which is prime ag. land; it would be ironic that the City denied the Vanderveen property. Jim Dickens, 769 Branch Mill, representative of Dixson Ranch preserve, spoke referenceing his letter to the Commission. He stated the forty acre, commercially farmed parcel, is the only designated land within the City that is currently covered under the Williamson Act MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 PAGE 14 Contract. In addition, the property is also protected under an agricultural easement into perpetuity, the only such agricultural easement held within City limits and within the State of California. The proximity of this proposed neighborhood plan (NP) to the Dixson Ranch requires special consideration and unique planning techniques to adequately mitigate future land use conflicts and to ensure the long term protection in agricultural resources and proposed activity. He then stated some options he would like the Commission to consider: • Requiring a buffer distance of at least 150 feet in addition to a minimum of a 30 foot depth of landscaping, planted sufficiently dense and mature to provide aerisol protection within the first year. • The 15 foot private dirt road: The applicant has made no attempt to purchase this but has incorporated it into the NP. He would like the Commission to address this as a condition of approval. • Storm water drainage: He recommended placement of the catch basin to be within the agricultural buffer (GP Policy 1 -5.1) • Groundwater recharge: No adverse effects on ag. water supplies. He recommended a retention basin constructed in the middle of the proposed project to act as a groundwater facility and decrease surface water runoff into Arroyo Grande Creek. • He recommended the establishment of a creekside pedestrian /bikepath, possibly linking to a footbridge, providing access to Paulding Middle School. Mike McConville, 529 E. Branch Street: • Not notified of neighborhood meetings. • In developing this project the City could put 227 thru to Cherry Ave. This issue needs to be addressed and asked if it was addressed at the meetings. Victor Devens, stated he had learned from CALTRANS that the Highway 227 realignment is no longer being actively considered. Susan Flores, 529 E. Branch, works at the School: • Not invited to neighborhood meetings. • Pedestrian /Bikepath suggestion in the NP would take their immediate school yard. • Walnut trees on the Stillwell Property: Like to see a future plan on preserving these old trees. • Thinks density is too much. • Need to make sure all interested parties are included if other sites are included in a potential plan. Mr. Mavis stated which areas of the site they owned; stated they were committed to resolving the ag. buffer issue. Mr. Mavis then addressed the Commission Questions: • Re concern with the proposal that traffic be directed toward Cherry/Allen Street: We have a traffic study in process. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 PAGE 15 • Selling of the Tots: It will be marketed primarily as individual lots: We will build a certain number of homes to establish the community and level of quality. The inclusionary housing has yet to be established and they would probably be building these. In reply to a question from Chair Guthrie on inclusionary housing, Ms. Heffernon stated that at this time it is a 10% requirement, but is still being discussed. In reply to Chair Guthrie, Mr. Brad Vernon, partner, stated at the neighborhood meetings it was obvious that the only logical access would be Cherry Lane as primary access. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to public comment. Commission Comments: Keen: • Has a big problem with size of Tots being smaller than 6,000 sq. ft. • Would not object to seeing a wall along the property line as a buffer. • He commended the applicants for proposing to match the Village guidelines. • It may be a good idea to move the Stillwell house over to the green area, since it currently crosses a couple of lot lines. Fowler: • Liked the concept. • Lots are too small. Brown: • Lots too small; it needs to be transitional or in keeping with the neighborhood. • Assumption that the project buffer should be 100 feet, needs to be justified. • Drainage is still an issue. • Agrees with not using prime ag. soils to provide an inlet (based on GP guidance). • Not against having a wall if it is part of the buffer. • Traffic: Allen Street is a concern. Guthrie: • The higher density and clustering with open space is acceptable. • He has serious concerns with the proposed 100 feet being an adequate buffer. • Landscape screen should take place along the ag. property to have the greatest impact of containing dust and pesticides. • Block wall along ag. property is a possibility - would have to be a smart buffer. • The pedestrian /bicyle path should be developed along the creek side. • Believes a 25% inclusionary housing has to be observed, based on what has occurred in other projects. • Fire access: A secondary access would probably have to be included in the NP for emergency access; concern that Myrtle is closed off, but this could not ever be used for emergency or any other sort of access for the development of the rest of this property. • Have to accept that the zoning is 4.5 du /a and there will be traffic, principally on Cherry. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 • Great if a bridge connection was built. Keen: • If people dropped off and picked up their children at such a bridge on Myrtle Street instead of at Crown Hill, could be a disaster in terms of traffic. Would a bridge be worth it? The Commission had no further concerns and they moved for adjournment. C. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 03 -008; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION - CITYWIDE. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Teresa McClish. This project was not heard by the Commission due to the late hour. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: No discussion. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: No discussion. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: No Discussion. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR APRIL 6, 2004: None. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. ATTEST: LY'N REARDON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPM T DIRECTOR (Approved at PC meeting of April 6, 2004 ) PAGE 16 JAMES GUTHRIE, CHAIR 1