Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-12-211 1 MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21,1999 PAGE NO. 1 CALL TO ORDER Chair Greene called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL ABSENT Commissioner Costello X Commissioner Keen X Commissioner London ABSENT Vice -Chair Parker X Chair Greene APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 16, 1999 minutes continued to a future date to allow for a quorum. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Addendum #1 to Attachment "A "- Conditions of Approval, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2265 and Planned Unit Development No. 97 -563. Applicant: Village Glen Homes; Location; North of James Way near Mesquite Lane. 2. Letter dated December 15, 1999 from Andrew W. Hays, Attorney at Law, representing Mullahey Ford concerning TPM 98 -548 3. Letter dated December 20, 1999 from Ed. J. Muraski, EdD regarding the Village Glen Annexation, Tract 2265. 4. Letter dated December 21, 1999 from the EDC regarding Village Glen Annexation, Trace 2265. 5. Letter dated December 21, 1999 from Kim and Douglas Dunn regarding the proposed Village Glen Annexation, Tract 2265. 6. Memorandum dated December 21, 1999 to Kerry McCants, Community Development Department from Don Spagnolo, Director of Public Works /City Engineer regarding the Traffic Commission's response to Level of Service questions at their December 20, 1999 meeting. Chair Greene explained to the audience that the Planning Commission was going to alter the order of the agenda items because the meeting will have to terminate no later than 9:30 p.m. due to the unavailability of one of the Commissioners. The Planning Commission cannot operate without three (3) members. Agenda Item III. A. will be continued to January 4, 2000 at the request of the applicant. Commissioner Keen moved that Item III. A. is moved to the Planning Commission meeting of January 4, 2000. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Keen moved that Agenda Item III. B. be continued to January 4, 2000. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21,1999 PAGE NO. 2 Chair Greene stated that the Planning Commission would discuss Agenda Item II. C. first. When this Item is finished, and if time permits, the Planning Commission will discuss Items II. A. and B. H. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. II. C. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MPA 2265; PLANNED UNITE DEVELOPMENT 97- 563; LOCATION — UNINCORPORATED AREA OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, ADJACENT TO AND NORTH OF JAMES WAY NEAR MESQUITE LANE, APN 047 -132- 013, 047 - 132 -016, 047 - 132 -012; APPLICANT — VILLAGE GLEN, LLC. Joe Prutch, Contract Planner, gave a brief overview of the project. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2265 is part of an 86.3 -acre parcel that has been proposed for annexation to the City of Arroyo Grande. Tract 2265 would create 40 residential lots, and one lot of 19.1 acres as the future site of an elementary school. Planned Unit Development 97 -563 would allow clustering of 36 of the 40 residential lots in Tract 2265. The City Council certified the Final EIR, approved General Plan Amendment No. 97 -004, Development Code Amendment No. 97 -009 and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations on December 9, 1999. On December 16, 1999 LAFCO held a public hearing and approved the application for annexation. The four large lots will be conditioned so that each lot will have 1 single family home. No second dwelling residences can be built on these lots. Commissioner London stated that he understood there were some errors on the blueprints given to the Planning Commission relative to the stop signs and possible stop lights, and the name and designations of the streets. Mr. Prutch replied that there was some confusion on staff's part with regards to the roads A and B. What the Commission has before them is correct. Chair Greene stated that on page three (3) of the proposed Resolution, the Planning Commission has to find that the project complies with all applicable performance standards listed in the Development Code. One of these findings talks about recreation facilities being made available. Is the City looking at the School Site as a place to be used by the Community as a recreational facility. Mr. Prutch stated that the school district was going to allow this. Chair Greene asked staff to explain Condition Numbers 85 and 86. Craig Campbell, Public Works stated that Condition No. 85 refers to providing for the water supply offset for the entire annexation's water supply, not just for the subdivision. Alternative A achieves this by requiring dedication of a well site and providing funds to construct a well at such time as the City chooses to do so. 1 1 1 1 MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21,1999 PAGE NO. 3 Mr. Campbell explained that the reasoning behind this is that the well is not needed until the City reaches build -out. According to Public Works best projections at this point in time, the City has more than adequate supply for this time. By acquiring the funds necessary for the City to construct a well, we will find out if the projections are accurate and if a well needs to be drilled. Or, is there an alternative water supply project that is superior that these funds could be used for. This is a method to guarantee that a well could be built, but also give the City an opportunity for flexibility. Finally, Mr. Campbell pointed out that this is subject to City Council approval that it qualifies as an alternative method of complying with the mitigation measure. Mr. Greene asked if it was up to the Planning Commission to make this policy decision or up to the City Council? Mr. Greene asked if the City Council would be setting this money aside to be used for water development exclusively? Mr. Campbell explained that it was really up to both the Planning Commission and the City Council. He also stated that he would expect this money to be put aside to either construct a well or to use for another water supply project that would achieve a similar goal. Chair Greene asked if it was the applicants choice to pay a fee or provide an onsite storage tank? Mr. Campbell stated that it was the applicant's choice however it was his understanding that neither the applicant or the school district had any interest in constructing the water tank and intended on paying the fee, which was the City's preference also. Commissioner London asked how it would work if the applicant opts to not build a well would all the same conditions be extended? Mr. Campbell stated that yes, at a later date all the tests would be performed and this was taken into consideration when making the estimate of the fee amount. Chair Greene asked for further clarification on the issue with the well. With respect to the election of the alternative of accepting a fee in lieu of drilling the well and testing it, he was concerned that the City would not know whether the well is capable of producing the amount of water that it was estimated it would produce. So, if the City opts for the fee versus drilling the well, what kind of risk, if any, will the City run? Mr. Campbell stated that the City did run a risk that somewhere during the testing it would be discovered that the well would not be as productive as predicted. However, he felt that the City would also gain the opportunity that superior products along the way will come to be an opportunity such as a participation in ground water reclamation, for instance. In the end it may turn out to be a better deal. Mr. Greene asked if Mr. Campbell agreed that there was some element of risk in bypassing the well and assuming that it will produce the water that it is supposed to? Mr. Campbell stated that there is some risk. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21,1999 PAGE NO. 4 Mr. London asked if the money was spent on some other project and there comes a necessity for drilling a well, where would the money come from? Mr. Campbell said that the idea is that the money would not be spent unless it was to achieve the water supply required of this project, which are seven (7) acre -feet per year. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Gary Young, applicant spoke to the Planning Commission and stated that there were two items in the Conditions of Approval that he would like the Commission to consider changing. First, Condition Number 62 deals with a collector road and states that "Road 'A" shall be designed and constructed to collector street standards, including the following: a. 44 -foot street width from curb to curb. Mr. Young asked the Planning Commission to consider how that would look in a residential section. A 44 -foot wide street tends to be a collector and divider of a neighborhood. His suggestion would be to make this street a 40 -foot street. A 44 -foot street would divide the neighborhood. Also, the estimated number of trips a day for this street is 500, and collector streets are usually required when there are over 2000 trips per day. Secondly, Condition of Approval number 66 a. deals with the secondary access leading off of Canyon Way. This access is for emergency vehicles and for access to the 3 new parcels. Public Works has asked for a 28 -foot pavement width. The applicant is asking that this access road /private driveway be 20 -feet wide. Mark Panther, 402 Spanish Moss Lane, asked where the roads would be leading into James Way? He is concerned about the water and asked if there was a drought would there be a major problem? He stated that he was against the project and felt this should be put to a public vote. Mr. Campbell answered both Mr. Panther's questions. Kat Bensen, 340 Canyon Way, stated that when she bought her property she had no idea that there was going to be an easement road on her road. She asked if she had any options? Mr. McCants and Mr. Campbell explained the easement road to Ms. Bensen and discussed her options concerning this issue. Commissioner London asked how this issue would be resolved? Mr. Campbell explained that there was a Condition of Approval for the project that required the applicant to obtain the easement. Mr. Young will have to do this before the project can proceed. If Mr. Young had a problem obtaining this easement it could drag things out in the final map stage. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21,1999 PAGE NO. 5 Glen James, 1485 Pomeroy Road explained that he has owned this land since 1954 and when it rains the creek running through the property is not a dry little creek. To put a road through the creek sounds like a lot of environmental adjustment. Mr. James also stated that those people who buy the homes and are able to have their children walk to school, this is providing them a great service. When it comes to the world and the environment, the ability of this school to handle local traffic is environmentally valuable. Kim Dunn, 736 Quebrada Lane, stated that she has several concerns with relationship to this project. She felt that 978 homes already have been approved in Arroyo Grande she did not see a need for the homes. She supports the school at this site however, she does not support the amount of housing the City is letting come into the area. She stated that she had some questions regarding the well. She does not understand how a well that has not been drilled can be considered a water resource. Has a test hole been drilled? Mr. Campbell stated that the study was based on was an e-log and this is compared to an existing well that is very near by. The e -log is a hole that has been drilled but is very small and it does not involve pumping the water and testing in that way. It is a measurement of the water characteristics. Mrs. Dunn asked if the minor test that had been done was what showed that the water was not very good water quality? Mr. Campbell answered that they knew about the water quality because the City had an existing well in the same aquifer. Mrs. Dunn asked what alternatives the City had if they did not find water from this well? Mr. Campbell explained the aquifer to Mrs. Dunn and explained the geologists' expectations of this well to Mrs. Dunn. In conclusion Mrs. Dunn stated that these are estimations only. She felt that an unknown water source was like not having any water at all. She is very worried about relying on a well in this way. She objects to the project and only supports this site for a school. Mr. Campbell gave further explanation of the aquifer that would be used by this well to the Public and the Planning Commission. C.Z.Brown, had concerns with: • The question of water. • The school site should be used for recreational facilities. • All park in -lieu fees should be dedicated to Rancho Grande Park. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21,1999 PAGE NO. 6 Richard DeBlauw, stated that his back yard backs up to this project and he is in favor of it. The school site, as well as the residential, is needed. He feels it is very unwise not to plan for more people. There are excellent growth controls, the utilities are available as well as the water and this project should be allowed to go forward. Furthermore, if there had to be a vote taken to allow more homes, the gentleman who spoke that lived on Spanish Moss Lane might not have a house today. Douglas Dunn, 736 Quebrada Lane, had some questions about erosion. He had just seen the grading map and was concerned about the scheduled removal of the grove of Eucalyptus trees that were planted for erosion control. Also, there will be an incredible amount of earth moved to build the school. He felt the trees should be saved and could be used to help the kids study wildlife. Also, he agreed with Mr. James when he stated that in a rainy year a large amount of water comes down through the creek. Finally, he disagrees with the project because of water and traffic. Mr. Prutch explained that 50% of the Eucalyptus trees would be removed. Ross Konoable, 255 Rodeo Dr felt that the housing was not talked about much at previous meetings. Mr. DeBlauw's stated that more housing was needed because he is a builder. He agreed with the comment that the City was building more and more housing and that was the reason we needed more schools. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Keen had the following concerns: • He would like the chart to reflect the side yard and front yard setbacks so that houses on the corner and the one that would sit behind it wouldn't be set back farther than the side yard setback. • In Attachment A, Conditions of Approval #13, #3 it refers to the property line fences. He would like to see that back yard fence on a house that is facing one street and has the side yard on another street, the fence should be no further out than the side of the house so that it doesn't block the views of the other properties. • Conditions of Approval Number 24 states "grazing shall be permitted in the open space areas ". He doesn't have any problem with this, but he isn't sure if it is a good place for this next to the school. He knows there will be children in the open space area and it may not be safe. • Conditions of Approval Number 26 makes reference to the fact that there cannot be any secondary residential units. He wants to make sure the City can do this because of what the State law says. • Conditions of Approval Number 27 talks about any proposed changes to the locations of the homes. What kind of changes does this include? Mr. Prutch explained that this meant that if someone wants to relocate the building envelope that they can do this through the Community Development Department. • Condition of Approval Number 40 that speaks to the Oak that are going to be removed. Mr. Keen stated that normally there is a plan and layout of the Oak trees, 1 MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21,1999 PAGE NO. 7 which shows the trees that are to be removed. He would like to have seen this and possibly asked for some changes to be made as to where the houses were going to be put to try to save some of the trees. He does not know if it is possible to save any trees because the Planning Commission did not get a plan showing their layout. • Condition of Approval Number 52 stated that all buildings should be fully sprinkled. Yet, in Conditions of Approval Number 83 it says, "lots using fire sprinklers shall have individual service connections ". He wondered, if all of the houses are to be sprinkled, then all should have single water connections? • Mr. Keen asked if Condition of Approval Number 124 concerned just this project so that other people in the annexation area would not have to abandon their wells when City water is in place? Mr. Campbell stated that this was correct. • In the Mitigation Monitoring Program Number 6, F1, it talks about the visual impacts of the proposed grading of the school site to conform to City policy and land form grading. It has been Mr. Keen's impression that the City had no say about the construction of the school site because it is under State rules. So how does this mitigation measure work the City doesn't have any control over it? Mr. Campbell explained that because of the subdivision process there is control over those things that are going to occur prior to the recording of the map. There was an overall grading plan for all 40 Tots that will create a "rough pad" prior to the map being recorded and the property being transferred to the school. The school will take that "rough pad" and do their own detailed grading plan that the City will not have control over. • Mitigation Measures Page 9 it states that "sodium street lights" should be used. Mr. Keen stated that the wording should be "high- pressure sodium" and the lights should shine directly downward, not in a broad fashion. He would like to see the high - pressure sodium lights used in the school parking lot as well. • With regards to the SAC Draft Notes which talked about the higher flow rates for the sprinklers and Mr. McCants meeting with the applicant to discuss this. Has this been taken care of? Also, on Page 7 it stated that Public Works has decided a three - (3) way stop and crossing guards. But in all the mitigation and monitoring it gives different options. What will happen with this? Mr. Campbell stated that he believed that the higher flow rates have been discussed and taken care of. Further, all options suggested in the EIR would be open to discussion by the Planning Commission. The applicant's engineer submitted some information regarding the sight distance that indicated that the intersection does work in its proposed location and does not need to be relocated. Based on this, it was Public Work's recommendation that this option was the best choice. • Does this include flashing crossing signals on the street. If there was a crossing guard that Mr. Keen felt there should be advanced warning signs for when school is in session. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21,1999 PAGE NO. 8 r • If the access road became a 20 -foot width, could the Planning Commission require that the 2 -foot shoulders be some type of material that could be driven on in case of an emergency? Mr. Keen stated that he felt that 28 feet is excessive and he would not object to the road being 20 feet with the stipulation that the shoulders be class two base. He asked Mr. Buckingham what the purpose was of asking for the reduction? Bruce Buckingham explained that there were several reasons such as: • Aesthetics • The applicant believes that it would be excessive for 600 trips a day. • The road is one straight path to the school site. Coming from the school site is a downhill grade. The narrower street might help slow the traffic down. • Because of the re- design and only one street going up to the school, it essentially splits the site. A 44 -foot wide street is a barrier against what should be a cohesive neighborhood. Mr. Campbell stated that there was some concern by Public Works that with parking on both sides and bus travel the Department felt it should ask for the wider street. Commissioner London stated that he felt bike lanes should be an integral part of all new neighborhoods. Further, he did not have any problem with making the access road narrower. Mr. London stated that he shared Mr. Brown's concern with the water well issue. He felt that after discussing this issue over and over again the City has come up with something new. He is concerned that in the future there will not be enough water. He asked Mr. Campbell why the City was considering this when there had been so much discussion about the well? Mr. Campbell stated that what Public Works was trying to do was to give the City an opportunity to seek a superior water supply than that of the Deer Trail Well. He said that there was some very careful wording in Conditions of Approval Number 85 A. that states "if approved by City Council and prior to any onsite construction and prior to recording the map ". The Planning Commission is allowing the City Council to decide if they would accept a financial guarantee instead of building the well. Further, Mr. London asked who would fund the crossing guard and would it be shared between the City and the School District? He also was concerned about the access road and the end of Canyon Way. He wondered how the City would keep people from using it as a drop off site? Chair Greene had the following issues: • He stated that it was been a tradition that the Planning Commission have the landscape plans. This has not been done and would staff or the applicant have any objection to adding language to Conditions of Approval Number 7 which would include the language " Planning Commission "... to review the landscape plans? MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21,1999 PAGE NO. 9 • Conditions of Approval Number 14 amended to change "minimum street side yard setback" from 15 to 20 feet. • Delete language from these Conditions of Approval and let the Development Code standard language prevail. • Condition of Approval Number 26 concerning the second residential units, is there some need to make a change. Would staff please create some kind of language that would allow a deed restriction that would prohibit the building of a second residential unit. • Conditions of Approval Number 40 concerning lots 6 through 11 and the Oak Tree removal. Will six trees be replaced by a 14 to 1 ratio? Change wording to read "Each Oak tree to be removed shall be replaced by a 3 to 1 ratio using 15- gallon size and 11 to 1 ratio using 5- gallon size. • Conditions of Approval Number 61 E. should include "applicant shall provide for early warning signs subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. • Conditions of Approval Number 62 - Mr. Greene asked Mr. Campbell to explain why he thought the road needed to be 44 feet across. Mr. Campbell answered that it was because of buses, kids and parking. • Mr. Greene felt that a 44 -foot road would encourage unsafe speeds. He felt that the road should be 40 feet. • Conditions of Approval Number 66, the road should be 20 feet wide with 2 foot class 2 base. This might make a road more palatable to Ms. Bensen to have the 20- foot road. • Conditions of Approval Number 83, strike the sentence starting with "duplex service lines ". • Mitigation Measure 1 -2 add the words "high- pressure" sodium. Chair Greene stated that there was no greater need in the City than for a school. There has not been a new elementary school built in the City since 1962. They are putting 700 students in a school, which was designed for 300 students. Mr. Greene felt that this project, although not perfect, is essential to insure that the Community is able to provide proper educational sites and services for its students. There are some environmental impacts, but he feels the project merits the support of the City. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1727 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2265 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 97 -563 FOR THE VILLAGE GLEN PROJECT, LOCATED NORTH OF JAMES WAY NEAR MESQUITE LANE, AND MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING THE EIR, APPLIED FOR BY VILLAGE GLEN MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21,1999 PAGE NO. 10 HOMES LLC. Including Attachment A and Addendum 1 to Attachment A, Attachment B, and with the amendments and changes proposed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE ABSENT Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London ABSENT Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene ITEM II. A. AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99 -001; LOCATION — 136 BRIDGE STREET; APPLICANT — CAREY JAMES CONTINUED TO JANUARY 4, 2000 ITEM II. B. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 98 -548; LOCATION — 200 STATION WAY; APPLICANT — ROBERT ANDERSON Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner explained that this project was originally submitted in November 1997. Although both applications were initially processed at this time the Conditional Use Permit was approved in February 1999 without any action taken on the parcel map. The approved Conditional Use Permit allowed for the construction of four (4) commercial office buildings. The four buildings have a total of 27,350 square feet with a proposed lot line running between buildings two and three. Ms. Heffernon stated that the proposed subdivision meets all commercial site development standards for minimum lot size, width and depth. Setback and lot coverage requirements have also been met with regard to the four buildings. The SAC reviewed the project on December 7th and discussed conditions that would require construction of all public improvements prior to recording the final map. The intent was to treat the two parcels as one common project. Specifically Condition of Approval Number 11 requires that a Certificate of Occupancy must be issued for buildings one and two prior to recording the final map. Because of the way the conditions were written for the Conditional Use Permit this insures that all public improvements are in place for both parcels including the required onsite parking and sidewalks. Condition of Approval Number 12 requires that the existing CC &R's be amended to include maintenance agreements for all shared facilities. Commissioner Keen asked if by approving this map tonight was the applicant still required to build all four buildings? Ms. Heffernon explained that buildings one and two would have to be built and the applicant would have to obtain Certificates of Occupancy with all the public improvements before they could record the map to insure that all improvements are in place. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21,1999 PAGE NO. 11 Commissioner London asked if the parking for buildings three and four would be in place before the buildings are built? Ms. Heffernon stated that was correct. Chair Greene asked about the letter that Mr. Hayes had written for Mullahey Ford concerning the sidewalk. Mr. Greene asked if the Planning Commission was doing anything at all by approving this, regarding this sidewalk. Mr. Campbell stated the Planning Commission was doing this by inclusion of Condition #11 that basically says the map cannot be recorded unless the Conditional Use Permit is completed. The Conditional Use Permit requires that the sidewalk be completed. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Robert Anderson, 2775 Gillespie Drive stated that he was in attendance to answer any question the Planning Commission might have. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. The commission did not have any comments or issues with this project. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1726 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 98 -548, LOCATED AT 200 STATION WAY, APPLIED FOR BY ROBERT ANDERSON with a modification to Findings Number 6, and Exhibit A and B. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE ABSENT Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London ABSENT Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS None V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT None VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS. None MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21,1999 PAGE NO. 12 VII. ADJOURNMENT V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS None VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS. None VII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 4, 2000. ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commission erk Laurence Greene, Chair A TO Kerry cC. is Communi y Development Director ifialaimuSatint_ 1 1