Loading...
PC Minutes 2008-11-181 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2008 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Ray presiding; also present were Commissioners Barneich, Keen, Ruth and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planners, Teresa McClish and Jim Bergman and Public Works Director, Don Spagnolo. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Director Strong introduced Director Spagnolo who was replacing Public Works Engineer, Victor Devons at Commission meetings until a new employee can be hired. Mr. Devens had left the City to take another job that afforded him a promotion. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes to the Agenda were requested. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Barneich made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve the minutes of October 21, 2008 as written; the motion passed on a 5/0 voice vote. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Don O'day, Old Ranch Road, asked staff to clarify why The Tribune had an article stating there was going to be a discussion at this meeting of a property on the corner of Old Ranch Road and West Branch Street and asked why it was not on the Agenda? Director Strong explained that this was on the Agenda as Administrative Item for PG &E temporary parking lot and there was no further progress on any new project for this site at this time. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AFTER AGENDA PREPARATION: 1. Memo from staff regarding supplemental information for Pre - Application Case No. 08 -007; Agenda Item III.A, Carpenter's Local 1800. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 08 -006; APPLICANT - SCOLARI; LOCATION — 303, 313 E. BRANCH STREET, 308 & 312 LE POINT STREET Director Strong, presented the staff report for Planning Commission review of a Pre - application for a retail /professional office /housing development on a 2.8 -acre parcel. In reply to questions from the Commission, Director Strong explained that: • The Development Code defines a cityhouse as "...a group of three or more attached dwellings where no unit is located over another unit... "; Harden Street is owned by the City and at present functions as an access driveway; the historical PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2008 PAGE 2 significance of the JJ's Market is not an issue at this point in the Pre - Application stage, but as part of an EIR it would be an Historic Resources Committee issue. • Director Spagnolo clarified the elevation of Tots 1, 2 & 3 (approximately 10 feet below LePoint Street) and that the existing sidewalks would remain with the exception of driveway aprons for lots 17 &18. Steve Puglisi, project architect, corrected the commercial square footage stated on the plans should be 6,300 instead of 4,000. He then answered Commission questions: • The historic review was performed by CRMS and will be forwarded to the City when the formal application is submitted. • There is an apprioximate 8 -foot retaining wall down from LePoint Street to separate and create the patio in the back. Mr. Puglisi then proceeded to give the history and a detailed description of the project. In conclusion, he asked the Commission to clarify the Ordinance regarding ownership of "cityhouse" dwelling units and guidance on the preferred balance of the commercial and residential components of the project. In reply to Commissioner Tait, Director Strong explained the difference between the private open space and common open space included in the project; Mr. Puglisi further explained that open space will be landscaped and would not include driveways or paved surfaces. David Foote, firma, discussed Creek Enhancement and the proposed Creekside Park Plan, explaining that they are proposing a 1 -acre dedication to the City for public parkway, pathway and bioswale and that residents would have keyed access to the park. He further explained that a significant level of enhancement can take place without getting down into the creek; the vision is to make the creek part of the park system and all the habitat that goes with it. In reply to Commission questions Mr. Foote stated: • The lawn area would be pitched to the bioswale, not the creek. • The path surface would probably be concrete; it needs to be accessible to the public and the ramp will be to ADA standards due to maintenance concerns. • The public will be able to look down on the Creek, but not access it. • It is not proposed for homeowners to shoulder the maintenance expense of the park as this will be used by the public also. • Saving the oak tree in back of lot 6 would not be advisable due to the grade and utilities that will be going into that area. Although this was not a public hearing, Chair Ray opened the hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2008 PAGE 3 Commission comments: Barneich: • This corner site is critical to the extension of the Village, especially in consideration of the DeBlauw project. • She agrees that an EIR will be required. • Regarding the circulation, there is limited site distance when exiting onto Le -Point Street; when residents turn left and oncoming traffic from Tally Ho comes around the corner it could be a safety issue; Mason Street is very narrow so "no parking" is a good idea. • She likes the one - bedroom units above the building on the corner. • This site is one of the best lots left in the Village; it's a great location being next to the creek; she's disappointed not to see a restaurant next to creek and would also like to see some of the commercial next to the creek to capitalize on this. • She believes the project is weighted too heavily on the residential side and 2,000 sq. ft. homes are too large; the mixed use should weigh more on the commercial along the creek; it looks more like a residential project and not Village Core right now; she had expected to see something like the JJ's project up on the Mesa or even a small boutique hotel; she is really disappointed not to see continuation of the grocery store; small businesses in the Village use this store all the time, plus people that live in the Village area. • Units 8 -12 (ones closest to Branch Street) should not be there; that should be commercial /retail; the residences should be pushed back toward LePoint Street to feel more like a mixed use, Village Core project. • The residential styles are okay, but each one needs to be developed more; there is not much variety and they look really cookie - cutter; an example would be the residences behind Dr. Boos as they are similar, but they all look like they have their own identity and are using different materials and colors also. • She was really shocked to see the style of the commercial building as it does not fit in with the Village or even with Grand Avenue and it's not pedestrian friendly or inviting; it should look like Branch Street, but could still be one building, but have different store fronts on each facade; she is not in favor of so much stone as proposed on this building. • The creek restoration project and the species called out for the riparian area are a wonderful idea and the most positive part of the project. Keen: • He agrees with a lot of the points stated by Commissioner Barneich. • He agrees that the front elevation on Branch Street is overwhelming - almost a block long; the facade needs to be broken up to look like different buildings. • The residential for the project encroaches too far into the Village Core designation. The Village mixed use in the back part is perfectly appropriate and he has no concern with the architecture of the units, but there are too many for the way the Development Code implies. • He has concern with the number of commercial units in the front building and the closest parking is too far away, except units 9 and 10 back right up to them; he PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2008 PAGE 4 would like to see a balance and suggested that units 8 and 9 be taken and reconfigured so that the parking is closer to the professional offices and the rear of the commercial building. • He is really fond of the creek treatment and believes this will be a nice asset for the City. • Regarding the access drives, he does not like all of the traffic going into the project from Mason Street; it would be better to have one access off Branch Street and this could work if units 9 & 10 are reconfigured. • He is really disappointed that the grocery store is going to be lost altogether as it's really important to the Village flat area and the smaller housing that is being proposed to have a market that people, especially seniors, can walk to. Tait: • He agrees with Commissioner Keen and Barneich's comments; he likes the idea of a small restaurant on the creek - it would be centrally attractive. • He agrees the project is too heavy on the residential, that the commercial on Branch Street is not inviting and that it should appear to look more like individual store fronts. • The fact that the commercial component of the project will not contain a grocery store is huge for him as this is contrary to smart growth; we need to continue a grocery store here and encourage these services in the Village • He likes the creek enhancement plan. • The disadvantages outweigh the advantages in the staff report; the mass and scale of the commercial is not an appropriate mix and the balance between the residential and commercial is not correct (too heavy on the residential); the General Plan Land Use Element should be followed per smart growth. Ruth: • She also has concern with the scale and mass of the buildings; it's not inviting and a tourist would not be attracted to this; the facades do need to be varied to look like there's something interesting there; a courtyard could be considered instead of a street facade to attract people to sit down and linger. • Creekside dining is a good idea and could be used to take the commercial along the creek - this could be a successful venture; the area where units 10, 11 & 12 are located could be a viable commercial space. • She is uncomfortable with Mason Street being the main entrance — it would not be intuitive and could be problematic. • The creek improvement is a beautiful idea and would be used all the time by people coming into the Village. Ray: • She agrees with the other Commissioner's comments. • The highlight of the project is the creek improvement which is stellar and will be great for the public. • She likes the one - bedroom units above the commercial and the articulation there; she would like to see more of that all the way down the strip. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2008 7:30 p.m. The Commission took a ten - minute break. PAGE 5 • It is not possible to get the analysis or the interpretation regarding ownership of the residential units at this time as it has not been analyzed in the staff report for them to study; this will happen as it comes out during the formal process. • She is in unanimous agreement with the rest of the Commission that the project rests far too heavy on the residential; her preference would be to remove units 8- 12 and have a U- shaped building; she also sees an opportunity for a plaza to invite pedestrian access. The whole design /feel of the project just isn't there and the creek is the only part of this that has the feel right now; agrees with Commissioner Tait that this does not follow the General Plan guidance. • The commercial building on the front does not invite access, but blocks it off; the mass and scale is not appropriate, especially the rock wall; this whole corner is in itself a historic /traditional gateway that should be extended all the way up to the DeBlauw project; it would then be more commercially viable, especially if we add in the pedestrian component; she would like to see some design articulation to carry the Village forward. • She is not too happy with the design of the residential component as there's no differentiation between them; they are box -like and need to be more village -like. • Regarding the access points for the project; if Mason Street is used as an access and the parking is removed she would love to see a bike lane. • The same comments have come from SAC, ARC and now the Commission so as this moves to City Council she hopes the applicant will have enough guidance to be able to move forward into the formal process. In reply to a question from Commissioner Keen, Director Strong explained why the discussion of ownership did not come up with the DeBlauw project as the front portion of the DeBlauw project is not Village Core Downtown, but Village Mixed use. B. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 08 -007; APPLICANT — CARPENTER'S LOCAL 1800; LOCATION 122 & 126 NELSON STREET Associate Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report giving a detailed description of the Pre - Application for a 10,000 square foot training facility and two small residential /mixed use structures. Staff clarified that the historical nature of the Nester buildings and potential appropriate treatment will be addressed in two other ongoing projects. In reply to questions from the Commission, Mr. Bergman explained: • Regarding trying to reduce the size of the building and having construction classes outside, due to noise and weather this would not be a good idea as they are looking to reduce impacts to the neighborhood. • The positioning of the building and driveway was also done to reduce impacts to the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2008 PAGE 6 Warren Hammrick, project architect, answered Commission questions explaining the elevation and entryways and why flipping the building would not work and why reducing the width of the driveway would not work; there is also a landscape strip alongside the driveway that may end up being a bioswale. Keith Baker, representative, explained why they could not reduce the size of the building and have the classes outside, their concerns are weather and noise; with insulation in the proposed building it will cut out the noise almost entirely and the classes can continue at any time whatever the weather. Mr. Hammrick further stated there were two items he wanted to address, (1) after their discussion with the ARC, they have investigated looking at indenting the wall along the property line and planting some trees to soften it, and (2) that until the Nester buildings have been discussed at HRC and City Council they want to be separated from this idea, but they would be putting up small residences or offices whatever happens with the Nester property. In reply to questions from Commissioner Ruth, Mr. Baker stated that at present the hours of use outdoors start at approximately 7:30 a.m. and over about 3:30 p.m. for clean up usually complete by 5:00 p.m.- there is no night time activity. The new building will be a great advantage; driveways are needed from both directions so that they can pull in off Nelson Street to unload materials and continue to pull on all the way through to the other side, plus the Fire Department wanted this access; in addition there is enough area for a truck to turnaround and go back out the same way; truck deliveries are during work hours only. Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment. Gary Scherquist, 134 Corralitos, Vice Chair, Historic Resources Committee, stated his concern about mindsets and the discussion in the staff report regarding the association between this project and the Nester project as the Historic Resources Committee would be considering recommendations of the Nester properties at their meeting tomorrow. He appreciated Mr. Bergman's clarification on this issue. Chair Ray closed the public hearing for public comment. Comments: Ruth: • She likes the building, but wonders how neighbors would feel about this huge building in their neighborhood and the effect it may have and if they had been asked about location of driveways. • There needs to be some significant buffering between the building, the parking lot and the houses on the other side. • The two houses in front of the project are a good idea. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2008 Tait: • • • Keen: PAGE 7 • Moving the building to the west side of the lot may be preferable for the neighbors. He agrees that neighbors need to give imput on the size of the building. He did have concern with noise, but now hear it will be well insulated. The 5 foot planter near the driveway as a bioswale will be a good thing. • Their needs to be something to break up the large blank wall and suggested fake windows where there's no trees. • The size of the building is not bad, but it looks really tall. • He would like to see a model showing a comparison with the neighboring houses. • He does have some concern with metal roofs in the Village and in this part of the town you need to be very careful about how it will look. • The side of the lot the building is located in does not concern him; he was looking for the whole corner, including the two houses, to be removed and replaced with something else. Barneich: • A computer model of this project would be good as it could then be reviewed from all angles; as this building looks now she could not approve it due to its size; even half as big it may look too large. • Having the Barn style works and the training facility inside is a good idea. • Regarding the ARC comment, that this "needs more architectural refinement" she is not sure what could be done to make such a huge building look smaller. Ray: • It seems that as a general idea the Commission is in agreement that they liked the plan. • Flipping the driveway will not make much difference unless the neighbors have some comments; because of this the neighbors need to be contacted not just noticed. • The houses on the front are okay and she does not have a concern about where they come from. • She thanked the ARC for their pre -work and agreed with all their suggestions - the driveway design and the computer rendering requested (with some exclamation points after the architectural refinements), • Regarding the mass and scale of the building, she does not have an opinion right now as it may look okay if it gets pushed back. • It would be helpful to have story poles when the formal application comes forward. The Commission had no further comments. IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION/ NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: SINCE OCTOBER 21, 2008: Case No: ^ , . App . Address Description . ': Action- Planne 1. PPR 08 -009 Shelly Lynn — Personnel Fitness Training Facility 1250 E. Grand Ave Approved with conditions for reduced parking A. L. Pennebaker 2. TUP 08 -020 Hopper Bros. Christmas Trees 1587 El Camino Real Retail sale of Christmas trees and accessories A. J. Bergman 3. TUP 08 -021 PG &E (Jim Craft) Corner of W. Branch & Old Ranch Rd. Placement of a temporary trailer office from Dec 1, 2008 — Jan 31, 2009 A. J. Bergman 4. PPR 08 -010 John Hackleman "The Pit" 1106 E. Grand Ave Martial Arts Studio A. J. Bergman 5. TUP 08 -022 Rabobank 1026 E. Grand Ave 26' Christmas Tree A J. Bergman PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2008 After Director Strong had clarified Administrative Item No. 3, the Commission had no further concerns with these items. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Director Strong thanked The Tree Guild and especially Commissioner Barneich, member of the Tree Guild, for the 19 street trees that they had organized to be planted along Bridge Street. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. on a motion by Chair Ray, seconded by Commissioner Tait. ATTEST: AS TO C SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION NTEN ROB TRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELO MENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of December 2, 2008) PAGE 8 1 1