Loading...
PC Minutes 2005-10-041 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2005 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows, Parker, Ray and Tait. Staff members in attendance were, Acting Community Development Director, Teresa McClish, Assistant Planners, Ryan Foster and Jim Bergman and Public Works Engineer Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: No Changes were made to the Agenda. ANNOUNCEMENT:Chair Brown welcomed the new Commissioner, Caren Ray. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of September 6, 2005 were approved, with the following change: Page 6, first paragraph after the third bullet, should state: Commissioner Fellows suggested that an interpretative site and some of the recovered artifacts (off Fair Oaks Avenue) should be displayed in a local museum. A motion was made by Commissioner Fellows, seconded by Commission Tait and passed by a 4/0 voice vote; Commissioner Ray abstaining. The minutes of the September 20, 2005 meeting were approved with the following changes: • Page 3, seventh paragraph, replace Mr. Nutting with Joel Kauser. • Page 6, fifth paragraph, last sentence, should state: long term enforcement based on the proposed HOA and maintenance district has not been proven. • Page 8, first paragraph, eighth bullet, should state...one driveway that is less impervious surface. • Page 9, third bullet, reword the sentence to grammatically clarify. A motion was made by Commissioner Tait, seconded by Commission Parker and passed by a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Ray abstaining. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter dated October 4, 2005 from the County of San Luis Obispo regarding non - public hearing item IV.B. Pre - Application Review 05 -008. 2. Letter received October 4, 2005 from Michele Norwood regarding non - public hearing item IV.A. VTTM /PUD 01 -001 (formerly Tract 1998) & LLA 01 -002. 3. Additional consent item Minor Exception 05 -001, 532 South Elm Street. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2005 4. Informal Parking Study for Village Creek Promenade, received at the meeting from the Applicant. II.A. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE SEPTEMBER 20, 2005: ,age ;,No. 1. 2. Viewshed Review 05 -014 Minor Exception 05 -011 PP. Juan De La Rocha Salas Address 516 Carol Place 532 South Elm St es 2 -story addition to existing one -story house. Reduction of the side yard setback. Action • A A. Planner J. Bergman R. Foster Consent Item No. 1 The Commission had no concerns. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve this item. The motion was unanimously approved on a 5/0 voice vote. Consent Item No. 2 Mr. Foster clarified to Commissioner Fellows why the project was approved. The Commission had no further concerns. Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to approve this item. The motion was unanimously approved on a 5/0 voice vote. III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 9/6/05) MINOR USE PERMIT - PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 05 -008; APPLICANT — VILLAGE CREEK PROMENADE LLC; LOCATION — 230 STATION WAY. Mr. Foster presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal for the addition of two (2) second -floor apartments in an existing two -story office building in the Village Creek Promenade; the ground floor contains medical offices. Mr. Foster gave the background on the proposal; described the land use; described the parking and explained that the proposed project if approved it would constitute a parking reduction of Tess than 1% but that the Development Code allows up to 20% for mixed use projects; discussed the issue of concern with the parking if the Post Office is relocated to the Village Creek Promenade; described the open space. In conclusion, Mr. Foster stated that staff recommends that the Commission adopt the Resolution and approve the Plot Plan Review. Staff answered the Commissioner's questions. Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. Rob Anderson, applicant, answered Commission questions. Chair Brown closed the public hearing to public comment. PAGE 2 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2005 PAGE 3 Commission comments: Tait: • Finding No. 3: The physical location of these apartments is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; they are right in the middle of medical offices and businesses, not friendly to children - no useable green space or open space for them to play; it's also close to the freeway - not good for children • If it were possible to exclude children from these units he might be able to consider approval. • It is not in line with Development Code performance standards as there would be lighting from the parking lot and business signs, noise from the promenade and the freeway (people would be living right above highway 101). • He agreed with Mike Miner's letter that parking will become more of a serious issue in the future when all the buildings are occupied and the post office moves in. • He believes mixed -use is good, but he is not in favor of this Resolution the way it stands. Parker: • Thinks mixed -use is good, but agrees with Mike Minor's letter that parking could become a problem when the post office moves in. • Believes mixed -use is good, but agrees with Commissioner Tait that the proposal is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood so cannot make Finding No. 3. • Agrees with Mike Minor's comments regarding the parking issue. • The look back provision would not work if tenants had to move out after a year. • Agrees that shared parking could work if tenants were away during the day, but does not agree that this is a good use in this area. Fellows: • Agrees with Commissioner's Tait and Parker on the parking issue; Mike Minor is doing his part in paying for parking off site for his employees. • This specific site is not a nice place to live for anyone; suggested that residential not be allowed here. • He has problem with both Findings No. 2 & 3. Ray: • Regarding compatibility, it does meet the standards as written. • There is a legitimate segment of the community that can benefit from this type of housing. • Concern regarding the parking, because there is a 24 -35% vacancy at this time and future tenants and their parking requirements not known. Brown: • He agreed that the other Commissioners concerns were important, but did not believe that these two units would be the tipping point. • Agreed with Commissioner Ray that the market will determine who would use the space and that there may be people who could put up with the lighting and noise. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2005 PAGE 4 • Most of the mixed -use projects that have come forward have been horizontal rather than vertical; when they are horizontal there is room to put in open space and add amenities that should be there. • He could support the Resolution if there was a look back provision that addressed the compatibility of the residential units. Fellows: • Not sure if the community is ready for mixed -use without open space and amenities for children. Parker: • Suggested that some changes could be made and then it could be brought back to the Commission again for re- consideration; maybe make the horizontal use more compatible by having some green space or waiting until the post office comes in to see how it would affect the parking. Tait: • He did not agree that changes could be made to make it compatible and there is no room to make it more livable. Further discussion took place between the applicant and the Commission on mixed -use zoning and whether it should be vertical or horizontal, in which areas it would be acceptable, and the friction between residential and commercial uses. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to deny the project based on the inability to make required findings 2 & 3 for Plot Plan Review approval. The motion was passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Tait, Parker and Ray NOES: Chair Brown ABSENT: None Ms. McClish informed the applicant that the Commission decision could be appealed to the City Council within ten days. IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 9/20/05) VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 01 -001, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01 -001, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 01 -002 (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS TRACT 1998); APPLICANT — TAOS HOLDING CORPORATION /CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT; LOCATION — NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA. Commissioner Tait requested to be excused from the meeting due to the fact that he lived within 300 feet of the proposed project. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2005 PAGE 5 Ms. McClish presented the staff report for consideration of a Resolution of denial for a proposed residential subdivision consisting of twenty -one (21) clustered lots and one (1) open space parcel on approximately 26.6 acres and informed the Commission that some minor changes have been made to the Resolution which are as follows: • 1 page, under Tentative Tract Map Findings for Denial, No. 1. first sentence, change from: the development cannot be clustered...to ...the development is not clustered. No. 2, first sentence, change the words: ...tract map or... to tract map and /or. Near the end of first sentence, No. 2., correct ...have not be adequately...to ...have not been adequately... • Commissioner Brown requested the following change: No. 2, near the end of the last sentence, add language after Homeowner's Association to state: ...and maintenance district. • Page 2, under the heading Planned Unit Development Findings, No. 1, delete the word "and" before "all yards"; and No. 2., first sentence add "does not" after ...manner of development... • Page 2, last paragraph, delete all wording in last sentence beginning with ...and information contained in Exhibit A... In conclusion, Ms. McClish stated that the City Council must make the final decision on the project and that staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending denial of the project. The Commission had no questions for staff. Chair Brown opened the hearing to public comment and hearing none closed it. Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 01 -001, Planned Unit Development Case No. 01 -001 and Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 01 -002, located at James Way and La Canada as amended above and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1977 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 01 -001 (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS TRACT 1998), PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01 -001 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 01 -002; LOCATED AT JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Brown, Commissioners Fellows and Parker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners Tait and Ray PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2005 the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4 day of October 2004. B. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 05 -008; APPLICANT — BILL SADEK; LOCATION —1136 EAST GRAND AVENUE. Mr. Foster presented the staff report for the review of a proposal for a mixed -use development consisting of nine (9) planned unit development and convert an existing building to commercial use. Staff answered Commission questions. Although this was not a public hearing Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment. Applicant Bill Sadek and Mark Burns answered Commission questions and stated they would have traffic reports prepared when they bring the project forward; there will be an arborist report prepared; if they reduce the scope of the project (size of units) to allow more space for parking and Tess friction with the residential would make it safer for children and allow more open space, but would result in only one affordable unit and an in -lieu fee; they would like to get the Commissioner's comments on the walkway; the units will be sprinkled and we will probably have to add a fire hydrant. The Commission commented on the following key issues as requested by the applicant: • Ingress /egress • Setbacks • Unit size • Pedestrian walkway • Open Space • Parking 8:25 p.m. The Commission took a 5- minute break. Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, had concern that this was a very dangerous traffic area with children going to and from school at the same time as people are leaving for work and exiting from Linda Drive; people often drive the wrong way all the way down Linda Drive; suggested the Commission go over to the area to see how busy it is. Chair Brown closed the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 6 The Commission had some very positive comments on the development and some specific concerns focusing mainly on: • Trees: Some of the Cypress trees are dead; like to see the Mock Orange tree preserved. • The children traversing to and from school along Linda Drive and onto Grand Avenue. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2005 • Open space for residents and play area for children; like to see the open space specified when this projects returns. • The design of the pedestrian walkway for both safety and privacy. • Suggest changing the design of the roofs to a mansard -type. • Change in grade in front of units. • The severe impact the project could have on the residents at 1155 Linda Drive (they have lived there for 25 years); suggest mitigate to protect the residents. • That parking spaces be provided for easy access to and from the units. • That the neighborhood would not be affected by the parking. • The ingress and egress from Linda Drive and Grand Avenue: Suggestion to us e Grand Avenue as an exit with right -hand turn only. • Require a traffic study covering the peak hours. The Commission had no further comments. PAGE 7 C. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 05 -006; APPLICANT — THE FIVE CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICE FOUNDATION; REPRESENTATIVE — FRED SWEENEY; LOCATION — 400 WEST BRANCH STREET. Mr. Bergman presented the staff report for review of a proposal for a Sports Complex called "The Courthouse" on a City owned five (5) acre site west of the Women's Club. The ARC reviewed the project on June 6, 2005 and many of their comments have been incorporated into the current renderings of the project being presented, including an extensive redesign of the building in an attempt to reduce the earlier box -like appearance of the structure. The applicant recently had an advertised neighborhood meeting where the following concerns were discussed: • Parking • The proposed driveways • Lighting • Hours of Operation • Traffic and circulation deficiencies in the local area In conclusion, Mr. Bergman addressed the letter received from the General Services Director, County of San Luis Obispo, which was a reminder of the deed restriction, the purpose of why the property was given to the City and stating that it might be premature discuss shared parking on property that the County owns. In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker, Mr. Devens stated that the access road on the eastside of the property to the water tank would have to be maintained and that there was also a water main that runs down to the freeway from this area. In reply to questions from Chair Brown, Mr. Bergman stated that the applicants are about five years away from raising money for this project; they can address a "needs" study and other communities are being looked at. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2005 PAGE 8 Although this was not a public hearing Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment. Fred Sweeney, architect, stated the applicants are here to gift this building to the City and the South County and feel that this will be an important asset; if necessary they would be prepared to operate the gymnasium as a non - profit organization. Mr. Sweeney then gave a presentation and stated that during the neighborhood meeting concerns were raised and these would all be addressed in the future. In answer to a question from Chair Brown, Mr. Sweeney stated that Councilman Dickens had done a survey and all the members of the Board are cognizant of the fact that all the facilities in the South County and Oceano area are really overtaxed. Chair Brown stated that if City resources are to be used he would like to see a multi - generational use for the proposed recreation center. In answer to a comment from Commission Parker, Mr. Sweeney said the "sell -off' sites, up above the center would not be suitable for parking because of the grade change; these sites could be used for a park -like setting as an extension to the Women's Center or as a neighborhood park. Commissioner Tait suggested the site could be connected with steps down towards the center and agreed with Commissioner Parker that he would not like to see these sites sold off for million dollar homes. In answer to questions from Commissioner Tait, Mr. Sweeney said the proposed use of a "sod roof" would provide a barrier to the outside environment and would enhance views for the homes above; he explained passive and active systems for energy saving and stated they are looking into many green strategies for use in this building; they did not want to be in competition with "for profit" fitness clubs; they were intending to keep the Eucalyptus trees as they already provide screening for the homes above; they are considering Sycamores, oaks and some other drought tolerant plant species. Doug Wisner, 445 Old Ranch Road, stated he had attended the neighborhood meetings and was not against the proposal. The main concerns were about the traffic impact this project would have on Old Ranch Road, Mercedes, Vernon and Brisco Roads. Other concerns were that they would like to have the ability to see actual height elevations; some neighbors thought the building looked shed -like; several people said they would like a pool to be included. Mr. Sweeney explained that to include a pool would require the building to be larger and probably higher and he did not believe both could be on the same site and still stay within the building footprint. Commissioner Parker stated even a community size pool would be welcome, although she understood there was a really strong need for basketball courts; she liked the green 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2005 PAGE 9 building; would not like to see outside storage (this should be surrounded by a wall or have a roof on it); does not like Eucalyptus trees, but understands that they are good screening; she would like to see a portion of this gymnasium open for teen use so they have a place to go and play pool etc. Mr. Sweeney stated that the challenge with a pool is the scheduling with all the community groups and the upkeep of the pool, which is a very expensive; to make a pool pay it would have to be very large and include recreational items. 10:15 p.m. Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to continue the meeting to 11:00 p.m. to allow further discussion. The motion was approved on a 5/0 voice vote. J Johnson, Representative, Five Cities Community Services Foundation, answered Commission questions. Commissioner Fellows stated he appreciated all the leg work that the applicants had done in looking around the country at other projects, he liked the new design; he did not think the building needs to be screened from the street by trees, but thought more trees would be needed in the parking lot; he thanked the foundation for their very generous, potential donation to the City. Commissioner Ray stated said she had been involved with swimming for 25 years and also had been involved in the redesign of the Paul Nelson pool so understands why a pool may not be feasible; the City does not have a basketball center in the community so she gives a big thumbs up to this proposal. The Commission had not further comments. Ms. McClish stated that this pre - application would go to the City Council next for review. D. TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 05 -003; APPLICANT — COASTAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL; LOCATION —1220 FARROLL AVENUE. Mr. Bergman presented the staff report for consideration of a one -year time extension of an Amended Conditional Use Permit for continued use of a parochial school. Staff answered Commission questions. The Commission had no concerns. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to recommend that the City Council approve the one year Time Extension Case No. 05- 003 for amended Conditional Use Permit 03 -004 and adopt: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2005 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 05 -003 FOR AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 03 -004; LOCATED AT 1220 FARROLL AVENUE; APPLIED FOR BY COASTAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Parker, Ray, Tait and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4 day of October 2004. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Ms. McClish gave an explanation of the following discussion items and stated discussion of these items would be moved to the next meeting on October 18, 2005: 1. Creek setback policy and standards study. 2. Mixed -us and multiple family development standards. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Ms. McClish stated that the 2005 -06 Annual Report included in their packets, had been submitted to the State as required annually. X. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. ATTEST: LY`N REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CO TENT: O = STRON COMMUNITY DEVELOPM T DIRECTOR RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1978 (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of Otober 18, 2005) PAGE 10 i[0i►_. TIM BRO ,'CHAP 1