Loading...
PC Minutes 2005-01-181 1 1 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2005 - 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows, Keen and Parker, Commissioner Tait _ being absent. Staff members in attendance were Community development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: The Commission agreed to move Item III.B. to be heard first due to the applicant's request for continuance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Brown to approve the minutes of January 4, 2005 as written; the motion was approved by a 3/0 voice vote, Commissioner Tait being absent and Commissioner Fellows abstaining due to his not being installed as a Commissioner at the time. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Strong welcomed Chuck fellows as a new member of the Planning Commission. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Fax from DeBlauw Builders re Item III.B: Proposed Creekside project at 415 E. Branch Street. 2. Letter from Kami Griffin, 514 May Street, re Item III.B: Proposed Creekside project at 415 E. Branch Street. 3. Letter from Rod's Auto Body, 155 Traffic Way, re Item III.C: Proposed mixed -use development at 136 Bridge Street. II. A. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE JANUARY 4, 2005: 1. Plot Plan Review 05 -003, for a massage parlor 153 N. Rena Street. In answer to Commission questions, Mr. Strong stated that the Police Chief has no concerns and that this is not a restricted service. The Commission unanimously approved the Plot Plan Review on a 4/0 voice vote, subject to a 10 -day appeal period. III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: B. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04 -004; APPLICANT — DB & M PROPERTIES, LLC; LOCATION — 415 EAST BRANCH STREET Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for consideration of a subdivision and mixed -use planned unit development on the former Loomis property MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2005 Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 2 consisting of the two existing residences, the Loomis Feed Warehouse, a new retail office building and twelve duplex residential Tots. Ms. Heffernon stated that City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the project on September 23, 2003; the EIR determined that the main residence would be eligible for listing in the California Register as a historical resource, and that the grain warehouse serves as an important feature of the setting of the main house. In response to this determination, the applicant has submitted revised plans that retain all of the existing structures and provides a larger residential component; per CEQA the City has prepared an Addendum for the revised project to evaluate the potential environmental impacts; focused issues addressed in the Addendum are: 1) Parking, 2) Traffic /Access, 3) Historical Resources, 4) Recreation and 5) Biological Resources. In addition, a new mitigation measure (MM 4.4.1) has been added because the applicant sold the property containing the historical resource before adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions were in place; also the portions of the site have been sold off adding complexities to the land use entitlement process. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revised project to the City Council, subject to the conditions of approval and the mitigation monitoring program. However, the applicant has requested continuance of consideration of the project. Commissioner Fellows announced that he would encourage the public to speak on the project if they so desired even though this hearing was being postponed; this would enable the Commission to consider their comments before the next hearing. Joe Boud, Architect, said they did not receive the staff report in time for them to review and discuss some of the conditions with their appropriate associates; he requested continuance to date certain, but at least a minimum of two weeks. James Nouvy, 419 Le Point, lives directly behind the proposed project, stated that when he bought his property five months ago he was not aware of this project; he was opposed to a this project (stucco nightmare). Camey Arad, 534 Allen Street, owner of Chameleon Fabrics, 107 Nelson Street, spoke at length, stating that she had submitted a letter to the Commission explaining her concerns; she was glad that a continuance had been requested to give more time for consideration. Some of her concerns were: possible removal of a portion of the barn and /or loading dock to make way for more parking development; the exterior look of the front of the proposed commercial development not being compatible with the "look" they wished to achieve in the Village or for their business and traffic flow and safety concerns for the entrance to the site. However, she thought the residential portion of the development looked wonderful. She presented a model and color pictures to show the 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2005 PAGE 3 Commission what she wanted to see happen with the barn and design of the commercial buildings. Rural Volgen, 505 Le Point, stated he was opposed to the outlet at LePoint Street and the pedestrian access at Crown Terrace. Vice Chair Brown closed the public hearing to public comment. The Commission agreed to save their comments until the next hearing date. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to continue the hearing to the meeting of February 15, 2005. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Parker, Fellows and Vice Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None A. AMENDED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04 -001; APPLICANT — RICK WHEELER; LOCATION —185 & 187 BRISCO ROAD Assistant Planner, Foster, presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal to revise building plans for Lots 11 and 12 in a previously approved Tentative Tract Map and Planned Use Development (Planning Commission, June 3, 2003). The proposed amendment would add building "C" (deviating from plans "A" and "B "), and would include two- stories of livable space over a partially underground garage and entry. In conclusion, he stated that staff and ARC recommend approval of this project. Commission questions and discussion: In answer to Commissioner Parker, Mr. Foster stated that there had been no changes to the landscaping or footprint. Commissioner Fellows stated that he had already reviewed this project twice at ARC, including the changes. In answer to Commissioner Brown, Mr. Foster clarified the two -story building height and stated the ARC had also reviewed the viewshed and determined that there would not be any visual impact. Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. Lenny Grant, architect, said he would be happy to answer any questions. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2005 In reply to a question from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Grant explained that the change was precipitated for grading issues and enabling more light in the building. Vice Chair Brown closed the public hearing to public comment. The Commission stated they were in favor of the requested changes, agreed that it more appropriate than the previous design, would allow more light and ventilation into the building and would work fine with the surrounding neighborhood . Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, to approve Amended Conditional Use Permit 04 -001 and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1948 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AMENDED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04 -001, LOCATED AT 185 AND 187 BRISCO ROAD, APPLIED FOR BY RICK WHEELER The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Keen, Brown and Parker NOES: None ABSENT: Tait the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of January 2005. PAGE 4 C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04 -008; APPLICANT — JOSEPH TIMMONS; LOCATION —136 BRIDGE STREET Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal to construct a mixed -use development on a currently vacant commercial lot. The project consists of 1,415 square feet of office /retail space on the first floor and two residential apartment units on the second floor; the site is located in the Village Mixed - Used zoning district and is subject to the Design Guidelines for Historic Districts; pedestrian access only will be allowed from Bridge Street and vehicular access via Traffic Way. The project is short of two parking spaces and the applicant is negotiating a reciprocal access and parking agreement with the adjacent landowner to the north. If the applicant is unable to secure this agreement staff recommends Condition No. 18 be modified to state that either the applicant shall provide evidence of two offsite parking spaces within 500 feet from the subject property or participate in the Village Parking and Business Improvement District and pay established in -lieu fees for two public parking spaces. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that only one comment letter had been received from Rod's Auto Body stating their concerns that their business may impact this proposed project because of noise and odors from their 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2005 PAGE 5 business. Ms. Heffernon recommended that the Commission adopt a Resolution approving the Conditional use Permit. Commission questions and discussion: Commissioner Fellows stated that he had reviewed this project at least twice at ARC; the applicant had responded with changes; he had some concern with the deep burgundy color, but it would be returning to ARC for review; the faux windows suggested by ARC would break up the solid wall on the south elevation; he liked the fact that traffic would enter off Traffic Way. In answer to Commissioner Parker, Ms. Heffernon explained that the faux windows would be similar to the other windows; stated there would only be one driveway access from Traffic Way; re the shared bathroom for the commercial site they would have to abide by the Building Code. Commissioner Brown had concern that Rod's Auto Body business would be negatively impacted by residential (he would not want to drive a business out). Mr. Strong stated that Rod's Auto Body should not be a detriment to the mixed use neighborhood if they are in compliance; compatability could be an issue, but incoming residents should be aware of situation. Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. Jennifer Timmons, architect, offered to answer any questions. Keen: asked for clarification on the retaining wall shown on side of property (C -1) and the six foot fence shown on A -1. Ms. Timmons stated that the retaining wall would be no higher than 18" and the total height would not be over six feet. Parker asked for clarification on whether the fence would be closed or picket; whether the lighting for the commercial building would face away from the residential units and asked for clarification on the faux windows. Ms. Timmons said it would be privacy fencing and closed; the lighting would only be for the parking and not face the residences; the faux windows would simulate the other windows. In answer to a question from Commissioner Keen, Ms. Timmons said they were proposing to have a vine growing up the privacy fence. Joe Timmons, applicant, clarified the fencing and the parking and stated: • Re the easement: this is still being negotiated. • Condition No. 74 re drop inlet: Could they be reimbursed if subsequent developers come in? • Condition No. 78 re dedication of pedetrian pathway with an easement: They would be opening up the pedestrian pathway and beautifying this area, but they would not like to dedicate this easement to the City. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2005 Mr. Strong re Condition No. 74, this should remain as he did not think there would be any projects in the near term that could share in this cost and that the cost is not excessive, probably about $3,500; Condition No. 78 should be struck: it is not essential that the City have an access easement and this could be deleted and could be negotiated at a later date if and when there is public parking. In answer to a concern Commissioner Brown had re the bathrooms serving both retail users, Mr. Timmons said SAC had suggested that a second bathroom could be added when the building is finished. Rod Hieb, owner Rod's Auto Body, stated he had been in business in this location for over 20 years and he was concerned with having residences next door; they had been spray painting at night and had been trying to solve the problems of odor and to avoid compliants; he could not do anything about the noise. He had installed chain link fence with barbed wire around his property because he had a car stolen. Mr. Timmons stated he wanted to work together with Mr. Heib and his tenants will be aware of his business. Vice Chair Brown closed the public hearing to public comment. PAGE 6 Commission comments: Chuck: • Faux windows re plywood: ARC had changed the word from plywood to "wood" in the minutes. • Re Condition No. 22, he would like to add item e. ARC to review a drawing showing color, materials and design of the windows. • Was Mr. Heib doing all he could to improve the odor and noise of his business? Keen: • He had no problem with this project and thought it would improve the area. • Residents should be aware of the auto body shop business. • Agree to remove Condition No. 78, regarding the pedestrian access easement — he understood applicant's concern. • Re the drop outlet No. 74 thought the applicant should abide by this. • He hoped the body shop was in compliance and this is a mixed use area and there will be residential all around. Parker: • May be problem on both sides with businesses, but residents will know what they are walking into. • This project will be a benefit to location; it looks good and fits in really well. • Likes the gable trim. • Condition No. 10: Would like to add language to make sure lights do not spill over into the residents. 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2005 • No problem with pathway dedication; Brisco's added in a pathway a few years ago and it looks good. • Re the parking, may not work with neighbors to give in -lieu fee and assume this would be a last resort; having to walk to parking should work out. Brown: • Agree with Keen's comments and there may be friction in the future with the neighbors. • Like 2 bathroom comments. Commissioner Keen suggested that a condition be added to provide special insulation on the wall next to Rod's Auto Body to buffer noise. Mr. Strong stated a new Condition No. 91 be added to state that prior to issuance of occupancy a test for interior noise be required and the applicant seek appropriate construction on the residential portion. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to approve Amended Conditional Use Permit 04 -001 with the aforementioned changes and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1949 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04 -008 FOR A MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 136 BRIDGE STREET, APPLIED FOR BY JOSEPH TIMMONS The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Parker, Fellows and Vice Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tait PAGE 7 the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of January 2005. D. HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE (Continued from 12/07/04 meeting). Staff recommended continuance of this item to the February 1, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows to continue this item to the meeting of February 1, 2005. The motion was unanimously approved on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Tait being absent. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2005 IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Mr. Strong reminded the Commissioner that Community Development Department would be having their Brown bag lunch on Thursday; the next one would be showing the second half of "Concert of Wills "; the Brown Bag lunches would continue thru June (on the first and third Wednesdays) to show other planning related videos. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Fellows requested staff in the future that large staff reports, such as Item III.B, be bound or 3 -hole punched and put in a 3 -ring binder and also numbered sequentially to assist in locating items for discussion. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: The Wells Fargo Bank has been advertised for the next City Council meeting, but due to glitches in the traffic study a request for continuance to the February 8 meeting is to be requested. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR FEBRUARY 1, 2005 MEETING: No comments. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. on a motion by Vice Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Fellows. ATTEST: LYN REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION ONTE El AA 'BS 'i id, COMMUNITY DEV,EL • PMENT DIRECTOR Approved at PC meeting of February 4, 2005 PAGE 8 TIM BROWN, VICE CHAIR 1