Loading...
PC Minutes 2004-12-071 1 1 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 - 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 Fowler and Keen. (Former Commissioners Arnold and Guthrie having been elected and installed to City Council.) Staff members in attendance were Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planner Jim Bergman, and Public Works Associate Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: The Commission agreed to move Item IIA. to be heard after item V. Mr. Strong stated that a number of items had been added to the Agenda since its preparation; these items are marked with an asterisk ( *) throughout the minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Fowler made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen to approve the minutes of November 16, 2004 with no corrections; the motion was approved by a 3/0 voice vote. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: *Informal presentation by Cal Poly interns re Infill Incentive Overlay for the City of Arroyo Grande; some of the highlights of the presentation discussed were: • Adjust current development patterns • Provide more affordable housing • Implement the Community's vision • Potential solutions for constraints such as water, parking, traffic, infrastructure, neighborhood opposition, finance /insurance difficulties and potential solutions It was stated that Arroyo Grande lags behind California in production of multi - family structures and that 39% of households of the City have 0 -1 cars (2000 census). In conclusion, the presentation showed examples of how small lot, single - family homes or mixed -use and multi - family could work as infill projects; it was suggested that further research should be conducted and public input received in future studies and that they would like to do this if this were financially possible. The Commissioners thanked the interns for their very good presentation and for the fresh ideas; stated that they would like to see more research focus on how to overcome constraints. Commissioner Keen stated that the parking reductions in the Mixed -Use developments were not working and he was hesitant now to pass a project that has reductions, but infill is very important in this community. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Additional information re Public Hearing item III.B, Operating Engineers Union, which adds Conditional Use Permit finding #6, relating to special economic MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 development considerations for visitor serving uses within the Highway Mixed Use Design Overlay District. III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04 -006; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE. Staff recommended continuance of this item to the January 4, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to enable mailed notice to affected property owners. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to continue this item to the meeting of January 4, 2005, on a 3/0 voice vote. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04 -003 & LOT MERGER CASE NO. 04- 001; APPLICANT — OPERATING ENGINEERS UNION, LOCAL 12; LOCATION — FAEH STREET AT HALCYON ROAD. (This item continued from the meeting of October 19, 2004.) Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon gave some history of the proposal and presented the staff report for the phased construction of two professional office buildings, explaining that Phase I is the current proposal and Phase II will be considered under a separate conditional use permit application. ARC recommended denial of the proposal based on the design of the building and ground sign not fitting the character of the neighborhood. The applicant has since submitted revised signage plans. Staff recommendation is to adopt a Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 04 -003 and Lot Merger 04 -003. In answer to questions from the Commission, Ms. Heffernon stated that Design Guidelines for this specific area are broad -based and this application would fit; all the lots in this block are small, but five lots are being merged into two in this instance and that the five would be close to recommended lot size for this area. Vice Chair Brown opened the hearing for Public Comment. PAGE 2 Carl Elliott, architect for the project, described the project and gave the history of their prior proposal for this project; asked the Commission for their comments and questions. In answer to Commission questions Mr. Elliott stated: • Monument sign illumination could be from the ground reflecting up and not backlit. • Phase II design has not yet been worked at this time and would not have to be the same design as Phase I. • ARC denial re the style of the Phase I proposal was difficult for him to understand; the ARC approved their previous proposal in 2000, although it was for a different site in the same area; this is not in a historic neighborhood and he believed it was appropriate; he had not received clear direction from the ARC. 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 PAGE 3 Mr. Strong stated the design had been discussed with staff and that the scale, mass and site plan for the building was consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood; the applicants were willing to make color, material and landscape changes if so desired by the Commission; the City is in negotiation for acquisition from the Union for the site where the prior approved building was to be located (adjacent to the Police Station), but this should not influence the decision of the Commission. Chuck Fellows, 202 Canyon Way, ARC Committee member and Realtor, stated value of residential properties across the street would be affected by this design; that it does not fit with these properties and he believed would set a bad precedent; the architect could come back with a building that fits better with residences across the street; bad reasoning to hustle this approval through because the City is in negotiation for the property adjoining the police station. Bill Waggoner, representative Operating Engineers Union, gave history of prior building; stated they want to build a simple building; can build to suit; are beginning to feel that City does not want them to locate here; requested the Commission explain what design they want; does not want their building to look like a two bedroom house; Union wants to avoid redesign. Vice Chair Brown closed the hearing for public comment. Commission Comments: Fowler: • Agreed with Mr. Waggoner, and stated that this is an office building, not a house and they be allowed to build this design; she had no problems with this building or the CUP. Keen • This proposal would not be precedent setting and the look of the building fits the area; is very appropriate for the area. • The master plan for the future includes mixed -uses and should not have to look like a house; disagreed that this design does not fit in the neighborhood. • Suggested Condition of Approval, page 13, improvements along Halcyon Street, should not be included; when phase II comes along should be conditioned then. Mr. Devens agreed as long as the conditions are included for Phase II. Brown • Thought the representative had made conflicting statements. • Any building would be improvement over what is at this site now, but ARC comments for improving structure should not be ignored and he therefore could not vote for the CUP proposal. • He would like to see this referred back to the ARC for minor revisions. Commissioner Brown asked if the motion could be split so he could vote for the Lot Merger, but not the CUP? MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 A discussion on the voting procedure, when only three Commissioners are present, took place. Mr. Strong referred to Resolution 03 -1908, F.2 & F.3 of the Planning Commission By -laws stating that this specific type of project can be passed by a 2 to 1 vote. Commissioner Fowler made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, to approve the CUP 04 -003 and Lot Merger 04 -003 and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 04 -1945 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 -003 AND LOT MERGER CASE NO. 04 -003, FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN OFFICE BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT NORTH HALCYON ROAD AND FAEH STREET, APPLIED FOR BY THE OPERATING ENGINEERS UNION, LOCAL 12 The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fowler and Keen NOES: Commissioner Brown ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7 day of December 2004. PAGE 4 C. HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE Staff recommended continuance of this item to the January 18, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to enable review comments from HCD prior to considertion. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to continue this item to the meeting of January 18, 2005, on a 3/0 voice vote. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04 -005; APPLICANT — JOHN ROBASCIOTTI; LOCATION — TRAFFIC WAY AND BRANCH STREET Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman presented the mixed -use proposal for retail, office and residential uses located on the southeast corner of West Branch Street and Traffic Way and subject to the Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic Districts; ARC recommendations have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval and on December 9, 2004 a sample of the stone and split face rock, color sample of siding material and planting plan will return to the ARC for final review. Staff has also requested that the ARC have final review of the screening of roof equipment. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approve the CUP. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 Commission comments: PAGE 5 Fowler: • Would like to know height of the billboard. • Does not like the look of "rusty tin" for the roofs over the windows ( "eyebrows "). • Would this building be higher than the "Village Center" buildings? • Asked for confirmation on the in -lieu fee for parking. Mr. Strong said the recommended $12,000 per space could be considered by Council in January or February of 2005; the applicant is prepared to pay the in -lieu fees. Brown: • Re the perspective of the building, it looked taller when we reviewed the Pre -App; he would like to see more clearly what this would look like when it goes to Council. • Re the parking reductions: Can this be revisited in the future if there is not enough parking? Mr. Strong said the Commission can include a provision to revisit at a later date if necessary; staff supports the project as proposed with the mixed -use parking reduction and the credit for the widening of Branch Street (there is no proposed compensation to the applicant for the property offer of dedication to the City); in the event of loss of on -site parking spaces due to Traffic Way widening; the lost spaces could be replaced by the in -lieu fee. • Re the right -of -way usage, the City is not receiving anything in return. Mr. Strong said this is a matter for Council determination based on Commission recommendation. Vice Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment. Mark Vasquez, representative, addressed concerns: • The height of billboard is 21 feet above sidewalk level. • Clarified the building height relative to Village Centre. • Re "eyebrows" after research on the era a proposal to have a metal roof was suggested and would fit with style of the building. • Re the parking reduction, this is a difficult site, but we think we have the solution to make it viable. • Re the right -of -way, this will benefit the City, as we will be planting the area, also maintaining it and enabling a shared driveway to access adjacent property. • We are hoping to emulate the stone on the building with that on the bridge , rail construction. • This project will go before the ARC again on December 9th to decide on the colors. John Robasciotti, applicant, addressed right of way issue; stated primary goal is to create a property that the City can be proud of; over last 75 years most of this property has been given to the City; 240 sq. ft. is proposed for dedication to the City for the future widening of Branch Street (Hwy 227); re colors and roof material not yet decided; he wants the ARC to be the final approvers. Chuck Fellows, ARC, stated his approval of the building and that the ARC would be reviewing it again at their next meeting; liked the fact that the Traffic Way frontage right - of -way would be landscaped. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 Vice Chair Brown closed the hearing to public comment. PAGE 6 Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, stated re right of way and future use, the City did approve rebuilding of the non - conforming bridge rail and Mr. Spagnolo had confirmed that future widening would only take place on one side; this building will be a great improvement to the Village. Jens Waggoner, tenant in the present building, stated the most benefit will be gained by the improvement of the view as you enter the Village. Pearl Cole, resident 137 W. Branch Street, stated she is very glad to see living quarters included and may be good for older citizens who want to be close to conveniences and hope that this will be considered with the new overlay. Commission Comments: Fowler: • Likes the project; it will be a very nice entrance to the Village. • She will never like the "rusty tin" look. • She approved of the parking issue Keen: • Agreed with Commissioner Fowler, did not approve of the "rusty metal" look — totally against it; would rather see galvanized metal or some other material that meets the time period. • Re inconsistency in Conditions of Approval re opticom device, Page 6, No. 32 & Page Page 13, No. 10, asked for clarification. • He liked the project and stated it was appropriate for the site and would not look same as the building across the street because it was not stucco. good job. Brown: • Happy about the project. • Still has a concern with private use of right -of -way. • Did not think it will be underparked. • Re the rust look, he would not want to see corrugated painted metal roofing and would be happy to see some other type of metal. • He could vote to recommend approval to Council. Mr. Devens stated the applicant had requested re- wording of Condition No. 77, and staff will add condition No. 94 re an encroachment agreement recorded against property for removal and relocation of improvements. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to recommend approval to City Council of Conditional User Permit Case No. 04 -00, including 1) Rewording of Condition No. 77; 2) Recording of an agreement (No. 94) for relocation of improvements and 3) that the ARC address Commission concerns with the "rusty tin" look and adopt: 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 RESOLUTION 04 -1946 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04 -005, LOCATED AT 101 TRAFFIC WAY, APPLIED FOR BY JOHN ROBASCIOTTI The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Fowler and Vice Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7 day of December 2004. PAGE 7 IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Item added after Agenda preparation: *PRE- APPLICATION CASE NO. 04 -018, HAMPTON INN & SUITES; LOCATION — CAMINO MERCADO AND WEST BRANCH STREET. Revised plans and draft copy of December 14, 2004 City Council staff report were presented to the Commission for their review. Mr. Strong asked for Commission comment, but stated that the applicant was not present to answer questions. Comments: Keen: • He still found it difficult to visualize the building heights and asked how much taller was this than the parking lot of the motel above. Mr. Strong stated that he had suggested a model to include surrounding buildings to allow envisioning of the building height, when the formal applications are submitted. Brown: • He concurred with Keen. • He was not comfortable commenting and having just received the revised plans tonight. • He would like to see a grading plan with heights included; the height is a big issue; does not like CAD drawings. • Re their corporate identity and the tower extension, he believed changes could be made. In reply to a final question from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Devens stated that after review of the intersection plans he did not think there would need to be any reconfiguration necessary. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 PAGE 8 In reply to a comment from Commissioner Keen, Mr. Strong explained that the 65 -foot height includes being embedded almost two stories into the hill, but it would still be more than 35 - 40 feet in height; elimination of the octagonal roof tower and addition of some architectural detail and some other features could still depict a Mediterranean style building even on a sloping site. In conclusion, Mr. Strong stated he would repeat their concerns with the height to the Council. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Lot Line Adjustment and Lot Merger Procedures: Mr. Strong explained that there were inconsistencies in the Development Code and State Subdivision Map Act that imply public hearing process and non public process in another; he would like this clarified and asked for Commission Comment. Commissioner Keen said he would like to be able to have the chance to make a decision on the Lot Line Adjustments, but did not have a concern with Lot Mergers. The Commission agreed it would be acceptable to have both as Consent Agenda items. Mr. Strong stated they would continue to report the Minor Use Permits on a Consent Agenda and they can be continued to a Public Hearing if desired by the Planning Commission. II.A. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE NOVEMBER 16, 2004, SUBJECT TO 10 -DAY APPEAL: Two additional items were added: *3. TUP Case No. 04 -027, S & S Homes, Location — Trailer Sales Office at Courtland and Grand Ave. After discussion the Commission agreed that a temporary sales office would be more appropriate on the project site adjacent to models in the park at Jasmine Place: otherwise the applicant can appeal staffs decision to deny off -site location on Courtland and Grand Avenue and return for Public Hearing. *4. PPR Case No. 04 -009; Wal -Mart; Location - 1168 West Branch Street; addition of freezer cooler unit to exterior of existing building in the loading enclosure. The Commission agreed that this item be considered as a Public Hearing for Planning Commission during January 2005. Item No. 1 included a Planning Commission Resolution. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution approving Lot Merger 04 -004 with the conditions set forth in Exhibit 'A'. 1 1 1 C a s eNo Applicant Address,. Descri Planner 1. Lot Merger 04 -004 Matthew Freeland 585 May St. Consolidate 4 lots into 2 residential lots. J. Bergman 2. PPR 04 -008 Jennifer Martin 254 Tally Ho Secondary Dwelling Unit in excess of 850 sg ft. R. Foster MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 PAGE 8 In reply to a comment from Commissioner Keen, Mr. Strong explained that the 65 -foot height includes being embedded almost two stories into the hill, but it would still be more than 35 - 40 feet in height; elimination of the octagonal roof tower and addition of some architectural detail and some other features could still depict a Mediterranean style building even on a sloping site. In conclusion, Mr. Strong stated he would repeat their concerns with the height to the Council. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Lot Line Adjustment and Lot Merger Procedures: Mr. Strong explained that there were inconsistencies in the Development Code and State Subdivision Map Act that imply public hearing process and non public process in another; he would like this clarified and asked for Commission Comment. Commissioner Keen said he would like to be able to have the chance to make a decision on the Lot Line Adjustments, but did not have a concern with Lot Mergers. The Commission agreed it would be acceptable to have both as Consent Agenda items. Mr. Strong stated they would continue to report the Minor Use Permits on a Consent Agenda and they can be continued to a Public Hearing if desired by the Planning Commission. II.A. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE NOVEMBER 16, 2004, SUBJECT TO 10 -DAY APPEAL: Two additional items were added: *3. TUP Case No. 04 -027, S & S Homes, Location — Trailer Sales Office at Courtland and Grand Ave. After discussion the Commission agreed that a temporary sales office would be more appropriate on the project site adjacent to models in the park at Jasmine Place: otherwise the applicant can appeal staffs decision to deny off -site location on Courtland and Grand Avenue and return for Public Hearing. *4. PPR Case No. 04 -009; Wal -Mart; Location - 1168 West Branch Street; addition of freezer cooler unit to exterior of existing building in the loading enclosure. The Commission agreed that this item be considered as a Public Hearing for Planning Commission during January 2005. Item No. 1 included a Planning Commission Resolution. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution approving Lot Merger 04 -004 with the conditions set forth in Exhibit 'A'. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 Commissioner Keen questioned why they had approved a Viewshed Review for this applicant last week and now they were being asked to approve a Lot Merger? Mr. Bergman said procedurally this came into the department as two separate applications. Commissioner Keen asked for clarification on the conformity of the lots. Mr. Devens explained how the lots would be configured. Commissioner Keen then commented that the lots were not conforming to existing Rural Suburban (RS) zoning for that area, even if they maybe in the future when designated SFR; he had a problem with approving this with a 50 -foot lot width for a single family home. Mr. Strong noted that the non - conforming lots were legally created, but that the Development Code Amendment zoning designation for these areas would propose 50- foot lots; staff is getting close to making DCA for Crown Hill that will correct this situation. Commissioner Fowler stated that a 50 -foot width lot is not unreasonable and that her home is on a 50 -foot wide lot and quite adequate. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to approve Lot Merger 04 -004 to consolidate four lots into two residential lots and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 04 -1944 The motion was approved by a 3/0 voice vote. the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7 day of December 2004. The Commission had no further concerns with the consent items. PAGE 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT MERGER 04 -004, LOCATED AT 585 MAY STREET, APPLIED FOR BY MATT FREELAND VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Brown stated that he may not be able to attend the January 18, 2005 meeting and had a concern with what was on the Agenda. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR JANUARY 4, 2005 MEETING: No discussion. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004 IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner .Fowler. ATTEST: LYN REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: ROBS R I NG, COMMUNITY DEV LOPMENTIDIRECTOR (Approved at PC meeting of January 4, 2005) PAGE 10