Loading...
PC Minutes 2002-12-171 1 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chair Keen presiding. Also present were Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Fowler, and Guthrie. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong and Planning Assistant Ryan Foster. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The minutes of November 19, 2002 were approved as written on a 4/5 voice vote, with Ed Arnold abstaining. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — Commissioner Keen introduced Ed Arnold the newly appointed Planning Commissioner. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — A letter from Cindy Hansen, Hausna Road, supporting the South County Historical Society's proposal to build a metal building to be used as a museum on the Village Green, but asking that consideration be given to using the Loomis Feed Building for the museum. AGENDA REVIEW — No changes in the Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING — LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 02 -005; APPLICANT — STEPHEN & SHERRI HAUCK; LOCATION — CANYON WAY, TRACT 2265. Staff report prepared and presented by Ryan Foster. Mr. Foster stated that the applicant was proposing to adjust the lot line between Lots 1 and 37 in Tract 2265; the majority of Lot 37 was granted to the City through an open space agreement by Village Glen Homes in 2001; the proposed project would transfer 118,389 square -feet of this "open space" land to Lot 1, which was not a part of the open space agreement. He further stated that upon initial review, the City Attorney indicated that modification was possible; however, additional time would be needed to review procedures for granting the lot line adjustment while protecting the City's interest in the existing open space. Staff was recommending the Commission continue this item to the next regular planning Commission meeting. Answering Commissioner Guthrie, Mr. Foster said the building pad would be on the original footprint at the end of the Tract on Lot 1. Commissioner Keen said the open space agreement states "No further land division of the Subject Property shall occur or be applied for by the owner... ", therefore he did not think a lot line adjustment could even be applied for. Mr. Foster said this LLA would not be considered a subdivision, but is just a transfer of a portion of land from another lot within the same tract. Vice Chair Keen opened the public hearing. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 PAGE 2 Stephen Hauck, applicant, explained that the area adjacent to Lot 1 (where their home is) is only visible to them and they were requesting the Lot Line Adjustment to ensure that this area is well- maintained and it is their desire and wish that the entire area always remain open and undeveloped. Commissioner Keen asked the applicant if they had considered not merging with Lot 1, still retain and maintain it, but not call it Lot 1. Mr. Hauck replied that this might be a practical solution. Vice Chair Keen closed the public hearing. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to continue the proposed Lot Line Adjustment to the next Planning Commission meeting. The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Fowler, Arnold, Guthrie and Vice Chair Keen NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 02 -010; APPLICANT — SOUTH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY; LOCATION — 127 SHORT STREET VILLAGE GREEN. Staff report prepared and presented by Ryan Foster. Mr. Foster stated that the applicant was proposing to construct a 2,400 square -foot metal -frame building behind the Santa Manuela Schoolhouse to be used to house historic displays. He further stated the building would consist of a metal roof and board and batten exterior. He explained that the project site is located in the Public Facilities Zoning District and is subject to the Guidelines for Historic Districts. However, there is no section in the Guidelines pertaining to the Public Facility Zoning District. If compared to the Guidelines pertaining to residential districts, the project would be in conflict, primarily due to the metal roof and lack of ornamentation. At the December 2, 2002 meeting the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) recommended approval subject to several conditions regarding the building materials and detail work. Because this project is located on City owned property, final approval lies with the City Council. Finally, Mr. Foster referred to the suggestion received in a letter from Cindy Hansen. He explained that the Loomis Feed Building is included in an EIR currently being prepared for the Creekside project and the historical significance of the building will be determined upon completion of the EIR. Vice Chair Keen opened the public hearing. Kirk Scott, President of the Historical Society, spoke describing the project, giving the architectural details of the proposed building and some history of the South County 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 PAGE 3 Historical Society. He explained why the proposed building was required and distributed some pictures of historical buildings that illustrated what they were trying to emulate for the museum building. He concluded by saying this proposal was a gift to the City. Commissioner Brown stated his appreciation to the Historical Society for their efforts, but stated because this proposal is for a building right in the heart of the Village color renderings including different perspectives should first be submitted to the ARC. He further stated that the Historic Village Design Guidelines needed to be adhered to. He suggested that this could might be a project for Cal Poly. Mr. Scott said he would pursue these suggestions. Commissioner Fowler asked how often the proposed museum would be open to the public? Mr. Scott said the same hours as the other museums on the Village Green, which is Saturday and Sunday at this time. Commissioner Fowler stated she had concerns about putting this `container type' (storage) building on this very pretty Village Green area. She further stated that the proposed building does not match the Village Design Guidelines. Mr. Scott stated that the building was intended to be a museum with some area cordoned off for storage. He believed the metal roofed, board and batten building with landscaping around it would blend in with the existing buildings on the Village Green. Heather Jensen, 569 May Street, said she had a concern that any "Public Facilities" had not been incorporated into the process in the update of the Historic Guidelines. She further stated that Public facilities should be setting a very high standard to follow and was not sure that this building would fit in with the existing buildings. Vice Chair Keen closed the public hearing. Commissioner Guthrie had a concern that the drawings they had received did not reflect the fairly significant changes requested by the ARC at their meeting and without seeing these changes it would be very difficult to approve this project. He also had a concern initially with the scale of the building compared to the existing buildings, but after visiting the site he thought it might not look so large. He agreed with Commissioner Brown that he would like to see plans which include color renderings and show perspectives to the existing buildings. He further stated that the Historic Village Design Guidelines should apply to this building. Commissioner Arnold said he concurred with Commissioner Guthrie that this project should return to the ARC for their review with the requested changes before coming back to the Planning Commission. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 Commissioner Fowler said her concerns were the size of the building and whether it was appropriate for the area. She would like to see a smaller building or two separate buildings. Commissioner Brown restated his view that the Historic Guidelines should be followed. He also had concerns about the metal roof and whether the building could be made to look like an historic building. He concurred with Commissioner Guthrie that colored renderings including perspectives to compare with the existing buildings needed to be submitted. Finally, he stated that the Commission would need a comfort level before they could approve this project. Commissioner Keen referred to the picture of the McCade building (a building that was in the community years ago), stating that he would like to see the building look more like this. He further suggested that if the building was "L" shaped it may not look as big and on the "L" shape toward Short Street the doors and facade could be like the old buildings from that period. He then questioned if any of these specific lots had been merged into one parcel and if these were still individual lots the proposed project would cross property lines. In addition, he thought the City had acquired Lot 3 under "eminent domain" to build a City Hall and asked for comment from Community Development. Mr. Strong stated he did not know the specific history, but it would be up to the City Council to decide whether this is an appropriate public use. City staff (City Attorney and Building Dept.) did not feel that it should be a prerequisite to a conditional use permit to merge the lots, although there would have to be provision that the lots stayed together as long as there is a building that crosses the property line. The Planning Commission agreed that because the project site is located in the village and is on City property the Historic Village Design Guideline standards should be followed. They requested the applicant return to the Architectural Review Committee with color renderings that reflect the changes requested by them and also show size and scale relative to the other historic buildings at this site. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guthrie to continue the project to a date uncertain with the request that the applicant first return to the ARC with more detailed color renderings showing scale and perspectives viewed from different locations. The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Guthrie, Arnold, Fowler and Vice Chair Keen NOES: None ABSENT: None PAGE 4 Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Foster if he would follow up with Mr. Scott to get a contact with Cal Poly for help with the design of the building. 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 PAGE 5 Commissioner Keen asked Mr. Scott if the Historical Society had looked into using an old building around town for the museum. Mr. Scott said they had looked into using old wood and found that it would not be feasible due to the cost and the incompatibility of the lengths of the wood. PUBLIC HEARING — CONTINUED ITEM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 02 -008 & VARIANCE CASE NO. 02 -006; APPLICANT — GINA GLASS; LOCATION — 407 EL CAMINO REAL. Staff report prepared and presented by Ryan Foster. Mr. Foster said this project was continued by the Planning Commission at its meeting of October 1, 2002. He further stated that the applicant proposes to renovate the Arroyo Village Inn and these renovations include three new guest rooms, a day room, several lattice trellises, and a sound barrier wall. The applicant has concurrently applied for a variance to address the height of the sound barrier, front yard setback, and number of signs. At its meeting of October 1, 2002, the Planning Commission expressed concerns over the height of the sound wall, the lack of an on -site manager, and the proposed shared parking agreement. He further stated that the applicant had submitted supporting documentation addressing the concerns. Commissioner Brown stated that at the last meeting Commissioner Guthrie had asked whether or not the Arroyo Village Inn was considered to be a Bed & Breakfast or hotel /motel. Mr. Foster replied that under 12 units (State) building standards do not require an on site manager, but the City Development Code does require an onsite manager for a Bed & Breakfast. Vice Chair Keen opened the public hearing. Steven Soenke, Architect, explained what had been done to address the concerns of the Commission since the last meeting. Gina Glass, Applicant, explained how she intended to staff her business and why in her view a 24 -hour onsite manager was not required. She further stated that there was always someone to greet guests and her neighbors were also willing to help out at night if needed. In reply to a question from Commissioner Guthrie, Ms. Glass said there were no fire sprinklers in the rooms, but there were two exits from each room. She also addressed the noise issue and the proposed 12 -foot wall, stating that if her clients could not see the freeway they would not hear it either. Bill Doan, Acoustical Consultant, gave a short recap of the problem as it related to the freeway noise. He stated a 12 -foot tall wall would reduce noise levels by a factor of `2' in addition to producing some psychological improvements onsite by guests not being able to see the freeway. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 Vice Chair Keen closed the public hearing. PAGE 6 Commissioner Keen asked Mr. Doan if an analysis of the difference between the legal height of 6 foot (with maybe a 2 foot variance) and a 12 -foot wall? Mr. Doan replied the minimum to reduce the line of sight would be 12 -foot and without this there would be no noise reduction. In reply to a question from Commissioner Arnold, Mr. Doan said shrubbery alone would not reduce the noise. Commission Guthrie asked what was unique about the property to allow a variance compared to other similar properties close by? Mr. Doan said he was not in a position to answer that, but believed if any new properties came in they would be required to mitigate for noise from the freeway. Mr. Soenke added that the proposed 12 -foot high wall is stepped down as it proceeds away from the freeway. Commissioner Keen stated that he had noticed that the proposed new trellis had already been installed without Commission approval. In addition, Condition No. 11 requires the applicant to outline conditions for shared parking, but at the last meeting the Commission stated that shared parking with Montessori school was not appropriate because they only have four spaces. Ms. Glass stated that she did have an agreement with the school, but had not followed up on the Commission request because she was already in compliance with parking. Mr. Foster then restated the parking requirements and said if an onsite manager was required there would not be sufficient parking. Richard DeBlauw, 411 El Camino Real, stated that the only objection he had to the proposal was the 12 -foot high wall on the property line and would like to see the wall built to the maximum legal height of 6 feet. After discussion the Planning Commission stated that having a Bed & Breakfast without an on -site manager would be a safety issue, the 12 -foot sound wall was not acceptable and the business was not unique compared to neighboring businesses, therefore the findings for the variance could not be met. The Commission agreed that a 6 -foot wall with Community Development Director approval of a further 2 feet would be acceptable. Commissioner Guthrie stated he would like to see review of the Development Code take place to clarify what the difference between a hotel and a `bed & breakfast' would be. Commissioner Keen said Condition No. 11 would have to be modified before he could approve this project. 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 Commissioner Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown denying Variance 02 -006 regarding the 12 -foot sound wall. The motion was approved by the following roll call: AYES: Commissioners Guthrie, Brown, Arnold, Fowler and Vice Chair Keen NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown approving Variance 02 -006 with respect to the setback and the signage. The motion was approved by the following roll call: AYES: Commissioner's Guthrie, Brown, Arnold, Fowler and Vice Chair Keen NOES: None ABSENT: None The Planning Commission agreed that a Development Code interpretation should be made to ensure that "all bed and breakfasts in any district require a 24 -hour on -site manager. Commissioner Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown approving Conditional Use Permit 02 -008 and Variance 02 -006 as amended, striking Condition No. 12 and adopting: RESOLUTION 02 -1857 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 02 -008 AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 02 -006, LOCATED AT 407 EL CAMINO REAL, APPLIED FOR BY GINA GLASS The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 17th day December 2002. PAGE 7 AYES: Commissioner's Guthrie, Brown, Arnold, Fowler and Vice Chair Keen NOES: None ABSENT: None NON - PUBLIC HEARING - PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 02 -013; APPLICANT — KEVIN HUNSTAD; LOCATION — 1180 ASH STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Ryan Foster. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 PAGE 8 Mr. Foster said the applicant is proposing an 8 -unit Planned Unit Development with a density equivalent of 14 dwelling units /acre, which exceeds the 11 dwelling unit/acre maximum currently allowed by the Development Code. The applicant can either address this by providing 25 %, or three units as "affordable units ", or file a formal application once the City has completed its update of the Development Code, which would reflect the density of 14 dwelling units /acre maximum allowed by the 2001 General Plan Update. Kevin Hunstad, Applicant, addressed questions from the Commission: • They were proposing two affordable units. • Each lot was approximately 3200 square feet. • The oak tree proposed to be removed is about two thirds of the way back in the middle of the driveway. Vice Chair Keen opened the item for public comment and upon hearing none, brought the item back to the Commission for consideration. Planning Commission comments: • They hoped that there was now an adequate method in place for the City to go forward with an affordable housing requirement. • They had concerns about removal of the oak tree and would like to see one or more large trees for required replacement instead of 3 small trees. • This project was a good example of infill and a good fit for the area. • They suggested that elevations be more varied and have some architectural differences. • They commended the developer for his intent to include two affordable units. • They approved of the proposed project site plan. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW 02 -015; APPLICANT — RICHARD SHARP; LOCATION — THE PIKE AND ELM STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Ryan Foster. Mr. Foster said that the Pre - Application is to review a proposal for a 39 -unit senior housing complex and as with the previous item this proposed project exceeds the maximum allowed density that would be allowed with the new mixed -use land use designation of 25 dwelling units /acre. The applicant would need to provide 25 %, or eight units as "affordable units" to receive a density bonus, which would then allow thirty -nine units. Alternatively, staff is proposing that a "dwelling unit equivalency" be included as part of the Development Code update. Based on this model, the proposed project would be equivalent to 35 dwelling units instead of 39, and therefore only four units above the maximum currently allowed. The applicant has submitted a letter outlining parking standards for senior housing complexes, which concludes that a parking ratio of 1.2 spaces /unit would be sufficient for this type of project. All on -site parking would be provided in the form of an underground parking garage. The project is also subject to a 100' agricultural buffer due to the County agriculture parcel across Elm Street to the east. Including the building setback and Elm Street Right of Way width, the buffer would be 93' wide. There is a drainage ditch along the parcel that could be 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 PAGE 9 included in the buffer width, or a 7' portion of the buffer could be mitigated through additional landscaping by the applicant, both on and off -site. An additional option is to convert the four easternmost apartments into a compatible office /retail use, which would exclude them from the buffer requirement. Vice Chair Keen opened the item for public comment and upon hearing none, brought . the item back to the Commission for consideration. The Commission had the following comments and concerns: • The applicant should be prepared to explain specifically why the project requires only 100 feet as a buffer from the agricultural land on the east side of Elm Street. • Underground parking may be a concern with senior citizens and the proposed columns in the underground parking may be difficult for some seniors to maneuver. In addition, underground guest parking would not be easily accessible because of the locked gate. Some additional guest parking should be provided. • There was concern that some of the units may be facing the wall of the 7 -11. • A larger activity indoor space would be beneficial. • A bus turnout on The Pike would enhance the project. • There was a concern with the height of the parking structure and deck overlooking neighbors. • The City of Arroyo Grande should furnish water service for this project. The Commission said that they liked the idea of the project and thought it looked good, and additionally stated that senior housing and affordable housing are very much needed. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Teresa McClish, Associate Planner, presented a progress report and proposed meeting schedule both for the Historic Village Design Guidelines and the Development Code Update. Ms. McClish said at the February 4, 2003 meeting the Commission is scheduled to review both the Historic Village Design Guidelines and the Development Code Village Core Mixed Use Districts. She further informed the Commission that two public workshops were scheduled on the same day for the Development Code revisions pertaining to the Village Core area - January 15 at 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 pm. The Development Code revisions pertaining to the East Grand Avenue and the Neighborhood Commercial Mixed -Use districts are scheduled in March. Commissioner Guthrie asked if there was a specific LHTF subcommittee looking at mixed -use housing potentials. Mr. Strong said the subcommittees of the task force do not specifically relate to zoning districts, but there are a lot of opportunities in the mixed use districts for multiple - family and we are hoping to preview these with the Commission before getting into the Multiple - Family districts. We will bring issues to the Commission in the Development Code Amendments for the Village and East Grand Avenue for refinements as they come up. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS — Commissioner Brown asked for an update on the La Tapatia restaurant. Mr. Strong said a letter had been sent to them notifying them that we expect plans to be submitted to the Community Development Department during the early part of the year and a commitment from them that work will be completed by March 2003. Commissioner Brown said he had received a complaint from a citizen about the sign for `Alphys' in the Village Centre. Commissioner Keen said he had a concern that the colors were too bright and did not think it was an appropriate sign. Commissioner Brown asked if the sign could be revisited. Mr. Strong said he would investigate the possibility, but had concerns because this sign had already been approved by the ARC. He further stated that during the Development Code Update it is intended to have a discussion on the types of permits that should be approved by each entity. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP — None. ADJOURNMENT - The Planning Commission made a motion to cancel the January 7, 2003 regular meeting due to lack of projects. The motion was unanimously approved on a 5/0 voice vote. There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Brown, and unanimously carried. ATTEEST: Dpi `2 n LYN REARDON- SMITH, COMMISSION CLERK AS CON ? NT: / � �� s , ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPM T DIRECTOR N KEEN, VI CHAIR PAGE 10 1