Loading...
PC Minutes 2000-10-171 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER Chair Greene called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL X Commissioner Costello X Commissioner Keen X Commissioner London X Vice -Chair Parker X Chair Greene APPROVAL OF MINUTES None ITEM I. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS II.B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 00 -016; LOCATION - BRANCH MILL ROAD, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR FOUR; APPLICANT - SLO CELLULAR Commissioner Costello moved that, on recommendation of staff, Public Hearing Item II. B. be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 21, 2000. Vice -Chair Parker seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene II.A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 00 -018; LOCATION - 230 STATION WAY; APPLICANT - CITY CHURCH; REPRESENTATIVE - ED FLYNN Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and stated that the Village Creek Promenade was approved in February 1999 for the construction of four (4) commercial buildings on Station Way next to the existing Village Creek Plaza. This approval was subject to a shared parking agreement with other tenants of the Village Creek Plaza. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 2 Ms. Heffernon stated that The City Church proposes to locate their office and sanctuary in Building II of the Village Creek Promenade. Churches are allowed in the General Commercial zoning District provided that the parking requirements are met. In this case, the number of parking spaces required for a church use, combined with the other uses in the plaza, exceeds the number of spaces available. In circumstances like this where there are common parking facilities, the Development Code allows up to a 30% reduction in the parking requirement if a parking study can show that the shared uses have different hours of operation and would not conflict in their time of use. The applicant has submitted a parking study to demonstrate how the church hours will not conflict with the hours of operation of other existing businesses within the Village Creek Plaza, and how the existing parking is sufficient to serve the existing and proposed uses. Based on the calculations provided in the parking study, an 8.7% reduction in the number of required parking spaces is necessary to allow the church use. Ms. Heffernon stated that the Commission should be aware that the owner of Building NO. 5 is currently in litigation to be released from the obligations of the Village Creek Plaza Property Owners Association, which includes the obligation to share parking. Given this pending litigation, and the fact that Building 5 is geographically separated from the Village Creek Plaza by Station Way, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a parking reduction that excludes the existing 38 spaces for Building 5. The parking reduction then calculates to be 16 %. Vice -Chair Parker and Ms. Heffernon discussed the exact number of parking spaces that were being taken into account when considering the overall parking for the project and the request for the 16% reduction. Commissioner Costello asked, with regards to the buildings that are unoccupied and the City does not yet know what kind of business will be there, what recourse if any does the City have if the tenants of these buildings require parking as the same time as the church? Would new tenants need to apply for any permits from the City? Ms. Heffernon replied that if staff determined that there would be a question about the shared parking, then the applicant would need a Conditional Use Permit. However, if the type of business going into one of the buildings was an approved use, they would not have to go before the Planning Commission. Ms. Heffernon further explained that the City could revisit a Conditional Use Permit at any time and make a change in the conditions. Commissioner London asked if the City would bring this forward or do the businesses have to initiate the review? Ms. Heffernon stated that it would come from the businesses. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 3 Marie Burt, 414 Orchard Avenue, spoke to the Planning Commission about her concerns with the traffic and lack of sidewalks on Station Way. She stated that she felt that driving or walking on Station Way presented a safety risk. Honey French, 796 Calvia Court, spoke in favor of the project. John Hopkins, 1983 Bee Canyon Road, spoke to the Planning Commission and stated that he had prepared the parking study and explained that he was in attendance to answer any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner London asked how many families were members of this church? Pastor Rocky Tannehill, stated that the membership of the church was only 25 people with an average attendance each Sunday of just below 100 people. Commissioner Keen stated that in the past, when approving a project for a church, the Planning Commission had added a condition, which required the applicants to initiate a ride share program. He asked Pastor Tannehill if he would object to this type of condition? Pastor Tannehill stated that he did not think this would be necessary however, if a situation did arise that warranted it, the church would not object to this type of language being added to the conditions. Tim Brown, 125 Allen, spoke in favor of the church, however, he asked that the Planning Commission that they take into consideration that the Church will grow while making their decision. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner London stated that he did not have a problem with the church using this building. Mr. London asked, specifically in light of the discussions relative to the Economic Development Strategy, had this economic issue been discussed with the developer? Mr. McCants stated that it was not discussed because the purpose of the permit was simply to deal with the parking issue. The project had already been approved and were it not for the parking situation, this would not be coming before the Planning Commission. Mr. London stated that he understood what Mr. McCants was saying however, his question was whether or not this should be an issue in approving this type of use in a commercial development? Mr. London stated that this was an issue that had recently been discussed and he was under the impression that this is an issue in any of the Planning Commission's considerations. Mr. McCants stated that if the Planning Commission had make the necessary requisite findings based on the Economic Development Strategy, then the Planning Commission could certainly consider it. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 4 Commissioner Keen stated that he did not have a problem with this use and he feels that the parking is adequate. Vice -Chair Parker discussed the potential problems with having a shared parking situation. She felt that the church use, because of its limited hours of parking use and further that the majority of the parking use would be when the other businesses were closed was a good idea. However, she still felt that the parking situation at the center could potentially be a difficult one. Commissioner Costello stated that what the Planning Commission was facing was a project that has already been approved. The only concern at this time is whether there is adequate parking for the proposed use and he believes that at this time, the parking is adequate. Mr. Costello said that he is distressed at the status of the sidewalks in this area. He stated that there are a lot of children that walk to the high school along Station Way. If there is no sidewalk on the west side of the street and only a partial sidewalk on the east side, this poses a safety problem. He would like to side this issue addressed in the near future. Vice -Chair Parker stated that Mr. Burt had made an excellent point in her remarks and she asked if, during the construction period, if "No Parking" signs on one side of the street? Mr. McCants stated that he would speak to the Public Works Department and Police Department to see if this would be possible. Chair Greene stated that he was not opposed to this project. He stated that both Commissioner Keen and Commissioner London had made some valid points when they asked about this use being compatible with the surrounding businesses. He understood why this issue had not come before the Planning Commission in this case, however he felt that it might be useful for the staff to look into whether or not this kind of a permitted use was consistent or inconsistent with the Economic Development Strategy. Mr. Greene stated that this would be helpful for the Planning Commission to have this direction. He also stated that this should be discussed with the applicant during the permitting process. Chair Greene also asked staff to look into the concerns of Mrs. Burt. Mr. Greene stated that first paragraph in the resolution and the first paragraph in Exhibit A refers to an 8% reduction and that this should be changed to reflect a 16% reduction. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1767 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 00 -018, LOCATED AT 230 STATION WAY, APPLIED FOR BY THE CITY CHURCH with Exhibit A modified to require a 16% reduction in the parking. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 5 ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS III. A PRE - APPLICATION 00 -007; LOCATION - 122 NELSON STREET; APPLICANT - CARPENTER'S UNION LOCAL #18 Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and stated that the project site includes three adjoining lots totaling 24,517 square feet in the Village Commercial District, two of which front Nelson Street. The Carpenters Union proposes to build a 4,114 square foot training facility to improve existing training activities at the site. Training sessions currently run approximately two weeks several times a year and include a maximum of 20 students per session. A mixture of residential and commercial development surrounds the site Ms. McClish explained that the training facilities are similar to public and private vocational school uses, which are allowable in the Village Commercial District according to the Development Code. The project meets all relevant site development standards for the Village Commercial District. Ms. McClish stated that the main issue is placement of the building on the project site. This issue was brought up at both the SAC and the ARC meetings. The site lies within the VC -D -2.4 Design Overlay District and is subject to the Design Guidelines for Historic Districts. The Guidelines encourage zero front setbacks wherever possible with main entries facing the street. The Guidelines further state that for larger projects where this is not feasible, a substantial part of the building shall face the street and incorporate design features oriented to the pedestrian. Ms. McClish explained that the applicant had studied the alternative of placing the building along Nelson Street and found that it would be infeasible to maintain the site's function and meet development standards. The applicant maintains this is due to the particular use of the site, specifically the necessity of having outdoor training activities adjacent and accessible to the building. The ARC approved of the building design, however they recommended redesigning the project, placing the building at the front of the site. The Planning Commission discussed the project with regards to the amount of the lot coverage and the required setbacks. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 6 Mark Vasquez, 101 West Branch Street, representing the applicant, spoke to the Planning Commission and explained the reasons that the applicant was asking that the building be allowed to be built on the rear of the property. He explained that it would better serve the site as a training area if it were placed on the back. He stated that the applicant was willing to heavily landscape any parking on the front and was willing to let the City use it as handicapped parking during major events. Mr. Vasquez explained that another reason that they wanted to put the building in the back was to make it easier to drain the site to the street. The Planning Commission and Mr. Vasquez discussed what the Carpenter's Union would be using the site for, the amount of noise that would be generated from the equipment being used in the classes, the possibility of mitigating the look of a "sea of cars" in front by using textured concrete and paving stones, and the drainage. Mr. Vasquez stated that at this time the existing building is on the rear of the site and the parking lot is in the front on the street. Commissioner Costello asked Mr. Vasquez if the Carpenter's Union improved this facility, would it be used more frequently and what is the building used for, other than the training sessions? Mr. Vasquez stated that training sessions in this facility occur approximately 4 times a year. The sessions might last from 2 to 6 weeks. The sessions in the facility would be the same. He explained that the building would be vacant when it was not in use. Chuck Fellows, 202 Canyon Way stated that, as a member of the ARC he wanted to reiterate the ARC's position on this project. He said that the ARC had discussed the issue of the placement of the building on the site at length with Mr. Vasquez. The ARC had told Mr. Vasquez that they could not support the project because of this. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner London stated that he recognized the limited amount of space that this site presented for the Union to utilize for this type of use, however having the building at the back of the lot would be out of place in the Village Commercial area. Mr. London stated that perhaps they could put a classroom on the second story or something else to position the building in the front. He feels that the City should stick to the Village Design guidelines to preserve the look of the Village. Commissioner Keen stated that he liked the looks of the building and he understood why the applicant needed the building in the location shown. He said that for a training center it would be disastrous to have a separation between the classroom and the outdoor training area and would not be feasible for what the union is trying to accomplish. He does not like the parking in the front but he can understand why it was designed that way. He stated that this was a difficult situation and he would have to spend more time 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 7 examining the site in order to make a decision. He said that he is in a quandary about this and he was not sure what direction he could give Mr. Vasquez. Mr. Keen said that he noticed that there was an electrical panel outside of the building. He said this has been done on many of the commercial buildings in town and he thinks they are ugly and out of place and as long as he is on the Planning Commission he is going to put a stop to it. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she did not have any problem with the project and felt that more of these kinds of vocational schools in the City. However, she agrees that since this project is in the Village Commercial area, the Commission had to stick to the Village Commercial guidelines and have the building in the front and the parking in the back. She stated that she appreciates that the applicant has used landscaping to help soften the look of the parking area and if it were anywhere else in the City she would consider it, but not in the Village Commercial. Commissioner Costello stated that he felt much the same as the other Commissioners and that it was important to adhere to the standards that have to set to help keep the Village a special place. He had this to offer as a compromise, bring the building forward, leaving enough space for four parking spaces in front and continue the parking as a wraparound. This would be a compromise he could learn to deal with. Chair Greene stated that he did not know how the Carpenter's Union worked so he was not in a position to comment on the degree of necessity associated with the groupings of the buildings that exist and proposed and their proximity to the open work sites. He said that if the applicants intended to pursue this project as proposed, then they would have to make a more powerful presentation to establish that this is not just a question of convenience but a demonstration of necessity. Mr. Greene explained that the applicant might also want to further address the drainage issues. Mr. Greene stated that he has a great deal of respect for the ARC and their opinions and he agrees with them in this case. He believes that the Village Design Guidelines are very important and that every effort should be made to adhere to them. Mr. Greene said that he could visualize what the project would look like and he did not feel it was an appealing look. Mr. Greene stated that some ideas had been suggested, such as reconfiguring the building to redesign its shape and putting the classrooms in a different configuration. Mr. Greene suggested that the applicant look into reducing the parking. He stated that people parking on the street, especially in the Village did not offend him. With the hours of operation being mainly eight to five, Monday through Friday, this may work. The applicant was well within the Development Code standards by proposing 23 parking spaces when only 14 spaces would be required. Mr. Greene felt that it was a good idea to provide parking for people, but not an absolute necessity. Mr. Greene stated that the building was a very nice design. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000 PAGE 8 ITEM. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS None ITEM. V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT The Planning Commission discussed the issue of the Economic Development Strategy and how it relates to the current applications coming before them for review. Commissioner Keen stated that he felt, in order that the Planning Commission to decide about projects in a fair manner, the Economic Development Strategy should be included in all Planning Commission discussions. Commissioner London asked that a discussion on this issue be included in all staff reports. Chair Greene informed the Planning Commission that he might not be able to attend the meeting of November 21, 2000, and that he would let the Community Development Department know if he was unable to attend. ITEM. VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS Kerry McCants stated that the Planning Commission meeting of November 7, 2000 would be canceled. Mr. McCants informed the Commission that the City Council Chambers would be needed that night for the election proceedings. ITEM. VII. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting on November 21, 2000. Kathleen Fryer, Commission erk Laurence Greene, Chair AS TO CONTENT: Kerry nts Community Development Director /aLW O,twelt 1 1