Loading...
PC Minutes 2000-08-011 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2000 PAGE 1 ALL 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 The minutes of May 30, 2000 were continued to the next Planning Commission meeting for corrections and further review. ITEM I. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS II.A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00 -005, VARIANCE 00 -002, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 00- 003; LOCATION - 1375 GRAND AVENUE; APPLICANT - ZADDIE BUNKER TRUST; REPRESENTATIVE - GARY WHITE (CONTINUED FROM JULY 18, 2000) This item had been continued from the July 18, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Greene stated that the Public Hearing for this item would not be reopened. He further stated that the Planning Commission would discuss and vote on the resolution that had been prepared by staff for this project. Commissioner Costello stated that the language in the resolution prepared by staff was adequate. Vice -Chair Parker stated that this resolution was very well done. However, in the section that listed the findings, should sections Section 9 -03 -050 A and D in the Development Code that dealt with this, be specifically named in the resolution? Mr. McCants stated that if Ms. Parker wanted to specify the sections of the Development Code in the resolution, staff would be happy to do this. Commissioner London stated that the language adequately reflected the Planning Commissions' comments, but he was not in agreement with these comments. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2000 PAGE 2 Chair Greene asked that Page 1 of the resolution under Number 1, where the paragraph talks about "the project does not comply with applicable provisions of the Development Code etc." should be amended to state "including but not limited to 9- 03.050 A and D ". Vice -Chair Parker moved that the Planning Commission adopt: ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen NO Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1750 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 00 -005, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 00 -003, AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 00 -002, LOCATED AT 1375 GRAND AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY ZADDIE R. BUNKER TRUST with the language added to Page 1, Number 1 which reads "including but not limited to Section 9- 03.050 A and D ". Commissioner Costello seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: II. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00 -006; LOCATION - 244 OAK PARK BLVD.; APPLICANT - PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH; REPRESENTATIVE - HERB HART Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, stated that Peace Lutheran Church was proposing to expand their church meeting hall, add new handicapped accessible restrooms and a storage room. The total addition proposed was 1,588 square feet. Ms. McClish explained that in addition to the Church, the property included three (3) educational buildings used for the Peace Christian Pre - school, a playground area, and the parsonage. The ARC reviewed the project on May 8, 2000 and per their request, the applicant had proposed 4 additional windows on the south side meeting hall wall. The SAC reviewed the project on May 2, 2000. The SAC request for the widening of Oak Park Blvd. and the undergrounding of the utilities were being addressed by the Oak Park Blvd. widening capital improvement project. The other conditions included two fire hydrants and a firewall. Ms. McClish stated that a 76 -space parking lot exists. Parking required for the church includes 39 spaces for the fellowship hall and 37 spaces for the meeting hall area including the proposed addition. The applicant has stated that the fellowship hall and the meeting area are not used at the same time and typically the meeting area is used after church services and in the evenings. The 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2000 PAGE 3 required parking for the pre - school is 14 spaces. This does not effect the overall parking however because the pre - school is not in operation when the meeting hall or fellowship hall are being used. Ms. McClish informed the Planning Commission that the proposed project met all other Development Code requirements including setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratio. Based on staff's environmental review the project was categorically exempt per section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. Ms. McClish stated that it was staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution for Conditional Use Permit No. 00 -006 subject to the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Costello and Ms. McClish discussed where the Oak Park extension would be and how it would effect this project site. Mr. Costello asked, with the new extension of building number 1, what the distance would be between the two buildings? Ms. McClish stated that the distance between the buildings would be six (6) feet and this was why the Building Department was requiring the firewall. Commissioner Costello stated that he had seen some discussion concerning the necessity to increase the size of the water main, but he had not seen any further discussion of this. What was the outcome? Ms. McClish stated that there were several discussions with the Fire Chief and the Conditions of Approval concerning this issue and the applicant was to include two fire hydrants but this was per the approval of the Fire Chief. Commissioner Keen raised he concern regarding the fact that the City did not purchase a right of way from the Church and in exchange the City would underground the utilities and widen Oak Park. In response to Vice -Chair Parker's question concerning the required firewall, Ms. McClish stated that the discussion about this had been done on site with the Fire Chief and a representative from the church. Ms. McClish was not aware of how high the wall had to be. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Herb Hart, representative for the applicant had two questions: • The church would like to install the two fire hydrants when the City was doing the road widening. Would this be possible? • Was a new streetlight going to be installed at the intersection of Ramona and Oak Park? Mr. McCants stated that he was sure the Public Works Department would accommodate the installation of the new hydrants. He did not know if a new street light would be installed. Vice -Chair Parker stated that Mr. Hart had mentioned there was an outdoor light that would be removed from a pole and placing on the building. Where would this light be located? Mr. Hart explained that because of the new construction the pole that the light was currently on would be removed. Because it is the only one for the parking lot, they would like to put the light ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2000 PAGE 4 on the building. They are going to have the architect design the Tight so it will be in compliance with City standards. Ms. Parker asked if the light would be facing the parking lot and not the adjacent homes? Also, would the light have a shield on it? Mr. Hart replied that this would not be a problem as the lights would have shields and would not be facing toward the homes. Commissioner London wanted to make sure that the City installed a new street light. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. The Planning Commission briefly discussed the project. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1756 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 00 -006, LOCATED AT 244 OAK PARK BOULEVARD, APPLIED FOR BY THE PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH with attachment A. Commissioner Costello 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 III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS III. A. PRE - APPLICATION 00 -003; LOCATION - 415 E. BRANCH STREET; APPLICANT - DEBLAUW BUILDERS, INC.; REPRESENTATIVE - JOSEPH BOUD AND ASSOCIATES Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, explained that the applicant was requesting feedback on a commercial retail, office and residential complex located where the E.C. Loomis & Son Feed Store currently exists. The site is 3.5 acres in size, is surrounded by residential and commercial development, and encompasses a portion of Tally Ho Creek. The conceptual plan includes approximately 40,200 square feet of commercial retail, office and residential space located in five (5) separate one and two -story buildings linked with a network of paths and deck areas. The applicant intends to retain the existing office building and relocate the Loomis residence on the project site. The architectural style is intended to reflect the historic village theme of Arroyo Grande. 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2000 PAGE 5 The proposed project lies in the Village Commercial district. Unique to this district is the allowed mixed use of multiple - family residential units above a commercial or office use. The proposed project shows the residential units located above parking areas, but not above a commercial use. The Planning Commission may want to discuss if this configuration satisfies the intent of the Development Code. Traffic considerations include the complicated circulation patterns caused by the number of street intersections, proximity to the Paulding Intermediate School, and Caltrans jurisdiction over this section of East Branch Street. A traffic study would be required as part of the formal application, requiring an access analysis and possibly a signal warrant analysis. Since a portion of the project is within the floodplain of Tally Ho Creek, any proposed development must meet the City's adopted floodplain management regulations. The applicant proposes to locate parking beneath the commercial use of all areas designated as flood hazard. As part of the environmental review process, an assessment regarding the historical significance of the existing E.C. Loomis & Son Feed Store will need to be made. According to CEQA guidelines, a resource can be considered 'historically significant' if it meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. If the resource is not officially listed it does not preclude the City from determining that it may have historical significance. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the project and provide direction and comments to the applicant. Vice -Chair Parker asked if parking was allowed in the flood plain? Ms. McClish stated that it was acceptable. Commissioner Costello asked if there was discussion going on at this time between the City, the applicant, and the Army Corp of Engineers and how much "say" these outside agencies would they have in the project? Ms. McClish stated that the Army Corp of Engineers would have a big "say" in the project because of the flood plain issues. This will be addressed during the environmental review period. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Steve Grauten, representing the applicant, gave a brief status report about the project. He stated that the project has been to the SAC, they are developing their constraint analysis, and a traffic engineer is doing a traffic report at this time. There is a landscape analysis being done for the creek enhancement area. He stated that at this time they were conducting studies on the existing structures to determine the feasibility of maintaining them both structurally and historically. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2000 PAGE 6 Commissioner London asked if it would be possible to keep the facade of the Loomis barn intact? Mr. Grauten stated that he wasn't sure if it would be possible to save the barn because there was a great deal of structural damage to it. The applicant was in the process of doing a study on the house to determine if it could be saved and used as a commercial building. In answer to Mr. London's question about saving the house and moving it to another location on the property, Mr. Grauten replied that the applicant was studying this possibility. Mr. Grauten addressed Ms. Parker's question concerning the parking in the flood plain and pointed out to the Commission the only area where the parking would be in the flood plain area. Mr. Grauten explained to the Planning Commission that they were attempting to design the project so that the residential portions would abut the existing residential area. Commissioner London asked if the applicant had given any thought to placing the buildings on Branch Street? He explained to Mr. Grauten that in the past the Planning Commission had not looked favorably to having the parking at the front of projects. Mr. London stated that he really liked the "creek scape" area. The only concern Mr. London had was that the parking, as shown in the plans, was too visible from the street. He asked what the applicant was proposing to use to help screen the parking lot from the street? Mr. Grauten stated that the applicant was creating a "street scape" with this project. This would help to bring people into the center. Commercially, it makes more sense to have exposure to the street. Mr. Grauten talked about having a creek enhancement program that would include an amphitheater and out side "cafe" tables along the creek. They would like to keep the parking lot away from this. Mr. Grauten stated that they would use some type of a concrete wall with landscaping to help mitigate the visual aspects of this parking lot. Commissioner Keen asked if the elevation needed to be 120 feet above the flood plain and the floor level of the house would be 120 feet. Mr. Keen also questioned /commented: • If there was going to be a connection to Le Point Street? • That it was imperative to him that the existing Loomis house was saved. • Put the buildings on the street and the parking behind the buildings. • He likes the project. He also understands why the feed store cannot be saved. • He is happy that the applicant is going to do some kind of creek enhancement. Vice -Chair Parker asked if the Loomis residence was left on the property, would it be an office or a residence? Mr. Grauten stated that if the house could be saved, it would possibly be a mixed use building. Ms. Parker stated that she would like to see what kind of architecture the applicant is proposing? When the applicant replied that he would like some stone, brick, and metal roofs, she reminded the applicant that metal roofs were not be allowed per the Development Code. She would also like to see this area enhanced for pedestrians and bicyclists. 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2000 PAGE 7 Vice -Chair Parker stated that she liked the idea of the creek side enhancement with the amphitheater. She had some concerns about the parking and if the parking for this project would be enough. Commissioner Costello stated that this was a very nice project and that this was a good idea. He had the following concerns: • Examine the historical significance of some of the buildings on the property. He liked Mr. London's idea of saving the facade of the Loomis Feed Store. • Mr. Costello stated that the applicant had indicated that there were 134 parking spaces but only 85 were shown on the plans. • How many residential units was the applicant proposing? • Mr. Costello had checked on the rule in the Development Code with regards to parking, and he found a place that discourages having non - residential parking under the residences. • He felt it was a smart idea to have the parking in the floodplain. • He also has mixed feelings about putting the building up in the front on Branch Street. Be careful with the parking and don't let it interfere with the view. • He will look very carefully at any traffic study, which is done, as he believes that this is a very congested area. • Look very carefully at the circulation both on Branch Street and Le Point. If a back exit /entrance is developed onto Le Point Street it may make it complicated. • What is the concept for the amphitheater and how would it be used? Balance will be necessary between this being a useful place but not allowing events being held there to last too late. Chair Greene stated that he felt this is a very interesting piece of land. Mr. Greene felt that the applicant had a chance to do something that would be very wonderful for the City and the Village. Because there are no buildings that front the creek elsewhere in the Village, this would be a chance to develop a mixture of uses that would permit people to patronize shops and also give them a chance to sit by the creek. Mr. Greene stated that the project is very intriguing and has a multitude of possibilities. He wanted to encourage the applicant to take advantage of the uniqueness of the creek side. Chair Greene said that the one building on the property that he did not like was the existing office building. Mr. Greene wondered if there was a way to extend the "creek walk" to Branch St. along the back of that building. Mr. Greene asked if there were 2 structures that made up the main house? Mr. Greene would like to see the house left in its current location with the existing trees left in place. Chair Greene stated that the main thing that concerned him about the project, like Commissioners Keen and Costello is the parking lot, which fronts on Branch Street. The Village Centre has the buildings in the front and the parking in the back and this replicates the feel of the Village more effectively than to have the buildings circled around a parking lot. No matter how it is landscaped there is still going to be a parking lot in the front. The opportunity to create a "turn of the century" shopping area would be lost if the development was centered on a parking lot. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2000 PAGE 8 He would like to see the buildings massed closer to the street with the parking in the rear of the project. He stated that he felt differently from Commissioners Parker and Costello in that he does not always feel that the applicant has to meet the mandatory minimum thresholds for parking. If the buildings are imaginative were placed appropriately on the lot, but the parking thresholds were not met, he would still be supportive of the project. He believes that what is more important than meeting the parking thresholds for a few days a year during the Strawberry or Harvest Festivals when the spaces are needed, the project is designed in such a way that an empty parking lot is not visible from the street. In the same regard, Mr. Greene suggested that the applicant consider access to the parking lot from Crown Terrace as well as access from Le Point. Also, the idea of replicating the front of the Loomis Barn is a good idea. Chair Greene stated that the mix of office /commercial and residential is a very good idea. If the Development Code were inconsistent with this plan, Mr. Greene would suggest that staff present the Planning Commission with a way to modify the Development Code. He believes that a mixed use is a very good way to revitalize the downtown area. Mr. Greene asked if it were at all possible, as Vice -Chair Parker had suggested, to include an open space landscaped area. He felt this would be an excellent idea. If some parking had to be eliminated to achieve this, Mr. Greene would be in favor of it. With respect to the landscaping that is planned for the project, it has been the Planning Commission's objective to try and replicate the natural, native type landscaping. Commissioner Costello wondered if it would be feasible to maintain the parking where it has been placed and use the facade of the barn to provide semi - covered parking. Mr. Costello stated that he did not know if there would be any code problems with that but it was something to think about. Commissioner London asked if cobble stones or textured driveways could be used? Duane DeBlauw, applicant, stated that as long time residents they were very sensitive to Community issues. He stated that he could sympathize with the Commissioners' viewpoint with putting the buildings close to the street to eliminate some viewshed of the parking. However, because of the way the creek is oriented, if they block this off by parking, he isn't sure how it would work. Also, if someone is traveling along Branch Street, coming into the Village from the east, the focal point will be looking at the buildings along the creek. Commissioner London wondered if it would be possible to put in something to block the view of the parking lot? Chair Greene wondered if it would be possible to enhance the pedestrian feel of the project by eliminating as much open parking space between the sidewalk and the buildings so that people who don't park at the project would feel comfortable walking through. Mr. Greene felt strongly that the applicant should modify the "u- shaped" look of the project and come back to the Planning Commission for another pre - application review. Possibly the applicant could bring in a 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2000 PAGE 9 couple of variations for the Planning Commission to review. Mr. Greene commented that one of the frustrating things for him is when the Planning Commission makes its comments and the applicant comes back and states that they were unable to incorporate Commission suggestions. Although it may be true that the applicant could not do some of the things the Commission had requested, the applicant should be ready to explain to the Commission why the suggestions were incompatible with the objectives of the project. Richard DeBlauw, applicant, spoke briefly to the Planning Commission and thanked them for taking their time to look at the project and for their favorable comments. III. B. PRE - APPLICATION 00 -006; LOCATION - CAMINO MERCADO; APPLICANT - HORIZON SR. HOUSING; REPRESENTATIVE - STEVEN PUGLISI Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report to the Planning Commission and stated that the project site was located within the Professional Commercial District ( "P -C ") of the Oak Park Acres Planned Development (PD 1.1) and is approximately four (4) acres in size. Surrounding the site is vacant land recently approved for office development, single - family residences, the Oak Park Professional Center, and open space. The proposed project is to construct an 84 -room assisted care facility with a range of amenities, including a dining area, chapel, exercise room and library. The P -C District specifically allows this type of use. A similar project was approved in 1986 for a 180 -room skilled nursing facility but it was never built. The Staff Advisory Committee discussed issues including: • Slope of the proposed driveway and adherence to ADA standards. • Fire protection fuel modification. • Grading and drainage. • Traffic impacts and parking requirements. • Landscaping. • Lighting. • Water storage. Ms. McClish explained that during the ARC meeting, suggestions included adding more architectural variation to the right side of the building and screen the parking for the views of residences on Hillcrest Drive. Ms. McClish informed the Planning Commission that the Development Code parking requirements for an assisted care facility are 1 uncovered space for every 3 beds, and 1 space per employee on the largest work shift for a project total of 41 spaces. The applicant is proposing a total of 50 parking spaces, 27 of which would be covered, which exceeds City parking requirements. With regards to the height of the project, the Development Code allows a maximum building height in the P -C District of either two (2) stories or thirty feet (30'), whichever is Tess. The building height is defined as shown. A portion of the proposed project is three stories tall. Ms. McClish explained that the applicant interprets the above height definition to include a three- ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2000 PAGE 10 story building, as long as the average height does not exceed thirty feet (30'). The applicant requests Planning Commission comment on this issue. Ms. McClish stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission review the project and provide direction and comments to the applicant. Commissioner London asked if this type of facility was considered a commercial enterprise or a residential building? Ms. McClish stated that it was considered an assisted care residential facility. Commissioner Costello stated that the Professional Commercial zoning was part of Ordinance 316, however Mr. Costello stated that when he looked in the Development Code the Professional Commercial zoning did not exist. So, if the Planning Commission is going to evaluate a Professional Commercial project, what standards should they apply? Ms. McClish stated that the Professional Commercial zoning was part of the Planned Development 1.1 zoning for the whole area and this parcel was designated as Professional Commercial. There are some specific development standards in this zoning, but because this is a senior housing project, staff will be applying senior housing criteria that is located in the residential section of the Development Code. Commissioner Costello asked what the exact definition was in the Development Code for two stories, 30 feet, or whatever is less? Ms. McClish presented the diagram and the definition that is in the Development Code. She said that the applicant had stated that only 1 story of the structure would be seen from any one perspective. Vice -Chair Parker and Ms. McClish discussed how much "greenbelt" is between the buildings on the rear of the property, the height of the building, and the 15% slope to the driveway. Chair Greene asked what section of the Development Code addressed the height issue? Ms. McClish stated that it was addressed in both the PD 1.1 section and in the development criteria for residential structures. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Steve Puglisi, architect for the project, spoke to the Planning Commission, addressing the following topics: • A significant amount of grading and tree removal took place in 1986 when a previous project was approved and started at this site. 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2000 PAGE 11 • The applicant and the architect have carefully studied the City's ordinances and codes and have designed a project that would meet all requirements. They are not asking for any variances. • They wanted to present a project to the Planning Commission and the City Council that would meet all requirements and not require any "largesse" from the City. ■ They wanted to create a facility that would be a home with these 86 rooms for approximately 99 people to live. • This project is geared for the convenience and comfort of the residents of this facility. • There will be 86 rooms. • There will be up to 99 residents living in this facility. ■ There will be 50 parking spaces although only 46 are required. • The project as far as its location on the site will be taking advantage of the grading that has already been done. ■ The development is built along the lines of a luxury hotel. • The ordinance that deals with the height of the building is very clear. It says two stories or thirty feet, which ever is less. It is also very specific about how the height should be measured. Mr. Puglisi explained how the applicant has figured the measurements for the height. Commissioner London asked if the units were rented by the month and if there were kitchens in the rooms? Mr. London also asked what the mental and physical capability of the residents would be? Mr. Puglisi stated that the units would not be rented on a month to month basis. There would be a small kitchen area in each room; however, there would not be a stove, only a microwave. Mr. Puglisi did not know what the criteria was to be a resident at this facility, but he did say it was not an intensive care facility. Mr. London stated that he felt this was a project that would be well suited to this area. Commissioner Keen asked Mr. Puglisi if he had Sheet #4 of the plans that the Planning Commission had be given so he and Mr. Puglisi could discuss the height issue? Mr. Keen asked Mr. Puglisi if he had referred to the "finished floor" in figuring the allowable height for this building? He and Mr. Puglisi discussed the fact that the average is not "finished floor" but "finished grade ". Mr. Keen stated that one of the problems he has with this project is that the building looks "massive" from Camino Mercado. He was afraid that when a third story is put on the building, it would be overwhelming. Mr. Puglisi stated that the building would not be seen the way Mr. Keen was looking at it from Camino Mercado. Mr. Keen stated that other than the visual impact, he likes the project. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2000 PAGE 12 Mr. Puglisi wanted the Planning Commission to know that this project is being designed for the comfort and well -being of the residents. When the project is increased by one level, the applicant can effectively cut the number of feet in the horizontal walking distance of the residents' movements each day. This walking distance is from their rooms to the public areas where they would gather. Mr. Puglisi stated that this was a very critical issue with senior housing. Mr. Keen asked if there was ever any consideration to putting an access to the north side of the building? Had there been any consideration of putting a fire road around this side? Mr. Puglisi stated that there had been some discussion about this with the Fire Chief. It was decided that, because of the precipitous nature of this site, bringing a vehicle around the side would be impossible. The Fire Chief had requested two things; 1. A fire safety zone with landscape, fire retardant materials, and paving sections. 2. Remove the extreme eves on the backside of the buildings and install fire sprinklers on the balconies. Mr. Puglisi explained about the open space surrounding the project site. Vice -Chair Parker asked why the applicant had chosen to reduce the number of rooms in this project from the original number of 180? Mr. Puglisi stated that in the applicant's experience that large one bedroom and a number of two bedrooms rooms is what the market will support. Vice -Chair Parker asked if there were balconies outside of each room and how large they were? Mr. Puglisi stated that all the rooms have a balcony or a patio and they were approximately 8 by 12 feet. Vice -Chair Parker asked how much of the open space was "common area" open space? Ms. Parker also asked if there would be a picnic area, or place for the residents to walk? Mr. Puglisi stated that the entire north side of the project would have an extensive terrace that abuts the slope bank. This would be a "controlled" outdoor space. On the front of the building, or to the south, would be an "uncontrolled" outdoor space. Mr. Puglisi also stated that there would be a trail way along the top of the property that would be a combination of gardens and passive recreation areas. Ms. Parker stated that this area needs more of this type of facility and she is very glad to see this project. Commissioner Costello stated that he feels this is a very sound idea. He likes the looks of the project and only has one question. This deals with the interpretation concerning the height issue. Allowing this would set a precedent and he feels this needs to be worked out by the City Council as the policy maker for this type of decision. 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2000 PAGE 13 Chair Greene stated that there would need to be a traffic study done to determine the impacts of the project on the intersection of Camino Mercado and Branch Street. He also stated that the applicant would be required to demonstrate that this project wouldn't have any negative impacts on the Brisco underpass. Mr. Greene further stated that landscaping is a critical issue for the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would like to see native landscaping used because not only is it "habituated" to the area it would look like the open space which will surround the project. The Pampas Grass should be completely eliminated. Chair Greene stated that he agreed with Commissioner Keen that the colors and design looks great. He was not sure about how he interprets the height issue. He felt that the City Attorney should review this issue because the Planning Commission was not in the position to make this type of decision. Commissioner London asked if any of the neighbors to the south of the project have been approached and what, if any, response did they have? Mr. Puglisi stated that there had been no formal announcement about the project. Vice -Chair Parker asked what the roofing material was going to be made of? Mr. Puglisi stated that it would be either a high -grade composition or a flat concrete tile. Ms. Parker asked if this were to go to the City Attorney and there was a question about the height, could this then come to the Planning Commission for a Variance? Mr. McCants replied that if the City Attorney indicates that the three (3) stories is the deciding factor, and that three (3) stories is not measured based on the calculations that the applicant has used then some kind of modification would have to be made. This would be either be an amendment to the text of the ordinance or some kind of exception granted through the Variance process. Mr. McCants stated that he felt it would be very difficult to make the Variance findings. ITEM. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS None ITEM. V. None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT ITEM. VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS None ITEM. VII. ADJOURNMENT ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2000 PAGE 14 On motion of Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting on August 15, 2000. Kathleen Fryer, Commission CI AS TO C Kerry MC(its Community Development Director Laurence Greene, Chair 1