Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-10-19MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 1999 Page 1 of 11 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 August 3, 1999, page 7 of 14, the last paragraph, delete the "residents of the Highlands" and add Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District. October 5, 1999 page 13 Of 16 change substantial to substantiated; page 13 of 16 change the wording at the bottom of the page change "to stop the project "; page 14 of 16 drop the word this; 14 of 16 change to if the LOS was B then that would not be acceptable ". Commissioner London moved that the minutes of August 3 and October 5, 1999 be approved as amended. Commissioner Keen seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with Commissioner Costello abstaining from the August 3` minutes, as he was not present at that meeting. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None I.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Written comments received in the Community Development Department on the Arroyo Linda Specific Plan Draft EIR. 2. Copy of approval letter for Plot Plan Review 99 -004; Small Collection Facility for Recyclable Materials located at 1464 Grand Avenue. 3. Copy of a letter dated October 16, 1999 to Mr. John H. Ghormley from Mayor Pro - Tem Tony Ferrara concerning Mr. Ghormley's comments about the City Council meeting of September 28, 1999. 4. Memorandum from Robert L. Hunt, City Manager, dated October 19, 1999 regarding the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the Fire and Emergency Services Division. 5. Memorandum from Kelly Wetmore, Director of Administrative Services, dated October 20, 1999 regarding the update of the Commissioners' Handbook. 6. Site Development Plan for Agenda Item III.B; Pre - Application 99 -006; Location 410 Grand Avenue; Applicant - McDonald's Corporation. II.A. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99 -011 AND VARIANCE 99 -005; PROJECT LOCATION - 121 EAST BRANCH STREET; APPLICANT EDDIE EL -HELOU Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner presented the staff report and explained to the Commission that the applicant proposed to build a 2 -story commercial building on a small vacant lot in the Village. The first floor would be used for the applicant's jewelry store and MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 1999 Page 2 of 11 the second floor would be leased out as professional office space. The project site is located within the Village Design overlay district which encourages commercial developments that recognize and are compatible with the historical small town nature of the original Arroyo Grande Village. The proposed building designs and materials were based on the Village Design Guidelines using brick, detailed ornamental work, stone corners and deep earth tone colors. Ms. Heffernon further explained that there are 3 public pedestrian mall easements associated with this property. These easements were previously granted to the City. One of the easements is 3 feet wide and located on the East Side of the subject parcel. Immediately adjacent to this easement are two additional easements of 6 feet and 4 feet. The 4 -foot easement is located on the adjacent property and it is unclear at this time as to who actually owns the 6 -foot wide easement. All 3 easements have a total width of 13 feet and are currently developed with a brick sidewalk and are used for pedestrian access from East Branch Street and the Parking Corral. A sidewalk with landscaping and a fountain are proposed within the access easement maintaining the pedestrian link. Since the proposed structure lies within the 3 -foot easement, Condition No. 13 requires that the applicant to obtain City approval to relinquish the easement prior to issuance of the building permit. Condition No. 34 requires the applicant to maintain the pedestrian walkway. In addition to the Conditional Use Permit the applicant is requesting approval of a Variance to exceed the maximum floor area ratio for the second floor. The maximum floor area ratio for the Village Commercial District is 1.0, which the project exceeds by .82. The project meets all other Development Code requirements. A Certificate of Compliance is also required in order to clarify all easements and property boundaries. The Certificate of Compliance will be heard at a later date. Condition of Approval No. 38 requires the applicant to record the Certificate of Compliance prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Ms. Heffernon explained to the Planning Commission that they needed to make certain findings in order to approve the Variance. The applicant has submitted a letter that speaks to these findings. Commissioner Keen asked if the easement as presented would be 9 feet? Ms. Heffernon stated that the remaining easements would be 10 feet. Commissioner Parker stated that the last time the Commission addressed this piece of property, the applicant suggested at that time that the 3 -foot easement be used. At that time Mr. Mankins declined giving up the 10 -foot easement. Has something changed with the way Mr. Mankins feels about this? Also, will the City still have the ability to use that 10 -foot easement? Ms. Heffernon stated that as far as she knew, Mr. Mankins was assuming that the City still has access to the parking lot and has no intention of trying to relinquish his 4 feet. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 1999 Page 3 of 11 Craig Campbell, Public Works, stated that the easements were in favor of the City however, they did have some rights that were reserved by the property owners when they were given to the City. The easement 4 -foot (closest to Mr. Mankins property) was dedicated to the City for a public pedestrian mall that reserved out rights for the owner to use it for drainage, utility lines and motor vehicle ingress /egress. The easement in the middle, which is 6 feet, is in favor of the City and is specifically called out as an easement for public parking purposes. These two easements are not on the applicant's property. There are conditions of approval that call for all the title information to be submitted in complete form to determine who owns the property legally and also because there were some rights that are reserved. Finally, the 3 -foot easement, which is on the applicant's property for the purposes of a pedestrian mall, has reserved out the right to have utilities and drainage and also roof overhang within it's easement. The proposal by the applicant is for the City to Quitclaim the easement and to construct the building to the property line with balconies and overhangs extended into the other 6 -foot easement. Commissioner Parker asked if there had to be 10 feet from building to building? Also, she remembers that there had to be firewalls with windows. Would this 10 feet include the 4- foot easement on Mr. Mankins property? Kerry McCants, Community Development Director, stated that this did include the 4 feet of easement and that the requirement was 10 feet between walls. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Eddie El- Helou, applicant, spoke briefly to the Commission thanking staff for helping him on his project and stating that he was looking forward to doing business in Arroyo Grande. He further stated that he was very proud of the design of the building and he hopes that the City would like it, as well as be is proud of it. Scott Thomas, architect for the project, stated that he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner London stated that he liked the building design and wanted to make sure the clock would work. Commissioner Keen stated that in the minutes of the ARC they were concerned about the having the trash enclosure under the stairs. In the staff report to the Commission it states that the building will have fire sprinklers installed. Is that the reason that the issue of the trash enclosure was dropped? Mr. Thomas replied that it was the reason. Also, the firewall that Nanci was talking about, he stated that they would be using "rated" windows. Commissioner Parker asked if the horseshoe archway would be saved and did the developer have any plans for lighting in the ally way? She also stated that she felt the building would tie into the Village Design better if the architect could find the same stone that was used in the other buildings in the Village. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 1999 Page 4 of 11 Mr. Thomas stated that they were going to save it and at this time there were no plans for the lighting. Chair Greene requested that the applicant make some changes to the landscaping plans. Would the applicant consider substituting some kind of a variety of manzanita for the sunset rock rose? He would suggest arctostaphylos sunset that would be more drought tolerant and hardy for that area. Commissioner London questioned the fact that the lower story of the building had no rear entrance and was told that this was a Building Code issue and staff had no answer at this time. Brad Anderson, project builder, explained that he had met with Larry Schmidt of the Building Department just prior to the meeting and all the exits had been worked out to meet the Building Code. Byron Grant, spoke to the Planning Commission and stated that he had reviewed the plans that were submitted and he was in favor of the project. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commission Keen stated that he liked the project, did not have any issues with it at all and felt it would enhance the downtown area. Commissioner Parker stated that she liked the project but she did have some concerns. The Village is a tourist draw to the area and the way the building looks is vital. There are some other stucco buildings but most have brick or stone on the facade. She would like to see a building face that has some stone on it, to tie it into the Village and change the look of the building. The main problem that she has with this project is the traffic issues. In the Negative Declaration it states that because the LOS in the East West Branch Corridor is a level of service D which is not acceptable to City standards. She feels that the City should be serious enough to do something about this rather than to just continue to approve projects. Because of the traffic issues she does not feel the Commission has the right to approve projects just because they think they are good ones. Commissioner Costello likes the project and feels the building is appealing and is a good use of a very small lot. He shares Commissioner Parker's concerns about traffic and the LOS however, in this case he does not find the degree of contribution to traffic with this project a significant enough one to deny the project. Commissioner London stated that he likes the project but does share Commissioner Parker's concerns. He does feel that these concerns are better left to the City Council. Chair Greene stated that he would like to add in Condition No. 14.0 (5) the cistus /rock rose plants, shown on the preliminary landscaping plan shall be replaced with arctostaphylos sunsets. He does agree with the comments from Commissioner Parker concerning the 1 1 1 MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 1999 Page 5 of 11 traffic. He does not believe that this particular project is of a nature that the Planning Commission should deny the project because of the unique circumstances this project presents. Further, traffic issues and policy decisions regarding projects that could be approved and moratoriums that could be enacted for building permits and the like are within the province of the City Council and not the Planning Commission. Considering the direction the City Council took at their September 28, 1999 meeting, if staff had felt that this was a project that fell within that moratorium they would not have brought it before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1710 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. 99 -011, LOCATED AT 121 EAST BRANCH STREET, APPLIED FOR BY EDDIE EL -HELOU With Attachment A and Exhibits 1- 4. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a 4 to 1 roll call vote as follows: Roll Call Vote Ave Commissioner Costello Ave_ Commissioner Keen Ave Commissioner London No Vice -Chair Parker Aye Chair Greene Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission approve: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VARIANCE CASE NO. 99 -005 TO DEVIATE FROM THE 1.0 MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO IN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC) DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO -STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING, APPLIED FOR BY EDDIE EL- HELOU, AT 121 EAST BRANCH STREET With Attachment A. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a 4 — 1 roll call vote as follows: Roll Call Vote Ave Commissioner Costello RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1711 MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 1999 Page 6 of 11 Aye Commissioner Keen Aye Commissioner London No Vice -Chair Parker Aye Chair Greene II.B. PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 99 -002; PROJECT LOCATION — 1464 GRAND AVENUE; APPLICANT — ALBERTSONS, INC. Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner explained that the applicant is currently making interior modifications to the Lucky's Supermarket in preparation of a November opening. The only exterior modifications proposed at this time are the modifications to the wall and monument signs. All secondary signage will also be removed. The proposed signage has a net decrease in the amount of square footage than the existing signs. However, an approved sign program is still required. Gene Laird, of Santa Maria Neon Sign asked if the Commission had any questions? Commissioner Keen reminded Mr. Laird that the ARC always requests that the "toggle switch" should be on top of the sign. After a brief discussion by the Planning Commission, Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission approve: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 99 -002, APPLIED FOR BY ALBERTSONS, LOCATED AT 1464 GRAND AVENUE With Attachment A, B1, B2, B3. Commissioner Costello seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5 — 0 roll call vote as follows: Roll CaII Vote Ave Commissioner Costello Ave Commissioner Keen Ave Commissioner London Ave Vice -Chair Parker Ave Chair Greene RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1709 II.0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99 -010; LOCATION — 124 WEST BRANCH STREET; APPLICANT — AMANDA LAMBERT Commissioner Costello moved that Conditional Use Permit 99 -010 be continued to the November 2, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. 1 1 MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 1999 Page 7 of 11 II.D. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 99 -004; LOCATION 1254 POPLAR STREET; APPLICANT - AMELIA J. BARTHOLOMEW Chair Greene announced that Staff was requesting a continuance on this item, which needs a Variance to accompany the Tentative Parcel Map. Terry Payne, representing the applicant, asked that the item not be continued but heard as a Minor Exception. Joe Prutch, Contract Planner, explained to Ms. Payne the reasons for staff's decision. Commissioner Costello moved that Item II.D. Tentative Parcel Map 99 -004 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 16, 1999. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. III. NON- PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS IV.A. MINOR EXCEPTION 99 -008; STAFF REQUEST OF PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRETATION Kerry McCants, Community Development Director, stated that staff was requesting an interpretation for a Minor Exception to allow a 10 percent height increase in ground signs located in the Commercial District that are eight (8) feet or less in height. The Planning Commission discussed the request of the Community Development Director. They felt comfortable granting the request if: • It is very clear that this is not a "blanket" OK to grant minor exceptions. • If the circumstances justify the increased height. ■ It doesn't set a precedent for all monument sign heights to be increased. ■ The granting of this increase would be used only on ground signs. Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission has determined that the phrase minor items in Section 9- 03.120 includes "ground signs ". Commissioner Keen seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. IV.B. PRE - APPLICATION 99 -006; LOCATION 410 GRAND AVENUE; APPLICANT - McDONALD'S CORPORATION Joe Prutch, Contract Planner, explained that this project was a Pre - Application and that the applicant was requesting input from the Planning Commission concerning demolition of the existing McDonald's and construction of a new restaurant with an indoor play area. There were three main issues that were discussed at the ARC and SAC meetings. They were the roof tile color, the building location and the third was the proximity of the restaurant to the residences on the west. The ARC felt that the color of the roof tiles should be a softer red color than was proposed. The ARC also had concerns about moving the building away from the corner, where it is now, and moving it closer to the west property line and putting the parking lot in the front. They felt the building should be the main focal point on the front of the lot as it is now. The third concern, the proximity of the building to the residences, was a concern with the ARC because the drive through window would be close to the residences and there might be an issue with noise. The landscaping and the 6- MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 1999 Page 8 of 11 foot block wall would remain and be somewhat of a noise buffer. McDonald's will be using a new speaker system which will lower the noise level and keep it within the 50 decibels allowed for in the Development Code. Commissioner Keen asked if this project would be handled as a new Conditional Use Permit and would everything be handled as a new project? Mr. Prutch stated that this was true. Commissioner Parker asked if a 20 foot setback was needed from uses that are incompatible and if 10 feet of this needs to be landscaped? Mr. Prutch stated that the Development Code requires a 20 -foot buffer from residential areas for a drive - through restaurant. The McDonald's current plan shows just over 18 feet. Mr. Prutch said that he had talked to the applicant about this and they were going to move the building back within Development Code standards. Further, the applicant has only shown 4 feet of landscaping which will have to be changed. Commissioner Parker stated that this would only allow for 10 feet for the drive -thru. She asked if the drive -thru portion was included in the restaurant therefore if applicant would actually need an additional 10 feet for the buffer between the drive -thru and the property line? Mr. Prutch read from the Development Code, which stated that the 20 -foot buffer was from the building. Commissioner Costello asked if one of the problems that were discussed at the SAC and the ARC was that McDonalds was proposing an exit close to Barnett Street? Mr. Prutch stated that originally McDonald's had proposed the exit however, at the SAC Public Works would not allow an exit that close to Barnnett. Commissioner Costello asked how many parking spaces they were required to have? Mr. Prutch stated that they needed 63 or 64 spaces. Chair Greene asked if there were any signs that were being considered at this point? Mr. Prutch replied that at this time McDonald's was only asking to move the monument sign closer to the corner of Barnett and Grand. Commissioner Keen stated that the houses next to the project were not zoned residential. Since the Development Code states that the 20 -foot buffer was required for residential zoning would this be treated the same way and require the same measurements for noise and setback? Kerry McCants, Community Development Director, stated that if the Development Code said zoned residential there would be a different standard applied. However, if it said residential MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 1999 Page 9 of 11 units the standard applied. Staff has determined that the Development Code, in this instance, would apply for residential district, which means the 20 -foot setback would apply. Celso Martinez, the Remodel Manager for McDonald's Corp. in this region stated that he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. Commission Costello stated that his biggest issue is that the restaurant co -exist with the residences as well as possible. He asked if it was the applicant's intent to meet the 20- foot setback? Mr. Martinez stated that they would be doing that. He would like a clarification on the 10 foot landscaping that was required because that may cause them a problem. Mr. Prutch read Section 9- 07.040, Subsection 1 from the Development Code to Mr. Martinez, which requires the 20 -foot setback, part of which must be 10 feet of landscaping. Chair Green asked if it was staff's interpretation that the phrase "residential district" includes the location where McDonald's is and the homes that are immediately to the West because there are single family homes there? Therefore, the applicant would also need the 20 -foot setback and 10 feet of landscaping? Mr. McCants stated that at this time they did not have an answer. Staff would have to make a determination about this. Commissioner London asked if there had been any consideration of redesigning the existing building to accommodate the enclosure of the play area and create more space? Also, what is wrong with demolishing the building and building on site? Mr. Martinez stated that the existing building was very old and to redo this would be very expensive and would not meet their needs. Further, they wanted to improve the circulation of the current drive -thru and also allow for more accessible parking and to do this they would have to demolish the building and move it to accomplish this. Commissioner London stated that one of the things the Commission looks at is the appearance of the property. With Grand Avenue being the major thoroughfare, he shares the concerns of the ARC of having a plan which would be. creating a parking lot with a McDonald's to the rear of it as opposed to having a restaurant with the parking in the rear. This destroys the street scene the Commission would like to see in this area. Mr. Martinez said this would pose a financial burden on the franchise to have the restaurant closed for three months while the building was being built. Commission London stated that he hoped the franchisee also understood the City's position on trying to keep that corner looking nice rather than just a parking lot. Commissioner Keen stated that he agreed with the position that Commission London was taking and it was also part of the ARC's concern to not have the parking lot on the corner in front of the building. The applicant should look at the ARC minutes and note their concerns, MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 1999 Page 10 of 11 which Mr. Keen agrees with including the color of the roof tiles. Further, one of the things he would like the parapet on the back of the building to match the rest of the architecture. Mr. Keen addressed the relocation of the pole sign. He stated that he had a problem with the pole sign to begin with and that he would prefer to see a ground monument sign. He was concerned about the time the building was under construction and the problems with parking and traffic circulation at that time. He felt the applicant should address just how efficient the operation would be if they stayed open during the construction. Also, Mr. Keen was concerned about the cars stacking up at the drive -thru and the overhanging parapet trapping fumes so close to the residential units next door. Commissioner Parker stated that she was concerned also about keeping the business open and not being able to supply adequate parking and traffic circulation while they are building the new structure. She also felt that it was unfair to the residences next to the property to have the drive -thru so close. The landscaping was an important issue with her. She felt very strongly that the 10 -feet of landscaping was necessary. Commissioner Costello shared the concerns of the other Commissioners about the fumes and noise that would generated by the new drive -thru so close to the residences to the West of the property. He suggested that perhaps they could bring the building closer to the corner of Barnett and Grand by making the building an "L" shaped building and putting the play structure closer to the Barnett Street location. They could build the restaurant structure first, then demolish the existing structure and build the indoor play structure where the existing McDonald's is to make the "L" shaped building. Chair Green asked if Mr. Martinez had discussed these changes with the neighbors to the West. He stated that this was an important issue with him. If the neighbors had any objections the Commission would be obliged to listen to their complaints. The current drive -thru is a dangerous one and the new playground area inside are good ideas and he realizes why they are making the changes and appreciates this as sound business sense. However, he does have the same concerns as the other Commissioners. A major concern is the positioning of the building on the back of the property. Mr. Greene was concerned about the signs they were proposing and felt that the pole sign was "blight" and would like to see it changed. He agrees with Commissioner Parker and encouraged the applicants to put in more landscaping and make the area look better. He also encouraged the applicant to be more innovative and move away from the kind of building he calls "California off -ramp design ". Arroyo Grande does not need a design that could be picked up and airlifted to Salinas or to Escondido. He would like to see a design that is more compatible with the Rural Small Town Character that the City is trying to promote. He suggested that the applicant take a look at the Guidelines for the Village and move away from the traditional wall coverings and roof tiles, etc. Mr. Greene also stated that the ingress /egress from the building is of a major concern to him. He did not want Cornwall to become a major ingress /egress but wanted the traffic to stay on Barnett and Grand. 1 1 MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 1999 Page 11 of 11 Commissioner Keen stated that he noticed that on all of the elevations they give the height to the top of the parapet and nowhere do they mention the total height of the building. Mr. Martinez stated that the height of the building is 19 feet 4 inches. Commissioner Keen commented on the fees that the applicant would have to pay for the new Conditional Use Permit. He wanted to make sure that the applicant would be paying the standard traffic fees that any new project would have to pay. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT Commissioner London gave a brief update on the Economic Advisory Committee. Commissioner Parker gave a brief update on the Long Range Planning Committee. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS. Community Development Director Kerry McCants discussed upcoming projects with the Commission. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on November 2, 1999. ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commissi Kerry M ants Clerk Community Development Director /OaaQ4'lcu 062spizi Laurence Greene, Chair