Loading...
PC Minutes 1998-11-17ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin presiding. Present are Commissioners Haney, Greene, Parker and Keen. Also in attendance are Community Development Director Jim Hamilton, Contract Planners Lezley and Tom Buford and Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell. MINUTE APPROVAL Commissioner Parker corrected the minutes of the meeting of October 20, 1998. There being no additional corrections, the corrected minutes of October 20, 1998 and the minutes of October 28, 1998 were approved on motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Haney, and unanimously carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Otis Page, 606 Myrtle Street, spoke regarding Councilman Fuller's comments at the last meeting regarding a letter Mr. Page had written to the City Council and Planning Commission pertaining to the El Campo Road project. Mr. Page stated he believes everything he stated in that letter to be true and accurate. He further stated he doesn't believe the El Campo Road project has come before the Commission for approval and, in his opinion, that is a mistake. Coleen Martin 855 Olive Street, spoke regarding the General Plan Update, stating that over 750 surveys have already been received by the City. She complimented the Planning Commission for all of their hard work on the signage for the Wal *Mart project. She also referred to the Lucky Payless Center on Grand Avenue, stating that three years ago a permit was pulled to remove 88 trees from the center and to date only 22 trees have been replanted. She suggested that the permit be looked at and some steps taken to enforce replanting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS - None DISCUSSION ITEM (CONTINUED) PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM /OFFICE COMPLEX; APPLICANT: CLAIRE MARTIN (BAUR); LOCATION: LE POINT STREET Contract Planner Tom Buford reviewed the staff report dated November 17, 1998. He advised the pre - application review is for a 5,000 square foot office on the first floor and four apartments on the second floor. He stated the project has been reviewed by the Architectural Advisory Committee and by the Staff Advisory Committee. There were a number of comments made at the Staff Advisory Committee meeting. One of the concerns related to the drainage on the property making sure that a grading plan was eventually submitted to indicate clearly the manner in which the property would drain. Also the water mains on the property are currently 4" and would have to be 8 ", and the buildings would need to be fully equipped with sprinklers. He stated that with the slope on the property, there was a concern with regard to grading, and the question of whether the retaining walls might exceed the 6 foot height limitation and, if so, a variance would be required. In addition, the design of the property appears to Page 2 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission November 17, 1998 show that the building exceeds 30 feet in height and, if that were the case, in order to proceed they would need a variance. He also reviewed the parking, stating that the site plan shows 22 spaces, which may be in compliance with the requirements, however, he would have to check to be sure. In answer to Commissioner Keen's question regarding drainage, Mr. Campbell advised there are several options that have been explored with the applicant, however, at this point it is still in the exploration stage. After Commission and staff discussion, Chair Lubin invited the applicant to speak. Fred Baur, representing the applicant, stated that the concept of this pre - application review process is very valuable and because of the information provided by the committees and the Commission, he feels this will be a much better project. He reviewed the plans for the proposed project citing various issues with the alley /parking lot design. He pointed out the proposed connection to the parking lot at Amanda's, stating it actually works out nicely with their property and is a good place to enter. He commented that what the City is proposing is a floating easement instead of an alley. Mr. Baur stated what he would like to do, after receiving the Commission's comments, is to bring the project back with a redesign of the parking lot and the connection to the parsonage, better buffer zone, addition of the third story, and development of pedestrian access. He stated they would like to build a model for the Commission's review, which would be helpful, especially on a sloping site such as this. With regard to height calculation, Mr. Hamilton advised they basically take the average of the highest and lowest points along the foundation. He read the definition of how heights are measured. Commissioner Keen stated he is aware of the number of guest parking spaces that can be required, however, the more you can have, especially in an isolated area where people have to park behind the building, if the project could provide parking for a couple of more cars in there, the tenants would probably really appreciate it. Mr. Baur referred to the site plan, stating that one of the Fire Chief's comments was that if there is ever a fire in the canyon by the Methodist Campground, they would like to be able to come up right to this spot, which would be a good turn around, would solve the garbage man's problem, the Fire Department's problem, and would also be a nice place to tuck in some extra parking. Commissioner Haney noted that there is a single family residence on the east side of the property and questioned if adequate landscaping is being proposed for the privacy issues that are important for that residence. He also referred to the windows on the east side of the elevations of the proposed project, stating people looking out of those windows on the second story could be looking into the kitchen or what other residential elements are there, and one of his concerns is a treatment that respects that residence's privacy. Regarding the height limitation of 30 feet or two stories, Commissioner Haney stated in looking at the project, in terms of desirability, he could 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 November 17, 1998 see where a third story would make a lot of sense for the project. However, in looking at it in the context of the other buildings, particularly the single story residence adjacent to it, the parsonage and some of the other things there, he sees a fairly massive structure in proximity to the other elements that are much smaller. Therefore, he stated he has some concerns as to whether or not the project appropriately fits into and respects the existing structures because of the significant scale difference. He noted the third story issue is one of the things he will be looking at very carefully. Commissioner Haney stated he has some concerns about the mix of residential /office uses. He suggested perhaps restricting the types of uses to insure that they are significantly compatible with the residential element. Commissioner Haney noted that several sections of the General Plan deal with guidelines for fitting into hillsides and slopes. He suggested the applicant review that section to make sure he is in line with the intent of the General Plan. He stated he finds this to be an interesting project and feels it is adding something to the Village and creates some character that is not there now. His comments are designed to help accomplish the objectives the applicant is looking for. Commissioner Greene stated he feels the project has tremendous merit and he supports the concept of a mixed use because he feels it is good for the Village. He is concerned about the transition between the subject property and the property immediately to the east. He feels we do have to respect that particular property and try to be as unobtrusive as possible. He suggested that perhaps a closer look at landscaping and consideration of the direction the windows will be looking is appropriate. With respect to moving the residential element over bringing it down closer to the parking area, and the proposal of creating a third story, he stated he shares Commissioner Haney's feeling that they may be creating a building that is out of character for the surrounding uses. He suggested looking very closely at that issue. He commented the way it looks right now, there is a visual distinction or separation between the residential uses and the business uses, and that particular separation appeals to him. He further stated that adding additional driveway space will probably increase safety and usability for the upper parking areas and he would approve that plan. With regard to landscaping, Commissioner Greene stated he would like to see more effort from the landscape architect to use native plants because of the transition into the Miller Heights greenbelt, and he would like to see less exotic plants non - representative of the surrounding habitat. He also encouraged the applicant to consider using as many Oak trees as possible for the larger trees, because the hillside behind is a predominantly Oak area and it would be appropriate to preserve the character of the Village in that respect by bringing more of that kind of vegetation and habitat down as far as possible. Commissioner Greene commented that overall the project has a great deal of merit, and the idea of using the alley as additional parking is a good one and he feels it is something that could be supported when it comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Parker stated she was pleased to see this project and feels this is a good place for it. She commented it creates a good transition between a commercial Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 November 17, 1998 district abutting single family homes. She also believes there is a big need for smaller affordable homes in this area such as apartments and townhouses. She stated that because of the terrain she likes the way they have the houses in the back going up the hill, and she believes it does separate them from each other to some extent. She stated she had some concerns about adequate parking for the houses and shared Commissioner Keen's suggestion that a couple of additional parking spaces there would be very helpful to everyone. She further stated that she likes the idea of a turn- around, and she would like to see some private space for each individual tenant such as a small patio or a small garden area in the front with a wall blocking it off for privacy, or perhaps a combined open space area. She also mentioned that it might be helpful to provide soundproofing between the office spaces and the townhouses. She commented it would be her assumption that the offices would be limited to daytime uses so that the evening time would be left for the tenants. With regard to lighting, Commissioner Parker stated safety lighting would be a big factor, especially in front of the offices and around the driveway, and at the same time, lighting would need to be deflected not only from the tenants, but also from the existing residence. She also liked the idea of cutting out the alley way and putting in more greenbelt as long as there is access through the other side. She would not want to see that alley way cut off and then not have access through to the areas on the other side. Chair Lubin stated he likes the idea of the alley being moved inside the parking lot because he doesn't like the idea of it being a straight through shot. Also, if at sometime in the future when the lot next door is developed, they can worry about how they can access the Village Center property. He further stated he is going to reserve his opinion on the third story until he sees the model, because he feels it could be done and could look really nice if done correctly. He commented he is in favor of the mixed use and feels it is a good idea and would be a good use in that area. With regard to the size of the project, Chair Lubin stated he will reserve his opinion on this issue until he sees the model. He stated it does seem massive, however, when it is presented in a model, it might be fine. DISCUSSION ITEM - PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW - CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,500 SQ. FT. FITNESS CENTER; APPLICANT: KEVIN KENNEDY (KENNEDY CLUB FITNESS CENTER); LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF OAK PARK BOULEVARD AND JAMES WAY Contract Planner Tom Buford reviewed the staff report dated November 17, 1998. He advised that the application on agenda items 4.B and 4.0 are related to some extent. The site shown on the overhead is the site plan that was submitted by Mr. Kennedy, and there is an existing building on the corner of James Way and Oak Park Boulevard. The pre - application review report that was submitted by staff discusses some of the history of the parcel in question. He reviewed the overhead showing what has been planned for the site. Mr. Buford advised that Parcel 2 is the parcel in question and was created by a lot line adjustment for the purpose of allowing development of the medical office building and some improvements to the property. He stated that the site as shown on the screen was intended as a Master Plan project, and was eventually divided by a lot line 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 November 17, 1998 adjustment. Parcel No. 1 is where the medical building now sets, and Parcel No. 2 is the project Mr. Sheppel is proposing in Item 4.C, and Parcel 3 is directly below that and is a separate parcel map. Mr. Kennedy's parcel (4.B) is also separated. He advised that access to the site is solely by way of James Way. That entails some site planning for access and circulation on the site, and when the existing medical building went in, much of the infrastructure for parking and access was developed. Mr. Buford commented that when this was previously considered, there was some discussion of the parking on -site and the staff report indicates that the 1 - 300 standard was used in the original Conditional Use Permit back in 1988. There was a traffic study submitted at that time and, in reviewing that report, it was reliant to a great degree to other Kennedy Fitness Centers. In this case, the parking was calculated at 1 - 300, which would be 63 spaces, and the applicant has proposed 61. Mr. Buford noted that the Institute of Traffic Engineers has suggested a ratio of 4.37 spaces which would result in a requirement of 83 spaces. The Development Code provides for a reduction of 30% in parking requirements under certain circumstances. After a brief discussion between the Commission and staff, Chair Lubin invited the applicant to make his presentation. Warren Hamrick, Hamrick Associates, representing Kevin Kennedy, stated they have read and concur with the staff report. They have also been to the Architectural Review Committee and Staff Advisory Committee and appreciate their comments. They are here tonight to hear the Commission's comments. He responded to Commissioner Parker's question regarding the zero lot line and landscaping. Regarding the parking issue, he advised the proposal is for an 18,000 square foot building and at a ratio of 1 space per 300 square feet calculates to about 63 spaces, and 61 spaces are being proposed. This number is directly out of the Master Plan for the project. He noted it is their feeling the 61 spaces will satisfy the parking requirements for the club. With regard to shared parking, Mr. Hamrick stated that the peak hours for use of the club are from 4:30 to 7:00 p.m., so it is felt that with the 30% reduction of parking would be adequate and would bring the spaces down from 63 spaces to 40 spaces. He noted there is a discrepancy between what has been provided, 61 spaces, and the 63 which would be required at 1 space per 300 square feet. He stated they feel this could be mitigated by providing some motorcycle and bicycle spaces or whatever is required to make up the difference of the two spaces. After a brief discussion between the Commission and applicant, Chair Lubin invited interested persons in the audience to speak on the proposed project. Tom Talbert, 1015 Meadow Way, stated he lives in a condominium complex adjacent to these proposed projects, and this looks like it could be a good project. He commented that there are some issues to consider. One thing to consider is the expansion from 16,000 to 19,000 square feet for the Nautilus Center, stating that is a significant increase in the size of the project in relation to the project as it has been Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 November 17, 1998 laid out. He stated he feels that a model might be helpful to visualize the maximum 33 foot height for the proposed building. There are a number of different elevations relative to that site now, and in picturing where the Oak Park Leisure Gardens development is, and looking upward to the medical center on the corner, there is a significant increase in height overall with some plateaus there. He suggested that a model would be helpful in visualizing the building and would provide a little more understanding of what is being proposed. Mr. Talbert commented that traffic is a major concern for everyone in that area. James Way and Oak Park Boulevard is becoming a major intersection in Arroyo Grande, and now this complex and the Five Cities Town Center will certainly have an impact on the traffic and is an issue that everyone is becoming more and more concerned about. Also, the access issue is something that really needs to have some very careful study. He stated it is his personal opinion that this is a nice commercial spot that is going to be developed, and this looks like a very reasonable use of that property. Janet Talbert, Oak Park Leisure Gardens, stated she also believes that this project would be very good for that location. She noted that she is concerned about traffic and access. She advised that the space between the existing dental offices and the motel appears to be large enough to provide an in only access to the new project. If there is a wide entrance, it should be easy to enter from the right hand lane of Oak Park Boulevard and, hopefully, this could alleviate some of the congestion from James Way. With regard to the elevation, she suggested it would be helpful if the developer could make a mock -up of the project that would include the areas one mile in each direction to illustrate what effect the height of the building would have on the surrounding landscape. Also, on another subject, she was also curious about the earlier discussion regarding replanting the trees at the Lucky /Payless Center. She was advised that there was a code enforcement officer that will be following up on the tree planting issue. Ms. Talbert stated she likes the idea of this project, and feels it would bring less traffic than many other uses that could be developed in that zone. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin requested Commission comments on the project. Commission Parker stated she was under the impression this building was going to be started underground, not above ground, with two stories showing. She agreed it is a very good plan and is something the community needs. Her concerns are the shared parking and she would like to see more green space with more trees. She commented she would like to see some greenery between the parking lot and building itself, so it does not look like the building is looming out of the parking lot. She further commented she feels there will be an overlap of people fighting for parking spaces between 4:30 and 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Keen referred to the original resolution of the City Council #2223 relating to the Oak Park Acres PD, which lists the Kennedy and the Sheppel properties. He stated at that time the property was not subdivided into separate parcel. When the property was subdivided into three separate parcels, he recalled there was a big discussion about the shared parking issue. He stated his concern with 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 November 17, 1998 shared parking is that when property is subdivided, the shared parking provision seems to come back and haunt the City, and does not appear to work out. He commented his concern is whether or not the facility that is there now has to share part of this facility's parking to meet their standards. He noted that this project has been proposed since 1988 and he would be glad to see it go in. Also, he would like to see some kind of context of relationship of the 33 feet in comparison to the building that is now existing. He noted he was glad to see that the setback off of James Way is lined up with the other building because that makes it more of a uniform project. Commissioner Greene agreed that this is a good project and the Kennedy Health Club has been a valuable asset to the community. In order to mitigate some of the concerns raised by Mr. Talbert, he suggested considering adding extra landscaping in the parking lot in order to soften the architectural facades, especially along the east side where there is some landscaping space between the parking Tots. He stated he believes the project height is appropriate because the existing office building is probably higher than the health club and it will not look out of character. He further suggested that some effort be made to make this building look in some way like the existing building so that there is some continuity. Also, he didn't think there would be a parking problem because of the overlap, and given the spaces that are being proposed, he didn't feel there would be a problem. He indicated he believes this is a good project and he would support it. Commissioner Haney stated some of his concerns include the area traffic. He commented that the study that was done in 1988 was not given to the Commission and it would be very useful to see this study. He noted that there have been many changes since the 1988 study was prepared, particularly the West Branch /Oak Park area where there is going to be a tremendous amount of traffic flow through for the Wal Mart center. Similarly, there will be dramatically different numbers at the Oak Park /James Way corridor. We need to identify the area traffic concerns here because what we are not looking at are volumes and capacity carrying capabilities that are on Oak Park Boulevard. He stated his feelings that we need to look a little bit closer at the 1988 study and see what was included at that time, and see what changes in terms of volume, etc. that are going to be flowing through these intersections. Commissioner Haney stated he has some very specific concerns about James Way, and he feels that we need to diagram and lay out the stacking and the ingress and egress on James Way, because with the two driveways there, there is capacity for stacking for about four or five cars. His concern is how to get the people in the eastern most driveway turning out onto James Way if that one is stacked up turning into the one that is to the west. With regard to parking, Commissioner Haney stated, in his opinion, we need to look at what our current uses are and look at a factor above that for the growth that is going to occur in the area, and this area is obviously going to expand. We also need to factor in parking for changes in uses that may occur over the 20 or 30 year life cycle of the property. He commented that the landscaping in the parking area, in his opinion, is less than ideal. Also, the 1988 approvals noted that mature and larger trees would be introduced into the landscape site, particularly adjacent to the buildings Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8 November 17, 1998 to address breaking up the buildings and some of the masses that are created by their size. He agreed with the other comments about the mass and scale of the building, and suggested looking at some elevations and adjacent properties to see if it fits in with the context of what is already existing. He is also concerned about the residential neighbors and would like to be sure the project fits into the area and is respectful of the adjacent residences. With regard to the on -site circulation, Commissioner Haney stated he has concerns particularly for people who want to access the Sheppel building and also for people that want to access the building at the bottom right -hand side, commenting it is going to be problematic for them to do that. He referred to the second driveway on the bottom coming off of James Way and suggested that the aisle on the bottom of the parcel be left open. Commissioner Haney also expressed some overall concerns about the proposed increase in the square footages on the site, stating with the bump -up in square footage being proposed, the other owners are going to want the same thing. Also, we are going to be bumping above thresholds of the capacity for some of the adjacent street systems to appropriately handle the traffic and the parking here. In his opinion, the increase in the square footage may be O.K. once the traffic and the other major projects in the area that add to the circulation elements are looked at. Just these two projects, 3,000 for this project and the next project with 4,000 increase in square footage is essentially adding another 7,200 square feet to this site, which is the equivalent of one of the remaining buildings. In summary, Commissioner Haney stated he believes this is a great use and a great location for the project and encouraged the developers to work on it to fruition because it is a great idea. Chair Lubin stated he agrees with previous comments that this is an excellent project and he would be very supportive of it. In terms of the expansion from 16,000 to almost 19,000 square feet, it is his feeling that size is an individual issue for each building and specifically for this type of usage. He also agreed that the height may or may not be a problem depending on what it looks like in comparison to the other building. He indicated he also has a problem with the traffic. He would like to be consistent and say no entrance from Oak Park, but he can also see that may be a possible solution, and if there is a way to work that out, maybe an "entrance only" is a possibility. He further stated he doesn't think there is going to be a parking problem, and the shared parking easements would work well in this type of project. With regard to Commissioner Haney's comments regarding future usage of the building, Chair Lubin stated he is not sure he would have the ability to look to the future and he would have to look at the existing project and the usage of the building. If that usage were to change under a new CUP, then that would be a parking problem that a new owner at some time in the future would have to deal with. He didn't believe that is an issue to be dealt with at this time. He further echoed Commissioner Greene's comments concerning the visual impact of the building and making sure it fits in with the other buildings in the complex. He also would like to see an increase in the landscaping, and would be in favor of additional landscaping in the courtyard area. DISCUSSION ITEM - PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW - 11,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING; APPLICANT: RUSS SHEPPEL; LOCATION: 880 OAK PARK BOULEVARD Contract Planner Tom Buford reviewed the staff report dated November 17, 1998. In response to Mr. Talbert's comment regarding public notification, he advised that pre- 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 9 November 17, 1998 application reviews such as this are not noticed to the public since the Planning Commission does not take any action on the application. He advised that the applicant of this project intends to identify 11 spaces on the existing office building parking that are in excess of that building's parking requirements, and to use those spaces for the new building. After a brief discussion between the Commission and staff, Chair Lubin invited the applicant to make a presentation. Kim Hatch, Pults and Associates of San Luis Obispo, presented the Commission with the approved and finished as -built grading plan for the project for their review to give some indication of what was recently done on the site. With regard to the building size, Mr. Hatch advised that the building originally shown on the Master Plan was strictly speculative based on the best guess of what the building size might be for that space; it was a footprint and not a designed building. Based on Code, the building being proposed would be allowed to be 16,000 square feet with fire sprinklers in the building. The increase being proposed does not in any way affect the coverage percentage that is required. The proposal is about a 25% coverage, which is less than the minimum Code requirement. The percentage of parking required for this facility, based on the 11,000 plus square feet, can be met without any exceptions. The existing 11 spaces that are already on -site that are over - parked for the original project is based on the 1 per 200 ratio, and we are not asking for a change on that. We are only asking to provide 45 spaces based on the 1 to 250 ratio for the 11,300 square feet. He noted it is their feeling that the issues of parking and the building size are all within code, and it is a matter of subjectivity that the buildings were meant to be only 7,000 plus square feet in the Master Plan. Mr. Hatch discussed some of the concerns with regard to traffic and access. He noted there is a 13 foot grade change from parking lot grade to Oak Park, and the only area they would be able to bring in from Oak Park would be in between the existing office building and the proposed building, which would eliminate probably every parking space down the center of the already approved and installed parking. He commented probably the only option is to maintain the access within the James Way area. He further stated, in speaking with Rob Marsh regarding traffic in this location, it was indicated that the Level of Service is well within the approved areas as they are, and it is unlikely they will drop below the allowable Level of Service at this intersection. Mr. Hatch advised that the height limit of this particular building is probably about two feet taller than the existing Sheppel project, which is basically because of the center tower section, otherwise the building is about the same size. With regard to the 11 parking spaces, Mr. Hatch advised those were developed in the initial development of the first building because of the way you had to drive into the project. When they were developing the drive into the project, they were developing all of the parking spaces in that area and they ended up having to add 11 more than required. These spaces do not represent any of the parking that they are proposing. Mr. Hatch advised he has contracted with Oasis Landscaping to do the landscaping and he would like to provide a landscaping plan between now and the actual application to Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 10 November. 17, 1998 get some feedback from the Commission. Mr. Hatch referred to the Architectural Advisory Committee Notes regarding architecture of the building, stating he wanted to clarify some of the comments that were made. First, he stated a flat roof was not being proposed; a slight sloped shallow roof to match the horizontal element of the design, and they are not proposing a Town and Country Craftsman style design. However, he did state a Prairie Style architecture would probably be more suitable. He briefly reviewed the color scheme and landscaping plan being proposed for the project. In response to Commissioner Haney's comments regarding the 11 common parking spaces, Mr. Hatch advised his client is proposing to encompass Parcels 2 and 3 with a new written agreement that includes Parcels 1, 2 and 3 in a shared parking master plan that would be part of the documentation, even if a parcel was sold, that would clearly define that all parking is shared parking. Commissioner Haney stated he has the same concerns regarding traffic, access, and issues about the overall Master Plan. It was his feeling that there are some parcels here that are essentially landlocked in the sense they are dependent on the adjacent parcels for how they are to be utilized. In the overall consideration of this, he stated it would be important to him to understand what the total buildout under the current codes would be for the allowable square footage for the entire project, including the parcels that are listed here. Commissioner Greene stated he is concerned about the increase in the size of the building, and those concerns were articulated very effectively by Commissioner Haney when discussing the Kennedy project. His concern is that if Parcels 2 and 3 are developed within code, but larger than replicated in the Master Plan, in his opinion, that will begin to overburden the circulation problems that will be experienced at Oak Park, West Branch and the freeway. He also referred to the need for landscaping to soften the impact of large buildings on the community. Commissioner Parker stated she likes the project and the layout of the building, and believes additional office space is something we need. She stated she is concerned about the circulation problems at James Way and Oak Park Boulevard. A concern she shares with the other Commissioners is the fact that if the parcels are split and someone purchases a parcel who has already designated 11 parking spaces to your client, and the new owner doesn't want to give up those spaces, it is not within the Commission's realm to solve that disagreement and this becomes a real hard issue to deal with. Chair Lubin stated his comments on the other building would also apply here. He feels that traffic is going to be a problem and he would prefer to see the building down -sized a little bit. He stated he is pleased with the project and does not have any problems with it overall. He commented he would like to see some coordination with the Kennedy project architecture. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS The Commission discussed briefly the role of the Traffic Commission review of 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 11 November 17, 1998 pending projects. It was noted that the Traffic Commission will be requesting that the Council authorize the formation of an ad -hoc committee to review the "Commissioner's Handbook" and clearly define the responsibilities of the Traffic Commission. It was pointed out that the Commission will not be making this request until early in 1999 because of potential membership changes of the Commission. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW - UP REPORTS Update of Projects. Community Development Director Jim Hamilton reviewed some of the projects that will be coming before the Planning Commission in the near future, including the Rodeo Heights General Plan Amendment /Rezoning application and the James Way Annexation. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: Pearl L. Phinney, Commission CI AS TO CONTENT: 0 Hamilton, AICP Community Development Director 2 IAA) K aE