Loading...
PC Minutes 1991-06-04ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION June 4, 1991 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chairman Soto presiding. Present are Commissioners Moore, Brandy, and Gallagher. Commissioners Souza, Boggess and Chairman Carr are absent. Also in attendance are Planning Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck, Current Planner Scott Spierling, and Planning Intern Cathy Graves. UPDATE - DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS Planning Director Liberto - Blanck advised the Commission that Planning Intern Cathy Graves has been working on Design Guidelines for the Historic District for the past couple of months through a grant from the National Endowment of the Arts. Ms. Graves referred to the staff report, dated June 4, 1991, and briefly reviewed the Draft Design Guidelines. She pointed that the guidelines are intended to help protect the historic buildings, architecture and sites that reflect the heritage of Arroyo Grande, and are based on the concept that historic resources, like natural resources, are important to the community as a whole. In addition, the guidelines will serve as an aid to City decision makers, design professionals and property owners in maintaining the character of historic districts in the City. She advised that there are separate guidelines for the Village Commercial, Village Residential, and the. Traffic Way areas, each with different requirements. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 90- 490 /CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO 479 AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 90 -457, CENTRAL COAST BOWL, 1524 GRAND AVENUE (MERILEE PECK - NEWDOLL). Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report, dated June 4, 1991. He stated that on May 5, 1991 the Planning Commission began a series of public hearings on the proposed Central Coast Bowl project, and accepted public testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Since that time, approximately 80 letters and comment sheets have been received by the City and are currently being reviewed by the EIR consultant. All of the comments, along with the consultants responses, will be contained in the Final EIR. Mr. Spierling advised that some of the major issues still need to be resolved, such as drainage, parking, building height, hours of operation, traffic and noise, and the video arcade. With regard to the proposed cocktail lounge, Mr. Spierling advised that the project has been redesigned to eliminate the cocktail lounge and create a service bar, and this appears to have alleviated some of the public concern and mitigate the issues discussed in the draft EIR. Mr. Spierling stated another issue is land use compatibility. Staff is requesting direction from the Planning Commission as to whether the bowling alley /professional office alternative should be pursued. Vice Chairman Soto advised that, in addition to the public comments, comments from the Police Department were given to the Commission tonight and should be incorporated with the other comments. Vice Chairman Soto opened the hearing for public comment. Merilee Peck - Newdoll, applicant for the project reviewed the proposal and the measures proposed to mitigate issues in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. She stated that the majority of the people are in favor of the bowling alley and major issues have been or will be mitigated. Mark Vasquez, Architect for the project, reviewed the design concept of the project and the proposed Courtland park plan. Steve Cool, stated he is the attorney for the applicants and commented about procedural guidelines regarding the required legal quorum, and the suggestion of moving the proposed bowling center to Grand Avenue and having the professional office complex at the rear where the bowling center is now proposed. He stated they do not have any argument about placing this suggestion in the EIR as an alternative to be discussed, however, he would question the City's legal power to tell the applicant that they have to do that; that is up to, the applicant to decide. 1 293 2 9 '4 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -491 The applicant has the right to have their proposal considered on its merits. He reminded the Commission and audience that this land is all commercially zoned property, and has been zoned commercial for a long time. He stated that, after the many times the City has reviewed its general plan and the zoning, and on each of those occasions, an environmental determination was made which determined that the property would remain commercial, now is not the time to use the environmental impact report process to try to deny a legal use of this property for commercial. He referred specifically to traffic and traffic noise, noting that any commercial use is going to create traffic and noise, and unless there is evidence that the volume or intensity of the traffic is going to be uniquely attributable to this particular use, the City is not going to be in a position to deny the project just because there is going to be traffic. Mr. Cool pointed out the applicants' position is that the City cannot deny the project on the grounds of traffic. CHAIRMAN CARR ENTERED THE MEETING AT 8:30 P.M. AND IS NOW PRESENT. David Watson, Planning Consultant, speaking on behalf of the applicants, spoke on the issues relative to processing and land use compatability. Mr. Watson stated that they object to considering the alternative of relocating the bowling alley to Grand Avenue in order to attempt to reduce the perceived conflicts as noted in the Draft EIR. This objection is based on the fact that the draft EIR and the consultant's analysis of these two desired results are essentially included in the draft as it stands today. Also, they would certainly object to taking additional time and to the delay processing the final EIR to accomplish this because of the additional expense and time involved. Joy Skaggs, 1931 Brighton Avenue, spoke regarding her concerns about the proposed arcade in close proximity to the pre - school and residential areas, and also questioned whether this is a proper location for a bowling alley. Lydia Dell, 308 Courtland, stated her feelings that family entertainment is needed in Arroyo Grande, however she feels that this over -large project will be at the expense of those living in the surrounding neighborhoods; the quality of life will be impaired, and property values will go down. She also expressed her feeling that it is inappropriate to have a young peoples video lounge adjacent to a bar. George Hill, stated he is in favor of the bowling alley. Becky Gerachi, 322 Courtland Street, stated she is opposed to the bowling alley because of increased traffic, the video arcade, service bar and the land use capability. Stuart McMullen, 682 Printz Road, Arroyo Grande, stated he is totally in favor of the bowling alley and recreational center. Larry Steffan, 382 Courtland Street, stated he is opposed to the bowling alley because of the service bar. Barbara Howard, 1140 Linda Drive, stated she is a current board member of the Peace Lutheran Church, and she is opposed to the proposed project because the location is totally inappropriate for a bowling alley. Duane Nevitt, 216 Crown Terrace, stated he is in favor of the bowling alley, and a family entertainment center is what this area needs. Mark Williams, 2471 Wilmar, Board representative from Coastal Christian School, stated he polled the other Board members and all Board members, with the exception of one, felt this project would be a very good and favorable thing for the community. The one "no" vote was based strictly on the concept of serving alcohol. Mike Pryor, 971 Skyline Drive, Pismo Beach, stated he feels that the need for a family entertainment center in this area is acute, and the City is now loosing recreational revenue to other cities in the area. He stated a bowling alley would be a tremendous asset to the community. Corbett Wulfing, 438 Spanish Moss Lane, spoke in favor of the project, pointing out all of the things that the applicants have done to meet the requirements set forth by the Planning staff, as well as the EIR. Helen Doose, 1371 Newport Avenue, stated she is not in favor of blocking off Courtland Street. Charlie Nichols, 350 Courtland Street, stated he feels the deadend option is the only good option to mitigate traffic created by any development on that parcel. Hearing no further comments at this time, Vice Chairman Soto closed the hearing and limited further discussion to the Commission. Commissioner Gallagher stated he would feel more comfortable if the video arcade is 2 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -4 -91 ATTEST: Pearl L. Phinney, Secretary 3 eliminated from the project. Also, he doesn't have a problem with the service bar if it is limited to strictly beer and wine and no other: kind of alcohol.. The height issue, based on redesign, seems to be an acceptable compromise getting the visual mass of the building down. With regard to relocation of the bowling center complex, he stated that, basically, he would be opposed to bringing the center down and he would like to evaluate the proposal based on the existing format. One of the major issues he sees is the impact of traffic circulation as it comes down Oak Park, and Brighton to Courtland. He suggested modification to redesign the format that was submitted by Mr. Vasquez relative to the entrance and exit from Court land; eliminate the entrance aspect and put a physical barrier there and make it an "exit only" to Court land. Also, on the west side where there is a shared exit with Williams Bros., make that an "exit only ", with a right hand turn only on Grand Avenue. He suggested that the access to the project be exclusively from Grand Avenue. It was his feeling that this would minimize the traffic impacts for the neighborhood. With regard to the proposed park concept, Commissioner Gallagher stated he doesn't really have any favorable impression about the park. If the access on Court land is limited, the people that live in the neighborhood will travel the periphery to get to Grand Avenue and, in his opinion, that is a major inconvenience attributable to this project. Also, he feels there should be some type of structural barrier to separate the bowling alley from the pre - school. Commissioner Brandy stated he agreed with Mr. Gallagher on the traffic issue, and elimination of the arcade. He commented he didn't see a problem with having a service bar there. He stated he liked the conceptual plan, and would not like to see the bowling alley in front. Commissioner Moore commented regarding drainage and the need for fencing around the drainage pond. He noted that the EIR states that this pond should be fenced, and he would like to have stronger language than "should be fenced ". Vice Chairman Soto stated it seems that most of the major issues have been taken care of as noted in the staff report. One of the issues is the closing of Court land Street, and from what he has heard tonight, there are mixed feelings about that. He commented that he is not so concerned about the video arcade, as a result of the letter received tonight from the Police Chief. He also stated if the service bar was limited to just beer an wine, it probably wouldn't be a problem. As far as land use compatability is concerned, he stated it is his opinion that the bowling alley in its present location creates the best possible use of that land, because behind it is the R -3 that will help minimize the impact to all of the single family and multiple family zoning above. He further stated he would like to see all of the changes proposed by the developer included in the final EIR. Also, there should be a barrier between the Peace Lutheran Church and the bowling alley, and this should be addressed in the EIR. Hearing no further comments, on motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 16, 1991. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by Vice Chairman Soto at 10:30 P.M. o. • , Vice Chairman 295