Loading...
PC Minutes 1988-04-13A Grande Planning Cannission Special Meeting - April 13, 1988 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in special session with Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Flores, Moore and Olsen. Commissioners Gerrish, Boggess and Soto are absent. Planning Director Liberto- Blanck and Current Planner Lansing are also in attendance. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 88- 434/'TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1577/VARIANCE CASE NO. 88 -115/ ERTIFICATION OF EIR. SOOLARI/LOOMIS BROOKSIDE MARKETPLACE, MASON AND BRANCH STREETS Current Planner Lanning opened discussion on this item by reviewing the staff report, stating that this item originally came before the Planning Commission at the meeting of March 10, 1988. At that time, the Commission- reviewed and approved the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change for the property to C -B -D Central Business District and certified the EIR. Mr. Lanning continued by stating that at the City Council meeting of 4/12/88, Council passed the first reading on the zone change ordinance and also certified the EIR and approved the General Plan amendment, subject to the Commission's recommendations. Mr. Lanning continued that the discussion at this meeting will involve the actual site and layout of the proposed center in more detail. Then the project, as one of the conditions of approval, will come back for architecturla review Mr. Lanning said the applicants are proposing to develop the 6.4 acre site with an approximate 75,500 sq. ft. retail office center anchored by a Scolari's market and a Thrifty Drug Store. Access to the site will be by means of two -way driveways on Crown Hill, two driveways on Branch Street and a driveway on Le Point Street. An entrance -only access point has been added at Mason Street in response to Planning Commission input. Mr. Lanning continued by saying that Mason Street access involves three possible alternatives, and the Commission should try to come to a final decision on that this evening. The applicants are also proposing to put in standard parking stalls that are 9' by 18', as opposed to the current City standard of 10' by 20', and compact stalls of 8' by 16', instead of the current 9' by 18'. Mr. Lanning reminded the Commission that if the Commission Members cannot accept the reduction in stall sizes, the applicants will be forced to redesign the project. Mr. Lanning stated that building setbacks for the project range from approximately 230' to 240' for the main buildings, and a variety of setbacks on the side, ranging from 5' to 11'. Mr. Lanning continued that the major issue involved in the site layout is that the Design Guidelines for the Arroyo Grande Village indicate that zero front setbacks are characteristic of Village architecture. While this is generally so, there are examples of where a greater setback has been utilized, including the Farm Credit building across the street from the proposed project. There is also concern that some of the requirements of the guidelines tend to conflict with each other. The design manual stresses the importance of the creek areas to the ambiance of the Village. If the buildings are placed on the lot line, they block the view of the creek. The design guidelines also stress the importance of providing adequate, convenient and attractive parking areas. Also, when buildings are placed right up on the street, sight - distance problems result for cars exiting the parking areas, as the buildings tend to block the view of oncoming traffic. The biggest issue, Mr. Lansing stated, is that if the buildings were on the property lines, they would then be in the flood plain. Mr Lansing continued by stating that one of the issues to be discussed is the conditional use permit, as the applicants are requesting to build above the 30' height limit by 5' in sane portions of the project to allow for architectural treatment. Staff is of the opinion that the additional height is not excessive, given the nature of the project and that the additional height will allow for better architectural treatment of the buildings. Mr. Lanning continued the discussion by saying that the applicants are requesting a resubdivision of the property into five (5) parcels, ranging in size from approximately 1/2 acre to approximately 2.3 acres. All of the parcels meet or exceed the CBD District minimum standards for lots, and staff believes that the requested subdivision represents a reasonable request and should receive favorable consideration by the Planning Commission. As far as grading and drainage, Mr. Lanning stated that the applicants have worked closely with the Public Works Department in order to resolve the drainage and grading issues associated with the site. As one of the conditions of approval, the applicants will be required to present Public Works Department with a grading and drainage plan, which has to be accepted by the Public Works Director. Regarding architecture and landscaping, Mr. Lanning said that these items will be reviewed at a later date by the Planning Commission. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the conditions of approval for the project require the applicant to return before the Planning Commission fission with a design manual which will cover the architectural and landscape features of the project. Mr. Lansing again reviewed the conditions of approval associated with this project, pointing out conditions that have been amended. Upon being assured by the Planning Department Clerk that public hearing for Conditional Use Permit No. 88 -434, Tentative Tract Map No. 1577, and Variance Case 88 -115 had been published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Mr. Rob Strong, from The Planning Mill and representative of the applicants, thanked the Commissioners for their attendence at this special meeting and introduced representatives of the applicants. Mr. 429 430 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -13 -88 Page 2 Strong discussed the difficulties the applicants were having in accepting the current parking stall size standards, and that they felt there had to be amendments made to the present standards, perhaps at another session. He also stated that the majority of the recommended conditions of approval submitted by staff and outlined in the staff report were acceptable to the applicants, but Item #18 required additional clarification. The applicants believe that there are more effective means of mitigating potential creek pollution other than grease traps, such as parking lot sweeping, but the applicants will work with the Fish and Game Dept. Another item, Mr. Strong said, was the concern expressed by the neighbors regarding the potential of truck traffic up Mason and onto Le Point St. to service the Scolari market. The applicants are in agreement to having trucks enter and exit_ on Branch St., thereby eliminating truck traffic on Le Point, if the turning radius currently required at the corner of Mason and Le Point is eliminated. The entrance /exit proposed on Mason St. has been eliminated and replaced with an entrance-only driveway. Mr. Strong suggested that the height variance request be deferred to another time when the project would come under archtectural review. Mr. Randy Poltl, project director, and Dave Ghirardelli, project representative, explained that the on- site parcel subdivision request had to do with financing, and that the lot line adjustment was necessary to maintain the existing deed and for reciprocal easement agreements between the applicants. In response to questions by Commissioner Flores regarding his opposition to the Mason St. entrance, Mr. Strong reiterated the reasons why a ramp entrance further north on Mason St. was unacceptable to the applicants in that a ramp would involve, using too much area that could otherwise be used for parking stalls and that the location of the on -site end of the ramp would not only impair service trucks' access to the market, but also traffic would be brought into the parking lot at the main activity center. Chairman Carr pointed out that two issues had been raised: one being parking and how or if the issue can be resolved, seeing how the parking ordinance has not gone forward yet; the other is the use permit and/or variance for the 35 -foot height, apart from the architectural review. Planning Director Liberto- Blanck responded that no variance findings could be made at this meeting due to exceptional circumstances, but the parking issue could, through the provision in the zoning ordinance which allows up to 30% reduction in parking spaces. She stated that the Commission could accept the conditional use permit subject to the conditions of the completed parking ordinance. Commissioner Olsen stated her opposition to the 9 -foot wide stall size. Mr. Strong responded by stating that many studies relating to stall sizes have been conducted, and other jurisdictions have smaller stall sizes that are quite functional, with Arroyo Grande having the distinction of having the archaic 10' X 20' stall size. He said that the standard car is 6' wide, so if a car was centered in a 9' -wide stall, it would allow 3' on either side for opening a car door, assuming that a car in the next stall was centered in its stall. Commissioners Flores and Olsen questioned whether a mixture of stall sizes had been considered, since there was a great deal of stopping and parking in that area by RV's and small trucks hauling boats. Mr. Strong responded by stating that a mixture had been considered, including handicapped spaces and special sizes for RV's. He briefly reviewed the proposed handling of the parking area, and he also stated that the architectural review on the project cannot be completed until the parking issues have been resolved by the City Council. Mr. Burnet Poole, 227 Le Point St., stated that he was worried that Le Point Street would become a truck route, which would be detrimental to the R -1 properties on the street. But, he stated, after discussing his concerns with Mr. Poltl and after this evenings disclosure of the proposed project, he was happy because it seemed that it would be unnecessary for trucks to enter on Le Point St.; therefore it seemed like his objections would disappear. Marianne Hjalmarson, 536 Via La Barranca, asked if there would be sidewalk all the way around the project, as she was concerned with children going to Paulding School, and what would be the conditions on Mason St. while the project was under construction. Mr. Poltl stated that there would be sidewalk on Le Point St., Crown Terrace, Branch St. and Mason, and that sidewalk will come down alongside the Creek from Le Point. The project is designed to be a pedestrian- oriented shopping center. As to the conditions on Mason St., Mr. Poltl said that City building conditions would be complied with, including screening, fencing and any other conditions required. Mr. Steve Olshan, project architect, stated that scaffolding and a temporary sidewalk would be provided if required by the City. He also stated that perhaps the widening of the Mason St. sidewalk could start after completion of the center of the project and the sidewalks involved with that. Current Planner Lanning reminded the Corny fission that a condition could be added requiring temporary sidewalks during construction. Chairman Carr asked Mr. Lanning for clarification of general procedures of the height variance and architectural review. Mr. Lanning suggested that the use permit be broken in two parts, with the use permit for the height continued to architectural review, while the use permit this evening would cover the issues on setbacks, etc. Mr. Strong was in agreement with Mr. Lanning's suggestion, as was the Cannission. Arroyo Grande Pinning Commission, A -13-88 Chairman Carr brought up the issue of grading and drainage by reviewing the staff report's conditions regarding same. Commissioner Moore agreed with the Public Works Department conditions. He suggested that even after the project is built, if unexpected problems arise with drainage due to increased building in the County and the runoff to the Creek due to this increase, the applicants should have to resolve those problems. Chairman Carr suggested that perhaps the Planning Commission should review the grading and drainage plans when they are submitted to the Public Works Director. This would be for information purposes only and the Commission would not be in a position to approve or deny the plans. He also suggested that the applicants might do a report on the Mason St. access after several years, reporting on the operational function of that collector. Mr. Strong stated that the EIR and the hydrologists have addressed and evaluated these issues and that reporting back to the Commission in 2 or 3 years was inappropriate. Chairman Carr advised that perhaps it would be best for the Commission to step through each of the items to be dealt with for purposes of saving time. The Commission Members were in agreement regarding staff's recommendations on the Mason St. access. As far as the Branch St. alternative to truck traffic on Le Point, Mr. Lanning stated that staff would like the traffic engineer to review the proposed alternative. After a brief discussion between Mr. Strong and the Commission, the Commission Members agreed that. ,the Branch St. alternative was preferred over a service entrance on Le Point St., subject to review by the Public Works Department. Regarding the height variance, the Comnission was in agreement to deny the variance until the architectural review. As far as the parking ordinance was concerned, the Commission Members were in agreement to recommend the proposed ordinance pertaining to the revision of parking standards to City Council and to require a mixture of parking stall sizes on the proposed site when the project comes back before the Commssion for architectural review. It was also agreed by the Commission Members to accept the proposed setbacks on the project site. Following continued discussion regarding the proposed locations and occupancy of buildings in the project, and separating the building height variance from the conditional use permit presented for this evening's review, and after hearing no further comments from the audience, Chairman Carr declared the public hearing closed. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1163 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMIVILSSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CERTIFYING THE EIR FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1577 AND CONDITIONS USE PERMIT NO. 88 -434, APPLIED FOR BY J. SOOLARI AND E.C. LOOMIS On motion by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Flores, Moore, Olsen and Chairman Carr NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Soto, Gerrish and Boggess the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 13th day of April, 1988. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1164 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1577, APPLIED FOR BY J. SOOLARI - AND LC. LOOMIS Page 3 431 On motion by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Olsen, Moore, Flores and Chairman Carr NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Soto, Gerrish and Boggess the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 13th day of April, 1988. 432 Arroyo Grande Planning Omission, 4 -13-88 RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1165 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88 -434, APPLIED FOR BY J SOOLARI AND E.C. LOOMIS On motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Olsen, Moore, Flores and Chairman Carr NOES: None ABSENT: Carm issioners Soto, Gerrish and Boggess the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 13th day of April, 1988. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1166 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING VARIANCE NO. 88 -115, APPLIED FOR BY J. SCOLARI AND ECG LOOMIS On motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Olsen, Moore, Flores and Chairman Carr NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Soto, Gerrish and Boggess the foregoing Resolution was approved this 13th day of April, 1988. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 10:30 P.M. Chairman 1