Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-11-211 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Fellows presiding; also present were Commissioners Brown, Tait, and Ray; Commissioner Parker was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, Assistant Planners Jim Bergman and Ryan Foster, and Public Works Engineer Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Request for the public to turn off their cell phones during the meeting. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Bob Lloyd of AGP Video explained there were cablecast problems over the weekend, but it should be repaired now. Please call 772 -2715 with any questions or comments. Rob Strong reminded Commissioners of the Ethics Training on December 13, 2006. I.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (received after Agenda preparation): 1. Letter (petition - style) dated November 13, 2006 regarding Cherry Creek Subarea 2. 2. Conflict of Interest Policy (issued 10/01/06). 3. Chili's elevations showing before and after ARC comments, dated November 21, 2006. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06 -004, PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 06 -001; APPLICANT — BRINKER INTERNATIONAL (CHILI'S); LOCATION — 925 RANCHO PARKWAY. Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report for this remodel of the prior Vigneto's Restaurant to accommodate a new Chili's Restaurant, including interior and exterior modifications, a new seating area and bar, new landscaping and new signage. Signage is slightly larger than Vigneto's, and there's an additional directional sign. Three signs incorporate exposed neon tubing, which is allowable per the Development Code so long as it is 20% or less of the total square footage. He reviewed ARC's recommended changes, which are depicted in the applicant's amended elevations as submitted tonight. Staff answered Commission questions for clarification of the staff report regarding reduced sign size, use of neon in signs, parking, circulation, traffic, stormwater runoff, and dumpster. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2006 PAGE 2 Carol Florence, Oasis Associates Principal Planner (representative for Brinker /Chili's Restaurant), spoke in support of the project and distributed elevations based on ARC feedback. She answered Commission questions regarding the changes, proposed signage sizes (to reduce the size proportionally to allow for more background /reveal), neon useage, the bar, marking the "To Go" parking spots, not using the patio, turning signs off at night, recycling or donating unused interior fixtures, the request to work extended hours and /or Sundays, and the rooflines over the "To Go" door. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. Commission comments on the project: Ray: • It's great that Chili's is willing to reuse the building, instead of demolishing it. • She has no problem with the extra "To Go" sign. It's in an inconspicuous place. • She wanted to hear more details about the neon issue before making a decision. • Sundays would be okay for interior finish work that wouldn't bother the neighbors, but not for jack hammers or heavy equipment. Brown: • He's excited for Chili's to come to Arroyo Grande. The building has been vacant for too long. He's in favor of a positive motion with some minor changes. • He's concerned about more signage than necessary. It will be a destination, so sign #4 won't be needed. He suggests eliminating it, unless it becomes a major issue. no history of putting more signs than need. Unless major issue, suggest elikmination. • There needs to be consistency in regards to neon, so if it doesn't meet calculations, it should be reviewed by ARC for final approval. Tait: • Chili's is a needed addition to the community and will be well received. He's also glad the building will be reused. • He strongly hopes the unused interior parts will be recycled • It will add to existing traffic problems. • He didn't support construction on Sundays. • He's okay with the proposed sign plan, but was concerned with the size of the large letters and prefers covering the exposed neon. • He would like condition #8 to be reworded as "reclaimed, non - potable water." Mr. Devens responded they're only using potable water for dust control, and it will be minimal use for the demo and structural construction. It would be extreme to pull non potable water across town for such a small amount. • Stormwater runoff control should be worked in to the conditions. Mr. Devens responded staff will work with the applicant to find the best solution. • He's uncomfortable with circulation, but hopes it can be worked out. Mr. Devens responded that a comprehensive circulation plan for the center should be 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2006 PAGE 3 available in the near future. Ms. Florence added they are working on traffic mitigation measures with staff. Fellows: • He's also glad about the remodel. • Likes the awnings, color, stripes old- fashioned and fit with arch of bldg. Hopes that awnings have loose valances. • A few years ago, Quarterdeck was made to cover neon with plastic, as safety issue. Wants to make sure it's straightened out. He likes it, but wants to make sure abide by same rules. • Fact that going back to ARC re changes is perfect. They can be final judge. Likes drawings to show that havf ein mind. • Re extending hours to Sunday, no. unless if commissioners think a good idea. Neighbors may complain. Give everybody a rest. • Re sign #4, he's okay with , since it's customer serving. Helps chili's do better business nad folks enojoy eating there. Not conspicuous. Okay if all signs come back scaled down enough to please arc. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve Conditional Use Permit Case No. 06 -008 and Planned Sign Program Case No. 06 -001 with the following provisions: • the neon shall be calculated to see if it falls within code requirements, • the sign areas shall be reduced per ARC's recommendation, and • the ARC shall also discuss the possibility of encasing the neon to match Trader Joe's. Discussion: Commissioners discussed (without consensus) additional provisions regarding the fourth sign, adding Sunday as a workday, finding #1, and traffic. Consensus agreed to add: • If it's allowable by code, salvage shall be a mandated condition, and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06-2018 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06 -004 AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 06 -001, LOCATED AT 925 RANCHO PARKWAY, APPLIED FOR BY BRINKER INTERNATIONAL (CHILI'S) The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Commissioners Brown, Tait, Ray, and Chair Fellows None Commissioner Parker Resolution was adopted this 21 day of November 2006. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2006 B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04 -005B; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE AREAS. Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, presented her staff report divided into two areas - Canyon Way area and D2.12 -2.19. (Chair Fellows recused himself for the discussion on the Canyon Way area due to proximity to his home.) In the vicinity of Canyon Way, Ms. McClish answered Commission questions regarding a "lookback provision" and ease of finding information for applicants. Tim Brown opened the public hearing for public comment on Canyon Way area only. David Pap, 297 Tally Ho Road, asked about the size of a new granny unit he was planning. Ms. McClish answered it's fine, so long as the lot is larger than 12,000 sf. Tim Brown closed public hearing for public comment on Canyon Way area. PAGE 4 Caren Ray moved and Tim Brown seconded a motion to: • Rezone the Canyon Way area from Residential Rural(RR) to Residential Suburban(RS), • Add provisions mentioned in the staff report regarding slope to 16.20, and • Change secondary dwelling units to accommodate differences of lots over and under 12,000 sf. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ray, Brown and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Parker ABSTAIN: Chair Fellows Chair Fellows returned for Ms. McClish's discussion of the remaining Design Overlay districts. Ms. McClish answered Commission questions regarding possibility of commercial use where D -2.13 is rezoned to Fair Oaks Mixed Use (FOMU) and the legality of conditional zoning based on ownership. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Paul Karp, 596 Woodland, spoke on behalf of Mr. Capp (one of the co- owners) and himself in support of either alternative. (Chair Fellows stepped down in order for additional Canyon Way area comments.) David Pap, 297 Tally Ho Rd., asked about slope requirements and his request for a granny unit. Ms. McClish replied the slope requirements are only for a subdivision, so it wouldn't affect his project. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2006 (Chair Fellows returned for further discussion.) Ms. McClish continued the staff report presentation on the remaining districts, including Planned Unit Development(PUD) issues. Chair Fellows called for public hearing questions or comments on the remaining districts. Lucille Bush, 860 Mesa Drive (in D- 2.18), asked if new construction was meant to match what already exists in the neighborhood? Ms. McClish replied that's correct and the same setbacks will apply. Chair Fellows closed the public hearing for public comment. RESOLUTION NO. 06 -2019 PAGE 5 Commission comments on the project: Ray: • She was concerned about allowing twin homes in SF zoning, but after listening to Lenny Grant speak at the County Board of Supervisors meeting regarding demographic changes in the next 10 years, she feels they'll need more variety of housing than for the typical Single Family 4- person household. Brown: • He agrees with staff's recommendations and staff did a good job on difficult work. • He supports a motion with the updated legal language as suggested per City Attorney Tim Carmel (shown on the screen during Ms. McClish's presentation.) Tait: • He thanked staff for the presentation. • The D -2.13 makes sense to change to FOMU. • He agrees with repealing overlays 2.14 through 2.18. • It's most important that perimeter setbacks are met in regards to PUDs to allow space between neighbors. Fellows: • Any time the Development Code is made easier it serves the public. • He thanked staff for good work. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to approve Development Code Amendment Case No. 04 -005B and adopt (as amended): A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND PORTIONS OF TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04 -005B, PERTAINING TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; REZONING PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2006 PAGE 6 RURAL DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN IN THE VICINITY OF CANYON WAY AND AMENDING DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICTS RS -D -2.12, MF -D -2.13, MF -D -2.14, MF -D -2.15, SF -D -2.16, MF -D- 2.17, SF -D -2.18 AND D -2.19 TO ENSURE CONSISTANCY WITH THE ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN; LOCATION CITYWIDE /AFFECTED OVERLAY DISTRICTS The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ray, Brown, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Parker the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21 day of November 2006. 7:45 p.m. The Commission took a 5- minute break. III. A. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 06 -006; APPLICANT — GREG WOODARD; LOCATION — CORNER OF THE PIKE AND ELM STREET Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report for this mixed use project. Additionally, it is designed to accommodate a 100' ag buffer (which is the distance approved for the previous project at this location). No residential unit is in that 100', but the commercial building is. Staff answered Commission questions for clarification of the staff report regarding the location of the cemetery versus ag use, entitlements, ag buffer distance and vegetation density, apartment low- income deed restrictions, the 7 -11 convenience store not being part of the project, public transit opportunities and locations, and use of common open space by apartment residents. Chair Fellows requested the applicant to come forward for public comment. Steve Puglisi, architect, spoke in support of the project and described it further, including units sizes (studios 500 sf, 2- bedroom 1000 -1300 sf, and 3- bedroom 1300- 1600 sf), relationship between the ag buffer and the commercial building, the studios restriction to low- income in order to allow for parking and density bonuses, and individual ownership of town -homes vs. air -space condo agreements for studios. No public was present for further input, so Commissioners proceeded with comments. Commission comments on the project: Ray: • She would have liked to see more details, like conceptual floorplans. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2006 PAGE 7 • The commercial component seems like an afterthought. It doesn't make sense in terms of orientation and if it's only 1000 sf, that's not much tradeoff for the parking reduction. • The ag setback will be an issue. 100' isn't much when 70' of that is just the street (with no vegetation). Brown: • He agreed with Commission Ray regarding the orientation of the commercial building and the ag buffer. • He appreciates the low income deed restriction. • The 100' ag buffer is probably a bad assumption. The applicant should consider: o What is currently being farmed and, therefore, how can he justify the requested distance? o 100' is a minimum requirement per the General Plan, but it could be more. Tait: • The ag buffer issue is very important, and he agrees with Ray and Brown. • He wouldn't want to see a reduction in the commercial building, since that's what qualifies it as mixed use. • Public transit accessibility is important. • There should be more range of sizes in housing options (like 9:9 2- bedrooms to 3- bedrooms instead of 3:15). • The Workforce Housing Coalition of SLO County should review this project. • He appreciates the higher density and compact design to conserve land, building materials and energy. • The project needs to be more pedestrian oriented. • Open space needs to be comfortable, safe and convenient. More would be beneficial. • Keep stormwater runoff onsite and check into best management practices. • Use resource efficient landscaping. • Plant shade trees. • Green building is important, and so is design. Fellows: • The ag buffer is the most important part of the project. • Smaller units and the architectural detailing are fine. • It's okay to reduce units to increase the buffer, but don't lose the architectural detailing. • Reduced parking should be fine. • There shouldn't be two driveways onto S. Elm Street. • He recommends a 131' buffer with properly designed plants, trees and irrigation. Further Commission comments: • Chair Brown requested that minutes from the previously approved projects be included with staff reports for new projects on the same site for sense of history and continuity. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2006 • In response to Mr. Strong's request for comments regarding increased commercial size and decreased residential (in response to interest for a larger ag buffer), Commissioners made the following comments: o Commissioner Brown felt the commercial building has potential for greater foot traffic and therefore possibly greater impact from the ag use. Perhaps, instead the commercial should be smaller. o Commissioner Ray noted that could help with her concern about shared parking. o Chair Fellows felt the issue needed to be discussed in order to establish a standard policy on ag buffers near commercial buildings. He's concerned about lack of an adequate buffer and potential access problems as a result. o Commissioner Tait agreed with Commissioners Brown and Ray. No motion was necessary, as this was a pre - application review only. B. TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 06 -004; APPLICANT - ROBERT DELCAMPO; LOCATION —154 PINE STREET Associate Planner Jim Bergman presented the staff report. There were no staff questions. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Mr. Del Campo was present to answer questions. Chair Fellows closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission comments on the project: None. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve Time Extension Case No. 06 -004, and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06 -2021 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE -YEAR TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 06 -004 FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 03 -004; LOCATED AT 154 PINE STREET; APPLIED FOR BY ROBERT DEL CAMPO The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, Ray, and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Parker the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21 day of November 2006. PAGE 8 1 C ase-No. App. ;, Address , D escn tion , Action ;,_Planner 1. PPR 06 -018 Tan Dobson 1503B El Camino Real An art studio for painting and watercolor in an existing 1106- square -foot commercial building. A T. Montgomery 2. MEX 06 -024 Courtland Village, LLC 1375 E. Grand Avenue For wall height at the Long's 11 site. A. J. Bergman 3. ARCH 06 -007 Stella Casa (Lan George) 130 E. Branch St. Minor facade changes A. J. Bergman 4. ARCH 06 -009 Patricia Mullen 435 Le Point St. Exterior changes to an existing residence. A. J. Bergman 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2006 IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE OCTOBER 3, 2006: PAGE 9 In response to Commissioner Brown, Mr. Strong described the wall height at the Long's II site. The Commission had no concerns with the above Administrative Items. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: In response to Commissioner Brown, Mr. Strong noted there aren't any items on the December 19, 2006 agenda, and that meeting may be cancelled. Chair Fellows asked about banners on Grand Avenue, the over -full dumpster behind Little Caesar's, and the banner on the pet ophthalmologist's building. Commissioner Ray asked about the dragonfly sign at Quizno's. Mr. Strong answered that the Neighborhood Services Coordinators are working on several cases, and that individual matters should be directed to John King or Rob Child at 473 -5437 for follow -up. In response to Commissioner Ray's question about the billboard sign by the new Robasciotti building, Mr. Strong answered there is a contract for several more years, and to date the billboard company has not been amenable to removing it. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. on a motion by Chair Fellows, seconded by Commissioner Ray. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2006 ATTEST: SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: ROB-'STR • NG COMMUNITY DEVEL PMENT DIRECTOR / (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of January 16, 2007) CHUCK FELLOWS, CHAIR PAGE 10 1 1