Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-09-191 1 1 ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 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, Parker, Ray & Tait. Staff members in attendance were Acting Community Development Director, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planners, Ryan Foster & Jim Bergman, Planning Intern, Megan Meier, and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: No requested changes to the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of September 5, 2006 were unanimously approved as written, on a motion by Commissioner Ray, seconded by Commissioner Tait, and on a 3/0 voice vote, Commissioners Brown and Parker absent that meeting. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Bob Lloyd, AGP Video, asked the Commission and public to please notify them if they notice problems with the airing of Channel 20 for the City of Arroyo Grande. He explained AGP Video had recently been having some problems which they had solved, but if anyone notices any problem during airtime please call their office to alert them. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. I. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 06 -003 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 06 -002; APPLICANT — RICK WHEELER; LOCATION — 184 & 189 BRISCO ROAD Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal to subdivide two properties, totaling approximately 1.00 acre, into fourteen Tots and construction of fourteen townhouses (Phase II & Phase III). Phase II is located at 189 Brisco Road, Phase III is across the street at 184 Brisco Road. Phase I is under construction at 185 & 187 Brisco Road. Phase II would share access and guest parking with Phase I; Phase III would have its own access drive. He described the size of the units, the open space, the parking, and the onsite drainage for both Phase II & III. The ARC had reviewed this proposal and their recommendations had been incorporated. In conclusion, Mr. Foster stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution with the included findings for approval of the proposed project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 Staff answered Commission questions for clarification on technical issues contained in the staff report. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Lenny Grant, architect, stated the applicant, engineer, and landscape designer were present to answer Commission questions. He then explained the changes they had made to the project based on pre - application review comments and answered Commission questions. John Walker, 196 Brisco Road, (his driveway is adjacent to the project driveway), stated concerns that the developer had not contacted him; the proposed project would affect his privacy; runoff on his property was already a problem; traffic on Brisco Road is much heavier since Wal- Mart's arrival; it's very difficult to get out of his driveway and make left hand turns onto Brisco Road; the parking on Brisco Road is a severe problem; concern with the length of time it may take to complete construction. Mr. Grant addressed Mr. Walker's questions, clarifying the distance between Mr. Walker's property and the proposed buildings and stated that they intend to put in a retaining wall at the rear of his property; they would like to retain the additional parking on site rather than increase open space; Phase III will not take as long as Phase 1 (nine months to a year); they would be very willing to sit down and discuss the proposed project with Mr. Walker. Chair Fellows closed the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 2 Commission Comments: • Re the concern regarding not being able to back out from one of the parking spaces in Phase III: Mr. Grant had had addressed this by moving two guest parking space further back enabling more room to turn around and back out. • They had concern with the speed and amount of traffic on Brisco Road and the additional traffic this project would add. • The green building considerations for the proposed project were very much appreciated. • The project does provide a range of housing of smaller size units. • More open space, even if some parking is lost might be preferred; this would allow a small area for children and pets, suggest use of the large space beyond the end of the drive for an open green space area. • They would like the applicant, Public Works to get together with Mr. Walker to discuss his concerns. • A mitigation that discusses "when feasible" is truly not a mitigation (MM 14.11). • There is a good balance between affordable and market priced units. • They approve of where the proposed guest parking is for the project. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION • MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 3 • Changing the construction hours to not allow Saturday construction work would add more time for completion of the project and may not address Mr. Walker's concern. • The percentage for the inclusionary housing does not seem to add up; staff should check this out. • Mitigation measure 14.11 should be adhered to as the collection of surface water runoff could be used to irrigate some trees. • Street trees of some stature would be preferred, rather than large shrubbery. • Like to see different colors and tiles on the buildings to make them stand out from each other. • Do not think the traffic concerns can be addressed until the Brisco underpass is built. • Would like to see the final plans for the trash enclosure include an attractive design and suggested something like the "Wet Pets" store has. • Suggest Mitigation Measure 8.8 (noise from construction) should match what was required for Phase 1. Commissioner Ray made a motion to approve the Tentative Parcel Map and Planned Unit Development with the following conditions included: 1. Construction hours for Phase 11 & 111 should match the construction hours for Phase I. 2. The two parking spaces at the end of the driveway should be moved forward to enable a turnaround space. Discussion on the motion: Commissioner Ray asked Mr. Foster if the ARC conditions should be included in the motion. Mr. Foster replied that the conditions have been added and the final plans would go back to ARC for approval. Commissioner Tait asked if Chair Fellows request for larger street trees should be included and whether Mitigation Measure 14.11, which states "the project plans shall include methods for collecting surface run -off from the site for use on landscaped areas to reduce water use and minimize run -of to the extent feasible" should be made to work? Commissioner Ray agreed to add the request regarding MM 14.11, to the motion, but regarding the street trees this would first need to be discussed with Public Works and as long as it is feasible this can be added to the motion. Mr. Foster clarified that this had already been addressed in Condition of Approval No. 99, and will also be reviewed by the ARC in the final plan. Commissioner Parker requested that Commissioner Ray's suggestion regarding clarification of the rounding out of percentages would need to be added into the conditions of approval, if applicable. Commissioner Ray agreed. Chair Fellows commented that the extra green space requested by Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 Parker was not in Commissioner Ray's motion. Commissioner Ray stated that she did not include this in her motion, as she believes that Brisco Road is not a safe place for families to park; she would like to see the extra parking on site and as much off street parking as possible. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion and approved adopting: RESOLUTION NO. 06 -2012 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 06 -003 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 06 -002; LOCATED AT 184 & 189 BRISCO ROAD; APPLIED FOR BY RICK WHEELER The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ray, Brown, Parker, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 19 day of September 2006. 8:00 p.m. The Commission took a 10- minute break. PAGE 4 B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06 -006; APPLICANT — LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; LOCATION — BETWEEN EAST BRANCH STREET AND STANLEY AVENUE Planning Intern, Megan Meier, presented the staff report for consideration of construction of a maintenance and operational facility consisting of a 36' x 200' building and three modular office buildings, adjacent to Paulding Middle School and the "Bus Barn ". ARC conditions included. In conclusion, Ms. Meier stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit with the conditions recommended by the ARC. Ms. Meier answered Commission questions for clarification on the staff report Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. The applicant was not present and no public wished to comment. Chair Fellows closed the public hearing for public comment. The Commission agreed that they could not continue discussion without the applicant 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 5 present as they had a number of unanswered questions. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to continue consideration of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 06 -006, to the October 3, 2006 meeting due the applicant not being present to answer their questions. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, Parker, Ray and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: None III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PRE - APPLICATION CASE NO. 06 -004; APPLICANT — JIMI BREAZELE & HECTOR AMAYA; LOCATION — 995 E. GRAND AVENUE Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report for the demolition of all existing buildings and subsequent construction of a vertical and horizontal mixed use project, consisting of a three story, 22,000 square foot commercial building with first floor retail, second floor office or retail, and six (6) third floor apartments. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman requested that the Planning Commission provide input to the applicant regarding their proposed future project. Staff answered Commission questions regarding who owned which parcels in respect to the shared parking, the onsite drainage with respect to the historical runoff, the open space area with respect to the use of the roof deck area, and the utility undergrounding requirements for the proposed project. Mark Vasquez, representative, stated that this is a difficult site to design. He then described the constraints on the property, the proposed parking, the ingress and egress easements, and truck access for the Home Appliance Store, the drainage easements and the architectural details of the units (the ARC had given the project a good review). The three story mixed -use project is a new concept for Arroyo Grande. Commission comments and questions: Ray: • Conceptually it appears that this is overparked; suggested different colors or materials to break the area up. • Agrees with the ARC comments on street trees, etc. to help soften this project as it abuts a residential area. • The building in the back corner (that will be under separate ownership) would seem to be more appropriate as residential, a quiet place for high- density housing. Brown: • When the final proposal comes forward he would like to see detailed plans to show color renderings, mass and scaling, to help visualize this. • The project appears to be over parked; suggest the building on Alder Street be moved back and made larger. Mr. Vasquez explained that the project is actually PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 6 underparked. Chair Fellows pointed out that this is a three -story building and that is why it may appear overparked. • Agrees with Commissioner Ray's comments on the back corner and that residential use would be more fitting; suggest getting more density out of the center section. • Undergrounding on E. Grand Avenue is a huge issue - he would like to see this happen. Parker: • This seems to be the perfect area to start with a three -story building due to the width of Grand Avenue. • She really likes the mixed use, but would like to see more carried through and connecting the whole plaza (not have three disconnected areas). • Suggested that the area in the back be used for employee parking and leave the parking spaces up front for customers of the store. • Really likes the open space on the roof of the building. • Suggest that in future, the adjacent uses surrounding the project be marked on the plans to help clarify for review. • Where there are two different uses she would prefer to see a separation of more than three feet (between commercial and residential). Tait: • Likes the landscaped tiling on the roof top plaza. • Will the roof plaza and the balconies fit in with the open space calculations? Mr. Vasquez: Yes it does, but this is only conceptual. • The standards for mixed -use projects include common areas with street furniture, plaza and courtyards, but these have not been included; is this due to the parking and the delivery truck route? Mr. Vasquez agreed that parking had been a driving factor; they need to accommodate a large turning area for trucks; they do want to create a nice environment and will try to break up the area as suggested by Commissioner Ray. • The emergency access only — will it be separated off? Mr. Vasquez: Yes, drive through traffic will not be allowed. • Is there concern regarding pedestrian circulation and whether the parking will work, especially in the evening, for both theatregoers and residents in the area? Mr. Vasquez: He does not see a potential conflict due to the amount of parking for commercial; they have made it easy for pedestrians to get through the area. Fellows: • He likes the small building on Alder Street as it is against the residential area which will help preserve the "small town character" (recommended in the general standards for mixed -use). • Re undergrounding, is there a problem with taking the two poles down? Mr. Vasquez: The concern is that there is not enough room to put a guy wire on the other side of the street. It is the end of the line and so this has to be worked out. • He would like to see the large building a higher quality - more like the Santa Lucia Building - real stone, real ceramic tile; this building will stand out as it is on 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 The Commission has no further concerns. IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None. NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 Administrative Items: The Commissioner had no concerns with Items 1 & 3. PAGE 7 a corner. • Re the suggestion from ARC to have transparent balcony walls, this may not be a good idea as residents may want to put things out on the balconies and it may not look good. • Due to the three stories and the fact that it appears overparked suggest the parking area look park -like with lush landscaping and lots of trees. • Make the design of the trash enclosure nice. • He agrees with Commissioner Parker's comment on making the back area residential — it would be a good transition to residential. Mr. Vasquez explained that they did not go residential in that area as it is zoned Commercial. CaseRNo 1. 2. 3. VSR 06 -016 TUP 06 -019 MEX 06 -022 Barbara Anderson Mid -State Bank & Trust S & S Home A ddress 536 Crown Hill Rd. 1026 East Grand Av. Farroll Road & Bakeman Lane escripttion A 540 square foot deck to the rear of the existing house and side deck. 28 foot illuminated holiday artificial pine tree Increase fence height to 8'. Action A. A. A Planne M. Meier M. Meier K. Heffernon Administrative Item No. 2: TUP 06 -019, Mid -State Bank & Trust, 1026 E. Grand Av, request to set up a 28 -foot illuminated holiday artificial pine tree. Commissioner Parker asked for an update on what happened with the tree that was removed from the parking area? Commissioner Brown stated that after removal of the tree the applicant had stated they would replace the tree to mitigate this; the fact that they put a fountain up does meet the conditions. Ms. Heffernon stated that they could add a condition that the tree be replaced. Commissioner Brown stated that he would at least like the applicants to comment on this. Ms. Heffernon stated that this item could be continued and staff could talk to the applicant and report back to the Commission on October 3rd The Commission agreed to continue this item to allow Midstate Bank time to address their concerns regarding the tree replacement. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Chair Fellows, to continue Administrative Item No. 2 to the meeting of October 3, 2006. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Fellows, Parker, Ray, and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: None V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Commissioner Ray stated that she had been seeing large temporary signs around town with a picture in the form of a question mark; these signs have been up for some time and she would like to see them removed. Ms. Heffernon stated that temporary signs are only allowed for a 30 -day period; this is a code enforcement issue and staff would forward her complaint to them. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Parker stated she would be absent the meeting of October 17, 2006. Chair Fellows stated he also had a conflict with this date and may also be absent. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Chair Fellows. ATTEST: LYN REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: ELLY 'FEdV ACTIN' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of October 3, 2006) PAGE 8 CHUCK FELLOWS, CHAIR 1