Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-01-03CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows, Parker and Ray; Commissioner Tait was absent. Staff members in attendance were, Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planners, Jim Bergman and Ryan Foster, and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENT: Request the public to turn off their cell phones during the meeting. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2006 6:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve the Minutes of December 6, 2005 with the following corrections: Commissioner Ray: • Regarding her previous request to clarify why Items II.A. and II.C. were removed from the Agenda, she wanted it made clear that the City was not granting time extensions in these specific cases; time extensions were not required. • Page 6, first paragraph, should read "...Tract 577 should have no more than 27 lots ".... • Page 7, correct John Reynolds to John Runels (twice on same page). Commissioner Fellows: • Page 8, should state, "Commissioner Fellows returned to the meeting ". • Page 10, last line should state, "...he asked what action the City is taking... ". • Page 11, first paragraph, last sentence, remove the word sort just before parenthesis. The motion was approved by a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Tait being absent. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter re public hearing item II.A. on the Agenda, received December 27, 2005, from Jim and RayAnn Crouse regarding Tentative Tract Map Case No. 05 -003 & Planned Unit Development Case No. 05 -007. 2. Letter re public hearing item II.B. on the Agenda, received January 3, 2006, from Michael Frederick, regarding Conditional Use Permit Case No. 05 -014. C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION None. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 05 -003 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 05 -007; APPLICANT — CCRED; REPRESENTATIVE — JASON BLANKENSHIP; LOCATION — FAIR OAKS AVE (vacant lot east of the hospital) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 3, 2006 PAGE 2 Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for Commission review of a mixed -use development proposed in two phases on a 5.5 -acre site, located east of Arroyo Grande Community Hospital on Fair Oaks Avenue. She stated that proposed Phase 1 includes thirty (30) 2 -story town homes and a half -acre common open space area. Phase 2 is tentative at this time, but conceptually includes up to 120,000 square feet of medical office space with underground parking structure. The previous site plan reviewed by the Planning Commission as a Pre - Application on August 2, 2005, discussion had focused mainly on: • Archeological impacts. • Drainage to the creek. • Tree removal. • Pedestrian paths connecting the two uses. • Agricultural buffer. • Potential extension of Woodland Drive to the residential neighborhood to the north. The applicant has made numerous changes to the project plans based on comments from City Council, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and Staff Advisory Committee (SAC). Ms. Heffernon then described Phase I and Phase 2 of the proposed project; explained that Phase 2 would be subject to separate discretionary and environmental review as design of the commercial component (Phase 2) is tentative until the medical office Needs Assessment can be conducted; Woodland Drive is proposed to be extended through the site, separating the two uses; the internal private access driveway would be privately maintained; the existing exercise trail would be enhanced and the City would continue to maintain it. Ms. Heffernon continued further describing the common and private open space and stated that the project meets other Planned Unit Development (PUD) requirements and office mixed -use design standards; the ARC recommended that the project be approved subject to a condition that the applicant return to the ARC with the final building colors and materials prior to issuance of a building permit. In addition, Ms. Heffernon discussed the Initial Study with the recommended mitigation measures and explained the affordable housing requirement for the project. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Commission consider the information and mitigation measures contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (Phase 1 only) and if the environmental review is determined adequate, adopt a Resolution approving the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development for the project. The following are highlights of questions asked by the Commission to help clarify their understanding of information contained in the staff report, and additionally some suggested changes: • Will the exercise area remain public open space? Ms. Heffernon: There are two definitions in the Development Code for Common Open Space and so it is unclear; staff determined that it was part of the project as the applicant owns the land; subsequently future residents will be partial owners of the recreational trail; the City has the public easement over the property. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 3, 2006 PAGE 3 • According to the map it shows that the open space is owned by individual owners, but only on the back lot, how does this work? Ms. Heffernon: Staff assumed that the public and all of the residents would share the recreational benefits; the City will maintain the trail as the City has the easement. • Is the creek and the riparian part of the common open space? Ms. Heffernon: The creek and riparian area is shared open space; this part of the creek is owned by the property owners; the applicant is required to do implement mitigation for enhancing the riparian vegetation which would be maintained by the HOA; the City has an easement for flood control (we are not supposed to get into the creek). • Asked for clarification on common lot 31, and where it was defined on the map; commented that it was difficult to define or calculate from the map: Ms. Heffernon referred this question to the applicant's engineer. • Lots 9 -15 look as if they encompass the road. Ms. Heffernon: They encompass the private road /common driveway. Mr. Devens explained that an HOA or maintenance agreement would take care of the maintenance. • Does any of the drainage go into the sewer system or does it all go into the creek? Mr. Devens: It is collected along an 8" storm drain line that runs parallel to the creek and actually connects to an existing City line at the northeast corner of the project. • Who would be responsible for testing the water run off for contamination? Mr. Devens: It is not typical of a project to sample storm water run off after a development; this would have to be a mitigation measure. • How would the bio- swales work and how would they be set up? Mr. Devens: The vegetation (normal lawn) would filter storm water into the ground. • Is there parking on Woodland Drive? Mr. Devens: No parking would be allowed along the western edge of the Woodland Drive extension until Phase 2 is developed when it would be widened to 52 feet; parking is allowed along the east side; the private interior road will be a fire lane and parking would not be allowed (the applicant has proposed some guest spaces for parking). • What percentage of the Woodland Drive project would go toward the Capital Improvement Program? Mr. Devens: The applicant will pay a proportional share toward the sanitation district trunk line upsize, at a later date. • What are the improvements that the applicant will pay toward the intersection of Fair Oaks and Woodland Drive? Mr. Devens: The applicant did the analysis for a traffic signal and a four -way stop sign; however, the intersection did not meet the criteria so just a stop sign on the north side of Fair Oaks on Woodland Drive extension will be required; he then explained the criteria for a stop sign. • There are conflicting times for construction activity in the conditions. Mr. Devens: Public works limits times of construction activities requiring City inspections to the City's normal business hours. • Re Mitigation Measure (MM) 2.2: The Commission commented that this mitigation may not be achieved and it is not viable to approve a Neg. Dec on something that may not be achieved. Ms. Heffernon: This mitigation measure could be taken out and put as a condition of approval and agreed that a buffer would then have to be in place or eminent domain used. • MM 3.16, sodium street lights (non glaring lights): Are these the least glaring? Mr. Devens: These are the typical street lights normally installed throughout the City. Ms. Heffernon: There will be a lighting plan; there will be low lighting on the pedestrian walkway. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 3, 2006 PAGE 4 • MM 4.3, this mitigation talks about grading into the creek; is there actual plans to cut into the creek? Ms. Heffernon: This mitigation is based on discussions with Fish & Game and related to the creek bank and the erosion at the outfall and corrugated pipe. • Page 20, sentence half way down paragraph, re California Red - legged frog; change the word only to not, to make sense of this. • MM 4.6, rock slope protection in the open space, 25 -foot setback riparian area, should specifically refer to creek erosion. Ms. Heffernon: Agreed to add language to state that, "Any invasion into the 25 -foot creek setback should not occur unless it is to correct an erosion problem ". • MM 4.10, why is a footpath to the creek being proposed? Ms. Heffernon: There is already an informal path; this proposal is to direct people to an area where they would not disturb riparian vegetation. • MM 6.2, how will maintenance for the inline filter system work? Mr. Devens: The inline filter system requires a check up just twice a year and vacuuming out if necessary; maintenance would be taken care of by the City. • MM 10.1, need to add the word pay. • MM 14.4, need to clarify that the banks will only be stabilized where access to the creek is designated. • MM 14.6, re stockpiles of debris not being allowed to enter the creek: Ms. Heffernon: Agreed that specific language should be added to state that this should not be allowed in the riparian area (25 -foot creek setback). • Ms. Heffernon confirmed that it was proposed that Woodland Drive would have bollards at the end, removable only by emergency vehicles. • Mr. Devens: Re the corrugated pipe, staff was confident that it could either be repaired or the whole pipe replaced. • Mr. Devens: The Woodland Drive decision is temporary and would have to be looked at again with Phase 2. • What is the City accepting as a Hospital Facilities Plan (Phase 2), and is the Commission being asked to approve the residential (Phase 1), without knowing what Phase 2 will consist of, or even if it will be acceptable. Mr. Strong: The Office Mixed Use (OMU) district included the design overlay and CHW requested that this be placed to protect future development; CHW have conducted sufficient study of their hospital needs to co- applicant this proposal to reserve an option to purchase the entire west half of the property on which they estimate 120,000 sq. ft. of medical related facilities could be built; there is no definition of what a hospital facility plan was expected to contain. • Does the City have adequate manpower to carry out all of the mitigation measures required? Mr. Strong: It is the City's responsibility to monitor most of the mitigation measures; if there was inadequate staffing we would impose on the developer sufficient information requirements that he could employ independent consultants selected by the City to assist them in monitoring. • Asked for clarification on where the storm drain drop - inlets are located on the plan. Mr. Devens: Described how the drainage would work; pointed out that the applicant is proposing some short retaining walls to increase elevations and maintain the natural drainage pattern of the site while still being able to connect to an existing City facility. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 3, 2006 • Mr. Devens: Fire lines would not be required on Phase 1, but would be required for Phase 2. • Clarification was requested on the open space statistics table on the plan. Ms. Heffernon explained how the calculations were arrived at for common and private open space. • Clarification was requested on Table 16.36.020 for OMU Minimum Site Development Standards. Ms. Heffernon: The density is established at the zoning level; the zoning allows for 15 units per acre and what is proposed is 11 units per acre; the PUD process allows deviation from minimum lot width and depth; what is proposed is consistent with the Development and density etc. • Re the Geo Solutions Report: Mr. Devens: Staff is satisfied that most of the seismic induced settlements would be addressed by the recommendations; a standard condition could be added that a soils engineer be present on site, during stripping of surface materials; staff is satisfied that the sub drains and back drain systems should not be an issue. • Asked for clarification on why both bio swales and an in line filtration systems are recommended and that this condition should clarify that both are proposed. Mr. Devens: Stated the dimensions of the bio swale and that maintenance would probably be taken care of by the individual property owners; this requirement could be added to the CC &R's to make sure no alterations are made. • Asked for wall height starting from Fair Oaks and up towards the corner of the project. Mr. Devens: It is a consistent height of two feet all the way except along the top of the project which varies in height. 8:00 p.m. The Commission took a 10- minute break. Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 5 Chair Brown announced that Gary Young, applicant, had requested to speak after the public comment so he could respond to any questions that would be asked. Chair Brown stated although this was not the normal order due to the number of public present he would allow this; if the public wishes to speak again after the applicant they can do so. Bernard Landsman, 579 Newman Drive, lives near the creek, stated he has great concern with the traffic issue; during a recent discussion with Chief TerBorch he had been told that sometimes it is difficult to get emergency vehicles through Brisco; joining Woodland Drive to Fair Oaks is absolutely dangerous from every point of view; in the past he had discovered jaw bones near the creek (Chumash remains) and he knows this is an area of burial grounds for Chumash Indians; he would be interested to find out how sensitive the applicant is to this. Bardhyll Nushi, 641 Cerro Vista Circle, stated he was disturbed by discrepancies between this project and the pre - application project reviewed in August 2005; he represented many of the neighbors present at the meeting; their main concerns were that the traffic study does not take Woodland Drive and South Alpine into consideration and is barely noted in the report; at present at least forty children walk past his house going to school to get to Fair Oaks and cross the road without too much activity; with this project it could add 240 trips a day; removable bollards will not work for the community; for safety, Woodland Drive should PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 3, 2006 PAGE 6 no go through and should not connect to South Alpine; a single swing gate with knox box for emergency access in place of the bollards is preferred; the open space beyond the gate could be used for a dog park and it would not be much for the City to maintain. The building setback with pathway behind it will create a long alleyway; to avoid this it would be better to increase the building setback to the edge of property line to create a buffer and make the open space safer, especially for the children who walk through this area on a daily basis; at the previous meeting the applicant had stated that the buffer between the townhouses and the current asphalt trail would be 40 feet, now it is 6 -7 feet. There is also a concern that the density of the residential subdivision is based on Phase 2, which does not have a plan; Catholic Hospital West (CHW) has not indicated how they could use the square footage and there is no justification at present to show that they could use 120,000 square feet of medical offices. The applicant is using Woodland Drive as an excuse to split the project. The parking for the additional square footage has not been addressed. In conclusion, Mr. Nushi stated that most important for the neighborhood is the safety of the children; any decision on Woodland Drive and any additional traffic studies should be done now by the City and not when Phase 2 comes in. Chair Brown asked for a show of hands from the public present who were in support of Mr. Nushi's comments; a majority of the public agreed with his comments. Denise McDade, Cerro Vista Circle, stated concern for the safety of children; there are no sidewalks on the brand new homes on S. Alpine and half of S. Alpine has no sidewalks so children are walking on the streets now. Piper Adleman, 606 Cerro Vista Lane, stated children use the pathway to walk to school everyday and he would not like to think of this as being enclosed; there were a lot more neighbors who were present earlier who had to leave due to the late hour; his concerns were the traffic issue because all the children are directed to go through the "health park" and up to Halcyon to school; some of the congestion is caused by the fact that homes on Alpine Street are all red curbed so no one can park; this area is one of the prime Chumash burial sites in the county. Paul Wellencamp, 653 Cerro Vista, South Alpine dead -ends into his driveway; when he first moved in a motorcycle came around the corner and crashed into his garage and there has also been another accident at the same site since; opening up Woodland Drive will increase traffic coming from both directions and make the corner even more unsafe. Robert Chapel, 646 Cerro Vista Circle (Trustee of property), stated concern with timing of the hearing, it had been difficult to get information from the City due to the holidays; a staff report for a project of this size should be available at least two weeks before a hearing. His main concerns were that it is a bad example of City planning to open up Woodland Drive and allow traffic from a multi family area through a single family neighborhood; a traffic study should be done that addresses the impact of the cars from and to the development before this proposal goes further; the view impact of these buildings will be tremendous, but this could be mitigated if flat roofed buildings were designed; the runoff into the creek needs to be addressed as there is already a flood issue; runoff from onsite should be contained onsite; paths on the property always end up being taken over by the adjacent property owners as they do not like the public walking through their property; this needs to be made clear in planning process to enforce people from walking through back yards; it is bad procedure to approve a project without seeing the whole project because the impacts cannot be properly addressed; when there are so many items in the negative declaration it should probably not have been so declared. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 3, 2006 PAGE 7 Robert Berryhill, 629 Cerro Vista, concern with older homes on Alpine Street that have single width driveways as they use on- street parking; adding traffic to this by having Woodland Drive go through would cause Alpine and Cerro Vista Streets to become a traffic hazard. Debra West, 159 So. Alpine, stated concern with the loss of open space in an area that at present is a very beautiful place to walk through; right now there is a separation between residence and commercial and she is concerned with how this would affect the feel of the neighborhood and change the nature of it. Chet Williams, 649 Cerro Vista Circle; concern with children that go to high school that walk the pathway every day; would like to see access go through the hospital area; like the proposed area to go for a park and be dedicated to the Chumash and Mr. Greib; workshops need to be done on projects like this to study it and to make a better community for our children and for ourselves. David Butz, 295 Halcyon, stated his concerns were the traffic issue; Toss of viewshed and open space. This is a sensitive area for the Chumash and he would like to see how developers would be able to do anything without avoiding this. Regarding the light, there is zero cut -off lighting available. Jim Crouse, works for utility company, stated presently there is no lighting in the path area of the proposed project; a gate would be much better to stop traffic going through than bollards. Gabe West, neighborhood child, stated he and his friends use the pathway a lot for biking and going to the elementary school and with all the extra traffic it would not be safe; he hoped there would still be a small access to get to the creek. Gary Young, 2815 Mesa, applicant, spoke at length giving the history of their project and it's progress through the City. They had made the requested changes to the proposal after the pre - application had gone through the SAC, ARC, Planning Commission and City Council. He introduced the experts who were available to answer Commission questions: • Lenny Grant, LGA, project architect • Jim Burrows, Firma, landscape plan • Jeremy Larney, Arborist • Ken Chicone, Civil Engineer • Gary Dillinger, Catholic Health Care West (CHW) • Derek Rap, Penfield & Smith, Traffic Report • Sherry Gust, CogSource Realty Management (digging and archeology report) In reply to a question from Commissioner Ray regarding Mr. Nushi's comment on the buffer between the houses and the asphalt trail, previously stated as 40 feet, he may have been referring to the area between the townhouses and the wall. In reply to a question from Chair Brown in regard to the different heights of the wall, Mr. Young replied that it was probably due to the grading; his engineer could confirm this. In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker, Mr. Young verified the width of the path as being 12 feet. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Young agreed that buildings 7 -11 would block pedestrian access to the creek. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 3, 2006 PAGE 8 Lenny Grant, LGA, described recent similar projects the applicants had completed locally. Chair Brown stated this project does not have enough parking due to the fact that there are no driveways for parking and that guest parking spaces would be used instead and asked Mr. Grant if there were any similar projects in the City with this parking. Mr. Grant stated that the Stonecrest project had similar parking and explained that in order to get the density and affordable housing it was necessary to design the project in this way. Chair Brown stated a concern that after this project was developed it might be found that the parking does not work. In reply to a question from Chair Brown, Ken Chicone explained the grading of the project and why there are so many retaining walls and why the height is six -foot in one area. In reply to a comment from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Grant said the ARC had not requested materials samples; Mr. Young stated they could do this. In reply to a question from Commissioner Ray, Mr. Young explained that one of the reasons it is better for them to design with PUD's rather than condominiums is due to the high cost of insurance for the project. In reply to a request from Chair Brown, Mr. Young pointed out common Lot 31 and the easement on the site plan. Sherry Gust, archeologist, stated that the largest archeological site in Arroyo Grande area (site 393) is situated entirely north of the proposed development; if the site development does not go below five feet (there are probably artifacts below the five feet) there should be no impact; there is property just above Newman Drive that is just pure midden (black dirt) with chip stones, shells etc. Mr. Landsman spoke again refuting the fact that there is black dirt on Newman Drive and was concerned that Ms. Gust's comment that unless the ground is disturbed below five feet there should be no concern. 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows to continue the meeting to 10:30 p.m. The motion passed on a 4/0 voice vote; Commissioner Tait being absent. The Commission took a 15- minute break. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray to continue Item II.C. and III.A. to the meeting of Feb 7, 2006; the motion passed by a 4/0 voice vote. Chair Brown asked for the experts on various aspects of the project that were present, to speak next. In reply to a question from Chair Brown, asking about the potential number of trips going toward Halcyon if bollards were not there, Mr. Rap, Penfield & Smith, stated that this was not a part of Phase 1, so they had not got into this, but instead the traffic report provided PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 3, 2006 PAGE 9 figures for traffic projected toward Halcyon and going north; their general observations for the cut through was that there would not be an extensive number of non -local traffic using it. In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker, Mr. Rap stated that the analysis for the build out included Phase 1, and Phase 1 & 2 separately; re Page 38 & 39 (recommendations to bring down LOS), most mitigations deal with Phase 2 and later focused on Phase 1; Phase I added about 6% cumulative traffic. In reply to a question from Chair Brown, Mr. Burrows, Firma, explained how they justified the type and size of the Ag buffer included in their report; they had not yet completed the mitigation measure 4.6 (riparian habitat and restoration plan). Chair Brown stated he had a difficult time approving something they had not seen. In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker, Mr. Burrows replied that the actual Ag buffer footage between lot 30 and the agricultural land is less than 100 feet. Commissioner Parker asked about runoff containment on site; stated she had a concern about runoff into the creek, she did not have a lot of faith in the in line system, bio - swales are not 100 %. Mr. Burrows said the bio - swales for light rains improves water quality before it goes into any pipe or the creek; for heavy rains the inline system cleans it further and tests it. Commissioner Fellows stated he would like to see an Ag buffer design based on the Queensland Report in order to protect the farmers, the agricultural land and the residents of any new homes. Regarding a letter from David Foot, Firma, re mitigation measures, Commissioner Fellows asked for clarification re permeable paving for the parking bays, down drains discharge, additional native ground covers to provide filtration and slow the runoff; he also stated that there may be some controversy between the ARC's recommendations for more trees and having a non - combustible fire break along the ag buffers; use of recycled construction materials where ever possible was recommended. In reply to Chair Brown, Mr. Young explained that maintenance of the bio - swales included being mowed maybe twice a year and plant materials need to be kept moist; during summer it will need to be irrigated. Mr. Bardhyll spoke again and stated some of his questions had not been answered, specifically regarding justification for the density of the housing and clarification of the rearyard setbacks on the units. Chair Brown stated that the applicant was aware of his concerns and they would be addressed. Chair Brown closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission comments: Ray: • Concern with allowing the creative solution for Phase 1 without seeing Phase 2. • Not satisfied with the Traffic Study. • Very concerned with the tunnel effect on the walkway and safety for the children. • Not sure about Woodland Drive; will need a lot more information to make a decision. • Uncomfortable with the information received from CHW, although they did not have a chance to speak tonight and she would like to hear from them at the next meeting. • Open space /common /maintenance /individual versus community issue is muddy and needs to be cleared up. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 3, 2006 PAGE 10 Fellows: • The worst thing you can do to a neighborhood is to dump thru- traffic into streets that were not built for this and where people have lived for years; Halcyon will become like a freeway; he would do anything he could to keep traffic off South Alpine. Brown: • The staff report and applicant's discussion should include the definitions on this project and define where the public open space and common open space lies and how it was calculated, specifically in regards to the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. • Commissioner Fellows's concern on the Ag buffer is a huge issue; how was the buffer arrived at and how was it determined it to be appropriate; concern with open space versus trees: there is probably a solution for this. • Like to see other similar successful projects in Arroyo Grande; is not comfortable that people will be required park in their garages because there are no driveways; believes this is not human nature. • Did not see a specific condition regarding affordable housing. • Agreed with Commissioner Ray's concerns about being asked to accept a part of the project on faith. Parker: • This project does not look like Office Mixed Use; it looks more like a PUD; would rather see this coming in as a PUD in two phases. • She would like to see a map that designates the distance between buildings etc; she would like to see the wall and heights designated. • She has concern with the walkway and the safety issue. • Would like to see Plan B for the ag buffer on the northeast area; does not believe eminent domain is the answer. • Hazardous materials and run off into the creek is a big issue although bio- swales and in line filters are a good start; wants to know for sure if there will be no contaminants running into the creek. • Like to see Fish & Game involved with the creek plan and for the walkway that goes to the creek (to review chemical runoff). • Does not like private ownership of public open space; also has concern with the common open space designations. • Would like to see footprint statistics corrected to show what the true lot coverages are. • Would like to know what will be addressed by the HOA and CC &R's. • Has a problem with the parking; removing the front yard setbacks removes two possible parking spaces; need to provide adequate parking somewhere. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to continue discussion of the item to a special adjourned meeting, January 31, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05 -014 & MINOR EXCEPTION 05 -001; APPLICANT — CINGULAR WIRELESS; REPRESENTATIVE — GORDON BELL, STRATEGIC REAL ESTATE SERVICES; LOCATION — 301 TRINITY AVENUE Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report to consider the proposed construction of a 53' 11" tall -bell tower on an existing church to house panel telecommunication antennas, and installation of a 12' (W) x 20' (L) x 10' (H) equipment PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 3, 2006 Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment. PAGE 11 telecommunication antennas, and installation of a 12' (W) x 20' (L) x 10' (H) equipment shelter. The SAC & ARC recommended approval of this Conditional Use Permit with the addition of condition of approval No. 8, "The applicant shall submit different design alternatives to the ARC for the bell tower facility for final approval ". Commissioner Parker asked Ms. Heffernon, in regard to a letter received from Mr. Fredrick, if he had received a staff report as this would answer many of his questions. Ms. Heffernon stated she did not believe he had. Chair Brown stated that he would like to see a more peaked look on the tower to match the other steeple; he agreed with the ARC and would like to see the boxy look taken away. Gorden Bell, representative, stated re the tower design, to achieve a peaked steeple design on the tower the height would have to be increased by about four feet. Cingular is replacing sites in the area that were lost when the merger with T- Mobile took place. Chair Brown closed the public hearing for public comment. Commissioner Parker stated she had no problems with the design and felt the Planning Commission did not need to see this again. Chair Brown agreed that it would be sufficient for it to go back to the ARC for review. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner to Fellows, to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Minor Exception 05 -001, and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06 -1985 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO 05 -014 & MINOR USE PERMIT 05 -001, APPLIED FOR BY CINGULAR WIRELESS; LOCATED AT 301 TRINITY AVENUE The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Tait being absent. the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 3rd day of January 2006. IV. A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE DECEMBER 20, 2005: Plot Plan Review 05 -023 Mr. Devens stated that when the improvement plans were done for this building a restaurant use was not anticipated. A grease trap needs to be installed on the sewer lateral and this Case No " _ A pp T , Addressy; eve := Desc ption , Action Planner_ 1. PPR 05 -023 Little Caesar's Pizza 1540 Grand Avenue Fast food restaurant and patio seating. A J. Bergman PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 3, 2006 Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment. PAGE 11 telecommunication antennas, and installation of a 12' (W) x 20' (L) x 10' (H) equipment shelter. The SAC & ARC recommended approval of this Conditional Use Permit with the addition of condition of approval No. 8, "The applicant shall submit different design alternatives to the ARC for the bell tower facility for final approval ". Commissioner Parker asked Ms. Heffernon, in regard to a letter received from Mr. Fredrick, if he had received a staff report as this would answer many of his questions. Ms. Heffernon stated she did not believe he had. Chair Brown stated that he would like to see a more peaked look on the tower to match the other steeple; he agreed with the ARC and would like to see the boxy look taken away. Gorden Bell, representative, stated re the tower design, to achieve a peaked steeple design on the tower the height would have to be increased by about four feet. Cingular is replacing sites in the area that were lost when the merger with T- Mobile took place. Chair Brown closed the public hearing for public comment. Commissioner Parker stated she had no problems with the design and felt the Planning Commission did not need to see this again. Chair Brown agreed that it would be sufficient for it to go back to the ARC for review. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner to Fellows, to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Minor Exception 05 -001, and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06 -1985 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO 05 -014 & MINOR USE PERMIT 05 -001, APPLIED FOR BY CINGULAR WIRELESS; LOCATED AT 301 TRINITY AVENUE The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Tait being absent. the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 3rd day of January 2006. IV. A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE DECEMBER 20, 2005: Plot Plan Review 05 -023 Mr. Devens stated that when the improvement plans were done for this building a restaurant use was not anticipated. A grease trap needs to be installed on the sewer lateral and this PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 3, 2006 should be a condition of approval for the Plot Plan Review. Mr. Strong stated this request would be taken care of. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Summary of Project Activity and Tentative Schedule for Commission Hearings. Due to the late hour there was no discussion on this item. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Mr. Devens handed out some information on fossil filters requested by Commissioner Fellows for the Commission's information. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Mr. Strong stated that a memo will be sent out to property owners in Design Overlay areas advising them of the alternative date for the workshop of February 16, 2006, for further review of Development Code Amendment 04 -006 for residential districts. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. ATTEST: LYN REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPME T DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the special PC meeting of January 31, 20061 PAGE 12 TIM BROWN, CHAIR 11 1 1