PC Minutes 2005-05-171
1
1
CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice
Chair Keen presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows, Parker and Tait. Chair Brown
was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong,
Assistant Planners Ryan Foster and Jim Bergman, Assistant City Engineer, Mike Linn and
Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens.
AGENDA REVIEW: No changes.
MINUTES
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 17, 2005
6:00 P.M. — 10:00 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of May 3, 2005 were approved on a motion by
Commissioner Parker, seconded by Commissioner Tait, with the following changes:
✓ On page 5, item III.C., correct the roll call vote to reflect that Commissioner Tait
abstained from this item.
✓ On page 2, item III.A., move comment about retaining walls to "concerns" section, rather
than "positive feedback ".
The motion was approved on a 3/0 voice vote. Chuck Fellows abstained due to his absence at
that meeting.
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Vice Chair Keen shared a printout on Public Resources
Code Section 2700- 2709.1 which is in regards to fees for a "strong- motion instrumentation
program" (earthquake measurement).
II.
A. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE APRIL 19, 2005
aS�@
PP ess
1
MEX
05 -003
322 Noguera
Place
Fe
Height exception for backyard woodshop
due (safety issue)
actio
A
Wanne
A. Brownwood
In response to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Strong replied no, there were no
neighbor comments received.
Commissioner Parker commented that although it wouldn't be seen from the street, the
woodshop could be seen from the side, and therefore requested that it not look "poor" to the
neighbors. Michael Kelley, applicant, stated that it will look just like the house.
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve Item 1.
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Parker, Tait and Vice Chair Keen.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chair Brown
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 2005
III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 05 -002; APPLICANT — CAMPBELL, LLC;
LOCATION — 567 CROWN HILL.
Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report and answered Commissioner
questions.
Vice Chair Keen opened the public hearing to public comment.
Joe Boud, of Joseph Boud and Associates (design team for the project), further described the
project and answered Commissioner questions.
Floyd Campbell, owner, spoke in support of the project.
Vice Chair Keen closed the public hearing to public comment.
Commissioner comments:
Tait:
• Overall it looks good.
• He's not too concerned about the couple of points in the setbacks.
• He's somewhat concerned about the oak trimmings, but it shouldn't be a problem.
• He was concerned that the sidewalk stops abruptly. It should be continued in the future.
Fellows:
• He expressed appreciation for the applicant efforts to make this a good project for the
community. It's nice infill close to the Village.
• He's pleased they saved the oak tree.
• There's no problem with the setbacks, since they're at certain points (not whole sides of
the buildings).
• Because this is a good project, tradeoffs like guest parking and Floor Area Ratios
(FARs) are okay.
• He suggested the street tree fee be waived.
• He expressed further appreciation that the applicant is moving a portion of the original
house and reusing it.
Parker:
• She also thinks this is a good project.
• Normally she's strict about parking, but with the fact that there are driveways to each
house and parking in each garage, there's adequate onsite parking, so she won't
request more.
• She is concerned about the lack of sidewalk and would like to see a sidewalk there
eventually, but sees it can't be done at this time.
• She likes how the garage is set at an angle, has no problem with the corners being in
the setback, and it will all fit in well.
Keen:
• He felt it was a good project also.
• The street tree fee waiver idea is good, but only Council can rescind fees.
• He would also like to see sidewalks all the way down either side of Crown Hill.
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve PUD 05 -002 with
the recommendation to City Council to waive street tree fees.
Page 2 of 14
1
1
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 2005
RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1957
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE APPROVING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 05 -002; LOCATED AT
567 CROWN HILL; APPLIED FOR BY CAMPBELL LLC
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Parker, Tait and Vice Chair Keen
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chair Brown
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17 day of May 2005.
B. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 05 -001 & PUD 05 -001; APPLICANT A.G.
SPANISH OAKS, LLC; LOCATION — 175 ELM STREET & 1194 MAPLE STREET.
Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report, discussing changes made since the
last meeting, and he answered technical questions from the Commission.
Vice Chair Keen opened the public hearing to public comment.
Eileen Dickey, applicant, spoke in support of the project and answered Commissioner
questions. She further described revisions that had been made in response to requests from
the Commission and from neighbors.
David Robasciotti, 178 South Elm Street, spoke in favor of the project, adding that he hopes this
will spur remodeling of the Cookie Crock shopping Center. His previous concerns regarding
traffic and power (phone and cable) have been taken care of.
Vice Chair Keen closed the public hearing to public comment.
Commission comments:
Parker:
• She appreciates the changes in response to concerns expressed at the last meeting.
• Parking is more accessible now and there's better circulation.
• Private space is important for homeowners and while she had a hard time with 3'
setbacks, there wouldn't otherwise be useable space in the yards.
• She suggested returning the line of street trees on Elm Street, which were proposed in
the previous plans, especially since the street is so wide.
Fellows:
• This is also a good project for the community.
• He also appreciates all the recent changes.
• If they can add the street trees back in it would be nice, but he's glad there are at least
some still included.
• He supports the onsite inclusionary unit.
• At first he was upset that a large oak was proposed to be eliminated, but although
attractive, it does shed branches (a "widow maker "), and they've done a good job with
the other trees and mitigation.
Tait:
Page 3' of 14
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 2005
• He also appreciates changes in response to prior concerns.
• He requested that Lot 6 sideyard setbacks be changed from 12' to 11' and from 3' to 4'.
• Density has been reduced by decreasing the size of units, and he has no problem with
the eleven units now that the project complies better with City standards.
• He would go along with increasing the width of the Elm Street planter.
Keen:
• Most of his comments were already addressed by other Commissioners.
• He also appreciates the work done in the quick turnaround time.
• Can the Elm Street planter be increased in width to accommodate street trees (and the
sidewalk width be reduced) or would it create a problem with public right of way
requirements?
o Mr. Devens answered that it's a 6' integral sidewalk on the plans with a 2'
planting area behind it. He didn't receive landscape plans, so it's difficult to
comment.
o The applicant clarified that conduit would be placed below the sidewalk and
the proposed trees would bulb in slightly past the fence line into private yards.
• Perhaps the applicant could use metal or cast iron treewells.
Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve TTM 05 -001 and PUD
05 -001 with the following changes:
• Condition Lot 6 sideyard setbacks to increase the 3' northern setback by 1' (to total of 4'), and
decrease the southern 12' setback by 1' (to total of 11').
• Increase the width of Elm Street planter to 3' to allow for additional street trees.
Discussion: There was additional discussion on the Elm Street planter width, with Mr. Strong noting that if
it was increased from 2' to 3' wide, the 10' setback all along the rear property lines would decrease to 9' (or
other changes would have to be made if the units were to be shifted). Keen and Tait were favorable
towards decreasing the yards to 9' to allow for additional planter space, but Commissioner Parker
expressed that 3' wouldn't be large enough for the trees. Commissioner Parker withdrew her second, but
Chuck Fellows seconded the original motion.
RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1963
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 05 -001 AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT 05 -001; LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH
ELM AND MAPLE STREETS; APPLIED FOR BY AG SPANISH OAKS, LLC
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tait, Fellows, Parker and Vice Chair Keen
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chair Brown
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17 day of May 2005.
The Commission took a 15- minute break at 7:50 p.m.
C. PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05 -004; ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NOS. 05 -003, 05 -004,
05 -008 & VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE 05 -006, APPLICANT — PACE BROTHERS'
CONSTRUCTION; LOCATION —135 WHITELEY STREET
Page 4 of 14
1
1
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 2005
Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman presented the staff report and answered Commissioner
questions.
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Bergman and Mr. Devens made the following
statements:
• The statement that "exceptions can be made if it violates federal or state law" (in regards
to the 25' setback from top of bank for TTM's) refers to the fact that government cannot
take private property without due compensation to the owner. Governments may create
laws that encompass entire properties without allowing for feasible use of the property,
but they must compensate the owner according to Federal Court case law on takings.
• The idea behind MM8 is for concrete trucks, etc., not to leak oil or hose materials down
into the creek. The prohibition from working within 5' from top of bank was to maintain
consistency and uniformity, and that should be an adequate distance.
• Commissioners can condition the resolution to delete the words "to extent feasible" from
MM10, the applicants would probably wish to comment further.
• Wording for MM11 can be changed from "riparian area" to "5' from top of bank ", since
there is no riparian area.
• Typically, concrete workers make a "washout pit" of hay bales with lignin and haul it off
to the landfill once finished, and there's a designated area for fueling and oiling. This
should prevent construction waste from entering the creek.
• MM9 does not require a Fish and Game permit, because work will be done on flat areas
(sideyard and frontyard) with clear demarcation (the berm) away from the creek.
• The Uniform Building Code requires soil testing and engineering calculations before
building permits can be issued, so they won't issue a building permit if the ground isn't
stable. If it passed Planning Commission, but Building Department determines it's
unstable, any revised plans would be brought back for review.
• Grading and construction can be done within the building footprint only (and not go into
the 5' setback) in a couple ways. If it's continuous spread footing, they can trench. It
also depends on existing topography - assuming perfect conditions where water drains
away from the house, then they could build without grading. If grading sent water toward
the creek, they could create a swale to take it out toward the street.
• The applicant proposes to show an added bit of protection from water going to the creek
by putting up a small block wall to ensure water goes to street.
• Rip - rap will not be placed in the creekbed for control —that was inadvertently left on plans
from prior drawings.
• A PUD was an initial application process suggested for these Tots, but it's up to the
applicant to determine which process to follow, since they're three separate legal lots.
Vice Chair Keen opened the public hearing to public comment.
Greg Soto, project architect, commented on some of the above concerns. The reviewed the
idea of a PUD, but couldn't get good enough Tots. The lot four house jets back and forth to
make the building further away from the creek at different parts. If it was a smaller house, it
would be inappropriate for the area. They could build up to the setback with a stem wall to not
have to deal with excavation. The berm wouldn't be considered "development" in the 5' from
top of bank open space — it would be more of a landscape feature. In regards to questions
about the soil, there were some old dead stumps removed, but there wasn't any erosion from
the rain after they were taken out. They will get a soils report. The square footage of the
proposed homes on lots 5 and 6 are (with granny unit) 2680 sf, and lot 4 is 2350 sf.
Page 5 of 14
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 2005
John Belsher, part of the project team and an attorney in real estate and land use, also spoke in
support of the project. The drainage on the property is historically directed toward the street.
He emphasized these are three separate projects on legal lots, that just happen to be owned by
the same person. Only one resolution was produced in order to save time, but ARC considered
them separately and so should Commissioners. The City Attorney has determined that lot 4
cannot be conditioned for zero development. A 25' setback would basically render the lot
unbuildable. He shared photos (on file in Community Development Department). Also, the 25'
setback is for subdivision approval, and this is not a subdivision. The review and buffer come in
from CEQA. It's not a steep dropoff, but slopes down gradually. Other homes nearby have
setbacks far Tess than 25'. Planning Commissioners don't have authority to merge the three lots
into two. We're doing our best to work with planning staff to work on issues, but to suggest
reconfiguration of 100 - year -old lots is not an option.
Kim Tulledge, environmental coordinator, answered technical questions from Commissioners.
• Her expertise includes working with applicants to prepare EIR's and project descriptions.
• A Fish and Game permit isn't required unless you go in the creek corridor (as long as
you stay on the top of bank). Materials won't pass into the creek, since they're providing
for all drainage out to the street and he won't discharge construction waste over the
bank. Fish and Game doesn't have to be notified, because there's no riparian area
involved.
• The property was landscaped by the previous owner. If it was undeveloped property, it
would be a different matter, but it's a house lot.
• Because there's no discharge into the creek, no creek endangered species habitats will
be impacted. On the drawings, there's a drainage system from the gutters to the street
and a short landscape block wall toward the street, which is the mitigation.
• There's a storm drain inlet in the street curb. Her experience is that if runoff goes into
existing an inlet, no Army Corps or Fish and Game permits are involved.
Vice Chair Keen closed the public hearing to public input.
Commissioner comments:
Tait:
• Strict application of code may make lot 4 unbuildable, but there are options for some
compromise. Going from 25' to 5' doesn't seem like a compromise - that would be 12'.
• He had a problem that this is a taking under the fifth amendment. Under research for
another project, it was shown that buffer protection is fair and legal. The rules protect
the rights of everyone in the community. The City and State does not have only the right
but the obligation to protect the welfare of its citizens. He felt a clean safe creek has
precedence over putting a house next to the creek.
• This goes against the Open Space Element of the General Plan and against the
Municipal Code.
• As it stands, he cannot approve the way this project is, especially next to the creek.
Parker
• She agreed with Tait and could never support a 5' setback next to a creekbed.
• Most neighboring houses are closer to 1000 sf than 3000 sf. These proposals are much
bigger homes. If they can't put a similar size home in, that's one thing, but with the
environmental and safety constraints and homes almost twice as big, she didn't see
where that's a taking.
• When she walked to the edge of the cliff, it's not in safe, stable condition — it's like a bog.
Also, it's not a gradual slope.
Page 6 of 14
1
1
1
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 2005
• Property owners have a right to build, but within the constraints of their property. If the
25' setback doesn't work, they can negotiate, but to eliminate the whole thing isn't
appropriate.
• It's unsafe without a wall for future owners so when they're close to the top of bank, they
won't fall off the cliffside.
• A berm is a fine idea, but being 18" from the dropoff could be an environmental problem.
Maintenance is continuous and the owners would have to go in the 5' setback.
• Going from a 25' setback to basically no setback is not a compromise. This plan can be
better.
Fellows
• It's a legal question to decide what is a taking He's not qualified, and would like that left
for City Council to decide since they have the City Attorney to advise them.
• Putting any home within a few feet of a creek is bad planning, and he couldn't vote to
support it.
• He suggested to deny it and send it on to City Council.
Discussion on denial:
• Vice Chair Keen responded that most of the concerns seem to be for Lot 4. Since
Lots 5 and 6 are legal lots, with projects approved by ARC and staff, he'd like to vote
on those individually and just send Lot 4 to City Council.
• Commissioner Tait shared Fellows' concern and asked if they might lose control of
what happens on Lot 4 by approving 5 and 6.
• Commissioner Parker suggested taking the resolution as is, and the applicant can
return with applications as separate lots if desired.
o Mr. Strong clarified the single resolution was done to save time, but these are
three separate Tots and should be considered separately, especially if
Commissioners have issues with individual Tots tonight. He stated if the
Commission wishes to deny the project on Lot 4, it is imperative they state
specific findings to warrant that denial (this is standard process for all
denials). If they want to wait to make a motion to allow the applicant further
adjustment of setbacks for approval rather than litigation, they could defer a
motion on Lot 4. In discussion with the City Attorney, he also advised the
Commission to make the specific findings necessary if they wanted a denial
resolution. Lots 5 and 6 could certainly be acted upon separately tonight.
• Commissioner Parker asked Mr. Strong if he didn't feel Commissioners had
adequately addressed Lot 4 and their desire to deny it.
o Mr. Strong replied they established the desire to deny it, but haven't made
findings to deny Lots 5 and 6. Drainage and stability have been addressed
by mitigation measures. The 25' setback that applies to subdivisions is a
potential issue and although not an expert on what constitutes a taking, the
City Attorney is concerned that adherence to a full 25' setback could compel
the City to acquire the lot.
• Commissioner Parker commented that though specific in comments regarding a 5'
setback, they haven't discussed a 25' setback. At the same time, it's not appropriate
for Commissioners to redesign the project — the applicant should be allowed to
redesign and present a new project for further review
• Vice Chair Keen requested staff assistance in drafting an approval resolution for Lots
5 and 6 that would delete wording applicable to Lot 4.
Page 7 of 14
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 2005
Vice Chair Keen made a motion to use the prepared resolution but to modify it to approve the
Architectural Reviews and Viewshed Review for lots 5 and 6 only, deleting the associated
conditions for lot 4, to read as follows:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEWS 05 -003 and 05 -004 AND
VIEWSHED REVIEW 05 -008; 135 WHITELEY; APPLIED FOR BY PACE BROTHER'S
CONSTRUCTION
The motion died for lack of a second.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-1964
Mr. Strong requested they defer the item to allow staff to return with new resolutions prepared
with City Attorney assistance.
Commissioner Fellows moved and Commissioner Parker seconded deferral of these items to a
subsequent meeting.
Discussion on deferral motion:
• Mr. Bergman requested the Commissioners articulate the specific findings they could not
make, so he could properly return with a resolution that appropriately reflects Commission
opinions.
• Commissioner Tait stated he wasn't sure what Mr. Bergman was requesting.
• Commissioner Parker stated that findings couldn't be made, because: 1.) It's not
consistent with the General Plan and 2. ) It doesn't conform with the public welfare
requirement.
• Mr. Strong jumped in to suggest that rather than drag the meeting on, Commissioners
could make a motion reflecting a tentative denial, since it's clear the Commission intends
to deny the Lot 4 project. The advantage of such a decision rendered this evening is that
it could be appealed to City Council, rather than making the applicants wait two more
weeks. Staff would still bring back an appropriate resolution to be formally acted upon at
the next meeting.
Commissioner Fellows withdrew his deferral motion. He asked if they could deny all the lots as
proposed and let the applicant appeal to City Council. Mr. Strong answered yes, but added a
denial needs to be formally structured (with specific statements about which findings the
Commission couldn't make.) In response to questions about the projects having significant
legal questions, Mr. Strong further stated that the City Attorney did request that if
Commissioners were inclined to deny the project, then they take tentative action at best and
state which specific findings they couldn't make.
Commissioner Fellows again moved to continue these projects to the next meeting, this time in
order to get additional answers to legal questions. Motion died for lack of a second.
Vice Chair Keen remade his original motion (as described above).
Additional discussion:
• Commissioner Tait asked if they approve Lots 5 and 6 and denying 4, won't they need
specific findings for Lot 4 at this time? Mr. Strong replied that staff can assume direction
Page 8 of 14
1
1
1
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 2005
to return with a resolution for denial on Lot 4, but it wouldn't be appealable until Planning
Commission takes that action.
• Commissioner Parker asked why Lots 5 and 6 were coming forward if they followed all
General Plan and other guidelines. Mr. Strong reminded Commissioners that they were
listed as consent agenda items and the Commissioners appealed them for discussion.
Perhaps the confusion was bringing all three projects forward with one resolution.
o Commissioner Parker asked why would they have come forward on their own.
Mr. Strong replied that the Architectural Reviews have to be reported on consent
agendas. The Commission could have appealed just Lot 4.
Commissioner Tait seconded the motion, which was approved on the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Vice Chair Keen, Commissioners Tait, Fellows and Parker
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chair Brown
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17 day of May 2005.
Vice Chair Keen requested staff come forward with a resolution for denial of Lot 4 at
the next regular meeting. Commissioner Parker moved and Commissioner Tait
seconded this request. Motion passed: 4/0 voice vote.
Due to the 10:00 end of meeting bylaw, Commissioners discussed extending the time and which
items to review. It was decided that Hampton Inn and the CIP should be reviewed tonight, due
to scheduling, but the two pre - application reviews were to be continued.
Commissioner Fellows made a motion to continue items IV. A. and IV.B. to a special meeting on
May 31, 2005. Motion passed: 4/0 voice vote.
The Commission took a 10- minute break at 10:00 p.m.
D. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 05 -008 (INITIATED BY THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE); CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04 -009 AND TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05 -003; APPLICANT — GARY WHITE; LOCATION — 1400
WEST BRANCH STREET /CAMINO MERCADO INTERSECTION.
Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman presented the staff report and answered Commissioner
questions. This project was previously reviewed as a pre - application. There are three
applications being considered today: a Development Code Amendment (DCA) to change
zoning from Office Mixed Use (OMU) to Planned Development (PD1.1) to allow flexibility in
development standards; a Tentative Parcel Map to create two parcels (one for the hotel and one
for the restaurant); and a Specific Development Plan (via Conditional Use Permit) to allow
construction and operation of the hotel and restaurant. At last week's City Council meeting, the
applicants discussed changes to the conceptual landscape plan, retaining walls, oak trees,
architectural refinements to West Branch frontage, and further investigation of moving back the
top stories.
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Strong, Mr. Bergman and Mr. Devens made the
following statements:
Page 9 of 14
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 2005
• If the applicants decided not to do either project after changing zoning to PD, they would
have to return to Planning Commission with any new proposals. The advantage to
changing zoning to PD is that it doesn't affect OMU citywide.
• There was a preliminary site grading plan that depicted the retaining walls. It's being
determined if alien block could be used instead of stepped block walls. That's subject to
further review and refinement, and would be part of landscape review and analysis.
• Although the staff report mentions some of the sewer pipes are marginally outside
standard values, they're close enough to be acceptable. These were analyzed for peak
flows, but average flows will be well below 50 %. The greatest sewer concern is
upstream and won't be affected by this project.
• Discharge will be carried out to Camino Mercado, down the Cal Trans ditch, down 101
(in an open ditch) near the Oak Park overpass, and finally discharge into the creek
behind AJ Spurs, so there will be some exposure to the sun and filtering under the
willows, but some mitigation measures will be required.
• Staff will check into the number tags on the oak trees vs. the map.
• The new sapling adjacent to tree #5 is also designed for removal, since it's in the
footprint.
• Oaks 6 and 7 are being evaluated by an arborist for transplant. If it's more economically
feasible to replace them with specimen plantings, they may go that route.
Vice Chair Keen opened the public hearing to public comment.
Steve Cool, co- applicant, spoke in support of the project. They have scaled down and softened
the project as much as they could. There are a couple conditions and a mitigation measure that
they would like to discuss with staff and wanted to go on record for objecting to:
• Condition 73 — That seems to be a citywide problem. If affected by some facet of this
specific project, they will pay fair share, but don't plan to pay for all.
• Condition 107 — Seems like an extreme financial burden. Condition 115 — As far as they
knew, they already paid for plan check fees. If there are additional ones, they'll pay
them, but they thought they were paid up.
• Mitigation Measure 20 — They don't have control of the lift station schedule and
expressed concern this could be a five -year project on the part of the City. Mr. Devens
noted he felt comfortable that this project should be completed before the hotel is ready
to open.
In response to Commission questions, Gary White, co- applicant, made the following statements:
• For a conference facility, they're looking at expanding part of the basement level.
• The architect is looking at the possibility of moving the building back 10 -15', but it may
require a reduction in the number of rooms. It depends on the economic feasibility.
• The architect will return at the Council meeting with another elevation section to show
them. He's adding some more architectural features, which are plant on style features.
• The back retaining wall won't be a crib wall. It accomplishes the same thing, but is a
much more attractive wall.
• In moving the building back, they shouldn't have to relocate the lobby, since it's just 15'
different.
• In regards to the possibility of transplanting some of the oaks, they're looking at two
trees (6 and 7), but it depends on economic feasibility.
• The conceptual landscape plan is being worked on.
o Mr. Strong added if approved tonight, these applications won't return for further
review by Planning Commission. There will be additional decisions made by City
Page 10 of 14
1
1
1
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 2005
Council in regard to issues under study but not resolved, and ARC will resolve
additional details (final planting and irrigation plans), subject to review by
Planning Commission and City Council if contested.
Vice Chair Keen closed the public hearing to public comment.
Commissioner comments:
Fellows:
• The mitigated neg dec goes a long way toward saving oak trees, but he's not completely
satisfied. If they recommend approval tonight, will there be later review of landscape
plans — specifically the oaks? Mr. Strong replied there should be a clearer resolution at
the Council level, so specific recommendations can be made as part of the resolution.
• His understanding is that most members of City Council shared similar concerns, but felt
it's a great place for a restaurant and hotel. If they don't get moving, they'll end up with
nothing, so they should get on with it and hope the TOT helps with some things the City
needs. He can make a motion to approve the projects, but would like oaks to be saved
and architectural details to be implemented.
Tait:
• He's comfortable acting on the DCA.
• He would have liked further details from City Council's recommendations to be
addressed by the applicant tonight.
• City staff should address applicants' concerns with conditions and mitigation measures.
• The accuracy of the numbering on the oaks should be checked.
• Why isn't Hampton Inn contributing to the 101 interchange? Mr. Devens replied that the
final solution has not been decided, so the exact dollar amount has not been
determined. Typically when assessing fees, they know the final cost of construction, but
it's too early to tell.
Parker:
• She was also concerned that the concerns addressed by Council last week hadn't been
finalized yet by the applicants, but understood this was a "fast- track" application.
• The City in general needs to be cautious about approving projects that may use more
water than it has, and therefore putting the project on the backs of the community that is
already established, because they may have to ask the community to pay more for their
allocated water. Projects should not drive infrastructure.
• She likes the hotel, and although she had a hard time with the height originally, looking
at the picture helped a lot.
• She appreciates the proposed changes and hopes they will make a big difference in how
it looks and make the setback look more appealing.
Keen:
• He's also concerned with the setback.
• In regards to condition #73, SLO County Sanitation District is in the process of imposing
fees to rebuild a trunk line from the City to the County.
• On condition #107, he agrees that probably the best way is the connection to Camino
Mercado.
• The plan check fees can be straightened out at staff level.
• In regards to the mitigation measure, it's close to getting done and shouldn't be an issue,
but they can request that Council not hold them to that.
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve the
project with the following conditions:
Page 11 of 14
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 2005
Discussion: Commissioner Tait commented that he couldn't agree with condition #4 (regarding
water). Will this go forward with our comments regarding water, setbacks and other changes?
Yes, but it's not part of the resolution unless you make specific conditions part of the approval.
Commissioner Parker stated she would like to have their concerns stand out (not just be part of
the minutes). Vice Chair Keen suggested an instruction to staff to notify Council of specific
concerns.
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve the
project as presented, and to instruct staff to forward specific concerns to Council:
RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1965
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO.
05 -008, TO REZONE THE 2.68 ACRE SITE FROM OFFICE MIXED USE (OMU) TO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1.1 (P.D. -1.1); APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 05-
003, TO CREATE TWO PARCELS; AND APPROVE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04 -009, ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A HOTEL AND RESTAURANT; LOCATED AT 1400 WEST BRANCH STREET,
APPLIED FOR BY STEPHEN COOL AND GARY WHITE
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Parker, Tait and Vice Chair Keen
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chair Brown
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17 day of May 2005.
Specific concerns to be forwarded to City Council are:
1. Water concerns
2. Their request that the upper floors be set back
3. Oak tree concerns: #3 should be preserved where it is. #4 and #5 can go. #6 and #7
should be transplanted next to #12. #12 should be kept where it is.
4. Concerns with architectural detail: the tower element closest to the restaurant is okay,
but should come down 10' or so.
5. Mitigation Measure #19 should be changed to replacement trees being minimums of 5'
or 6' box, instead of 24" box.
6. The concerns previously expressed by City Council (water, setbacks, architectural
detailing, etc.) are shared by the Planning Commission.
IV.
C. PROPOSED 2005 -07 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP), PUBLIC WORKS,
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Associate Engineer, Mike Lynn, was present to answer questions. He did not present a staff
report due to the late hour. No public was present in the audience for public input.
Commissioner comments:
Tait:
• He reviewed the CIP and in his opinion, it does follow the General Plan. Mr. Linn added
there are no major building projects proposed - mostly maintenance. Everything is based
Page 12 of 14
1
1
1
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 2005
on master plans like the Pavement Management Plan, so it should follow the City's written
priorities.
Fellows:
• He stated that he relies on staff's expertise and suggested that sidewalks on Crown Hill be
considered.
Parker:
• There was an article in the Tribune stating the City is running short of money. Does that
affect this CIP? Will the City be able to continue all the projects, and what will be stopped
if they can't? Mr. Linn replied that Finance Director Angela Pillow makes revenue
projections based on tax revenue, but there are a lot of different funding sources for CIP
projects. Some may not be completed if based on State funding, due to the California
budget. However, if they don't continue maintenance now, it will have to be done at some
point in the future, at which time it may be even more expensive. For instance, instead of
just doing slurry seals, they might have to do overlays. This is a major concern of the City
Manager.
• What projects might not fall under the General Plan? Mike Linn replied that all the master
plans were done with the General Plan goals in mind, so they should follow it.
Keen:
• Project 5411 (parking lot for the Police Department) — Does that zoning need to be
changed to Public Facility (PF)? Mr. Strong replied yes, it will need to be changed.
• In regards to funding for the project on Oak Park and West Branch, is $25,000 the total or
is that how much each of the three cities will contribute (for a total of $75,000)? Mr. Linn
replied he believed it's an amount per City, but would have to double check.
• He's been through the rest of the CIP and has no problems with it. He's satisfied that it
meets code.
• He agreed with Commissioner Fellows that at some point, sidewalks on Crown Hill for the
students walking to and from school need to be considered.
Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows to approve the CIP
as presented.
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Parker, Fellows, Tait and Vice Chair Keen
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chair Brown
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17 day of May 2005.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS:
Commissioner Parker requested wording be added to the agenda for the Chair to read at the
beginning of each meeting to remind members of the audience to turn off their cell phones.
Commissioner Fellows requested followup on what he considered the illegal Ford sale signs
posted citywide last weekend. Mr. Strong replied that he would speak with Mike Mullahey.
Commissioner Fellows requested an update on the status of scoping for Cherry Creek
environmental and biological studies. Mr. Devens answered that Associate Planner Kelly
Page 13 of 14
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 2005
Heffernon would better be able to answer that question and she would be available in the office
tomorrow.
VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None.
VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR June 7, 2005 MEETING: No comments.
IX. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. to a special
meeting on May 31, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. (mainly to discuss the two non - public hearing items not
heard tonight.)
ATTEST:
egol
KATHY M DOZA
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
�4S TO C • j TE T:
M/Mki law
R • r TRON ,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
(Minutes approved at the PC meeting of May 31, 2005)
N KEE E CHAIR
Page 14 of 14
1
1
1