Loading...
PC Minutes 2005-04-19AGENDA REVIEW: No Changes. MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 6:00 P.M. — 10:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows, Keen, Parker and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planners Ryan Foster and Jim Bergman and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of March 15, 2005 were approved on a motion by Commissioner Fellows, seconded by Commissioner Parker, with Commissioner Parker submitting a request for the following changes (in italics) on Page 9 of the draft minutes: 1. Traffic Report: Traffic is already a problem at the East Cherry and Traffic Way intersection, esp. with regards to left turn onto Traffic from E. Cherry (see study provided). According to the Traffic Study, this project will not be adding that much to make it worse; the City should address the current traffic issues at the Traffic Way E. Cherry intersection. 2. Agricultural Resources: remove wording at end of paragraph "to the structures ". 3. Hazards: remove wording at end of paragraph "is changed a little ". 4. Transportation: remove word "absolutely ". 5. Land Use: Ag. 1 -1, of the 2001 General Plan, identifies this property as prime soils (and a natural resource along with oak trees) and is classified as prime farmland, class II soils; once houses are built on prime soils, it does not require it to be turned back to agriculture, but this property falls under every criteria that the General Plan has set up for saving Prime Soils. As it now reads, must either go to City Council for clarification of intent, and possible amendment; or have a full EIR in which case it would need an overriding consideration from City Council to go forward. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Parker, Keen, Tait and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None The minutes of the special meeting of April 4, 2005 were approved on a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Tait. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Tait, Fellows, Parker and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None The minutes of April 5, 2005 were moved to be considered at the next meeting, with Commissioner Parker requesting clarification of language on page 3, paragraph 7. C ase No. z , 'Appt. Address Descriptio Action Elanne 1. TUP 05 -005 769 Branch Mill Rd. Temporary habitation of 2 recreation vehicles. A J. Bergman 2. TUP 05 -007 651 Mulberry Lane Temporary habitation of a recreation vehicle & placement of storage container. A J. Bergman 3. PPR 05 -004 135 Whiteley Construction of a 2 -story home from top of creek bank. A J. Bergman 4. VSR 05 -006 135 Whiteley Viewshed review of three 2 -story homes. A J. Bergman 5. ARC 05 -003 & 135 Whiteley Architectural review of two 2 -story homes. A J. Bergman 05 -004 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 Commissioner Fellows stated he appreciated staffs care with the minutes; he would like staff and applicants to address requests that the Commission had made in previous minutes. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter dated 4/19/05 from Jon Olsen, re item III.B. The Harvest Bible Fellowship. PAGE 2 II. A. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE APRIL 5, 2005 Commissioner Parker requested that consent items 3, 4 & 5 be pulled. Commissioner Keen requested consent items 1 & 2 be pulled. Commissioner Keen, items 1 & 2, asked staff for an interpretation of what "temporary" means in these specific cases. Mr. Strong stated that this type of temporary use is usually linked to a building permit and should not extend beyond a two - year period. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve consent Items 1 & 2. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Parker, Fellows, Tait and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Parker stated due to the nature of consent items 3, 4 & 5, and the fact that that one of these is under a Negative Declaration, they should not be consent items; they should be open to public review; more information and time for review is needed. Chair Brown and Commissioner Tait agreed with Commissioner Parker. Commissioner Keen thought that items 3 & 4 could be approved on the consent agenda, but if it was the wish of the majority of the Commission then he could agree that 3, 4 & 5 consent items go to public hearing. 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to schedule consent items 3, 4 & 5 to a public hearing, date uncertain. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker,Tait, Fellows, Keen and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: PAGE 3 A. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04 -004; APPLICANT — DB & M PROPERTIES, LLC; LOCATION — 415 EAST BRANCH STREET (continued from April 4, 2005 meeting). Associate Planner, Ms. Heffernon, gave a brief update of the proposal for the mixed use development; stated that the Commission had previously considered this at a special hearing on April 4, 2005; stated that site access, stop sign warrant analyses (conducted by Associated Traffic Engineers) and retention of the loading dock on the east side of the warehouse were discussed at the meeting. Ms. Heffernon further discussed water supply, stating that measures had already been included in the EIR addendum; the level of significance may have to be changed from significant and unavoidable to potentially significant but mitigable; adoption of overriding considerations is therefore not necessary. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends the Commission adopt a Resolution recommending approval of the project to the City Council subject to Conditions of Approval. Commission Comments: Keen: • He was ready to move forward with approval of this project. • He would like to add a mitigation that all the drives on Crown Terrace be sloped down toward the street for safety. • Agreed with the four -way stop. • The 25 - foot setback should be clarified with subdivision; there seems to be conflict with the requirements for other projects. • The gate between the commercial and residential should be an access for emergency vehicles only and not a through gate. Parker: • Is in favor of reducing parking in the commercial area in order to retain the portion of the historical barn and the square footage of the 2 building. • The creek walk/access to the park should be retained; the City should maintain the park; it should be opened up and made larger (by losing one of the units). • Commercial and residential parking should be open; visitor parking could be signed; remove the gate to make parking more accessible to the duplexes. • Cannot understand what the building materials would look like from the drawings; would like them to match the barn and look more historic; not in favor of corrugated metal painted green (needs to look more rustic); ARC may have ideas; not in favor of stucco, it's too modern. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 PAGE 4 • The design of the 3 -story duplexes is very innovative; likes the density; has concern that the 3 -story may look large; would like each duplex to look individual to lesson the impact. • There is already a problem in this area with the traffic; mitigations may improve it. • Putting in a sidewalk and railing for the pedestrian walkway may make it better; concern with safety of backing out onto Crown Terrace and putting in sidewalk along a narrow of 24 feet; not sure how this will work and concern that it will be a problem. • The duplexes are very large; suggest the square footage be reduced to allow more green space and this in turn could eliminate some other problems and make them more affordable. Fellows: • Asked if the sketch submitted by Mr. Balgeman had been considered by staff. • The site is a good place for homes and makes a walkable community; the proposed commercial development would help with sales tax revenue also. • The Crown Terrace sidewalk is badly needed; the proposed four -way stop is needed and the proposed curb should be squared up for safety. • There are negative impacts for the neighbors on Crown Hill due to the size of project, the number of units proposed and the serious circulation problems as proposed - one entrance and exit only at a snarled up corner. • The gate was proposed to stop people form driving through the commercial area out onto LePoint Street; he could not support the circulation as it was now. • Pedestrians should have a place to walk separate from the driveway; suggested a pathway between the barn and Maud's house and a raised textured walkway from the residential units and out along the pathway to the sidewalk. • If this project were approved as proposed the result in traffic snarl would be ridiculous and unacceptable. • If egress (exit through the Hayes property) is not obtained and if an easement for foot traffic is not worked out, the project should be started from square one with a much reduced plan for the front and rear phases; if the egress is obtained the project should be modified with no more than 20 residential units; 8,000 sq ft of commercial; a lower street front profile. This may mean no third story units and no second level parking units on Crown Terrace; the project needs a card key gate between the commercial and residential; ingress near the present barn with angled parking with access out the back; a safe walkway from the residential areas; the rear portion of the barn and the loading dock retained; garden area between Hilde's house and old stone wall left as is and because of the amount of asphalt, etc. there should be one or more retention basins /biological filters to treat water before it runs off into the creek. • If he is overruled and there are homes on Crown Terrace there should be no backing out; hammerhead driveways are the only way to go. • If the neighbors above do not want street lights, they should be an option. • If there is a 2 -story parking garage the roof should not be open. • A scale model of the project is required. • A left turn pocket does not in any way mitigate the loss of egress through the Hayes property. • The circulation is unacceptable. 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 PAGE 5 Tait: • This project can achieve goals of the City, provide housing options and create walkable neighborhoods and expand transportation choices. It reduces land consumption; likes proximity to Village and enhances community; supports Village shops; connects people with places. • He has serious concern with potential flooding even though this has been addressed in the EIR; he had spoken to Gorden Bennett who gave him history of flooding in the Village who said that the Tally Ho Creek should be cleared out. • He read excerpts from the DEIR by Duffy & Assoc. which stressed the potential for flooding in the area of the project site; read excerpts from mitigation measures for the Town Center EIR (a proposal on the same site in 1980); he would like to get an update on these concerns. • As requested in the April 4, Planning Commission minutes, who is going to take care of the creek clean up. The EIR does not specify this. • The removal of any part of the structure of the historic barn should not take place. • Could not support the removal of the back loading dock to provide additional parking. • There have been more than twenty public comment letters received regarding concerns with traffic, driveway backing out onto Crown Terrace and pedestrian safety — he shares these concerns. • The proposed yellow curb for commercial deliveries would take away from street parking for the other businesses. • The project may be too dense if delivery trucks cannot get into the project to deliver; he hopes there is room for emergency vehicles. • Concern about the loss of open space and recreational amenities that were included in the original project and the opportunity for enhancement of the Tally Ho Creek is reduced due to the sale of the existing office property. • He recommended: Reduce the residential buildings in Plan 'A' by one (decreasing the number of driveways on Crown Hill); reduce number of buildings in Plan 'B' by one, this would help accommodate the large delivery trucks and would provide for expansion of the creek area located at top of creek. • A scale model is definitely needed before going to City Council. Brown: • He would like to see the Commissioner's diverse points of view reflected in detail in the minutes for City Council. • Read the four findings required for approval of the project; he could not make finding No. 3, regarding historic resources due to the proposed alteration of the back portion of the barn to provide parking spaces. • He agreed with Commissioner Keen's comments regarding the driveway slopes. • There should be no gate; this should be a relief route for pedestrians; there should be a "look- back" provision of 6 months to one year; if not successful, a gate could then be put in. • Agrees with the suggestion from Commissioner Parker to reduce the retail space for parking. • Agrees with possibility of reducing future uses of the barn to preserve parking spaces lost by preserving the barn. • Access to the creek is an important issue. • A model of the project should be required to provide a level of comfort for the public, Commission and Council. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 PAGE 6 • Density: 3- stories is acceptable, but smaller units would make them more affordable. • The retaining walls should be dealt with by staff before going to Council. • Circulation: The developer has made a problem by not having an access agreement before selling the property next door; he was leaning toward approval of the project because it would have less traffic than if it was a completely retail project; there is already a traffic problem in this area. • He agreed with Commissioner Fellows regarding the stone garden wall, the side walks on north side of LePoint and the street lights; he was not sure if the left turn pocket lane would solve the problem and the "keep clear" signage should be included. • He understands the neighbor's concerns with this project, but there will be a project at this site regardless, and while circulation is an issue he was likely to vote in favor of the project if the right motion could be crafted. • He would like to see a recommendation to Council regarding creek clean up, flooding and good language to take care of the 100 -year flood level. Commissioner Tait asked Mr. Devens if an analysis had been done on the culvert, as recommended in the 2002 DEIR. Mr. Devens stated there is a study being done, currently being reviewed, for a property owner on the corner of Le Point and carried all the way down to East Branch Street. Mr. Strong explained that flooding is evident on the property; it is addressed in the EIR and it is mandatory that the new development be protected from flooding or it would not be permitted; it is a Federal requirement and is in the Code. Commissioner Keen stated that it was not the responsibility of the Commission to design the project; the Commission should either deny or approve the project. Commissioner Fellows stated he would be more comfortable with a denial of this project as trying to craft a motion to include every concern could leave something important out. After further Commission discussion, (on how they should move forward) Chair Brown stated that as the project is currently proposed a majority of the Commission have enough concerns that one or more of the findings cannot be met; he would like to see the project move forward in some positive manner; he asked the applicant if he would like to comment. Joe Boud, the applicant's representative: • This proposal has been before all committees for over a year with pre - application review to gain insight and make adjustments. • He is fine with the suggestion of sloping the drives down; losing the gate; minor adjustments to the building materials, even though the ARC has already recommended approval of this project as submitted. • Traffic: The conclusions from the traffic study indicated the LOS was not going to be affected; there were no major traffic problems except during school rush hour. • Having a walkway between the Barn and Maud's house is a good idea. • Crown Terrace: 24 -foot street width is equal to two travel lanes. 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 Tait: PAGE 7 • Unit max count and square footage: We meet the City's zoning code and the project was designed with this in mind. • Regarding the Toss of the 6 parking spaces and the barn, the applicant would agree to retain the barn in it's entirety if the Commission would be willing to approve a parking reduction if that portion of the barn were to convert to a full retail use; losing square footage on the new commercial building to reduce parking requirements would be a problem. • The size of units is directed by the footprint and the garage on the top level, etc; it would not work to squeeze down the units; he explained all the constraints that had to be considered. • If City can avoid street lights, that would be fine with them. • The creek and flooding: The permitting authorities will take care of this; it is all part of the EIR. • Open space and recreational usage: Approximately 25% of the site is dedicated to open space; they would not be in favor of reducing the units to provide more. • Widening Crown Terrace would require a massive retaining wall and they did not consider this necessary. • They could do a scale model. • He would like the Commission to make a recommendation that includes their concerns. Fellows: • Why do the "out of town" experts state that there will not be a traffic problem at this site even though the traffic experts failed to see the traffic problem at Rancho Grande. Mr. Boud — he could only speak for the traffic report at this development and they have indicated that the LOS would not be negatively affected with this project. • Who is going to do the creek clean up? Mr. Boud — the applicant with the required agency approvals; the creek walkway system if it extends up to Tally Ho could be created for the benefit of the public; could be conditioned to identify this as a desired goal; they believe they have enough open space (25% of the site). • The scale model is definitely needed. Mr. Boud — suggested that the City incorporate this as a requirement into the application process. Parker: • Asked Mr. Boud to clarify if they intended to open up the park for the public. Mr. Boud — if the City would maintain the area and the amenity area included as a credit to the development. • Asked if there was a pedestrian access between the Barn and Maud's Home would they agree to continue the path to the park if the City would maintain it? Mr. Boud — agree this would be a good idea for the City. • Re the design submitted by Mr. Balgeman: How do you plan on putting up guard rails along the driveways and still maintain visual access for backing out. Mr. Boud — it could be done without a solid wall and would meet the building standards. After further discussion the Commission agreed that they were ready to make a motion with some recommendations to Council. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to recommend denial of the proposal based on the inability to make finding #2 that the project will affect public health and safety. Chair Brown asked that the motion be amended to include finding No. 1 (as it is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the City), and finding No. 3 (for historic resources as the applicant is proposing to remove the back portion of the barn). The motion was amended: Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to recommend denial of the proposal based on the inability to make findings No. 1, 2 and 3. Commissioner Parker asked if the motion to deny was based on the findings not being met in the current proposal and that it does not include what the developer is willing to change? She would like a motion to state what the developer is willing to change. Chair Brown stated that the motion to deny was based on the findings in the current proposal. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Tait, Parker and Chair Brown NOES: Commissioner Keen ABSENT: None PAGE 8 Discussion: Chair Brown stated he wanted to make sure that the Council would be aware of all of the issues that the Commission had concerns with. Commissioner Keen asked if more specific detail should be included regarding the findings for denial. Chair Brown added that regarding finding No. 1 he did have some concerns for pedestrian access to the creek, pedestrian recreation area and if the terms of the General Plan are being met by the open space. Commission Fellows stated that he had not made specific mention in finding No. 1 that the lack of bio- filtration of run off water as one of the concerns for public health and taking off the back of the barn (finding 1 & 3). Chair Brown made a motion that the project could meet the findings if the following issues were dealt with: 1. The driveways on Crown Terrace should be level or down sloped to the street. 2. The barn should be preserved in its entirety with net loss of three parking spaces and include a parking reduction for the barn or reduction in the proposed retail space to accommodate the loss of three parking spaces. 3. Provide public access to creek and park open space area. 4. There should be no gate, but have a "look back" provision to reassess after one year. Enough space should be left if it is determined that a gate is necessary at a later date. 5. The building design, height and materials should go back to ARC and Planning Commission before issuance of a building permit.final development. 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 6. There should be further determination and detailed description of any retaining walls along Crown Terrace. 7. The issue of biological creek filters should be included in the staff report to Council 8. A model to scale of the project in its entirety should be presented to Council. 9. The project should be reduced by one unit in Plan 'B" to improve on -site loading and parking. 10. The creek access between the Barn and Maud house should be opened up to provide a pedestrian path out to the sidewalk. Commissioner Tait asked if the Branch Street flood study of the culvert would influence the project? Mr. Devens replied that it is currently under review, but is not for this project. Commissioner Tait asked again about the clean up of the creek and stated his concern. Chair Brown said he would amend the motion to state: "the staff report shall include that some investigation be done as to the process timelines and responsibilities of clean up of the creek ". Commission Parker seconded the motion. PAGE 9 Commissioner Keen stated he agreed that it was very important to clean up the creek, but that he did not think it was the developer's problem and felt instead that it is the City's responsibility. He requested an additional amendment to the motion to include the 4 -way stop and the 3 -way stop be lit and one street light in the middle of Crown Terrace (but not at the same spacing as downtown). Commissioner Parker stated that street lighting for residential areas could be applied to this, not Village commercial lighting. Chair Brown said he would amend the motion to investigate if Crown Terrace could have residential lighting as opposed to commercial Village lighting. Commissioner Fellows questioned the reason for eliminating the gate; Chair Brown stated to make full use of the mixed use design parking, but the "look- back" provision should be included. Commissioner Fellows stated circulation is a huge problem, fewer units will not help, there is lack of a biological filter for drainage to the creek and where Crown Hill stops at Branch Street there should be a crosswalk, with or without the project. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Brown, Commissioners Parker and Tait NOES: Commissioners Keen and Fellows ABSENT: None The Commission took a 10- minute break. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 PAGE 10 9:45 p.m. Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to move Non - Public Hearing item IV.A., Pre - Application for 125 Nelson Street, to a date uncertain. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Brown, Commissioners Tait, Fellows, Keen and Parker NOES: None ABSENT: None B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05 -001; APPLICANT — HARVEST BIBLE FELLOWSHIP; LOCATION —125 W. BRANCH STREET Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report for conversion of "Interiors by Amanda's" to a church use including interim off -site parking (shared private). Mr. Foster stated that a condition had been included that would allow the Commission to review the project in two years when the parking could be readdressed if necessary. Modifications by the applicant to the walkway and stairs in front of the building have had negative feedback so a condition of approval has been added to require project approval to be contingent on ARC approval. In conclusion, Mr. Foster stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution, approving CUP 05 -001. In reply to a question from Chair Brown, Mr. Foster stated that staff had not been aware that modifications were being done to the steps and walkway until they were underway. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Foster stated that the maximum occupancy of the church should not exceed five people for each parking space (parking to be provided either on -site or with an agreement approved through the City); he explained the intent of condition #8 (re review of status of the project within three months after the two -year expiration date of approval). Commissioner Fellows stated concern with Public Works condition #25, re modification of the historic retaining wall for vision safety. Mr. Devens explained the City standard and stated the problem was compounded by a slight jog in the road; the City tried to alleviate the problem by making the eastern driveway ingress and the western driveway egress; they would try to make sure it is continued in this way. In reply to questions from Commissioner Tait, Mr. Foster clarified that the seating capacity for the church is based on parking capacity and Amanda's is based on the building code; no improvements will be made to the parsonage and it will continue to be used for office purposes. In reply to questions from Commissioner Parker, Mr. Foster stated that the 26 parking spaces on -site include the church and offices; the hours of use for the offices do not conflict with the church use; future parking can be provided at the rear of the site and this could provide 20 more parking spaces; he was not sure if the church would have reciprocal access to drive thru behind The Wardrobe, but "right turn only" could be posted at the driveway (exit onto West Branch). Chair Brown opened the public hearing to public comment. 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 PAGE 11 Craig Smith, agent for the applicant: • The congregation had been unaware that they needed approval from the City to make the modifications to the concrete steps and walkway; they are willing to make whatever changes the ARC will require. • Requested the Planning Commission give the building consideration for recognition of historical value and this may also help them to deal with certain improvements; • Exhibit A, page 4, No. 8: He would like the wording to state, "the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing to review the status of the project within three months after the two year expiration date of approval ". • Building & Fire Department conditions: They would like to have an estimate of the range of impact fees for conditions Nos.18, 19 and 21. • Public Works conditions, page 5: Re condition No. 25, he also has concerns with modifying the historical wall; suggested this go to ARC. • Parking, Exhibit A, item 7, change language to state: "the applicant shall improve the rear portion of the property located at 124 W. Branch Street to accommodate an additional 20 parking spaces, he would like to add language "...in the event the adjacent shared parking situation should change." In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker, Steve Henry, representative, stated that all the owners of the businesses are 100% in favor of the proposed changes; they had not approached them specifically about access; they would be willing to have a "no left hand turn" out of the property if it would improve the traffic. In reply to questions from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Smith stated that the ADA would be in compliance with State regulations and may not require a ramp; they were not aware of the cost for fire hydrants and fire sprinklers, but the occupancy of the building is being changed and will require fire sprinkling; the building will also be siezmically updated structurally, but there will be no improvements on the exterior. In reply to a question from Commission Tait, Mr. Smith said they would be obligated to provide additional parking spaces if a new business replaced The Wardrobe (and needed parking on Sundays). In reply to a comment from Commissioner Keen, Mr. Smith stated that they needed an estimate on the fees for condition nos. 18, 19 and 21 for budget purposes. In reply to a question from Chair Brown, Mr. Strong stated that regarding the waiving of impact fees the Council has had a policy to accommodate non - profits; they could request a waiver or reduction of fees, but then the public would have to pick up the fees. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Smith stated that owners of Amanda's are contributing 50% toward the cost of improvements. Susan Flores, 529 E. Branch Street, would like to see a parking agreement worked out for access through the back of Amanda's to the Village Centre; this would give more than ample parking for the church (businesses are closed on Sundays). Benjamin Hall, 529 Crown Hill, spoke in favor of the project. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 Chair Brown closed the public hearing to public comment. PAGE 12 Gary Scherquist, 228 Short Street, ARC member speaking as a citizen, stated he was interested in historic preservation; is in support of the building being used again as a church; has concerns with the conditions of approval that may affect the building; the proposal should be reviewed by ARC; he would like the project architect to refer to the National Park Service Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of buildings; installing sprinkler systems, if done incorrectly, can destroy historical elements inside.the building. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Scherquist explained that the City would have to have an historical ordinance in place and a survey of historical buildings done to be recognized as an historic building (in order to address the lowering of the stone wall). In reply to a question from Chair Brown, Mr. Foster stated that the hours of operation are not part of the conditions, but are in the staff report; they can be added to the conditions. Commission comments: Fellows: • There are plenty of parking spaces behind the Village Centre so he hopes that people do not park on the street. • There has already been damage done to the historicity of the building that he hopes will be corrected. • Lowering of the historic wall a foot has to be corrected. • He would like the applicant's request for an estimate of fees to be addressed. Tait: • Thanked the applicant for their good presentation and willingness to have the ARC review the modifications. • The Village will benefit from bringing the church back. • The historic significance of the building should be looked at. • It is an excellent project and he has no problems with it. Keen: • He was ready to approve the proposal. Parker: • Agreed with the other Commissioners Comments. • Has concerns with the left hand turn and parking on the street, but thinks that the applicant can take care of this and the Planning Commission can take care of condition No. 7, regarding improvements to parking (after 2 years). • The one space mentioned by Susan Flores, that was to remain accessible, but never was opened is not acceptable. Mr. Strong explained that the Village Centre was conditioned to provide access to Amanda's and properties to the east; there is no driveway connecting; it would take substantial modification to the Lopez water line and construction of a driveway to connect to the Centre for alternative access; it would be desireable, but to add this to the project would add very much to the expense and there is off -site parking for a current solution; in future the issue may be revisited for traffic safety reasons. Fellows: • This is a tree City and requested they not touch the Cedar tree, not prune it or cut it. 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 RESOLUTION 05 -1961 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05 -001; LOCATED AT 124 WEST BRANCH STREET; APPLIED FOR BY HARVEST BIBLE FELLOWSHIP The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Fellows, Parker, Tait and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None PAGE 13 Brown: • Agreed with the language modification on condition No. 7. • He suggested the applicant approach Council for relief on impact fees if it becomes a hardship. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows, to approve CUP 05 -001 with the following requests: 1. Contingent upon ARC review 2. Approval of modifications to condition No. 7. 3. Delete condition No. 25, unless it effects health and safety. 4. No left hand turn out of the driveway. 5. With the addition of proposed hours of operation and adopt: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19 day of April 2005. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05 -002; APPLICANT — KRISTIANE SCHMIDT; LOCATION —118 MASON STREET Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report for a veterinary clinic (Ophalmology) in an existing building with no exterior changes proposed. Mr. Foster stated that the applicant had submitted a request for relief of certain conditions because they were moving into an existing building. In conclusion, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve CUP 05 -002 and adopt the Resolution. Commission questions: Keen: • He had just received the letter from the applicant so there was no time to investigate; he had a problem to arbitrarily approve the requests. Parker: • Why are conditions being placed on the applicant if no modifications are being made to the building? Mr. Devens — the conditions can be waived at Commission discretion, but within State code the City can require the applicant to pay for the requirements. • Harden Street — is this an actual street? Mr. Devens — at this time it does look more like a private drive, but it is a public street. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 PAGE 14 Fellows: • Asked for clarification on waivers for the requested items. Mr. Devens — it is rare that we get such a minor project subject to these requirements, but it is at the Commission's discretion. Chair Brown opened the public hearing to public comment. Kristiane Schmidt, applicant, stated that they do not intend to change anything in the building as they wish to preserve it as it is and would like to try to preserve the historical value of the property, even foliage and landscape; their goal was to move into it just as is; they will do ADA requirements; they were just changing the use. Commissioner Parker asked for clarification on the ADA access and parking. Ms. Schmidt clarified where this would be and stated that it would have to be marked ADA. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Ms. Schmidt stated that they will own the building and also work in it; she hopes the ADA ramp can stay where it is. Chair Brown closed the public hearing to public comment. Commission comments: Keen: • He had no problem with the use; he had a concern with waiving the transmission lines into the building; the sidewalk and gutter in front of the building should be repaired; did not think the cross gutter for the wheelchair ramp is necessary. Tait: • Waive item Nos. 2 & 3 of the applicant's letter; work with the applicant on waiver request No. 1. Fellows: • Not waive No. 1; the applicant has almost exclusive use of Harden Street so No. 2 should not be waived; uncertain about waiving No.3. Parker: • No problem with the use at this location; is in favor of waiving No.2 and No. 20; not sure about No. 3. Brown: • Not in favor of waiving No.1; is for waiving No. 2 and 3 (but indicated his concern with the waiving of undergrounding; is willing to waive No. 20. Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen to approve CUP 05- 002 with Public Works condition nos. 20, 21 &22 waived and adopt: RESOLUTION 05 -1962 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05 -002; LOCATED AT 118 NORTH MASON STREET; APPLIED FOR BY KRISTIANE SCHMIDT 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 Commissioner Fellows said he could not vote for motion as there were too many waivers. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Tait, Keen, Parker and Chair Brown NOES: Commissioner Fellows ABSENT: None PAGE 15 10:15 p.m. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait and by a 5/0 voice vote to continue the meeting to 10:30 p.m. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: W.A. PROPOSED 2005 -07 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP), PUBLIC WORKS, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE The Commission agreed that this item should be continued to the next regular meeting of May 3, 2005, to give the Commission time to review the report. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Community Development Director, Rob Strong discussed proposed Council consideration of revision to conditions for Amended Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 05 -001 Parkside /Parkview, (Tract 2310) Farroll Avenue, regarding drainage improvements and maintenance district. In reply to a concern, stated by Commissioner Keen, on the contents of the letter received from the developer, Mr. Strong stated that formation of a maintenance district or the alternative — a HOA, will be addressed by the City Manager and City Council before they are resolved. In reply to a request from Commissioner Parker regarding the pump station, Mr. Strong gave an update on the basins for the City and the methods of pumping for the Tract. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Fellows stated he had asked for information on the "partially finished flooring store" on East Branch Street at the last meeting (April 5, 2005), requested by a Debra Sauerbier and if possible he would like staff to provide this information by the next meeting. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fellows regarding the ag buffer for Cherry Creek, Mr. Devens explained that they would be meeting with the environmental applicant and the engineer for the drainage and will be included in the scope of work. Commissioner Parker stated she and Commissioner Tait had attended the Planning Commission Training session in San Luis Obispo and it was excellent; she thanked staff for all the work they had also contributed; the Commission would like to attend a CEQA class in the future. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR MAY 3, 2005 MEETING: Commissioner Tait said at the next meeting he would be abstaining from voting on one of the items and Commissioner Fellows would be absent. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. ATTEST: LYN REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: • R )/, A( TRON COMMUNITY DEVEL.. PMENT DIRECTOR (Approved at the meeting of May 3, 2005) TIM BRO , CHAIR PAGE 16 1