Loading...
PC Minutes 2005-01-041 1 1 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 4, 2005 - 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Keen and Tait; Staff members in attendance were Associate Planner, McClish, Assistant Planners Bergman and Foster. Commissioner Brown welcomed the two new planning Commissioners: Commissioner Tait and Parker. Commissioner Brown requested Commissioner Fowler be thanked for her services as the Commission had not had a chance to say goodbye. Mr. Strong said this would be taken care of and that City Council recognition was also probable. AGENDA REVIEW: There were no requested changes to the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve the minutes of December 7, 2004 with no corrections; the motion was approved by a 2/0 voice vote, Commissioners Parker and Tait abstaining due to not being installed at this specific meeting. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Additional Consent Agenda, Minor Exception 04 -009, 420 Canyon Way, to allow a 6% increase over the maximum allowed square- footage for a new secondary unit. 2. Mr. Strong stated a letter was received from the State HCD notifying the City that the Housing Element will be approved after adoption by the Commission and City Council and resubmit it to HCD for certification. 6:15 pm: Commissioner Parker arrived. II. A. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE DECEMBER 7, 2004, SUBJECT 10 -DAY APPEAL 1. PPR 04 -019, M. Jewell, 104 W. Branch Street. 2. PPR 04 -017, Lucia Mar School District, 602 Orchard St. 3. MEX 04 -009, 420 Canyon Way. The Commission approved the Consent Items subject to 10 -day appeal. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 4, 2005 III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04 -006; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE (Continued from Dec 7, 2004). Ms. McClish presented the staff report to consider a clean -up ordinance to correct and clarify zoning designations for certain properties that were included in districts recently revised (part of a comprehensive update to the Development Code) to ensure consistency with the 2001 General Plan. Districts that were recently revised included all of the commercial and mixed use districts in the City. The Commission asked for clarifications on the zone changes, but had no concerns; they thanked staff for all their hard work on the Development Code Amendments. Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing, and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to recommend that the City Council adopt Development Code Amendment 04 -006 to amend the Zoning Map and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1947 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04 -006 RELATING TO MISCELLANEOUS CLEAN -UP REVISIONS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTIES FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Parker, Brown and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4th day of January 2005. PAGE 2 B. PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 04 -009; APPLICANT — WAL -MART STORES, INC; LOCATION — 1168 WEST BRANCH STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. Mr. Bergman presented the staff report to review the addition of a walk -in freezer and cooler to the rear of WaI -Mart (inside the screened loading /storage area, built by WalMart to aleviate neighborhood complaints) explaining that at the December 7, 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission requested Plot Plan Review 04 -009 be scheduled for Public Hearing at the January 4, 2005 meeting. Staff reviewed the proposed 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 4, 2005 PAGE 3 addition and the areas of possible impact: 1) function of current exterior facilities for the outdoor processing of merchandise; 2) exterior screening and mitigation of noise; and 3) compliance with Municipal Code Section 16.52.220 (limitations on the sale of non- taxable items in retail stores in excess of ninety thousand square feet). The installation of a walk -in cooler and freezer would allow expanded sales of perishable food items within the store; staff is concerned about reducing the usable portions of the screened area for this purpose. However, after review of all other freezer sites it is staffs opinion that the proposed location appears to be most aesthetically benign and functional, although this would come at the expense of using 420 sq. ft. of the screened loading /storagearea. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that conditions for approval will include: 1. Screening of additional rooftop equipment to match existing rooftop scructures. 2. The requirement that the design and operation of equipment and enclosures fully comply with noise standards prescribed by the Municipal Code. Mr. Bergman explained that in staffs opinion, Section 15.52.220 of the Municipal Code restricting the ability of large retail stores to sell nontaxable items does not apply. After staff review and receiving information from WalMart re the applicable and excluded floor area, it was calculated that the total floor area devoted to sales was 89,609 sq ft. Staff believes that the floor plan matches the existing building, but precise confirmation of the built area to a square foot level would require substantial time and outside expertise. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that staff estimates the total floor area of the proposed food section is approximately 3% of the total sales area: Staff recommends approval of the Resolution for the Plot Plan Review including conditions. Commission questions and discussion ensued: Tait: • Concern on reducing the usable square footage of the screened loading /storage area. Mr. Bergman stated that the applicant can use this screened area and to date have not violated it, but do understand the possibility of this happening. • Concern with noise levels on roof top equipment and asked for clarification on measurement of noise. Mr. Bergman stated WalMart is willing to mitigate to get noise down and they would not get approval if noise level is not compliant. • Concern with the amount of total square footage of sales area stated and suggested this be measured more specifically. Mr. Strong explained that use of this area would be considered storage and would not be adding to the sales area; the Commission could ask for independent analysis by applicant if this is a critical area for them (staff could spot check, but would not have time to do a detailed check). • Concern if measurements included exterior wall area. The definition of maximum floor area was established by Council and could be reconfirmed by them. • Concern with how much of the sales were devoted to nontaxable items and if there was anything in an agreement with WalMart on this. Mr. Strong said there was not and believed this would be difficult to do. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 4, 2005 Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 4 • Concern that WalMart would expand the use of the outside garden center. Mr. Strong explained that since the Development Code amendments have now been adopted, all stores using outdoor sales area will be notified of the requirement to apply for a Conditional Use Permit including WalMart. Parker: • Concern with noise and would there be a way to test this equipment before being set up. Mr. Strong explained that if it was too noisy it would have to be mitigated as it is a requirement for them to comply with the noise ordinance. • Asked for clarification of whether the screening wall was for loading /unloading and not for long term storage. Mr. Strong explained that it would be used for loading /unloading and noise from the machinery; there was always storage in this outdoor area. The City would follow up on any complaints of long -term storage outside of the walled area which would not be allowed. • Concern with use permit for garden area; restated past history and that a revious request for this had been turned down; asked for clarification on present allowances. Mr. Strong said this would be the subject of a future public hearing after notification of all stores of the outside sales area requirement for a conditional use permit. In reply to a question from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Bergman stated the walk in freezer space may or may not add nontaxable items inside the sales area and asked the applicant to explain. Scott Pierce, representative for WalMart; clarified square footage calculations, stated that a third party professional could go back in and calculate the store; explained that freezer units on the sales floor would be displacing other display space and would contain only prepacked goods; stated this is not a super center. Commissioner Brown stated that WalMart was using exempt space to increase non- taxable items within the store. Mr. Pierce said that the code exceptions exclude storage in the total square footage. Mr. Pierce re noise: Previous tests showed less than 60 decibals at 60 feet from the unit, not including the screening wall; they had recently installed a new unit in the Paso Robles store and could take readings from that unit; if it was still too high acoustic materials could be added to screen the structure. Mr. Pierce stated that the storage function of the freezer /cooler behind the screen wall would be to supply interior cases in the store; other locations would be less functional. Keen: • Asked how much nontaxable space WalMart was using now? Mr. Pierce said he did not know the existing percentage, but the freezer units may increase this. 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 4, 2005 PAGE 5 In reply to questions from Commissioner Parker, Mr. Pierce stated that WalMart has first right of refusal (lease rights) on the vacant lot next to WalMart; they did not place the freezer /cooler units within the footprint (normally would be in the stockroom) because it was already smaller than typical and reduction would impact the store too much. Ray Abdunnur, 955 Via Las Aguilar, stated WalMart does not adequately manage the screened area now; there is a semi trailer in the parking lot that changes now and again; the screened area has eliminated a lot of the noise; the store manager says he has no control over trash pickup; suggested the rooftop refridgeration unit be put up toward front of store to reduce potential for affecting residential. Mr. Pierce stated he understood the concerns: trash pickup is not always easy to control; WalMart does want to work with neighbors; they want to make sure the freezer and cooler blend in with the look of the store and roof equipment would be encased. WalMart has some off site storage. Upon hearing no further public comment, Vice Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Commission Comments: Keen: • Concern re non - taxable space and reduced income for the City; would like to know how much it is presently. • Outside is the best place for the freezer and cooler units. • Suggest some of the display racks should be stored off -site • Need to work with storage in screened off area or will have to do offsite. • Could approve if they comply with noise levels. Parker: • Screened area should be better managed: Looks like an extension of the storage area and is a nuisance. • Testing the noise level of equipment in Paso Robles store is a good idea. • Nontaxable food items is a concern, had not been in the store so had no idea of amount of sales items. • The garden area is an issue and needs to be revisited. • In prior years the footprint issue of the WalMart store was controversial with the community; gave the history of how the square footage was agreed upon. • WalMart will have to work out the issue of the storage and freezer placement without using more space. Tait: • The noise issue must be complied with; especially the roof top compressor. • Sympathize with neighbors on noise issue and storage issue. • Would like precise confirmation on the total area devoted to sales. • Concern with the calculations for the garden area and if it should be included as it seems to be growing. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 4, 2005 Brown: • Do not think this proposal fits in with why the screen wall was built and neighbors concerns should be considered. • Seems to be a contradiction on the way the calculations have been done based on interior and exterior wall space. • If there is only a minimal net gain for nontaxable items why could the trade off not be made within the store; would like independent verification of measurement. • Clarify whether or not the garden section should or should not be included. Commissioner Keen made a motion to recommend to City Council that they adopt the Resolution to approve the Plot Plan Review; there was no second to support the motion. Commissioner Parker made a motion to deny the Resolution. Mr. Strong interceded to explain that the Commission would need to make specific findings to deny the Resolution or could choose one of the alternatives suggested in the staff report. A detailed discussion ensued between Mr. Strong and Commissioner Parker re the original approved footprint and the allowed maximum square footage of 102,500. Commissioner Keen noted that WalMart could make the freezer and cooler freestanding in the screened in area; this would then be storage and would not increase the footprint of the building; requested WalMart to confirm how much nontaxable is in the store now. Commissioner Parker made a motion to continue the item to a date uncertain with the following information to be clarified by WalMart: • The increased square footage of the footprint with the addition of the freezer and cooler unit. • Whether the addition of the outdoor garden center should be used in the calculation of the 90,000 square feet of usable sales area, and after this • The calculation of the entire sales area to be used for the purpose of usable square footage for nontaxable items. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker,Tait, Brown and Keen NOES: None ABSENT: None PAGE 6 IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW 04 -019; APPLICANT — A.G. SPANISH OAKS, LLC; 1194 MAPLE STREET, 175 & 181 SOUTH ELM STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster. Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report to redevelop 1.1 acres into an eleven -lot planned unit development. The proposed project would have a density equal to ten dwelling units /acre and would include a 10% density bonus and one unit 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 4, 2005 affordable /deed restricted; would deviate from the minimum required setbacks for MF zoning; is deficient in number of guest parking spaces. The Commission had questions and generally favorable comments on this proposal. The main concerns addressed the guest parking and driveways and usable open space. There was no formal action on this item. There was no formal action on this item. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None PAGE 7 B. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW 04 -017; APPLICANT — PAUL POIRIER; LOCATION — 911 RANCHO PARKWAY. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster. Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report for amendments to Five Cities Center Conditional Use Permit to revise building pad 'I'. The revisions would include: • Change from one 36,000 sq. ft. building to two smaller buildings totaling 33,200 sq. ft; • Alteration of the existing parking lot and internal circulation; and • Amendment to the Five Cities Planned Sign Program. The applicant Paul Porier and the architect Joel Jennings gave a presentation of the proposal. The Commission stated their approval of the landscaping; concern with the lack of parking near Trader Joes. Commissioner Parker stated she had done a survey with some of the other businesses in this center and believed there would be insufficient parking for Petco customers. There was disagreement with some of the proposed freeway signage for Petco and concern for the intent of the original Five Cities Planned Sign Program. Seeing some members of the public present, Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. Ruth Jessop, neighbor, stated liked the proposal, but had grave concern with the traffic situation; like the idea of a signal; concern with Trader Joes employees being present at 3:00 am, Upon hearing no further public comment, Vice Chair Brown closed the public hearing to public comment. Upon conclusion of Commission comments, Vice Chair Brown ensured that the applicant had received sufficient comment. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 4, 2005 VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Wells Fargo CUP (building J) will be returning to Council January 25 with the results of the traffic study done by the consultants; recommended mitigations may be referred back to the Commission. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR JANUARY 18, 2005 MEETING: No discussion. Commissioner Brown may be absent or late to this meeting. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Keen seconded by Commissioner Parker. ATTEST: ALL- LYN REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTE ROB ST O • , \ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT D ECTOR Approved at PC meeting of 1/18/05) PAGE 8 TIM BROWN, VICE CHAIR