Loading...
PC Minutes 2004-11-16MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2004 - 6:15 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Guthrie presiding; also present were Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Fowler and Keen. Staff members in attendance were Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planners Ryan Foster and Jim Bergman, and Public Works Associate Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen to approve the October 19, 2004 minutes with no corrections; the motion was approved by a 3/0 voice vote, Commissioners Brown and Fowler abstaining due to absence at the meeting of October 19, 2004. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter from S&S Homes regarding SPA 03-001 (Discussion item at end of meeting). 2. Three dimensional model for Pre -application Case No. 04-018 (Item IV.A.) IIA MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE OCTOBER 19, 2004 SUBJECT TO 10 -DAY APPEAL: On item 1, Commissioner Keen asked if the one trailer would take care of all the construction trades (subcontractors). Ms. Heffernon replied yes, it will be one shared trailer for everyone. On item 2, Commissioner Brown asked if this was where code enforcement was recently performed. Ms. Heffernon replied no, that was also on May Street, but at a different address. Both Minor Use Permits will be approved, if there are no appeals, after a ten-day appeal period. III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04-003 & LOT MERGER CASE NO. 04-001; APPLICANT - OPERATING ENGINEERS UNION, LOCAL 12; LOCATION - FAEH STREET AT HALCYON ROAD. This item continued (2nd continuance) to the meeting of December 7, 2004. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown to continue this item to the meeting of December 7, 2004, on a 5/0 voice vote. Case Nay A I�cant pp„ Adiiress �� D'e n scnptro ner PlanNO 1. TUP 04-026 Courtland- Courtland and E. Construction trailer on-site at A. Bursan Arroyo Grand Ave. Courtland and Grand, while Grande, LP senior apartments being built — approval given from Oct 2004 to Oct 2005. 2. VSR 04-017 Loch 585 May Street Remodel. J. Bergman Soderquist On item 1, Commissioner Keen asked if the one trailer would take care of all the construction trades (subcontractors). Ms. Heffernon replied yes, it will be one shared trailer for everyone. On item 2, Commissioner Brown asked if this was where code enforcement was recently performed. Ms. Heffernon replied no, that was also on May Street, but at a different address. Both Minor Use Permits will be approved, if there are no appeals, after a ten-day appeal period. III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04-003 & LOT MERGER CASE NO. 04-001; APPLICANT - OPERATING ENGINEERS UNION, LOCAL 12; LOCATION - FAEH STREET AT HALCYON ROAD. This item continued (2nd continuance) to the meeting of December 7, 2004. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown to continue this item to the meeting of December 7, 2004, on a 5/0 voice vote. MINUTES PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2004 B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04-006; APPLICANT — SUKHDEV SINGH GILL (GILL'S MARKET); REPRESENTATIVE — Keith Slocum; LOCATION — 1490 E. GRAND AVE. Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report to consider facade improvements to Gill's Market, including canvas awning, fuel island canopy, illuminated monument sign, trash enclosure, landscaping block wall, and removal of a driveway approach. Applicant would pay for the canopy and trash enclsoure. A CDBG fagade grant would provide matching funds for the awning and monument sign. The City would pay for streetscape enhancement (including block wall, landscaping, approach changes, and sidewalks). The pump canopy will be installed above existing pumps, (18' high and 24'x30'). It will be supported by two pillars in split face block to match what's used at the center. The trash enclosure will also be of split face block. Right now there is an exposed dumpster and a wooden structure for selling firewood which will be removed if project is approved. There's a nonconforming lollipop sign currently, which will also be removed. The fagade grant improvement will be for a canvas awning attached to the front of the store and a monument sign at the corner. City improvements to street will include about a 4' landscape transition area and a 3' high block wall to separate pedestrians on sidewalk and vehicles at the pumps. There is an issue of undergrounding utilities (that would cost more than all improvements and probably stop the project.) In 3-4 years, all of Grand Avenue will be undergrounded and applicant would only have to underground the sweep. Also, ARC suggested faux stone veneer to the front of the landscape wall, but that will add to City costs. Commissioner questions: Keen • Does wall go past sign or stop at 6" curb? Mr. Bergman answered the wall will stop where it butts into the monument sign. There is a 6" curb behind. In original plans, the sign was in the vision triangle, so it's been moved over 10'. • Will signage applications come later? Mr. Bergman stated it could be submitted separately as an Administrative Sign Permit or Planned Sign Program. Arnold • Is staff proposing an in lieu fee for utilities? Mr. Bergman answered no, it would be substantial. Mr. Devens said it would be $232/foot, but he hasn't had a chance to measure the length. • He's also concerned with signs on the new fuel station canopy. He's not worried about the new awning and monument, but by approving the canopy, he's concerned that they're allowing additional signage. Brown • He understands cost of undergrounding is prohibitive, but doesn't think faux stone would cost as much, since it's so small. Are there any estimates? Mr. Bergman replied no, but Mr. Strong went to Council with an initial cost estimate, which may have already doubled due to prevailing wages. Guthrie • Is there access from Grand Avenue? Mr. Bergman replied yes, there's a shared access to the end of the wall and people can turn in there to get gas. • What is width of property? Mr. Bergman replied it's just over 100'. Chair Guthrie opened the item for public comment. Keith Slocum, of B&T Service Station Contractors at 520 Alder Street, gave some history on the project. It started with only a new canopy to allow more lighting and increased visibility. Then, it 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2004 PAGE 3 got bigger, with the opportunity to improve the whole corner. Mr. Strong suggested it wouldn't be approved unless concessions were made such as adding the trash enclosure, removing firewood structure, changing signage, etc. He's not sure that with additional requirements, if the canopy would be valuable enough to Mr. Gill, the applicant. Brown • From experience, do you have an idea of cost for the wall? It's 80' long. To only do the top two feet (because of landscaping), it's 160' at $20/foot, so it would cost about $3600. Guthrie Brown What is the applicant's total cost? The canopy is about $15,000 with lights and metal structure. Masonry will be about $8000, because they have to veneer columns and the corners get expensive. The trash enclosure gates and paint will be additional. The fagade enhancement will be about $5000 for green canvas awning and monument sign. It should match Starbuck's across the way. He's trying to talk Mr. Gill into painting the building, which would be a good condition. He shared awning and masonry samples. Whose requirement was the masonry? It was Mr. Strong's idea, for a better chance of success with masonry than with steel columns. What do you normally see on other projects? something to tie in (either stucco or block). Is block cheaper? No, it's about the same cost. cost, as they have to build out the structure. It depends. Most cities are requiring If they use stucco, there's an additional Hearing no further public comment, Chair Guthrie closed the item to public comment. Commission Comments: Keen: • The signs need to be addressed at a different time. • He wouldn't be concerned if the split face block wall was the same on both sides. Faux rock is not that important. The canopy supports do need to be done (in masonry). • Public Works should consider redoing the sidewalk, as it's very cracked. • He's not for relieving the condition of undergrounding utilities. He knows it will stop the project, which he doesn't want to do, but he felt Council should make that decision. It's important not to waive requirements on Grand. This won't be redeveloped again soon, so there won't be another chance to do undergrounding. Council wants to clean up the Gateway and they should spend the money if they want this done. o Mr. Devens restated that undergrounding will be done in 3-5 years. o Commissioner Arnold asked about doing conduit instead of undergrounding. Mr. Devens said it could be cheaper, but it depends on placement, due to ripping up sidewalk or boring. Public Works was going to replace sidewalk, but this is on a shoestring budget. • He had no problem with the canopy. It's really close to the street for this location, but there is room and the setbacks are fine. Arnold Fowler He had some sticker shock on some of the prices, but conduit should be placed and he's opposed to any signs on the fuel station canopy. Columns should be done in stone, but he's not as concerned about the wall. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2004 PAGE 4 This corner needs to be fixed. Especially with the new buildings, she would love to see it improved. Waiting 3-5 years (for undergrounding) to have the whole thing done is not unreasonable, and she would like to see the project go forward. She does not want to lose project over undergrounding. Brown • The City adopted the Grand Ave. Enhancement Plan and they need to keep that in mind. • He agrees with Commissioner Keen on signs. • He thinks undergrounding will eventually get done. Other businesses have begged off that were much larger in scale (example: DeBlauw). • He prefers ARC's suggestion for faux stone on the wall, especially with other beautiful new buildings nearby. Guthrie One concern is that the applicant wanted canopy for greater visibility, so not allowing signage could be a deal -killer. On undergrounding, the problem with the DeBlauw project was they would still have poles left and high voltage wires in the air. He's not inclined to waive undergrounding and would leave that to Council's discretion. He would prefer to require that the building is painted and in -lieu fees paid, than to do undergrounding. Otherwise, there's no point in doing the project. The faux stone is Council's call, since the City will have to pay for it. Keen • He's not totally against signage on the canopy. Other canopies have brand logos, which is a problem since Mr. Gill doesn't have a brand. He just wants to see a proposal before signing off just to make sure it's normal and acceptable. o Chair Guthrie, Commissioners Fowler and Keen agreed. o Arnold wanted no signage. Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to approve Conditional User Permit Case No. 04-006 with the conditions: 1) the building be painted; 2) that he pay an in lieu fee for the utilities; 3) that a sign plan comes back, 4) that faux stone be added to wall and pillars (or if Council won't pay for it, then split face block on both), and adopt: RESOLUTION 04-1940 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 04-006, LOCATED AT 1490 E. GRAND AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY SUKHDEV SINGH GILL The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: Fowler ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of November 2004. MINUTES PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2004 C. VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 04-015; APPLICANT — ROBERT LUSE; LOCATION — 1120 THE PIKE. Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report to consider the Viewshed Review, consisting of a first -story expansion and second -story addition to existing single-family residence. It was decided this item should be brought back for public hearing after being presented as approved at the last meeting. The existing residence is 1392 sf, and the lot is 6600 sf. There are ten (10) two-story homes in the area, and there are no views onto the property from surrounding neighbors. Since it does conform to requirements, staff recommends approval. The staff report contains required findings and Conditions of Approval are in Exhibit A. In response to a question from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Foster replied there are no CC&R's for this neighborhood. In response to a question from Commissioner Arnold, Mr. Foster answered there hasn't been further comment from any neighbors. Chair Guthrie opened the item for public comment. Robert Luse, owner 1120 The Pike, was present to answer questions. Commissioner Keen asked what comments were from the next-door neighbors? Mr. Luse replied that they all approve. Hearing no further public comment Chair Guthrie closed the item to public comment. Commission Comments: Arnold: • Although he's generally opposed to two-story residences in single family neighborhoods, since there are already ten in the near surroundings, it's okay here. Keen: • He had no problem with the project. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to approve Viewshed Review Case No. 04-015 and adopt: RESOLUTION 04-1941 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VIEWSHED REVIEW 04-015; LOCATED AT 1120 THE PIKE; APPLIED FOR BY ROBERT LUSE The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Fowler, Arnold, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None. the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16`h day of November 2004. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2004 PAGE 6 D. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 04-003; APPLICANT — MARK LONDON; LOCATION — BRISCO ROAD AND E. GRAND AVE. John Keen stepped down, as this property adjoins his. Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report to consider the Lot Line Adjustment to consolidate three (3) lots into two (2) lots of 2.74 and 3.43 acres, respectively. The total site is 6.17 acres. Proposed lots would conform to GMU zoning standards for size and width. Staff recommends approval. The required findings have been included in this resolution and Conditions of Approval are in Exhibit A. In answer to a question from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Foster replied yes, this lot line adjustment is being done with a project in mind. Commissioner Arnold asked if all the parcels are owned by the same person? Mr. Foster replied, yes they are. He also asked if there was any possibility of doing a Specific Plan in connection with the Lot Merger. Mr. Foster replied that would depend on if the applicants were willing to do so. A Specific Plan would require separate action by Planning Commission and City Council. Chair Guthrie opened the item for public comment. Mark London, representative, explained the underlying concept of the project they have in mind is to have mixed use — with some residential and some commercial units. They need to do the Lot Line Adjustment to continue with the planning stages. Brown Can you give us some glimpse of what the project will be like? Mr. London answered that they haven't finalized their project and are negotiating with commercial/retail tenants. He cautioned Mr. London about the problem at the nearby Brisco interchange, and suggested they do a Pre -application. Mr. London added that they have completed a traffic study and some environmental studies. Ms. Heffernon stated there is a Pre - application that's been processed, but it's only gone to SAC so far, as the project is still in flux. Hearing no further public comment Chair Guthrie closed the item to public comment. Commission Comments: None. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to approve Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 04-003 and adopt: RESOLUTION 04-1942 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 04-003; LOCATED AT BRISCO ROAD AND EAST GRAND AVENUE; APPLIED FOR BY MARK LONDON MINUTES PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2004 The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold, Fowler, and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Keen the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16`h day of November 2004. E. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NOS. 04-003; APPLICANT — LE POINT INVESTMENTS, LLC; LOCATION - LE POINT AND NEVADA STREETS. Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report and explained that it is a subdivision of a one (1) acre parcel into nine (9) lots, consisting of six (6) single family lots, two (2) mixed-use lots and one (1) common lot. He discussed density, lot size, setbacks, parking, drainage, and inclusionary housing requirements. Staff recommends to deed restrict one of the rental apartments, to accept in lieu fees for the balance, and to adopt the resolution approving the project, including the draft mitigated negative declaration. The required findings are included in the resolution and Conditions of Approval are in Exhibit A. Brown • What is the Fire Department access requirement? Mr. Foster replied that it's an emergency access to the Methodist campground. • He expressed concern over parking reduction. Arnold • He corrected the math on the in -lieu fee for inclusionary housing. • He also asked why they're using 12 units for calculations, when there are only 6 residences. Mr. Foster replied that 3 -bedroom homes are considered 1.5 units. Also, there are three 2 -bedroom apartments. (6x1.5 = 9 + 3 = 12). Keen • Why is there condition #85, requiring the asphalt overlay on LePoint and Nevada Streets? Mr. Devens answered that is to mitigate current poor road conditions. Guthrie • He asked what areas were used (common area, etc.) to calculate lot sizes, because The Brambles were portrayed as 5000 sf, but were really more like 2500 sf. Mr. Foster answered calculations were made based on proposed lot boundaries. Mr. Devens added that The Brambles utilized easements, whereas this project proposes a separate, commonly owned lot. Chair Guthrie opened the item for public comment. Mark Vasquez, of Vasquez & Associates, expressed concern about the change in in -lieu fees. He requested Planning Commission give the applicant an option to either restrict units or pay fees. In regards to parking, there is potential to park the project fully, as there's space for two cars in front of each garage. They have no problems with the conditions, other than the in -lieu fee surprise. He requested clarification on calculations, because with single-family residences, a 3 -bedroom home would count as one unit (not 1.5). With the Housing Element, 9 units is the breakpoint. Overall, they've tried to design a project compatible with the area. Hearing no further public comment Chair Guthrie closed the item to public comment. MINUTES PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Commission Comments: Keen: • He had no problems with conditions or the way this is written, and felt it was fine to give applicant options to pay fees or include affordable units. Arnold: • This is a great project, and it's unfortunate about the miscalculation. He felt the apartment should be restricted to low or very low (instead of moderate). He also is fine with giving applicant option of fees or units. Fowler: • She liked the project and "either or" wording is fine. Brown • He was not comfortable with unclarity of what exactly the in -lieu fee should be, and the "either or" wording. The history of in -lieu fees is that they don't provide enough cash to build a unit. He's fine with the project overall. He wished the person who did the traffic study was present, but was willing to "let that go by." He thought condition 7 should read 1 affordable unit and 0.2 paid as in -lieu fees. Guthrie It's a good project, but he's also uncomfortable with "either or" wording. He felt calculation should be on 9 units, not 12. He agreed that $17,000 would never produce an affordable unit. He preferred the requirement that at least one unit be made affordable on property (applicant to choose which unit). o Commissioner Arnold asked if he meant one of the for sale units to be moderate or one of apartments to be for low income. Chair Guthrie agreed to leave that up to the applicant. o Commissioner Brown asked about the additional 0.2 unit. Arnold and Guthrie felt it would be okay to round down in -lieu of the confusion. Mr. Devens asked for modified language (due to oversight) on condition #106, to include that a maintenance agreement or CC&R's be reviewed and approved by both the Director of Public Works and the City Attorney. The City Attorney has said he would not review them, unless specifically conditioned. Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to approve Tentative Tract Map 04-003 and Planned Unit Development 04-003, with the conditions 1) one moderate unit be offered for sale or one apartment be deed restricted for 30 years at low income level, and 2) condition #106 be modified to CC&R or maintenance agreement and be approved by both the Public Works Director and the City Attorney, and adopt: RESOLUTION 04-1943 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-003 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04-003, LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF LE POINT AND NEVADA STREETS, APPLIED FOR BY LE POINT INVESTMENTS, LLC The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: MINUTES PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2004 AYES: Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Fowler, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None. the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16`h day of November 2004. IV. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 04-018; APPLICANT — GARY WHITE; LOCATION — 1400 W. BRANCH ST. Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report for consideration of a pre -application review for a 106 -room Hampton Inn and 6,000 square -foot restaurant. He stated that the site has been previously approved for an office complex. It's 2.17 acres. The project has been revised a couple times already, and is in revision again, including: a parking lot remodel to maintain more oak trees, and a redesign from five to four (or even three) stories in height. He requested Planning Commission to consider a floating Planned Development (PD) zone, in order to implement the City's Economic Development strategy. Commissioner Brown asked where the restaurant was. Mr. Foster replied it's not depicted on the plans, but pointed to where it would be. Commissioner Brown also asked about traffic flows compared to the previously approved (office) use. Mr. Devens replied that with the Camino Mercado senior project, they had planned for a new signal, and the off -ramps and turning lanes could change significantly. They might even need to go back to Cal Trans and start over. Due to the elimination of driveways off West Branch, it may alter the direction of traffic. For a time frame, this signal plan was started over one and a half years ago. Chair Guthrie asked the square footage of the original office project. He also mentioned that at the last meeting, the Fire Chief wouldn't approve two driveways so close together, and wanted them on different streets, so he wondered why it would be approved here. Mr. Foster replied that at SAC, Chief Fibich wasn't there, but the representative from Building and Fire was more concerned with the height of the building and access to top stories with the ladder truck. Chair Guthrie opened the item for public comment. Steve Cool, applicant, stated they are working with American Property Management Corporation (APMC). This plan is being proposed as a Hampton Inn, and Hampton has their own architects, so they don't have much control over what's being done architecturally. He believes it is actually 2.65 acres with the restaurant site. As far as Fire Department approval, he thought there's been discussion, and that the driveways are far enough apart to satisfy Chief Fibich. Keen • On plans, there was no indication of the elevation in relation to the back property. The top of the office building was not much higher than their parking lot, but this is 75' tall. He would like some indication how it relates to that property behind? He understands they're trying to reduce the height and would not have approved it at five stories (75). Mr. Cool added that although they're trying to reduce the height, in order to make it financially feasible they need at least 100 rooms. Arnold. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2004 PAGE 10 • He noticed in the ARC notes, they're not willing to go to a single aisle on any of the rooms. If they would do a U-shaped hotel, they could use part of the hotel as a retaining wall. • He would consider transplanting the oaks or cutting them down, instead of working around them, as they could end up with a hodgepodge of buildings. • The best way to build this is to cut into the hill. • He agreed this is a difficult site, but the plans don't feel anything like Arroyo Grande. He wants to encourage a hotel, but this looks like a monstrosity as initially designed. He would like a more pleasing design — Spanish or Craftsman. He is not looking for a low- end hotel, but something at more of a mid point. Mr. Cool replied that Hampton Inn has two styles - one is stark modern and the other is more Mediterranean. He will carry message back to the architect. Fowler She supports hotels, but this is too massive and needs major changes. It needs to be softer. It's a wonderful location. Traffic will be an issue. Brown • Is it a corporate requirement of Hampton Inn to have a restaurant? Mr. Cool answered that it was their suggestion. They like to have restaurants adjacent to the hotels, but not own the restaurants, themselves. That portion will need to be split off, and Mr. White and Mr. Cool will retain ownership of the land. Commissioner Brown suggested traffic issues would be different without a restaurant. • He asked about a grading map. Mr. Cool replied they're actually working on a model. • He's dismayed by Arnold's comments and doesn't share opinion on oak trees. • His two big problems are traffic and mass Guthrie He recognized size is an issue for Hampton Inn. They would be a great operator. Maybe they could phase the project, as far as traffic. He's concerned that it will set back the intersection signal two more years. Can they produce signal without grading being done — was it required when an office project? Mr. Devens answered that was with a driveway off West Branch. With site plans now presented (no driveway off W. Branch), there's no need for a deceleration lane. His concern is that if the driveway configuration is altered so all the traffic is on Camino Mercado, it may alter how lanes are laid out for traffic from the freeway to access this site. Cal Trans would need that information to possibly reconfigure the signal. One issue is the request that Camino Mercado parking be eliminated and a center turn lane added. This may shift where you have a through lane that would line up with the left -turn pocket off of Camino Mercado. What is sf of office project? 24,500 sf of useable space. Mr. Devens commented that considering this was previously approved and anticipated for an office/commercial use, a hotel may put different constraints on the City's system in terms of water and sewer. Gary White, applicant, requested feedback on Cal Trans traffic issues. Mr. Devens replied that lane configuration needs to be looked at further before construction. Mr. White added that he's been told a hotel decreases traffic during peak hours, since check-in isn't until 3 and people don't arrive until 5, and check-out in the morning. A traffic study would have to be done, but he MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2004 PAGE 11 believes it should decrease traffic. In regards to architectural details, it is a large building and a difficult site with the topography and oak trees. He feels a hotel is better than an office, but Hampton has a plan they need to follow and aren't very flexible. The next set of plans should give a better feel for what it will look like. He's hoping it will lean toward Mediterranean, as much as Hampton Inns will allow. He would love to see a hotel there, so he will do what he can to soften the look and get it to fit. To get 100 rooms, it's impossible to make it look quaint. There are benefits to the City, too, and with Hampton Inn going in other cities, it would be a shame to miss out on the benefit. They do have a time frame to work in and if it took Caltrans two years to reconfigure, they would sell the office project. Commission took a five minute break from 8:20 pm. to 8:25 p.m. Hearing no further public comment Chair Guthrie closed the item to public comment. Commission Comments: Keen: • Traffic will probably move smoother than with the office project, since this will be so convenient to the off -ramp. Traffic shouldn't be a big problem here. • As far as the height, it's too massive. • He would really like to see a hotel on this property Arnold: • To clarify his position on oak trees and grading, it's important they don't do this project half way. A national chain could be important to the City. Growth will come from either new homes or tourism, and more likely it will be from tourism. If the quality of the project would be better, he supports mitigating the loss of oak trees. It does need to be architecturally appropriate, attractive and a quality chain. It's in the hotel's best interest to keep landscaping looking top notch. • A model is very appropriate with the adjacent properties, or maybe they could do a realistic computer rendering. No action taken on this item, as it was a pre -application only. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Letter from S&S Homes dated November 15, 2004 regarding SPA 03-001 Mr. Foster requested clarification from Planning Commission on continuance of this item. The applicant wants to move along with the SPA, but Mr. Foster understood they wanted the results of the appraisal in before reviewing again. Commissioners Arnold, Brown and Guthrie agreed they wanted to wait for the appraisal before reviewing it again. (Commissioner Fowler wasn't at that meeting.) 2. Infill Development in Arroyo Grande survey by Cal Poly student, Michael Profant This survey was emailed to all the commissioners, and Ms. Heffernon requested they respond directly by email to Mr. Profant. Commissioner Keen attended the presentation on infill done by this student at Cal Poly and feels the surveys are a little premature, and that staff should send them additional information. For instance, they're a little behind on the new mixed use (MU) districts along Grand Avenue. They don't mention MU in any of the survey. In regards to question of height, maximum and minimum lot sizes, a lot of these questions were already addressed in the rezoning. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2004 PAGE 12 3. December 21, 2004 meeting Commissioners discussed the items that would be on the December 21 agenda, but felt that due to the absence of Guthrie and Arnold, the makeup of the commission would be substantially different. Applicants who had hoped to continue their items with the same commissioners would have a different turnout anyway (specifically Cherry Creek). Also, Commissioners Brown and Fowler were unsure they would be available for that date, so the meeting of December 21, 2004 was cancelled on a unanimous voice vote. 4. Elevation of building next to Santa Lucia Bank Mr. Devens said Mr. Strong asked him to comment about the pad being one foot higher than originally proposed on the commercial building next to Santa Lucia Bank. This was to make access better, so the driveway was not too steep. Chair Guthrie said that was the basis of Council approval (91" instead of 92"). Commissioner Brown said you can't change Council's decision without telling them. Mr. Devens said he will take back to Council as directed, knowing the applicant will be upset, but in addition there were no actual elevations depicted on the final map. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Keen asked if Planning Commission/ City Council had approved a maximum percentage of floor space dedicated to food in stores that aren't specifically grocery stores. Ms. Heffernon replied that yes, she recalled that item being approved. He expressed concern that the new Longs has a lot of groceries, and Kmart does also. Commissioner Brown remembered a union representative speaking for the approval, to cut back competition. Chair Guthrie thought the store might have to be a certain size for that to apply. Ms. Heffernon added that a recent request from Walmart to add refrigerators was denied, but she wasn't sure if that's the reason they used, but she will follow up. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: None VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR DECEMBER 7, 2004 MEETING. Commissioner Brown expressed concern about the agenda, and Ms. Heffernon replied that Tract 1998 and DeBlauw's Creekside project were already removed from that date. The Housing Element might also be removed, as they're waiting for a written response from Michele Woods of HCD before returning with the item. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Brown. 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2004 ATTEST: KATHY ME OZA, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: ROB' STRONG; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN DIRECTOR (Approved at PC meeting of December 7, 2004) 1 1 PAGE 13 1 1