Loading...
PC Minutes 2004-05-181 1 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION. MAY 18, 2004 - 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Guthrie presiding; also present were Commissioners Arnold, Brown and Keen; Commissioner Fowler was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planner Ryan Foster, Planning Intern, Andrea Koch and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: The Commission agreed to hear Item IVC, Time Extension Case No. 04-004 first. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of May 4, 2004 were approved on a motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Fowler being absent. I. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. II.A. MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE MAY 4, 2004 - SUBJECT TO 10 -DAY APPEAL: PPR 04-004 Tri W 120-140 S. Elm & Replace existing light poles A. Koch Enterprises 1205-1243 E Grand and fixtures with new light Inc. Ave poles & fixtures, changing from steel bases to concrete bases MEX 04-004 I Richard Collins 240 Branch St 18' retaining wall for an off- D. Javid street parking alcove at 240 W. Branch St. VSR 04-006 R. Washington 621 Cerro Vista Construction of 281 s.f. A. Koch addition (185 & 96 s.f. of living space on lower and upper floors.) Commissioner Keen asked for clarification on PPR Case No. 04-004. Commissioner Arnold asked for clarification on VSR Case No. 04-006. The Commission had no other concerns and Mr. Strong stated these Minor Use Permits would be approved after a ten-day appeal period. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 2 NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: IVC. TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 04-004 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 01-002, APPLICANT - JAMES P. DOTSON; LOCATION - 801 HUASNA RD. Staff report prepared and presented by Planning Intern, Andrea Koch. Ms. Koch gave an update on the project, and concluded by stating that this is the applicant's second request for a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 01- 002; the applicant has requested another time extension to allow completion of construction. Commissioner Brown asked staff for an update on the undergrounding for this project and hearing no further concerns the Commission went forward with a motion. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to approve Time Extension Case No. 04-004 for a one-year time extension of Tentative Tract Map Case No. 01-002, Tract Map 2275, the motion was approved on a 4/0 roll call vote, Commissioner Fowler being absent. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-001; APPLICANT — CAMINO MERCADO PARTNERS, LP; LOCATION — 579 CAMINO MERCADO. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon. Ms. Heffernon gave an update on the background of the project; stating that this was a condominium tract map for a previously approved (City Council January 22, 2002) 60 - unit senior apartment complex and 3,000 square foot senior recreation center; described prior amendments and explained the few changes that had been made to the conditions of approval since the last approval of the project. Staff answered Commission questions. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing for public comment. Gary Young, applicant, stated: — We did obtain .a permit from the City to remove the trees. — We are waiting to hear from Caltrans on the cost for installing the traffic signal and will then pull building permits. — Survey stakes have been in place on the site. — We consider this a new project per the Subdivision Map Act. — He addressed benefits of the senior center. — They will install a walking trail and dedicate an easement for public access. — Condominiums would provide a significant tax base increase for the City over apartments. — He distributed a spreadsheet to the Commission showing cash flow of rental versus ownership. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 3 To clarify a question from Commissioner Guthrie, Victor Devens stated that the City will administer the construction of the signal installation and the applicant will just pay the normal traffic signalization impact fees. Ray Abdan-nur, 955 Via Las Aguilas, stated concern that project does not have enough parking; like to see concrete tiles on roof; noise considerations should be addressed; may not need this senior center as he had heard that the Historical Society was going to rent the Regional Center for $1.00 a year; should all the applicant's fees be waived because of the senior center? Sandy Sanderson, 136 Pine Street, 16 oak trees have already been removed. What mitigation can be done for this new proposal? Jason Blankenship, Mesa Lane, Project Manager. Oak trees mitigation will be done 8/1 whether we have apartments or condos. The trees were taken down because we were ready to go forward 'with the apartment project. Commissioner Brown stated the Commission approved a project that filled a need for apartment type housing for seniors, allowed the cutting down of the trees for this and asked the applicant why they came forward with apartments if they were not going to financially pencil out? He expressed a concern that this had the feel of a "bait and switch" deal. Mr. Blankenship explained that the appraisal for the apartments came in very low as there have been no apartments built in the area for over 20 years, but it had been their intention to build the apartments from day one. There was a discussion regarding the spreadsheet with Commissioner Guthrie and Arnold questioning the stated figures. Commissioner Guthrie asked if the project meets the Federal mandates for senior housing? Mr. Young said it did. Chuck French, 525 Dos Cerros, President of the Rancho Grande HOA, stated that there was disagreement as to where the property line is along the back of the property. The applicant removed a tree in an area the he believes the Association owns and intended to grade in this area also. Chair Guthrie said staff would look into this. Earl Paulding, Arroyo Grande, spokesperson for seniors, stated the seniors of the South County have supported this project since conception; many seniors are single and need a smaller place to live; seniors need this plus the senior center. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to public comment. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 4 Guthrie to staff: — There is no mention of Subdivision Map Act in staff report, and he was not familiar with it, but would like to review it; asked if the project met the Federal requirements because after approval it would be too late; it seemed to him that there were a lot of unknowns. Brown: — This project has evolved into a new project: He questioned whether finding No. 1 could be made; stated No. 4 cannot be met (the proposed project has caused environmental damage — loss of 18 trees). — If the previous entitlement of apartments is changed to condos, we are taking this inventory out of the City. — Cannot believe that the applicant entered into this project without knowing what was involved and anticipates that it could come back for even more changes in the future. — If this is a new project then it should go through the same process as a new project. — He could not vote in favor. Arnold: — He agreed with Commissioner Brown on the findings. — He believed apartments would be more affordable; the City needs apartments now and we have made numerous concessions to make this project viable. — The proposal does not meet the definition of the requirement for "affordable". — He stated that this is a condo conversion and it should meet these City requirements. — He would vote against this. Keen: — He disagreed with Commissioner Arnold. — He had several concerns with condos versus apartments; they would cost more to build. — The City needs apartments, but they have not been built because they do not pencil out. — I am very disappointed re oak trees and I was disappointed the first time, but they would have had to be removed on either project. — The Courtland senior project came back many times also, each time asking for more money. — Although disappointed this project would help meet the needs of seniors. — He could vote for this. — Guthrie: — He believes this was a switch as the Commission gave approval for what was believed to be moderate affordable units; — He expressed concern that this project keeps coming back, but believes this project is very different from the Courtland/Grand project (which is 50% affordable). — This project could come back again with another change so he would like to see a more thorough review related to the Subdivision Map Act and the conditions included in it; he suggested postponing and reviewing again in two weeks. r. MINUTES PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 He had a concern that staff -did not know if it meets Federal mandates for senior housing. In the Housing Element there is reference that we would expect low and very low come from rental; he could not support paying down on a for sale condo project. Commissioner Keen made a motion recommending City Council approve the Tentative Tract Map. The motion failed due to there being no second. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to continue discussion of this item to the meeting of June 1, 2004, to allow staff time to bring forward a report which would include the concerns brought forward by the Chair. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold and Chair Guthrie NOES: Keen ABSENT: Fowler Mr. Strong stated Public Works has confirmed that the City has accepted the open space parcels and that Council approved the slope bank grading and the oak tree mitigation with removal of two oaks in order to prevent a triple stacked wall that would have been over 14 foot tall; the access trail and landscape mitigation was better than a "concrete" solution. IV. NON PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. CITY HALL STUDY — STAFF PROJECT 03-022; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Fred Sweeney, Phillips, Metsch, Sweeny & Moore Architects, gave a progress report and stated that this would next go to City Council in June for further action and direction and he hoped that these meetings would bring some closure and a decision on the various sites for the New City Hall. Mr. Sweeney then described each of the study/versions of Site No. 1: (East Branch/Mason and Short Streets), where the existing City property is located, Site No. 5 (at the bottom of Crown Hill, the Loomis site), which has numerous challenges and issues and which both Public Works and the School District have concerns about. He emphasized that once a site is selected it is important that some clear guidelines be developed for the future implementers and advised that time and energy be given to presenting the public with plans that are much more visual in nature for the new City Hall. The City has an obligation to carry into place as an example what they want others (in the same corridor) to do and this study is a tool to help bring that forward. Commission Comments: Arnold: He did not like Site No 5, it had too many complications MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 6 — Site No. 1 — Study 1 would be his choice, it had the most parking and is most in keeping with the existing character. Keen: — Thanked Mr. Sweeny for all his work. — He would still like to see all the facilities in one building; it makes more sense and less confusion for staff and the public. — Site 5 had too many difficulties, even though the new City Hall may be down the road, and to purchase property now would not be good. — He liked Site 1 - Study 1; he liked the style of the architecture and having the anchor building the same as the one on the far end of the block makes a good balance and is in keeping with the character of the rest of the Village. — Referring to Site 1, he suggested underground parking, but this would make the roofline higher and he wondered if this would be acceptable. Mr. Sweeney said that there is historical presence to allow varied roof heights; advised that the Village not be "Disneyfied" and an architectural mix be allowed. Dimensional height would not be issue at the corner of Short & Branch streets. Brown: — Said he appreciated the visual cues. — He did have a concern about having a two-story building on the corner stating that when a two-story building is close to the street it looks different. — He also liked Site No. 1 — Study 1 and thought it better to keep everything in one building. Guthrie: — He also liked Site No. 1 — Study 1 and did not like Site 5. — It may be a long time before this is built and things may look different by then. Arnold: — Disagreed that everything should be in one building; 13000 sq ft would be a scale issue and one long continuation of building would not be good. Keen: — Morro Bay rented a bank and put a central receptionist at front door and a representative from Building, Public Works and Community Development was in the same open space; communication does get lost sometimes and we should try to centralize. After further discussion and comment Mr. Strong thanked Mr. Sweeney for the report and stated this would go forward to City Council on June 22; this was a major accomplishment and hoped the new City Hall would be built before the 100th anniversary of the City; this may need a General Plan Amendment to clarify for consistency with the new General Plan. B. PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW 04-008; APPLICANT — FAIRWAY DEVELOPMENT, INC; LOCATION — LE POINT STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster. Ryan Foster gave an overview of the proposal for an eleven -lot subdivision consisting of eight residential lots, two mixed-use lots and one common lot. He stated the Planning MINUTES PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 Commission had reviewed a pre -application on this lot in February 2004, but for six residential lots and two mixed-use lots. Commission Comments: Brown: — Asked for clarification on parking for lots 1 & 2. — Asked what justification there was for the smaller lot sizes. In reply to a question from Chair Guthrie, Mr. Devens stated they were trying to handle the grading through slopes rather than retaining walls. With regard to the drainage the architect has proposed some sort of retention system on the south corner. Public Works has said the drainage should be on site, but if Le Point Street is extended then the retention could be eliminated. Mark Vasquez, Architect, explained the changes they had made to accommodate drainage and grading. Commission Comments: Arnold: — He suggested the applicant talk to he neighbors to get their input and to keep them informed. — He had concern with the mass of the buildings. — Concern with the parking ratio and stated tandem garages with three bedrooms may not work. Keen: — This project with small lots may work — Tandem parking may work because lots are so narrow and there is adequate parking in front of the garages. — Could vote for this as small lots may work on this specific parcel. — Grading and drainage would have to be worked out. — Houses of 1,382 square feet, with small lot, may make them more affordable. Brown: — Lot sizes seemed to have been abandoned and there is always some justification, topography etc. — Concern that drainage issue may be temporary like to see more permanent solution. — Backing out into the street issue. Guthrie: — Small lots acceptable in the Village. — Parking issue: Concern that people will park on the street and would like to see some effort given to parking on the right side of street. — Like this better than previous proposal. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public. MINUTES PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 Dr. Harley Boos, Veterinarian, stated his concerns: — He has had past bad experiences; after a neighbor built he had to re -grade his property and as a result there are now threats of law suits; there is inadequate water drainage so he asked the Commission to pay attention before anything is done; he had concern with traffic on Nevada Street, and would like to see a traffic study done on what the effects of this project would be on this street. Chair Guthrie closed the public hearing. The Commission had no further concerns or comments. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Development Code Amendment Case No. 03-008; Applicant — City of Arroyo Grande; Location — East Grand Avenue Plus. Mr. Strong gave the Commission a status report: • It would be more logical to do the Development Code Update on the regional commercial and industrial mixed-use areas (which would include Five Cities Center, K -Mart Center and the Mankins industrial properties, at the June 15 meeting if we can get the noticing prepared in time; these areas would not include Design Guidelines and Standards at this time. • We are targeting June 29 as a special meeting to tackle all the office use, mixed- use districts and defer until July the Halcyon and Grand Ave corridors. • We are in process of preparing the public noticing which will include a very large mail out; we are in process of designing some attractive literature so as to gain more public interest and participation. The Commission said this schedule would be acceptable. Commissioner Keen said he would be absent the meeting of June 15. Commissioner Brown said he would be on vacation the last week in July and the first three weeks of August. Chair Guthrie asked Mr. Strong to verify that the height of the new mixed-use buildings in Grover Beach was 45 feet. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: In reply to a question from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Strong said he would ask Dan Hernandez, Parks and Recreation Director, to address the Planning Commission on a tree removal process for City trees. In reply to a question from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Strong gave an update on the Kennedy/Sheppel parking hearing, scheduled for the June 1 meeting. 1 MINUTES PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2004 In reply to a question from Commissioner Arnold, Mr. Strong said the City is concerned about the Liz's Cantina business relocation and has been seeking alternative locations for them; given time they may be able to find a new location and this may be addressed at the next Council meeting. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: Mr. Strong gave an update on the Tried and True Tattoo parlor recently approved by City Council; informed the Commission that a discussion on the Noyes Road properties will take place at the May 25 Council meeting which may lead to initiation of a General Plan Amendment to address this. Dean Coker, representative Castlerock Development, stated that they did not know anything about the renewed interest in the Noyes Road property and it had come as a surprise to them. Commissioner Keen stated that included in the "personal service" description in the Development Code, besides Tattoo Parlors, was "check cashing" and thought that one was going into the new Long's Center. Mr. Strong said they had already been informed that they would require a Plot Plan Review. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR JUNE 1, 2004: No discussion. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Arnold. ATTEST: h LYK REARDON-SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVEL PMENT DIRECTOR (Approved at PC meeting of June 1, 2004) 1 I