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