Loading...
PC Minutes 2003-05-061 1 1 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 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 and Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes of February 18 were approved as written on a motion by Commissioner Arnold, seconded by Commissioner Brown. The minutes of April 15, 2003 were deferred for approval to the agenda of May 7, 2003 due to a missing page. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Additional discussion item added after agenda distribution: Demolition permit for 106 Allen street — proposed by owner Bob Christensen. 2. Correspondence re Jasmine Place (Item II.C.): A. Letter from Robert & Patricia Turner, 780 Naples Street, Grover Beach. B. Letter from Grace Kirkpatrick, 794 Naples Street, Grover Beach. 3. Planning Commission agenda packet for May 7, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. AGENDA REVIEW — Chair Guthrie requested Item II.D. be heard first. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.D: CONTINUED ITEM — DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 02 -006; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — VILLAGE OF ARROYO GRANDE. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to continue this item on staff's recommendation to the May 20, 2003 meeting. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Arnold, Brown and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.A: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02 -013; APPLICANT — FARM SUPPLY, INC; LOCATION — 1049 EL CAMINO REAL. Staff report prepared and presented by Kelly Heffernon. The Planning Commission considered a proposal to construct a commercial /retail warehouse for Farm Supply. Ms. Heffernon stated that this proposal was for a two story pre- fabricated metal building primarily for retail sales. The proposed project includes 5,000 square feet of retail and related space, 5,000 square feet of covered storage and a futurea additional 2,950 square feet left that could be used upstairs storage or possibly office use. She then described the MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 PAGE 2 architecture and all Development Code requirements had been met except where wall height would exceed six feet in places requiring a Minor Exception. In addition, some of the off - street parking area is included within the public right -of -way owned by the City and therefore the project and encroachment requires Council approval. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon said the applicant had submitted a request to have the condition requiring undergrounding (including removal of one pole) waived along the property fronting El Camino Real, but had agreed to install conduit and underground service lateral. Mike Linn, Public Works, said the overhead lines (that would cross the proposed parking lot) would need to be undergrounded, the pole relocated and sidewalk, curb and gutter on a portion of the frontage area included. Staff, the applicant and the Commission had a discussion to clarify location of the power pole and lines. Commission Questions: • If the overhead utilities (across the proposed parking lot) were undergrounded would two more poles have to be added? Mr. Linn confirmed that this was correct. • Regarding the preliminary traffic study, would the potential 10,000 square feet be less than 20 peak hour trips? Ms. Heffernon explained that a lumber store and warehouse was used to derive these traffic totals for a 5000 square foot store for farm supplies. Future traffic expansion of use could require possible traffic impact study. Commissioner Guthrie additionally commented that the El Camino Real and Brisco Road intersection was one of the most congested in the City. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing for public comment. Howard Mankins, property owner, stated that the 5,000 square feet was not all retail; about 2000 square feet of this would be feed storage. He then gave the history of the project, stating that this would enable relocation of the one feed store in town and that this proposal will make a better appearance from the freeway and create a better sales tax base for the City. He then explained why he would like relief on some of the required conditions of approval citing the alarm system, drainage retention, relocation of water facilities, undergrounding of existing overhead utilities, sewer impact fees (mitigation measure), traffic and signalization fees to make the use feasible. Jim Brabeck, representative for Farm Supply, stated they would cooperate as part of undergrounding at a later date, and would bond to guarantee this. He explained how they proposed to go forward with this development giving details of the proposed business. Mr. Linn explained that the condition relating to the drainage retention had been revised to state "all increased drainage from impervious non - asphalt areas shall be retained ", but that a fossil filter may need to be installed for runoff from the site. Commissioner Guthrie asked if the conduit could be installed and a security bond required for future participation in the undergrounding. Mr. Strong said the Commission could require either or both options. Chair Guthrie closed the public hearing. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 PAGE 3 Planning Commission Comments: • The project would be good for the area and keep business in town. • The applicant should install the conduits for the line across the front of the property, there should be an agreement that the landowner should accept a fair share responsibility for the undergrounding of utilities. • The fee for the burglar alarm condition is standard, ensures that the telephone line goes into the City system and pays for the ability of the City respond. Mr. Linn, explained that the fair share mitigation fee for future sewer line costs, involves two projects; the approximate cost would be 1 of the new development ($2,000 - $5,000). Commissioner Keen suggested that the applicant could ask for relief of this cost when the project goes to Council. Further Commission comments: • The traffic issue should be reviewed. • The cost of the mitigation fee for the sewer line should be estimated before going to Council. • The language for the valve relocation could be revised to state "if it falls within 2 feet of the curb face and does not obstruct ADA compliance or to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. • No fees should be waived, but there should be some recognition of Mr. Mankins prior contributions to the City and there could be some trade offs. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold recommending that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit with amendments to Exhibit 'A' and adopt: RESOLUTION 03 -1869 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, INSTRUCTING THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02 -013, LOCATED AT 1049 EL CAMINO REAL, APPLIED FOR BY FARM SUPPLY The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler The foregoing resolution was adopted this 6 th day May 2003. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 PAGE 4 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.B. - FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 01 -001 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 01 -002; APPLICANT — RICHARD DEBLAUW; LOCATION — 415 EAST BRANCH STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Kelly Heffernon. The Planning Commission reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the proposed mixed -use project and lot reconfiguration known as Creekside Center. Ms. Heffernon gave a brief overview, stating that the EIR was focused on the impact to potentially significant historic resources located on the Loomis property. She stated that the project included remodeling of the existing office building, relocation of the two existing residences, demolition of the Loomis feed store and eventually constructing approximately 37,000 square feet of retail, office and residential space in five separate buildings. Ms. Heffernon further stated that CEQA requires review of the EIR before considering and acting on the project and that Council would make the final decision regarding the FEIR certification of the project. Alison Imamura, Planning Manager, Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc., gave a power point presentation and a summary of the FEIR. Ms. Imamura gave a correction to Ms. Heffernon's report stating that the proposed project at the time of the Draft EIR did not include relocation of the two houses on the site, but evaluated demolition of the two houses including the other structures, but not the office building. However, in the alternatives analysis the relocation of the residences was evaluated. Robert Chattel, Chattel Architecture, Planning Preservation, showed slides, described the criteria for what is an historical resource under CEQA, and explained that determining the significance of a resource is based upon evaluation of the properties significance and whether or not it retains it's integrity. He explained the four basic criteria as: • Significance derived from association with an event or pattern of events. • Association with an important person. • An important work of architecture. • A resource that is significant for its archeological association. Mr. Chattel stated that "integrity" is one of the most misunderstood criteria. The California Register has a standard somewhat less than the national standard for integrity. He explained that there were three potentially significant buildings on the site: • The feed store and warehouse: It is their professional judgment that the building Tacks integrity from any historical period. • Secondary residence: The building has had numerous alterations and does not reflect any significant historical period and therefore lacks integrity. • Primary two -story house: The house has had some alterations, but retains sufficient integrity for the period 1910 — 1937 when it was associated with E.C. Loomis, an important person in local agriculture related business history. In conclusion, Mr. Chattel said the goal of alternatives was to reduce significant and /or unavoidable impacts to a less than significant level. He summarized that the basic impacts 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 of alternatives include avoidance or reduction of material alterations or demolition. Relocation often has a significant impact on an historic resource, but can be done in conformance with the required standards and guidance on moving historic buildings. He then described the three unmitigable impacts identified, and the alternatives proposed. In reply to a question from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Chattel clarified that although the grain warehouse has lost its integrity, the significant impact would be due to it's location or setting with the historic resource of which is considered significant to the main house. Mr. Chattel clarified alternatives 2 and 3 for Commissioner Keen. PAGE 5 In reply to a question from Commissioner Arnold, Mr. Chattel said the initial application for listing in the California Historic Register was withdrawn by the applicant (Preserve the Village) and a second application received by the Office of Historic Preservation was also withdrawn by the same applicant. Commissioner Guthrie asked for details on the alterations to the secondary residence which destroyed its integrity. Mr. Chattel gave some history on the alterations, stating that there are no building permits and no records, but configuration of alterations has caused a loss of physical character and therefore a loss of substantial integrity. Alternative 3 includes a mitigation measure that would reduce impact by redesigning Building B to be in conformance with the setting and scale of this building as it relates to the main house. Commissioner Keen stated that he had heard that the main house had been a hotel and faced the railroad before the feed store building was built. Mr. Chattel said they determined the facts by careful review of historic photographs to prepare chronology and he did not believe the house had been relocated or that it was a hotel, but it could have been used for room rentals. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public. Scott Wachenheim, Vice Chairman, Preserve the Village, stated he did not withdraw the applications to the State Register for the first meeting in August, but the application was opposed by the developers property owners and due to City EIR not being completed. The Office of Historic Preservation recommended the Historic Resources Commission postpone the decision until the report was received. The second time the application was again deferred by staff because the City advised the Draft EIR was not yet final. Mr. Wachenheim then stated that he would be addressing only the final EIR; there were a lot of improvements over the Draft EIR; there were some good additions and historical information. He further stated that the consultant had answered most of the questions raised in their comments on the Final EIR, but there were four questions he considered had not been answered adequately and he would like further discussion on these questions. He then presented the Planning Commission a memo detailing the questions in addition to other concerns on the DEIR and the FEIR. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 PAGE 6 Joe Boud, Joseph Boud & Associates, (applicant's representative), stated the chronology in the staff report does not fully describe the meetings attended by the applicant and he listed the meetings; he did not agree with all the conclusions in the FEIR, although he thought it a very comprehensive document. He commented on two areas in the document: 1. The Town Center project was a Loomis /Scolari partnership application that went through a Draft EIR before being withdrawn. 2. He further explained the objectives of the current Creekside Center. Mr. Boud said Page 37, of the FEIR, "Period of Significance from 1910 — 1937, should be corrected to 1910 — 1927. He then restated some of his concerns regarding comments on references to design, color and materials, the sense of fit, the metal buildings across the street and their historical significance. In conclusion, he stated that the possibility of reusing and remodeling the existing buildings under today's code was not realistic. Mr. Boud went over all the suggested alternatives stating that only Alternative 3 was acceptable. He then submitted copies of letters from E.C. Loomis & Son, Arroyo Grande Village Improvement Association, and the Arroyo Grande Valley Chamber of Commerce in support of the project. In conclusion, he stated that economic benefits should prove to be substantial and many potential tenants had expressed interest in this project. Ms. Imamura responded to comments by stating that the FEIR will include all information submitted to the City and is considered part of the EIR and would add to the basis for certification of the EIR. Mr. Chattel responded to the concerns addressed in the comments by Mr. Wachenheim: Question #6: Loss of integrity for the feed store /warehouse — he clarified that this was whether "a historical contemporary would recognize it ". The alternations that were made to the store /warehouse give it a false sense of history. The board and batten having been added at a later date is particularly problematic. Question #7: Relates to the relevant aspects of integrity as described by the National Register, which means that even if a property is physically intact it's integrity is questionable if it's significant features are concealed under modern construction (the board and batten siding causes this substantial loss of integrity and it does not appear eligible for the California Register. Question #10: Reconstruction of the warehouse — this is not eligible for listing in the CA Register as it has lost its integrity, except as an impact for the setting of the main house. Question # 11: It was their professional opinion that a new building of similar mass and scale to the original 1910 feedstore warehouse would still evoke the relationship between the main house and the store /warehouse and would have a less than significant impact on the setting of the main house. He then addressed the other concerns and comments on the FEIR as contained in the memo from Mr. Wachenheim. Chair Guthrie closed the public hearing. 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 PAGE „ 7 Commissioner Brown said he appreciated and respected the work of the consultant and had discussed with Mr. DeBlauw, owner of the property, the frustrations he was experiencing with the project. Commissioner Brown then read from a list of prepared comments and stated the main issue he had was with the EIR discussion of cultural resources and the mitigations proposed if those resources are lost. In conclusion Commissioner Brown stated, "In my conversations with people in the community as well as the EIR much has been made regarding whether or not the integrity of the buildings have been maintained over time. While the buildings have changed over the years they still provide continuity with the past. The integrity has been maintained through location, setting and association with the Loomis family. These buildings would not invoke such outcry from the community if they did not have these connections to Arroyo Grande history”. Commissioner Brown then proposed an amendment to mitigation 4.4.a. as follows: The project alternatives shall provide for the adaptive re -use and rehabilitation of the main house and (feed store) warehouse through repair alterations and additions while preserving those portions and features which convey its historical, cultural and architectural values. Commissioner Keen agreed with. Commissioner Brown on the fine and outstanding work that had been done on addressing the concerns; he did not know if he agreed with the concept that the feedstore /warehouse was an historical building, but he agreed that the main house probably was. In conclusion, he stated that the document addresses all the concerns it was meant to do so he could agree with certifying the EIR. Commissioner Arnold commented that the document was very thorough and he had learned a lot about the history of the area from it. The grain facility seems to be the larger concern of most people. He agreed with Commissioner Brown on the need for the amendment to the mitigation and if this were added to the FEIR he could certify the EIR. Chair Guthrie agreed with the other Commissioners that the EIR was a very complete document, he liked the way the alternatives were worked out and that the mitigations were adequate and had no trouble with including Commissioner Brown's amendment; he would support recommending or certifying the EIR. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to recommend that the City Council certify the completion of and make findings as to the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for Conditional Use Permit 01 -001 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 01 -002 (Creekside Center Project) with an amendment to add the mitigation measure recommended by Commissioner Brown. Mr. Chattel said as long as this is a separate mitigation measure and not an amendment they could work with the language. Commissioner Keen asked if this mitigation measure was a possibility or a requirement? MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 Commissioner Brown said it was his recommendation that it be an added mitigation. The Commission recommended City Council adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 03 -1872 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE COMPLETION OF AND MAKE THE FINDINGS AS TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 01 -001 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 01 -002 (CREEKSIDE CENTER PROJECT) The motion was approved on the following roll call: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold and Chair Guthrie NOES: Commissioner Keen ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler PAGE 8 Chair Guthrie clarified that the mitigation measure would leave open the possibility that the warehouse would be reused instead of rebuilt. Commissioner Keen he was opposed to the added mitigation recommended by Commissioner Brown, but not the certification of the EIR. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 02 -002, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 02 -004, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 02 -001, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 02 -004 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 02 -001 (JASMINE PLACE); APPLICANT — JOHN MACK, S & S HOMES; LOCATION — NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST CORNERS OF THE ASH STREET /COURTLAND STREET INTERSECTION (SUB -AREA 2 OF THE BERRY GARDENS SPECIFIC PLAN. Staff report prepared and presented by Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner. The Planning Commission reviewed the General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development and Tentative Tract Map to subdivide a 5.23 -acre site into 47 residential lots ranging in size from 3,128 square feet to 7,409 square feet and provide one 23,522 square foot open space lot for passive recreational purposes. Ms. Heffernon said the Planning Commission reviewed the project on March 4, 2003 and had recommended Council consideration on several General Plan and Development Code policy related issues prior to taking formal action on the project. After further consideration it was determined that Planning Commission recommendation on the related applications would be a more coherent approach and would simplify an otherwise complicated project. She then gave a recap on the previous meeting and a brief project description. 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 PAGE 9 John Mack, Architect - S & S Homes, displayed presentation boards of the project design and showed color palettes for the proposed homes. He then addressed some of the concerns from the prior meeting: • Homeowner's Assn: The City Manager and City Attorney were reviewing a maintenance agreement for the park and open spaces versus Homeowner's Association. • Drainage: The Berry Gardens drainage basin could satisfy all the drainage requirements for this project so there will be no need for an onsite drainage basin. • In reference to the above Mr. Mack requested that a modification be made to the draft Resolution, Page 15, Condition of Approval No. 51, the following language added "with all runoff directed to the Berry Gardens basin ". • Request for more architectural diversity: The roof styles now have more architectural interest and four different colors. In addition, the 26 buildings now have four different color schemes and four different building types giving much more variety. Mr. Mack then described the architectural styles; the open space park fenced off to separate pedestrian circulation to Ash Street and said there is twice as much onsite parking as is required. When Ash Street is widened there will be plenty of on- street parking in addition to guest stalls and parking in front of garages on -site. Commissioner Arnold questions: • Do the 68 parking stalls include any parking in the drives? Mr. Mack replied the drives on Jasmine Lane would be red curbed /no parking, except guest parking bays. Other guest or resident parking would be in front of the garage doors. • How many of the homes do not have drives or a tandem garage? Mr. Mack replied that there are four floorplans, one of which includes tandem parking garages and a single story design. • How will the roads be maintained? Mr. Mack said this was proposed to be taken care of by HOA, as would the drives also. • How will the trash pick up be handled? Mr. Mack replied that they would be individual trash containers. • What about the line up of the Soto Sports parking lot drives with the drives out of this property. Mr. Mack said this had been reviewed with Public Works and their engineer and it was confirmed that it is safe to make left turns. Commissioner Guthrie questions: • How was the HOA agreement for the Brambles development funded and would this HOA would be different? Mr. Mack said the Brambles had a HOA, met once a month and paid monthly dues, but for this project the developer preferred a maintenance district that could collect monthly fees and hire a property management service. • Was Jasmine Place was considered part of the driveway? Mr. Mack said it was and would be a private street. Commissioner Guthrie asked staff if after the minor modification to the conditions of approval, would they still have the latitude to make sure that 1) the reservoir was capable of handling the 100 year storm and 2) if it is pumped, are Elm Street and Soto basins capable MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 Chair Guthrie closed the public hearing: PAGE 10 of handling it also? Mike Linn, Public Works, replied yes to both questions and explained how this would work. Commissioner Arnold comments: • Would like clarification on how the HOA/maintenance agreement would work and would prefer to see a traditional HOA. • Thought this a very good project; he would only like to see 15 homes be for low income. • Thought the color changes were good. Commissioner Brown comments: • Density too high. • Single story homes against back of Berry Gardens are appropriate. • Would like to deal with the affordable housing policy before recommending this project. Commissioner Keen comments: • Conditions of approval need clarification — No. 6 says "minimum building setback from meandering walk on Ash Street shall be five feet" and then on E. it says that "architectural features may project into required yards as provided by City code; he did not think this would work — houses too close to the sidewalk. • The units with tandem garages with no parking in front are not acceptable. • He did not think it necessary to resolve the affordable housing policy as he thought it had been adequately stated in the staff report. Mr. Mack stated he had provided a dedication of an additional 20 feet landscape buffer from Ash Street. With the meandering walk, sidewalks are on the properties, but the sidewalk could be straight and provide 15 feet of landscaping in front of each unit. Mr. Mack addressed the tandem parking: Older buyers are taking the single story tandem garage units and one parking space is all they need but with tandem they have two. There are also guest stalls to provide extra parking. Commissioner Keen said older drivers do not like to have to walk from the guest parking. Commissioner Arnold asked if the guest stalls adjacent to the units could be assigned to those units? Mr. Mack agreed that they could be. Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan and Zoning Map of the City of Arroyo Grande, amend Berry Gardens Specific Plan, and approve a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development in General Plan Amendment 02 -002, Specific Plan Amendment 02 -001, Planned Unit Development 02 -004 and Tentative Tract Map- 02 -001, for property located at the intersection of Ash and Court land Streets (Jasmine Place), with amendments to Exhibits C -1 and D -1 as follows: 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 1. Exhibit C -1, 6.a., last sentence to state, "The minimum building setback from the meandering walk off Ash Street shall be ten (10) feet ". 2. Exhibit D -1, recommend to . City Council a Home Owner's Association for maintenance. 3. Exhibit D -1, add 6 parking spaces next to the units that have the tandem garages, and they be assigned to those units. and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 03 -1870 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, AMEND THE BERRY GARDENS SPECIFIC PLAN, AND APPROVE A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 02 -002, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 02 -004, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 02 -001, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 02 -004 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 02 -001, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF ASH AND COURTLAND STREETS, APPLIED FOR BY S &S HOMES The motion was approved on the following roll call: AYES: Commissioners Arnold, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: Commissioner Brown ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler The foregoing resolution was adopted this 6th day of May 2003. PAGE 11 A discussion followed on affordable housing: • Commissioner Arnold thought the "15 affordable units of more" for this project as recommended by the Commission was a good compromise. • Commissioner Brown did not agree that 15 units was enough given the proposed increased amount of density and stated the concern is that it does not keep affordable housing in stock and he would like to see issue dealt with for future projects. • Chair Guthrie said he believed that at least 25% of the entire project or about 15 units would be acceptable; a silent second held by the owner would not be acceptable but would work if the City held the seconds. • Commissioner Keen suggested a memo be forwarded with a recommendation to Council to have them consider "15 units or more" with emphasize on the "or more ". NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: ADMINISTRATIVE SIGN PERMIT CASE NO. 023- 018 /ADMINISTRATIVE SIGN PROGRAM 03 -001; APPLICANT — SPENCER'S MARKET /BIG 5; LOCATION — 1464 EAST GRAND AVENUE. Staff report prepared by Rob Strong, Community Development Director. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 AYES: Commissioners Keen, Arnold, Brown, and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler PAGE 12 The Planning Commission considered an Administrative Sign Program application for two monument signs for major and minor tenants in the existing Arroyo Grande Town and Country (Marketplace) Center without an established sign program. Mr. Strong explained that Spencer's had requested they be considered a major tenant and that they need more identity from the street. The ARC has reviewed the Administrative Sign Permit and they eliminated the proposed pillar extension and felt that there was adequate similarity in scale, mass and height for the Big 5 sign to stay with the pillar trellis termination of the A3 tenant sign and encouraged that the configuration be more like the Spencer's sign with Big 5 being the dominant tenant and the Dollar Tree and the additional tenant being a rectangular sign below Big 5. Any change beyond that, other than replacement tenant signage, would need a Planned Sign Program executed by the two main tenants or center owners. Mr. Strong concluded by stating that any action would be reported to Council on May 13, 2003 and the permit authorized to be issued by staff. Chair Guthrie asked if any additional buildings were built in the future over the current retention basin would a Planned Sign Program be required? Mr. Strong said a Conditional Use Permit and a Planned Sign Program would be required for the added building. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to support for Administrative Sign Program approval to allow the monument signage proposed by the applicants and recommended by staff. The motion was approved with the following roll call vote. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 03 -002; APPLICANT — ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH; LOCATION — 959 VALLEY ROAD (Southwest corner of Valley and Los Berros Road.) Staff report prepared and presented by Rob Strong, Community Development Director. The Planning Commission considered a recommendation from staff to initiate pre- zoning to Public Facility (PF) for annexation of church, road and drainage channel property to the City. Commissioner Keen asked if the City would have to assume maintenance on the drainage basin? Mr. Strong said he believed the City would not obligated to take on maintenance (relinguished by County to State), but the prezoning at this stage would not change this. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown to initiate Development Code Amendment 03 -004 for the consideration of Public Facilities (PF) prezoning for all properties within the proposed St. John's annexation to the City of Arroyo Grande and adopt: 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 RESOLUTION 03 -1871 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A RESOLUTION INITIATING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 03 -004 FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES (P.F.) PREZONING OF ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PROPOSED ST. JOHN'S ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Brown, Arnold and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler The foregoing resolution was adopted this 6 day of May 2003. PAGE 13 DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Administrative Sign Permit Case No. 03 -008; Applicant — Weber's Bread, Location — 821 Grand Avenue. Mr. Strong gave the Commission an update on this item. 2. Item removed from agenda. 3. Final Occupancy — Conditional Use Permit Case No. 98 -567, Village Centre; Location — Northeast corner of West Branch Street and Wesley Avenue. Mr. Strong gave the Commission an update on this item as outlined in written memo and report tentative action to City Council. 4. Plot Plan Review Case No. 03 -005; Applicant — St. Patrick's Elementary School, Rudy Bachman representative; Location — 900 West Branch Street — Art and Music Modular Classrooms. Mr. Strong gave a report on this item and the Commission concluded that extension of the Conditional Use Permit 93 -509 and approval of the Plot Plan Review were acceptable as recommended. 5. Demolition permit — 106 Allen Street. Mr. Strong gave a report on this item stating it should not be a significant environmental impact and the ARC had reviewed this and had no problem with it. Commissioner Brown said his neighbor had a concern that Christianson Chevrolet may use the lot to drop cars off and this could be a nuisance due to the narrowness of the street. Mr. Strong said consideration by the Traffic Commission for a loading zone should occur. The Commission concluded that the demolition would be acceptable. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2003 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10.50 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Arnold. ATTEST: — Ct•A LYN REARDON- SMITH, COMMISSION CLERK AS TO CONTENT: / - _! ROB S RONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT DIRECTOR AMES UTHRI , 'HAIR PAGE 14 1