Loading...
PC Minutes 2003-03-181 1 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chair Keen presiding. Also present were Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Fowler, and Guthrie. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director Rob Strong, Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner Ryan Foster and Public Works Assistant Engineer, Mike Linn. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes of February 5 and March 4, 2003 were unanimously approved as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Memo from Public Works regarding revised conditions for Conditional Use Permit 03- 001 for applicant Santa Lucia Bank. 2. Memo from Ryan Foster regarding supplemental conditions for Tentative Tract Map 02- 004 and Planned Unit Development 02 -005 for applicant Kevin Hunstad. AGENDA REVIEW — No changes to the agenda. ELECTION OF OFFICERS — Commissioner Fowler suggested a change in the bylaws to allow election of officers take place each year by seniority. The Commission then unanimously agreed to elect Vice Chair Keen as Chair. Vice Chair Keen declined the position. Commissioner Fowler made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to elect Commissioner Guthrie for Chair. The motion was unanimously carried with a 5/0 voice vote. Commissioner Fowler made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guthrie to elect Commissioner Brown as Vice Chair. The motion was unanimously carried with a 5/0 voice vote. Commissioner Keen agreed with Commissioner Fowler that election of the Chair by seniority, annually, was a good idea. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 03 -001, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (VTTM) CASE NO. 03 -001, PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 03- 001; APPLICANT — SANTA LUCIA BANK; LOCATION 1530 EAST GRAND AVENUE. Staff report prepared and presented by Kelly Heffernon. Ms. Heffernon explained this was a proposal to construct a 9,100 square foot building for Santa Lucia Bank and a 5,625 square foot commercial building. Terry Fibich, Fire Chief, was present to answer Commission questions regarding the minor change to Condition of Approval No. 45, regarding installation of an opticom traffic signal at an intersection to be selected by the Fire Chief and that the applicant was amenable with the change. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 PAGE 2 Commissioner Brown stated that formerly there was a request for installation of two traffic signal devices and asked if the applicant could install two opticoms. Mr. Fibich said they could not as this would not be justifiable for the project. Ms. Heffernon then gave the history of the site: City Council approved a mixed -use project for this site last year - a 108 -unit senior apartment complex on the back portion of the site and 18,879 square feet of commercial space in 3 buildings on the front portion of the property. A parcel map was also approved that subdivided the two existing lots into four (not recorded); the property owner instead processed a lot line adjustment and sold the front property to Santa Lucia Bank. The bank is anxious to start construction and there is not a tenant yet identified for the other commercial building; project details focus mainly on the bank. She then described the architectural design of the bank (mission style) and the parking, stating that the entire project is over - parked by 20 spaces to accommodate the periodic large meetings to be held at the bank or the possibility of a restaurant in the adjacent commercial building. The Planned Sign Program identifies five wall signs for the bank and one monument sign, and the same number of signs for the other commercial building. Ms. Heffernon stated that the bulk of the initial conditions for the entire 5 -acre property were linked to the original parcel map (which is now void); the project has now been conditioned to install or bond for the majority of the public improvements. The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) had requested better screening of parking areas and the drive through; revision of the monument sign to include a capstone that would match the smooth facade of the building; directional signage regarding the drive -thru entrance and exit. In addition, the site plan shows relocation of the bus stop closer to Court land Street. These modifications have been included in the Conditions of Approval to ensure their implementation. Ms. Heffernon further stated that the alternative driveway design appears to be safer, more straightforward and allows an additional parking space, but is really close to the adjacent driveway for the senior project already approved. Public Works would like to see a revised traffic study to analyze any impacts related to the close proximity of the two driveways. In conclusion Ms. Heffernon explained the proposed revised conditions of the Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map and that the applicant was in agreement with these changes. Commissioner Guthrie referring to the SANDAG Traffic Guidelines, stated that he was surprised at the calculations for the peak hour trips from the drive -up teller windows and taking these calculations into consideration questioned if the traffic report was adequate. Ms. Heffernon said Public Works would reply to this (they were not present at the time). Commissioner Guthrie commented that the current project showed a loss of retail space of about 4,000 square feet from the original project. Commissioner Fowler, referring to the screening for the drive -up lane, said she had a concern that there may be a blind area when exiting the bank. Ms. Heffernon replied that a profile of this could be requested before approval of the project. 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 Commissioner Brown stated that he preferred not to get revised conditions for a project just before the start of a meeting. Ms. Heffernon replied that due to engineering department staffing changes it had been impossible to acquire the information earlier. Commissioner Brown asked if Condition No. 17 could be left in until the City had a response from Caltrans. Ms. Heffernon said she had recently learned that the signals are not owned by Caltrans and therefore it is not a Caltrans issue. Commissioner Brown then asked for clarification on Condition No. 18, the issue of the separate thru lane and how the circulation would work. Commissioner Keen answered saying that the condition is to widen Courtland Street to City standards, put curb, gutter and sidewalk in and red curb it and this would have to be done before the bank could be opened. Ms. Heffernon further explained that the applicant has the option to bond so the map can be recorded and that improvements have to take place before occupancy is allowed. Vice Chair Keen opened the Public Hearing. PAGE 3 Stan Cherry, President of Santa Lucia Bank and applicant, introduced Larry Putman, Chief Administrator, John Hansen, Chief Financial Officer & Project Officer for the bank and Katcho Achadjian, Board of Directors of Santa Lucia Bank. Mr. Cherry said the proposed bank was intended to handle their future growth and they believed this would be the most attractive office in the whole system. John Knight RRM Group, Project Manager, thanked Community Development Staff, Public Works staff and the Fire Chief for their hard work. He then went over the history of the site and answered the following questions from the Commission: • Traffic issues - there are no ATM drive -up lanes, only drive -up teller lanes, and these are more for convenience and should not generate more traffic; the 4 drive -up lane is uncovered for large vehicles. • Unfortunately the traffic report included with the staff report was not the latest one, but the conditions do reflect the updates. • Because of the Toss of retail space there will be a drop in traffic and this in turn will affect the traffic study. • The applicant has offered to pay their "fair share" for the traffic signalization and split the cost of an opticon at another intersection in the City when required. Commissioner Brown asked if the Commission should approve the project without seeing the updated supplement to the traffic report and why was the previously approved retail project, not going through and would this project meet the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan? Mr. Knight replied the traffic update had been reflected in the conditions; Santa Lucia Bank was proposing to build out about two thirds of the site and include a bus shelter. Regarding the EGAMP (still in design), they had incorporated elements of the plan by adding street trees, sidewalk treatments, specialized paving and a bulb out. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 PAGE 4 Commissioner Arnold had the following comments: • The 8' monument sign seemed very high and would appear even higher on top of the mounding. • The scale on the drawing did not truly reflect the height of the building. • Would it be better to have a shared driveway between the senior center and the bank? • How high was the retaining wall protecting the plaza? Mr. Knight replied that the signs are consistent with the sign ordinance; he agreed with Commissioner Arnold on the grade levels and said they had tried to soften the appearance with landscaping and architectural treatments and additional walls. He stated that there is a need to place the bank and the retail at these elevations because all the access will be from the back; they had tried to minimize the grade difference between the senior and the commercial project. The senior project was already approved, a shared driveway would be difficult with the grade change and it was important to keep the traffic from the senior housing separate. For safety reasons the Building Code requires a railing height to be 42 ". Commissioner Guthrie comments: • He had concerns with the traffic analysis. • How would this plan ensure pedestrian and bicycle use as required Plan Land Use Element as compared to the previous plan? • He expressed concern that the availability of retail had been reduced the City intended to increase intensity. in the General in an area that Mr. Knight replied: • The traffic analysis was prepared before the current plans, but they would be happy to bring the revised analysis back showing compliance. • To attract pedestrians on the retail side there will be: a small plaza with direct access from Grand Avenue via some steps, outdoor tables or seating, ADA accessible path to the commercial site, a larger plaza with seating, the bus stop is to be relocated and a bus shelter provided (architecturally matching the building), bike racks and pedestrian access from Court land. • With regard to the intensity he stated that there was an appropriate amount of retail and finding parking spaces, especially if a food service goes in, may be difficult. Commissioner Guthrie stated that pedestrian access to the bank requires crossing at least one lane of drive thru traffic. Mr. Knight replied that many alternatives had been looked at and it had been difficult to design and get everything on -site and directly access Grand Avenue with the drive thru. Commissioner Guthrie said the intent of the EGAMP was to minimize the traffic going through the pedestrian zone and that the connectivity between the two commercial sites was not ideal, in his opinion the former design had better connectivity. Commissioner Keen asked if the commercial property was for sale. Mr. Knight replied he did not know at this time. Commissioner Keen said that any reference to this property in the staff report was not valid. Mr. Knight said if a buyer came forward and wanted to modify the plans they would have to go to the ARC and amend the conditional use permit. 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 Vice Chair Keen closed the Public Hearing. PAGE 5 Commissioner Guthrie asked if the applicant intended to develop all the parking in advance and develop the connection to RiteAid, and is there sufficient parking on the bank parcel to support the bank development alone. Mr. Knight replied 'yes' to all questions. Commissioner Keen said he would like the Planned Sign Program to be considered separately. Commissioner Guthrie asked Public Works if the SANDAG figures for a drive thru were correct. Mike Linn, Public Works said the SANDAG study only gives an average of what they could be and a traffic study would address this in more detail. Commission Guthrie stated concerns with: • The 4 -lanes of drive -up bank tellers. • This mixed -use zone was selected for the City to do a "smart growth" project and this does not reflect that. • It was no longer an optimal pedestrian area and this proposal is in fact dangerous. • More intense use is being given up than what is intended for a mixed -use area. • We are losing retail sales tax, and not creating jobs. Commissioner Arnold stated concerns regarding the scale of project and elevations; it was a large building too close to the street; it was not one whole project; the connection to the senior housing were not as good; he would like to see elevations and heights on the site plan. He could not support the project as;submitted. Commissioner Fowler commented that it was a lovely project and exactly right for the gateway to the City; she would like to see the height a little lower; pedestrians from Berry Gardens and the senior housing would be using the bank; she liked the "mission look "; she would not like to see a higher retaining wall at the back to bring the grading down; seniors need to have less stairs not more; the intensity of use for this area in the General Plan was appropriate; the parking was ample in back and the issue of safety coming out from the teller lanes had been addressed. Commissioner Brown stated he agreed with Commissioner Arnold on the issue of the grade and scale and Commissioner Guthrie's comments about a demonstration project and the fact that the Commission had approved a previous project that better fit with the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Project and they were now getting something different. He would like to see a more pedestrian friendly project, no drive -thru, lower grades, justification for the 36 -foot high elevator tower, more discussion by Public Works on the driveway entrances and the effect on seniors. At this time he could not support this project. Commissioner Keen said the signs and the tower are all to maximum rather than to scale, (something should be done so they do not look so massive), but are allowed by Development Code. He commented that the palm trees had been approved by the ARC, but traditionally the Planning Commission had not allowed palm trees for landscaping; he approved of moving the driveway. With regard to mitigation measure No. 20, it should be MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 specified who would be responsible for mitigating the loss of the Coast Live Oak. He further stated he would like to see justification for 4 drive -thru lanes; the other retail project should be included at the same time; the signs all look too large and the monument sign looks massive. Commissioner Brown agreed with Commissioner Keen adding that this is a highly visible, desirable location, people will know what is located here and the public is very sensitive about aesthetics and signs of this size are not required. In reply to comments from Commissioner Keen, Mr. Strong said EGAMP and the concept of a raised landscaped medium island from the City limits to Court land was to preclude left turn movements into and from driveways. Commissioner Guthrie made a motion to deny the project based on the findings that the proposed project is not consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs intended by the General Plan and requirements of the Development Code, specifically Land Use Element 5 -1, 5 -2, 5 -5, 5 -6, 5 -8.2, and 5 -10.1, and that the appearance of the building mass and height should be reduced. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brown and approved on the following roll call: AYES: Commissioners Guthrie, Brown and Arnold. NOES: Commissioner Fowler and Commissioner Keen ABSENT: None The Commission took a ten - minute recess. PAGE 6 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 02 -012, APPLICANT — TOM McGONAGILL; LOCATION — 234 HALCYON ROAD. Staff report prepared and presented by Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner. Ms. Heffernon distributed a color and materials board to the Commission stating that the applicant was proposing to remove two existing residences, which were in disrepair, and to construct a new 7,881 square foot, single story office building. She described the architecture and elevations and stated that the site plan already reflected changes advised by staff; the Conditions of Approval were standard; one large Coast Live Oak at the northeast corner has mitigation measures to be implemented for it's survival. ARC recommended changes: Enlarge the cap on the false chimney and eliminate the false vent; modify landscape plan to replace the grape Myrtle with Victorian Box trees and replace the Coast Live Oak trees with Liquid Ambers; remove false triangle vents on the upper walls of front entryways and modify two screen walls at Dodson Way access with capstone along top and use of rock veneer to match the building. The ARC requested to review the building materials before final approval. Public Works will amend Condition #45 (right turn in and right turn out onto Halcyon with radius curb returns). Commissioner Keen asked why the Coast Live Oaks were being replaced? Ms. Heffernon said an ARC member felt that these trees are not good in a parking lot configuration and that they belong in larger natural areas. 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 Commissioner Guthrie asked for clarification on the driveway access. Ms. Heffernon explained that there is a private agreement for the shared parking. Commissioner Brown stated that both the firewall and the cap on the false chimney looked odd. Commissioner Keen commented that the north elevation wall was completely blank and suggested some architectural relief to break it up. Commissioner Arnold agreed with Commissioner Keen. Vice Chair Keen opened the Public Hearing. Randy Ray, APS Architects, thanked staff for their hard work and reconfirmed answers to Commissioner's questions. Commissioner Guthrie and Mr. Ray had a discussion which clarified the number of parking spaces and the agreement for shared access to six of them. Commissioner Keen asked if the applicant had requested relief for undergrounding? Mr. Ray said they had not. Commissioner Brown asked if the cap on the chimney could be removed? Mr. Ray said it could. Vice Chair Keen closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to approve the Conditional Use Permit with the following amendments: 1. The Coast Live Oaks to replace the Liquid Amber trees. 2. The cap on the chimney to be deleted. 3. Condition No. 45 to be amended per Public Works suggestion. 4. Architectural detail should be added to the blank north wall and approved by the ARC. and adopt: RESOLUTION 03 -1868 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, INSTRUCTING THE COMMISSION CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 02 -012, LOCATED AT 234 HALCYON ROAD, APPLIED FOR BY TOM McGONAGILL The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: PAGE 7 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold, Fowler, Guthrie and Vice Chair Keen. NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 18th day March 2003. PAGE 8 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM - CONDITIONAL USE PEMIT 02 -010; APPLICANT — SOUTH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY; LOCATION — 127 SHORT STREET. Staff Report prepared and presented by Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner. Due to the number of items to review and the late hour the Planning Commission agreed that they would not be able to hear all of the items so a motion was made by Commission Guthrie to continue this item to be the first item at the next meeting of April 1, 2003. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brown and unanimously approved on a 5/0 voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 01 -012; APPLICANT — MARJ HUGGINS; LOCATION - 1620 CHILTON. Staff report prepared and presented by Teresa McClish, Associate Planner. Ms. McClish said the applicant is proposing to construct a 189 square foot office and a 189 square foot building for storage and display of natural materials. She then described the site area the zoning. She explained that legal access is through parcel 'D' and 'B'. Although there is no legal access through the lot on the corner of Oak Park and El Camino Real, an access road does bisect the property. Four areas on site will be used to display recycled materials; the proposed buildings are to be sided with recycled wood siding and a "green shake" wood shingle roofing; a 6 -foot high wood fence is proposed along Chilton Street; emergency access is from Chilton Street through a 4 -foot wide gate; no trees are proposed to be removed. The applicant is requesting an exception to the undergrounding and for the sidewalk, curb and gutter. In answer to Commissioner Guthrie, Ms. McClish said the applicant is pursuing a legal agreement for an easement through the neighboring parcel. Commissioner Arnold asked for clarification on the site plan where it stated "a new 12 -foot all weather drive to edge of new asphalt" and asked if this would be used for access? Ms. McClish said this was referring to the easement agreement that was not in effect yet and the project could only be approved with the existing legal access. This project is conditioned to be evaluated annually for the first five years, due to prior enforcement actions and because of the unique use. If access is changed it could be evaluated at that time. Commissioner Brown asked for further clarification on access. Ms. McClish said the only access at this time is over the adjacent parcel D and onto El Camino Real. Usage of the site will be by appointment only. Commissioner Brown asked what would be required for protection of the oak trees? Ms. McClish said an extensive arborist report, done prior to the site plan and building 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 PAGE 9 placement, laid out recommended actions. A Condition of Approval requires an updated report. Upon review, staff will take the mitigation measures in the report and apply these conditions to the site. Commissioner Brown asked if an applicant could voluntarily offer to pay some in lieu fees to avoid undergrounding of utilities without a policy in place? Mr. Strong said they could and then advised the Commission on a number of different ways that the undergrounding could be handled, adding that Council would need to make the policy on this. He recommended a restudy be done and the Commission develop a proactive approach. Ms. McClish clarified the conditions for undergrounding utilities; curb gutter and sidewalk requirements are included in the conditions per the separate addendum memorandum to the Planning Commission. She then pointed out that there is a pole with a mid line drop across Chilton Street. Mr. Strong reminded the Commission that under current conditions staff cannot authorize a waiver or consider alternatives, but the Commission can and they can also accept alternatives other than full waiver. Mr. Strong suggested that at the annual review of the project the undergrounding requirement also be reviewed. Vice Chair Keen opened the Public Hearing. Ted Tiessen, California Design Associates, addressing questions from the Commission said: • There is legal access through Parcel D to the site and there is no sewer lift requirement for the site. • There will be a 6 -foot high wood fence along Chilton for screening from residences across the street. • The previous owner had done illegal grading and his client had been working on oak preservation. • He asked the Commission to consider their proposal of maintaining the existing access through Parcel D, until another easement is secured. • The business will consist of small displays of natural recycled materials and clients will come to the site by appointment only. The materials will change according to what is available from week to week. • They had submitted a letter asking for relief from the undergrounding requirement. The cost for undergrounding would be triple the cost of the improvements for the project. In addition, the existing overhead facilities serve houses across the street. Answering Commissioner Brown's question regarding curb, gutter and sidewalk, Mike Linn, said there is an asphalt berm that runs the full length of Chilton that directs the water flow down to Oak Park. Commissioner Brown asked if this condition could be held in abeyance, along with the undergrounding, until further development at adjacent properties. Vice Chair Keen closed the Public Hearing. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 PAGE 10 Commission Guthrie comments: this may be the wrong project to assign creative in lieu fees because it is such a low intensity use; curb and gutter along the whole length of Chilton Street could be requested, but waive other frontage improvements; he agreed with the yearly oversight of the project. Commissioner Arnold comments: He agreed with Commissioner Guthrie on the curb and gutter and thought the undergrounding could be deferred at this time. Commissioner Keen did not like the idea of deferring the requirement for undergrounding and a decision should be made on the curb and gutter also. He asked Mr. Tiessen to comment. Mr. Tiessen said he would prefer not to have deferral of the undergrounding and he suggested that drainage could start at Parcel D, all the way across Parcel C and ending at the west property line with the curb and gutter Commissioner Keen said for previous projects we have asked for future conduits to be installed. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to approve the Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01 -012, waiving the undergrounding requirement, adding a condition to provide curb and gutter across lots 'D' and `0', and adopt: RESOLUTION 03 -1862 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, INSTRUCTING THE COMMISSION CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVE CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 01 -012, LOCATED AT 1620 CHILTON STREET, APPLIED FOR BY MARG HUGGINS The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold, Fowler, Guthrie and Vice Chair Keen. NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 18th day March 2003. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 02 -011; APPLICANT — RON ROHR; LOCATION - 1156 EAST GRAND AVENUE. Staff report prepared and presented by Ryan Foster. Mr. Foster gave details of the applicant's proposal to add a drive through window and add parking lot improvements to an existing coffee shop and a landscaped area to be added (in the future). The Staff Advisory Committee's main concern with the project was the traffic generation and backup onto Grand Avenue. Traffic counts taken at peak hours at the 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 PAGE 11 coffee shop (7:30 — 8:30 a.m.) and at Broadway Bagel (8:45 — 9:45 a.m.) both showed 18 trips for the peak hour. Staff also calculated peak hour trips (as recommended by SANDAG Guidelines) to be 12. In staff's opinion this project is an ideal candidate to participate in the forthcoming East Grand Avenue Facade Grant Program at the time the landscaping improvements are made. In answer to Commissioner Guthrie's question Mr. Strong said there is room for one or two car lengths between the Brisco Road acceleration lane and the two -way left turn pocket adjacent to the entry drive. Commissioner Brown stated that when making a right hand turn into the shared (eastern) driveway it seems physically impossible to stay in the lane if a car is coming out of the drive - thru. Vice Chair Keen opened the Public Hearing. Ron Rohr, Engineer, stated that regarding right turns into the driveway they were proposing to make the entrance one -way in on the west side and that the eastern shared drive was both exit and entrance to rear parcel the project would also remove 9 or 10 feet of the existing curb to leave more room for a turn. Commissioner Brown said he would like to have confirmation from Public Works that the turn be engineered so a car would be able to make a turn with a car sitting waiting to exit. Mike Linn said he would visit the site to confirm this. Commissioner Guthrie stated he could not see how there would be five nine -foot parking spaces. Mr. Bull pointed out how the parking was laid out on the site plan. Mr. Strong said drive up window should reduce onsite parking and suggested taking out the parking space closest to the driveway and widening the driveway at the same time as installing a radius turn. Vice Chair Keen closed the Public Hearing. The Commission had the following comments: • The business will probably be successful, but there is a concern with traffic sitting in the median lane and traffic backing up. • Review the permit in a year because of traffic concerns. • Condition the project to show a right -hand turn can be made without stacking up occurring. • Pedestrians could be a hazard if they step out in front of cars. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to approve Conditional Use Permit 02 -011 with amendments: 1. Annual review of the permit. 2. Public Works confirm the radius of the right hand turn into the eastern driveway so a car has the ability to turn without going into the exit lane. and adopt: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 RESOLUTION 03 -1863 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02 -011, LOCATED AT 1156 GRAND AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY AARON BULL The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 18th day March 2003. PAGE 12 AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold, Fowler, Guthrie and Vice Chair Keen. NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEM - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 02 -004 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 02 -005; APPLICANT — KEVIN HUNSTAD; LOCATION — 325 ALDER STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner. Going through the staff report Mr. Foster described the project in detail. In conclusion he stated that the applicant has decided to request a waiver for all of the undergrounding requirements. Several Conditions of Approval were omitted from Exhibit 'A' and staff is requesting these be included. Commissioner Guthrie asked what depth the retention basins were and if they would be sufficient, especially if they were filled by residents in the future and could they be enforceable in the CC &R's? Commission Keen asked why the drainage is not going into the street? Mr. Foster said the City drainage is at capacity. Commissioner Brown asked how the affordable housing in -lieu fee would be calculated? Mr. Strong said it was 3% of estimated construction value. Vice Chair Keen opened the Public Hearing. Kevin Hunstad, applicant, said Public Works said they would have to mitigate or have onsite drainage. He would prefer not to have ponds because they do not look good, they get filled in sometimes and owners would prefer to have more yard. Undergrounding of utilities: a formal letter was handed to the Commission explaining why they were requesting waiving of undergrounding. In reply to commissioner's questions Mr. Hunstad stated that he could remove the poles on Alder Street, but it would be impractical to remove the ones on the south side. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Hunstad to address the issue of drainage as neighbors had a question regarding the grade of the project in relation to the homes around it. Mr. Hunstad said he did not have grading plans with him, but there was a retaining wall 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 between the properties and the elevations will be the same as next door. If they keep the water onsite they may not have to bring dirt in. Faith Carver, (lives in a house south of property) said she was concerned because the surrounding houses were all at a higher grade level than her property and that the water could drain into her garage and house. In addition, she would like to have a cement retaining wall with a fence on top and would like this put up before the project begins to shield her from the mess and noise. Mr. Linn, Public Works, said these had been taken care of in the Conditions. Cindy McDonald, 315 Alder Street, had concerns with the design of Lot 2 house because two of the bedroom windows look straight into two of their bedroom windows. Vice Chair Keen closed the Public Hearing. PAGE 13 The Commission had the following comments: • Lot 2 should have a redesign so the bedroom windows do not face each other. • The retention basin problem should be addressed and Public Works should review this issue to find alternatives for drainage on site and check the capacity of to see if the water could be drained into the street. • They would like to see undergrounding on the front of the property and the two poles removed on Alder Street. • Discussion on affordable housing led to decision for this project to proceed with a 3% in lieu fee at this time. Mr. Linn said he would have to review the Storm Master Plan and alternatives for drainage and he would also review the issue of the undergrounding. Commissioner Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to approve Tentative Tract Map 02 -004 and Planned Unit Development 02 -005 with the following conditions: 1. The windows on the building of Lot 2 to be rearranged to provide privacy (both for that unit and the unit behind). 2. Public Works should find an alternative for water retention on site in place of the retention basins. 3. Waive the undergrounding requirement on the south side of the property, but require undergrounding of both poles on the front of the property. 4. The finding that the 3% in lieu fee would be acceptable. 5. The fencing retaining wall required before grading is started. and adopt: RESOLUTION 03 -1864 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 02 -004 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 02 -005 LOCATED AT 325 ALDER STREET APPLIED FOR BY KEVIN HUNSTAD MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2003 The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Guthrie, Arnold, Brown, Fowler, and Vice Chair Keen. NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 18th day March 2003. NON- PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS — None DISCUSSION ITEMS — Development Code Amendment 01 -003 — Revision to Design Guidelines for Historic Districts: Ms. McClish gave an update on these items and stated that Council had given direction for consideration of the General Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment to be re- noticed to clarify the overlay district and that the amendments and the Design Guidelines would be considered by Council on April 22, 2003. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS — Community Development Director reported that an Administrative Sign Permit for Spencer's Market was being processed instead of Planned Sign Program to replace the non - conforming existing sign. Spencer's Market is in need of monument signage on East Grand Avenue, consistent with code. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP — None. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Brown, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: LY EARDON- SMITH, J = N KEEN, ICE CHAIR COMMISSION CLERK AS TO CONTENT: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELO ° ENT DIRECTOR PAGE 14 1 1