Loading...
PC Minutes 2003-02-051 1 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 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 and Associate Planner Teresa McClish. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. AGENDA REVIEW — No changes. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 02 -001; APPLICANT — DB& M PROPERTIES, LLC; LOCATION — 520, 522 & 528 EAST BRANCH STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner. Ms. Heffernon described the property explaining that the site was recently improved with an internal loop road, curb, gutter and sidewalk along East Branch Street; drainage facilities; City water and sewer lines. Ms. Heffernon further stated that the applicant is proposing a Planned Unit Development consisting of 10 existing lots and because the proposal is conceptual, the ratio of residential to commercial use is not exact, but has approximately 8,600 square feet of residential floor area and 16,000 square feet of commercial /office space. The two 2 existing houses on the site are proposed to remain. The PUD process will establish general site and building design standards for a desired pattern of development for mixed uses, while still preserving some flexibility for unique design concepts on individual lots. In addition, the PUD process also avoids having to review and approve 10 separate Conditional Use Permits, and therefore the possibility of an overall random or undesirable development. With the PUD, the City still maintains discretion whereby each proposed development on each lot would be reviewed through the Architectural Review process and evaluated for consistency with the conceptual plan. Ms. Heffernon then described the architectural style of the proposed buildings stating that detailed landscape plans will be required for each proposed building subject to consistency with the conceptual landscape plan. She further stated that a name change is proposed for the internal access road as part of the PUD process to more accurately identify the location of the project within the City and Village area. The property falls under the Village Core land use category, which provides for mixed uses. However, because the Development Code has not yet been updated to conform to the mixed -use policies of the General Plan, there are currently no Village Core standards to apply to this project so Village Commercial zoning standards were used to evaluate the project. The project is also subject to the Design Guidelines for Historic Districts. While the MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 2002 PAGE 2 scale and massing of the project is consistent with other buildings within the Village Commercial district, it is considerably larger than neighboring structures. The current Guidelines do not provide specific direction for placing an allowed commercial or mixed - use complex within the fringe area of the Village Commercial District. It appears that the project accomplishes most of the objectives by incorporating a specific historic theme "early railroad station" style of architecture. Conditions have been added to reflect recommendations from the ARC that addressed details of colors and materials that would further add a Village feel to the project. A Planned Sign Program for the entire project is planned, which is conceptual and mostly relies on the existing sign regulations of the Development Code and Village Commercial Design Guidelines. To ensure a Village feel, the project is conditioned that all signs must be made of wood, or materials that simulate wood. Finally, Ms. Heffernon stated that the two traffic reports used to evaluate traffic impacts for the proposed project concluded that the project would not degrade the level of service below "C" to area roadways or intersections. Caltrans also reviewed the project as part of the environmental analysis with regard to project specific traffic impacts on Highway 227 and they determined that the added traffic volumes would require specific mitigation to reduce project impacts, and that a two- way -left -turn lane must be installed along the property frontage, curb adjacent to the project must be painted red to eliminate on- street parking (approximately 13 parking spaces) or the north side of the roadway reconstructed. (To maintain on street parking the applicant must improve the full width of Highway 227.) To mitigate the loss of the on street parking, the applicant must provide an interim parking solution either on -site, or within 200 feet of the project site, until on- street parking can be accommodated on the Highway. The applicant has indicated that he intends to improve the Highway to Caltrans standards, but does not want to hold up the entire project while Caltrans approval is being sought and road improvements are being made. He has agreed that lots 8 and 9 will remain undeveloped until Highway 227 is improved and on- street parking is restored; Mitigation Measure No. 19 would be revised to reflect this proposal. Commissioner Guthrie asked Mr. Olds, Public Works, to address staff concerns about the traffic reports. Mr. Olds stated that the traffic reports provided by the applicant had two inadequacies. It did not take into account cumulative trips and does not address any intersections. The traffic report for the Creekside Center project EIR also used for analysis, but does not have the AM peak hour trips (required in the City's traffic impact policy). Commissioner Guthrie asked for clarification as to why the 13 on- street parking spaces were necessary for the project. Ms. Heffernon stated that it depends on the type of mix for the project, but staff is recommending the normal on- street parking be provided on- site if temporarily eliminated on street. Commissioner Arnold asked how the Architectural standards would apply if the Design Guidelines are not yet finalized? Ms. Heffernon said that when the project is ready for MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 2002 Vice Chair Keen opened the Public Hearing. PAGE 3 building permit issuance staff will be looking at the conceptual plans and the conditions set by the ARC (although the proposed Guidelines were not resolved when the ARC reviewed the project). If the new Guidelines were ready at that time they would be applied. She stated she did not believe the new standards would be that different and the project could be also conditioned to apply the new Guidelines once adopted. Commissioner Brown asked if Caltrans would allow reconstruction or re- striping? Mr. Olds said Caltrans had recommended that this be done and the applicant would incur the cost. Commissioner Brown then asked how long the approval process would take? Mr. Olds said he did not know, but probably a matter of a few months. Joe Boud, Representative, stated the on- street parking had been calculated as being 11 spaces based considering corner visibility restrictions and that it was not intended to widen the road. On the northerly side the slope of the road from the curb line exceeds Caltrans standards so they would require the applicant to reconstruct this portion. A traffic report was not required for this project, but a traffic analysis of the operational and turning movements was required and had been provided to staff. He believed this project would satisfy the traffic impact questions raised by staff and Caltrans. He then gave the background, history and description of the project emphasizing that this was a site plan concept that they were presenting for approval, not a final project. Commissioner Guthrie asked if there was any intent to allow shared parking between the parcels? Mr. Boud said this was not the intent, but there would be shared driveway agreements, and may be some shared parking proposed later. Commissioner Brown asked about the timing on completing the improvements that Caltrans would permit. Mr. Boud said there would be a permit process at Caltrans and that this would occur concurrently with the processing of ARC and building permits. Commissioner Keen asked how the restructuring would affect the parking in front of the existing houses. Mr. Boud said that area would not be affected. Stephen Puglisi, Architect, said they were not presenting a specific development plan, but a concept of how the lots could be developed to illustrate to buyers and the City how the properties could be developed. Refinements could require ARC approval and revisions require CUP approval by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Brown asked what is "early railroad station style" and where is "early railroad station" found in the Guidelines or the Village? Mr. Puglisi explained that this was a description used to describe a style that would tie the architecture into this area of town (lots of wood trim and small details to break up the building masses). Similar to roof and eave details of historic railroad stations (e.g. Oceano). Commissioner Brown questioned the fact that buildings 1 & 2 were not orientated toward the street and whether this would fit with the GuidelinesNillage. Mr. Puglisi MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 2002 PAGE 4 replied that buildings 1 & 2 had access directly off Branch Street, the parking lot at the back and they were the only two buildings on site that would provide direct access off Branch Street, particularly if used for retail instead of office development. Commissioner Brown asked how under - structure parking would fit with existing pattern of building within the Village? Mr. Puglisi replied that under - structure parking had been designed for buildings 1 & 2 and a building at the opposite end of the project (Lot 6) in order to maximize possible commercial and residential space. They had incorporated elevator designs to accommodate both handicap and pedestrians and reflected site topography. Commissioner Arnold had a concern with the elevations showing elevator towers and the effect this connection would have, but otherwise thought the design looked very nice. Commissioner Guthrie had a concern with the pedestrian access points and if the complex would be visible from the rest of the Village. Mr. Puglisi said it probably would not be visible (due to curve in the street alignment), but it is proposed that the public would see 1 and 2 story street scale. Commissioner Guthrie commented that Building 1 and 2 combined are very large. Mr. Puglisi reminded the Commission that this is only a concept and the ARC would be reviewing each proposal before approval. Commissioner Fowler commented that she had done some comparison sizing and did not think that the buildings were that large. Commissioner Keen asked how tall Building 1 would be and if the under - structure parking would have to be sprinkled? Mr. Puglisi said Bldg. 1 would not be higher than the 30 feet and sprinkling for the under - structure parking would not be required. Mike McConville, 529 E. Branch Street, (across the street from the proposed project) stated he was in favor of the project. The improvements for this project had eased his concerns about Paulding school children crossing this street mid - block. Susan Flores, 529 E. Branch Street, (across the street from the proposed project) stated she was in favor of the project and that the safety of the street had already been improved because of the project. The future stages would give even more improvement to the street. Local businesses were really eager to relocate to the proposed project. She believed this would be a good addition to the Village. James Severence, 406 East Branch Street, stated he was in favor of the project and wanted to purchase lot #3 (his business hours would be 9:00 — 5:00 p.m. Fred Bauer, 212 Short Street, stated he was in favor of the project; thought the design was a great and a small -scale infill. He added that the under - structure parking would be a great way to get cars out of sight. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 2002 PAGE 5 Ken Peterson, 134 East Branch, Optometrist, stated he wanted to relocate his business to this new project as his present location is deteriorating (his business hours would also start at 9:00 a.m.). Richard DeBlauw, applicant, said the proposed use would be office along Branch Street and the property along the Creek bank is proposed to include office and residential apartments. Commissioner Keen asked if the proposed residential would be mixed use? Mr. DeBlauw said it would. Bob Lund, 133 East Branch Street, Executive Director Village Improvement Association, said he had received all favorable comments for this project from the Village business owners. Howard Mankins, 200 Hillcrest Drive, owner of property from 123 -131 East Branch Street, stated he thought this would be a great project and a great addition to the business community. It would benefit the City tax -wise and he was in favor of the mixed -use. East Branch Street used to have a bell tower on the third story of the old hotel (similar in scale to the elevator tower between Building 1 & 2). Byron Grant, 102 East Branch Street, Real Estate, stated he was in support of the project and commended the developer and thought it a nice blend with the existing. Eddie EI- Helou, 121 East Branch, thought this project fitting for the east side of the Village and approved of the mixed -use. Vice Chair Keen closed the public hearing. Commissioner Brown commented: • The proposed project is a modern office complex both in size and design, and the project as conceptually designed fails to follow the existing pattern of building facades and size (the Village is mostly an eclectic mixture of small store fronts accessed from Branch Street). The proposed building design creates a mass not unlike the "Village Centre" project. • Traffic and parking issues need to be more fully addressed. • The improvement of 227 as an option prior to approval cannot be precluded. • A PUD should not be conceptual in nature, but specific, especially as the Village is a sensitive area. • Any and all building designs or design changes should go through the Planning Commission as well as the ARC. • In his opinion the required PUD findings could not be met and he would like to see a different design. If Council chooses to stay with this design then a model would be imperative to show scale and size of buildings. • Buildings 1 and 2 could be dealt with in a more pedestrian friendly manner. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 2002 PAGE 6 • He had concerns on the underground parking and how the internal roadway would lend itself to shared parking throughout the Village. Finally, Commissioner Brown said in its current configuration and it being conceptual in nature he could not approve the project. Commissioner Fowler said she disagreed with Commissioner Brown, as over the period of two years of dealing with the Village Design Guidelines she believed the consensus was that coordinated, but not uniform design was what was desired. She further stated that the PUD makes the project continuous and it allows the City to deal with the property en -masse instead of having many different applicants come forward for each individual lot. She believed that the PUD would appear as a continuation of the Village and would blend in. Commissioner Arnold agreed with Commissioner Fowler, but he did have a concern that the buildings may be too similar, but stated that this project was a quite a lot different from the Village Center. He considered this project to be very important to the Village and was in favor of it. Commissioner Guthrie stated that he could not see this project as being part of the Village and in order for him to approve this some significant changes would have to be made: • The scale of buildings 1 & 2 should be broken up, maybe delete the tower or have two separate buildings • The pedestrian access would have to have a significant tie into the Village; • The parking is relatively private or individual and the "shared parking" would be an option relying on the tenants. • He did not believe there would be not be a traffic impact especially in the AM. Finally, he stated that he believed these issues could be fixed, and asked staff if just the east end of the project could be approved? Mr. Strong said it would be much easier to deal with a conceptual Planned Unit Development even if it is phased rather than deal with 10 separate use permits. He referred to the traffic study stating that he believed the information was available to justify the findings, also considering the Creekside Center DEIR traffic information. Commissioner Guthrie said he disagreed with Commissioner Fowler and believed it was the intent of the Historic Guidelines that buildings look different rather than alike. Commissioner Keen commented he liked the architecture and thought the "Early Railroad Station" style tied in with the history of the Pacific Railroad through the area. He had a concern with approving the project prior to approval of the new Historic Design Guidelines. 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 2002 Commissioner Keen asked if the project could be conditioned to reflect that all buildings meet the new Guidelines as approved by the Planning Commission and as yet not approved by Council. Ms. Heffernon said it could be conditioned this way, but it may hold up the project. Mr. Strong stated that this project better complies with the proposed Guidelines than the adopted Guidelines. Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to approve the project with the following changes: 1. Mitigation Measure No. 19 revised; 2. Condition of Approval No. 12 revised; 3. Eliminate Condition of Approval No. 60 (Duplicates No. 59); and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 03 -1860 The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Arnold, Fowler, and Vice Chair Keen NOES: Commissioners Brown and Guthrie ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 5 day February 2003. PAGE 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MEASURES, INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 02 -001 WITH ASSOCATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (EAST VILLAGE PLAZA), LOCATED AT 520, 522 AND 528 EAST BRANCH STREET, APPLIED FOR BY DB &M PROPERTIES PUBLIC HEARING ITEM — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 02 -001; DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 02 -002; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT CASE NO. 02 -002 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 02 -002; APPLICANT — DON MCHANEY; LOCATION — NORTH SIDE OF FARROLL AVENUE BETWEEN OAK PARK BLVD AND GOLDEN WEST PLACE. Staff report prepared and presented by Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner. Ms. Heffernon stated described the site stating that it is 10 acres surrounded by residential development to the south, east and west, and by the Soto Sports Complex to the north. She stated that the applicant has revised the project since City Council reviewed it as a pre - application. The applicant is now proposing a higher residential density than the current land use and zoning designations allow, hence a General Plan Amendment is proposed. Council also recommended not having a neighborhood or pocket park in this location given the proximity to Soto Elm Street Park. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 2002 Vice Chair Keen opened the Public Hearing. PAGE 8 Ms. Heffernon described some highlights of the proposed project explaining that the main access is proposed off Farroll Avenue as an extension of Bakeman Lane and a second access is proposed off of Dixson Street. The Farroll Avenue frontage will have the same landscape, fencing and sidewalk treatment as the adjacent subdivision. Ms. Heffernon then addressed affordable housing and traffic as discussed in the initial study. Ms. Heffernon explained the City's policy for affordable housing and concluded by stating that because the General Plan is the foundation for all policy decisions regarding development in the City, the project has been conditioned to reserve 5 units (25% of the 20 unit increase) for affordable housing. Ms. Heffernon then addressed traffic impacts and concluded by saying that because of the cumulative impacts of existing projects, plus proposed projects, the Level of Service for the intersection of Farroll Avenue and Halcyon Road, would degrade to an LOS "D" during the AM peak hour. As mitigation, the applicant is required to conduct signal warrants study for this intersection and pay the City's proportional share of Traffic Signalization and Transportation Facilities Impact fees. John Scholes, representative for EDA, the project engineer, stated that they were in agreement with the findings and conditions; this was a good infill project; the requirement for affordable housing would be helpful. In response to a question from Commissioner Guthrie he replied that the increased units could be counted towards the State mandate. Commissioner Guthrie asked about the east side portion of land (where there were no homes) and whether the City would end up with this. Don Mchaney, applicant, replied that the intent was to create a linear park at this area to act as a buffer between the proposed project and Golden West Place. They were proposing to set up a maintenance district to take care of this rather than an HOA. The City has a 20 -foot storm drain easement across this area. Commissioner Fowler referred to a letter from a neighbor asking about access across the site to the back of their properties. Mr. Mchaney said he did not have any idea how this could be accommodated, but the City could allow it. Dan Miller, 442 Golden West Place, had concerns with the traffic impact this project would have on Oak Park and Halcyon Road. He had a gate in his rear yard and stated he accessed it frequently and believed it had been used like this since 1973 for motor home access, as had his neighbors. Paul Savage, 1374 Dixson, had concerns with traffic and accidents on Oak Park. He said he had not received notification of this project. 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 2002 PAGE 9 Resident of 442 Golden West Place, had concerns with the traffic impact with so many homes being proposed, and had safety concerns with the increased traffic impact on Harloe School. She also would like to keep the access to the back of her property. Pete Gallagher, 1375 Dixson, said he did not received notice of the project. He had the following concerns: • The traffic circulation. He believed the majority of traffic from the project would exit onto Dixson then Oak Park and not Farroll Avenue. • Traffic making a left turn into Dixson and that traffic would be backed up at Oak Park. • With Dixson Street being overparked as on some days the street is heavily parked due to activities at Soto Park, and considered it a safely concern for children in this area. • That there would not be a pocket park and children would be crossing streets to get to the Soto Park from the proposed project. Charles Ochoa, one of the site property owners and previous strawberry grower, stated that they never gave anyone easement rights on the Golden West tract to access their property and he had never seen anyone using this access, had never been asked by anyone to use it and that two years ago there was a gate and he had never seen anyone access out. Commissioner Keen asked Mr. Ochoa how many acre -feet of water he had pulled out of the well when he was growing strawberries? Mr. Ochoa replied that the well pumped about 500 gallons a minute and they would irrigate 10 -12 hours a day and the next day because of the sandy soil you could not tell it had been watered. Mr. Mchaney commented that if the development takes place the agriculture well would be capped off and groundwater available to City wells. Vice Chair Keen closed the Public Hearing. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns: • The traffic study had not addressed the Oak Park/Dixson Street intersection; the trip distribution did not seem valid. • Traffic circulation — safety concerns. • Lack of a pocket park for young children (due to proximity to existing park). • They preferred not to have "in lieu" fees for affordable housing, but to require on -site construction. • They would like to see 4' sidewalks with a 2 -4' landscaped parkway (same as Berry Gardens). • Existing single story homes should have single story homes next to them. • Landscape design should include water conservation measures. • They would like to see access to Soto Park established. • A possible bus stop or turnout on Oak Park or Farroll. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 2002 • The legality for egress to allow access for the neighboring subdivision should be considered. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guthrie, to continue discussion to the March 4, 2003 meeting due to the late hour and many undecided factors. The motion was unanimously approved on a 5/0 voice vote. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - None DISCUSSION ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS — Commissioner Fowler said CNN news had a story on the chickens that had taken up home around City Hall. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP — None. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Guthrie, and unanimously carried. Ll( REARDON- SMITH, COMMISSION CLERK ATTEST: AS TO ' NTE ROB J S TRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR PAGE 10 1 1