Loading...
PC Minutes 2003-01-211 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 3003 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 - The minutes of December 17, 2003 were unanimously approved as written, on a 5/0 voice vote. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — Memo from Don Spagnolo, Director of Public Works regarding Conditional Use Permit 02 -009, 1570 West Branch Street. AGENDA REVIEW — The Commission agreed to change the Agenda to hear item II.B. - Development Code Amendment 01 -003 — Design Guidelines for Historic Districts last. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 02 -005; APPLICANT — STEPHEN & SHERRI HAUCK; LOCATION — CANYON WAY, TRACT 2265 — Continued from the December 17, 2003 meeting. Staff report prepared by Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner and presented by Rob Strong. Mr. Strong briefly described the project stating that after conferring with the City Attorney regarding the restriction against further subdivision staff concluded that the lot line adjustment does not constitute a re- subdivision since it is not creating additional building sites or parcels. The conditions of approval would maintain the open space easement on both parcels. Commissioner Arnold said after visiting the site and studying the easement he did believe this was a worthwhile project. The only concern he had was the fact that the re- vegetation proposed to do to stop the erosion, was stated to be "only native" and he would like this clarified in the final document. Mr. Strong agreed that it was important that the site be natural in appearance. Commissioner Guthrie questioned if the project should have been a variance rather than a lot line adjustment. Mr. Strong said although this area is designated Rural Residential the subdivision averaged the density and concentrated it into a conventional single family subdivision making all of the 36 home -sites Tess than one -acre; in addition the Variance procedure has to show findings of physical difficulty or unnecessary hardship which would not apply to this. Commissioner Keen opened the public hearing. Mr. Hauck, Applicant, briefly described the property distributing photographs to the Commission showing taken from different perspectives. He further stated that a tremendous amount of erosion had taken place and according to an arborist two oak trees have been impacted negatively by the erosion. It will be $3000 just to take care of the oak grove. We are intending to restore the area back to it's original state. It has been decided not to have any livestock. Seven other homes have a view into the open space. Commissioner Keen closed the public hearing. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 Commissioner Brown stated he appreciated the applicant taking care of the oak grove. Commissioner Arnold said he had no concern with the fence the applicant was proposing because it may be wise to have a fence for when the school is built. Commissioner Keen asked if the applicant was still proposing to install the fence even though it had been decided not to have any grazing. Mr. Hauck said he was not intending to install the fence in the near future. Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guthrie, recommending City Council approve Lot Line Adjustment 02 -005 for Tots 1 and 37 of Tract 2265 and adopt resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 03 -1858 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 02 -005, INVOLVING LOTS 1 AND 37 OF TRACT 2265, APPLIED FOR BY STEPHEN HAUCK The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Arnold, Guthrie, Brown, Fowler and Vice Chair Keen NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 21st day January 2003. PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARING — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02 -009 & ADMINISTRATIVE SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 02 -001; APPLICANT — JAMES T. WOOD; LOCATION — 1570 W. BRANCH. Staff Report prepared and presented by Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner. Ms. Heffernon stated the proposed project is to construct a 6,000 sq. ft., single story building for the Parable Bookstore including a mezzanine for storage and a small self - serve coffee area. The Development Code requires 28 parking spaces and forty parking spaces have been proposed, but the shopping center will experience an overall net loss of available parking which may be a concern. According to the Traffic and Parking Impact Study prepared for the project, the net loss of parking is considered minimal and would not impact the overall parking demand for the Oak Park Plaza. Ms. Heffernon then referred to the revised traffic impact report from Orosz Engineering Group and stated that based on this report staff is recommending that the project be conditioned to construct the traffic signal at Camino Mercado and West Branch Street before construction can begin. Ms. Heffernon then described the proposed building materials showing a color board of the project. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fowler, Mr. Woodall, applicant's representative, stated they would be agreeable to accept the traffic impact conditions. 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 PAGE 3 Commissioner Guthrie commented that the design of this building did not match the rest of the center. Mr. Woodall said this was intentional as they were looking for some diversity. Commissioner Brown expressed his concern to Mr. Orosz, Traffic Engineer, on the fact that the Commission had not received the new information on the traffic impact until just before the start of the meeting. He then asked for further clarification on how the parking spaces were to be created. Mr. Orosz explained how this would be achieved. Commissioner Arnold had concern about the traffic exiting off Hwy 101 when traffic signal lights are installed and how this would be handled. Mr. Orosz said that Caltrans has been reviewing preliminary plans for this traffic signal and have concurred that it can be installed, but have not identified a need for the off ramp to be extended at this time. Commissioner Guthrie had a concern on how effective a traffic light would be at this intersection and that it may create more of a problem than it would solve. In addition he also had a concern on how the parking analysis and traffic analysis pm weekday has been used, but Sunday afternoon traffic has the biggest impact at this intersection. Commissioner Keen asked if the parking count included spaces located in the upper area of the center. He commented that these spaces were virtually useless and should not be included in the overall parking count for the Kmart center. Mr. Orosz replied that the uses and parking analysis was figured for the whole shopping center. Cindy Jones, representative from the Quarterdeck Restaurant, said that the bookstore would be compatible with their business. She would like to state that during construction the area be blocked off so as not to affect the parking for her business. In addition, she asked what the hours of operation would be and what would be served in the coffee shop? Ms. Heffernon replied that the hours of operation would be daily from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. per the application and the coffee shop would be basically self - service with muffins or pastries available. Steven Potraz, Manager, Parable bookstore, said they anticipate this store being open daily from approximately 9:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Guthrie commented that the parking is heavily loaded on one side of the center, but it would probably work itself out and that there is adequate parking in the center. Commissioner Arnold said he was not in favor of this project and his concerns were: • That the project is too large for the site. • The impact it would have on the Quarterdeck Restaurant. • That this project would take too much away from the parking. Commissioner Fowler stated that the South County needs this type of a bookstore and with regard to the parking many conversations have taken place on being overparked MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 and people could walk if they have to. Her concern was that the architecture did not meld in with the other buildings, but she found it acceptable. Commissioner Brown stated that this was a great project. In the recommendation to City Council he would like it noted that there is a concern with the cumulative parking effects both at Brisco and Camino Mercado. He asked that the memo from Public Works dated January 21, 2003, with respect to the revised traffic impact report, be forwarded to City Council and stated that he was disappointed with the traffic engineer. He also had a concern that construction would not interfere with the Quarterdeck Restaurant and would like to make sure that it would be so conditioned. Commissioner Keen also had a concern about how the parking may affect the viability of the Quarterdeck Restaurant. He stated a traffic signal is needed and he had no problem with the Administrative Sign Program or the change in trees as recommended by the ARC. Vice Chair Keen closed the public hearing. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to recommend approval of the proposed project to City Council with the following conditions: 1. Restrict the construction area to minimize impacts to adjacent businesses. 2. Update the traffic study to include revisions. 3. Inform City Council of Commission concern over the cumulative effect of traffic in this area. RESOLUTION NO. 03 -1859 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, INSTRUCT THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 02 -009, LOCATED AT 1570 WEST BRANCH STREET, APPLIED FOR BY JAMES WOOD The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Fowler, Guthrie and Vice Chair Keen NOES: Commissioner Arnold ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 21st day of January 2003. PAGE 4 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 PAGE 5 NON - PUBLIC HEARING — PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 02 -010; APPLICANT — RICK WHEELER; LOCATION — 185 BRISCO ROAD. Staff report prepared by Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner and presented by Teresa McClish. Ms. McClish stated that the applicant has revised the original site plan to include: • Attached housing that is more consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. • Revision of the parking to allow more visitor parking — the project now includes 12 spaces. Ms. McClish further stated that at the recent ARC density issues were discussed and she explained that this one -acre site, zoned multi - family, would allow 11 units, but 12 units are proposed. With the General Plan Update 14 units per acre would be allowed. For this project density can be increased either by the affordable housing requirement which would allow a higher in lieu fee, or a Development Code Amendment and a tract map processed concurrently, to change density for the site to be consistent with the General Plan. Staff is planning Development Code updates for the residential areas of the City where they are not consistent with the General Plan, but Commercial districts will be addressed first. Finally, Ms. McClish stated that a maintenance agreement has been proposed instead of a homeowners association to accommodate joint maintenance of common areas. Slopes and Drainage can be addressed when an application is formally presented with a Tract Map. Commissioner Guthrie stated that this is similar to a density issue on an Ash Street project (use of affordable housing). Mr. Strong indicated that the Ash Street applicant dedicated units to affordable housing. Generally in projects with fewer units there is not a mandatory installation of affordable housing. Ms. McClish stated that this situation could involve one unit dedication or a 6% in lieu fee for the project. A 6% fee might be about $100K. Commissioner Guthrie indicated that in the Ash Street project the City did not seek to update the General Plan in advance and if processed today would be processed under the existing zoning. Once the General Plan update takes place the in lieu fees will be in line with the construction costs. McClish further explained that there is a discrepancy between housing ordinance in Development Code and housing element in General Plan. In reviewing projects staff has come forward with 3% for the general requirement for affordable housing for this size of a project and if there is a density increase involved it would an additional 3 %. Mr. Guthrie said he had a concern with the significant grading issues involved due to the narrow lot and driveway up one side of the project. He approved of the additional parking and thought these units would be more affordable. Ms. Fowler stated that the 2001 General Plan allows 14 units, but has not yet been updated. Ms. Fowler asked for clarification. Mr. Strong explained that from adoption of MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 PAGE 6 the General Plan it had been estimated that it may take 2 -5 years to amend the Development Code and all of its applications within the City; staff has been working on this process for over six months, but it may be 18 months before all the applicable zones are properly notified and amended. Staff is not precluding the applicant from applying for 14 units subject to amending the Development Code, but there are options available for density bonuses. It is within the discretion of the Commission and if the Council agrees to implement the General Plan and approve the 14 units by various means. Finally, he stated that he had a concern when Development Code amendment takes place we may change parking standards, floor area ratios, lot coverage, building height, etc. It may be premature to make decisions on an individual lot basis. Commissioner Brown asked if the City Council adopted in lieu fees or is more interested in developing units. Mr. Strong said that the preference is for requiring units. The consideration here is that one unit would be priced differently from all others. Commissioner Brown asked if the floor area ratio (FAR) was higher than the requirement? Ms. McClish said the proposed FAR is .4, the Development Code allows .35, but this is a PUD and the purpose is to allow some flexibility if you get a better site design. In addition, when the Tract Map is formerly submitted everything has to be recalculated on a per lot basis. Vice Chair Keen opened the item for public comment and upon hearing none, brought the item back to the Commission for consideration. Mr. Brown asked Rick Wheeler, the applicant, his views on the issue of affordable housing versus in lieu fees. Mr. Wheeler said it seems strange for such a small parcel to have to pick one out of 12 houses to be affordable and would be better on a larger track. Commissioner Keen commended the applicant on the design of the project. He liked the size of the houses better for the lot; the applicant had done an excellent job on the parking and had addressed the concerns of the Commission. The commission agreed they were in favor of the project. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM — DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO, 01 -003 — DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — VILLAGE OF ARROYO GRANDE. Prepared and presented by Teresa McClish, Associate Planner. Minutes recorded by Lavonne Bradford from this point on. Ms. McClish gave a brief presentation of recommended alternatives to revise the Guidelines. The Planning Commission commented on the Village Design Guidelines documents. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 PAGE 7 Commissioner Brown • When does CDD Director make the determination that exceptions (Alternatives, Issue 2) findings will go to some other body such as ARC, Planning Commission, or other body? Teresa McClish • It would depend on the type of project. Exceptions would be reviewed by ARC and a recommendation would be provided to CDD Director or approving body. Commissioner Brown • Historical Structure: Has there been a discussion of local standard that may /may not conform to the State standard? What happens if a structure does not meet State standard, but is of local historical significance? Rob Strong • At ARC staff indicated concern that just because a structure is old we don't want it to automatically trigger a CEQA significance related to Historic Resource. • There is a fairly precise definition within other parts of the Development Code. Staff is trying to reflect that for consistency. • Expectation that City Council (on 1/28/03) will provide further guidance regarding their intentions regarding local, state and national standards. If there is a desire to create a historic designation process, an ordinance will be necessary, which will take a longer time to put into place. If the intention is only recommend to the State, that may be decided on 1/28/03. • If Planning Commission has direction to provide, they can provide guidance to staff and we can provide additional alternatives on 2/4/03. • If the definition is too loose, an EIR could be required by CEQA for every "old" structure. • Historic preservation designation and the benefits involve creation of an advisory board and criteria to evaluate the buildings. If a community has a certified local government program that meets State and national criteria, the locality can identify structures that have been surveyed. Commissioner Fowler • How will the City apply the Historic Guidelines for Public Facilities areas? Teresa McClish • If Alternative Issue 3 is NOT included in the guidelines, the Village Commercial Guidelines apply to Public Facilities. • If Alternative Issue 3 "Alternatives for Village Downtown and Mixed Use" areas ARE included in the guidelines, Village Mixed Use guidelines apply to Public Facilities. • The difference is [Public Facilities] structures would not have to conform in character with facades and zero foot setbacks of the Village Core Downtown. • Alternative Issue 3, allows more flexibility, the key is fitting in with surrounding structures. For example, if surrounded by residential structures a Public Facility should take on a residential character. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 PAGE 8 Commissioner Fowler • Does Alternative Issue 5 prevent signs from being painted directly on walls, including walls made of wood (as was done in old days)? Teresa McClish • If the Alternative Sign Issue is approved, painting of signs directly on walls (including wood) would not be allowed. A wood sign that is painted can be hung on a wall. • If someone wanted to freshen up an existing sign painted on a wall, that is simply a "change of copy" and it would be allowed. Commissioner Guthrie • Term "inappropriate" and "not appropriate" — do they mean "should not ", "shall not" or ? ?? • Wants definitions for these terms added to Definitions in the guidelines. Definitions need to be clear. Commissioner Brown • What did the survey that was done in 1991 include? Rob Strong • Depends on whether the City Council gives direction to staff on 1/28/03 if they want to create a formal designation process. It is not on staffs "must do immediately" list. In the meantime, there are criteria and any building that may be considered eligible can be brought to the Planning Commission's attention and /or ARC or City Council through the environmental review process, staff determinations or appeals of Director decisions. • Staff is notifying the ARC or Planning Commission of any proposed demolitions, even if the buildings have no particular historic determinations. The City Council may want staff to put this on the list of things to do, in which case staff would need to seek supplemental assistance and obtain a qualified historian to assist with the survey. • Staff is stretched to the max with current projects. Chuck Fellows, ARC Member and Preserve the Village • ARC looked at the guidelines for the past year and at the proposed alternatives for several weeks. The first eight alternative issues achieved unanimous approval. • Alternative Issue 9 concerning the definition of Historic Structure triggered extensive discussion. Asked the Planning Commission to carefully consider, the meaning of an "Historic Structure "? • If the definition of Historic Structure is changed to 9A, would a structure need to be listed in the register of Historic Places (and) certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior (and) individually listed on the State inventory of historic places, OR individually listed on the local inventory? • Concerned if that wording is used that it will make all of the work done so far "essentially useless ". MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 Rob Strong • Staff is attempting to come up with a definition that accomplishes the goal of maintaining the fabric of the community and doesn't automatically trigger EIR's on buildings that are more than 50 years old (pre -1939 approximately). • Planning Commission and City Council can provide direction to staff. Mark Vasquez, Resident • Arroyo Grande has a unique character. Redevelopment will happen. The guidelines define how the redevelopment evolves. • Some of the old structures in the Village are in such disrepair that there could be a Toss of "community fabric" if an old house needs to come down due to health and safety problems, and is not replaced with a structure of that architectural style. • Asked the Planning Commission to closely consider the elements of the Village in deciding how the guidelines are structured. • Offered assistance if there are questions about architectural style. Commissioner Brown • Are there local jurisdictions that have a mechanism for addressing and resolving how to handle historic significance issues? Rob Strong • Staff is looking for direction from City Council on 1/28/03. Commissioner Fowler • The Guidelines have improved. They will always be subject to interpretation. • It is important to keep the Village viable and friendly. Commissioner Arnold • There should be a way to define which buildings are historic or not historic. Commissioner Guthrie • Possible alternative, use existing language or more restrictive language provided by "Preserve the Village ", then provide a mechanism by which a building is removed from the list. • Include everything and then by some process, determine if something is to be removed from the inventory — until we have a list of buildings we want to protect. • Local Historic designation should not trigger EIR's, but we need findings by some "body" (Planning Commission, City Council, etc.). • We may not be able to protect everybody's interest, but we can make clear what is an easy versus difficult path. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS — Commissioner Brown asked about the sidewalk at 126 Allen Street, stating that the fence goes to the street and MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 blocks public right -of -way. He asked if this was legal and what was the provision for this? Commissioner Keen had a concern with including the Stillwell and the Vanderveen properties in the Guideline overlay district. How was it addressed in the General Plan? Mr. Strong said there is a neighborhood plan boundary (22 acres) that includes the Vanderveen and Stillwell properties and western portions with homes facing Myrtle Street. A discussion at the ARC was to include the properties and notice them. 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 Arnold, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: LY REA DON -SMITH & LAVONNE BRADFORD, COMMISSION CLERKS ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN u (RECTOR PAGE 10 1 1