Loading...
PC Minutes 2000-12-051 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER Chair Greene called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL X Commissioner Costello X Commissioner Keen X Commissioner London X Vice -Chair Parker X Chair Greene APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Commissioner Costello, seconded by Commissioner London, the minutes of November 21, 2000 were approved as amended. ITEM I. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Copy of a letter written to the City by Marie Kastenek regarding Conditional Use Permit 00 -015, Horizon Senior Housing, dated 12/1/00. 2. Memorandum from Diane Sheeley, Economic Development Director regarding the Horizon Senior Housing Project, dated 12/4/00. 3. Memorandum from Rodger Olds, Associate Engineer, regarding Conditional Use Permit 00 -015, Horizon Senior Housing, dated 12/5/00. 4. Corrected pages 14 through 18 of Resolution No. 00 -1772, Conditional Use Permit Use Permit No. 00 -015, Horizon Senior Housing. 5. Memorandum from Larry Schmidt, Chief Building Inspector, regarding disabled access at the proposed Compass Health Residential Facility, Conditional Use Permit 00 -015, Horizon Senior Housing, dated 12/5/00. 6. Memorandum from Rodger Olds, Associate Engineer, regarding Lot Line Adjustment 00 -005, dated 12/5/00. 7. Letter to the Planning Commission from International Mass Retail Association regarding the proposed ordinance to amend portions of Title 9 of the Municipal Code regarding maximum building size for commercial uses. 8. Memorandum from Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner concerning the proposed ordinance to amend portions of Title 9 of the Municipal Code regarding maximum building size for commercial uses. 9. Memorandum from David 0. Crockett, Code Enforcement Officer regarding the unauthorized use of Neon in the City of Arroyo Grande. 10. Memorandum from Rodger Olds, Associate Engineer regarding the Village Centre Access Easement, dated December 5, 2000. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 2 ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS II.A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 00 -016; LOCATION — BRANCH MILL ROAD, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR FOUR; APPLICANT — SLO CELLULAR Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report saying that when the Planning Commission had considered this item at their November 21, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the Public Works Department had a possible issue with the antennas being placed on the top of the water tank. They were proposing the possibility of placing a separate pole next to the water tank as an alternative to placing the antennas on top of the tank. The public hearing was continued to determine if this was a viable alternative. Ms. Heffernon stated that after investigating the situation further, the Public Works Department had determined that placing the antennas on top of the tank as originally proposed is acceptable. The project is therefore unchanged since the previous meeting. Chair Greene opened the public hearing stating that the record should reflect that a public hearing was held on November 21, 2000 Planning Commission meeting and that this item was continued. No one spoke before the Commission. Chair Greene closed the public hearing. After a brief discussion Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1769 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 00 -016, APPLIED FOR BY SLO CELLULAR with Exhibits A and B1 -9. Commissioner Costello seconded the motion. The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene II.B. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 00 -005; LOCATION — 520, 522, AND 528 EAST BRANCH STREET; APPLICANT — DB & M PROPERTIES, LLC. 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 3 Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report stating that the project site is located on the south side of East Branch Street near the intersection of East Branch and Crown Hill, and is comprised of 12 legal lots. The applicant is proposing to reconfigure the lots into 10 in order to improve the lot sizes and to facilitate circulation and parking. To accomplish this, the project includes a one -way private access road to serve the properties, and conceptually identifies the parking along the access road away from East Branch Street. The purpose of the Certificate of Compliance is to verify that the existing lots were legally created. The property is located in the Village Commercial zoning district and is developed with two (2) residences and several accessory structures. The majority of the site is vacant and has recently been graded. Ms. Heffernon stated that the site was previously used as a warehouse for storing pesticides and liquid feed, and for manufacturing septic tanks. The soil was contaminated from the pesticides, but has since been cleaned up and certified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for "soil remediation of nitrates ". In order to protect Arroyo Grande Creek and its tributaries, the Development Code requires a 25 -foot setback for discretionary projects starting from the top of bank. Given the proximity of the project site to the Arroyo Grande Creek, Condition No. 19 requires that the applicant dedicate an easement, which includes the creek area and extending 25 feet beyond the top of bank. Ms. Heffernon told the Commission that per the memo from Public Works, which was distributed earlier to the Commission, Conditions Nos. 14 and 20 regarding easement dedications should be deleted from the resolution. These conditions conflict with certain provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. Commissioner Keen questioned the sewer easement, which appeared to run under the existing building and Commissioner London asked what the restrictions there were on the types of uses allowed in this zoning? Rodger Olds, Public Works Department, stated that on site review the sewer easement as shown may not be absolutely correct and the Department has asked the applicant to review the easement and make sure that the easement does reflect where the actual sewer line is. Tom Vaughn, "Vaughn's Surveys ", stated that he was available for any questions the Planning Commission might have. Richard DeBlauw, stated that he was available for any questions the Planning Commission might have and stated that he is planning to build a commercial /retail project with some residential apartments above the commercial buildings. Mr. DeBlauw and Vice -Chair Parker discussed the grading of the project. Susan Flores, 529 E. Branch St. spoke to the Planning Commission stating that she was concerned about the proposed driveway exiting onto East Branch Street. She stated that ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 4 there was already a lot of traffic, and that it was dangerous to back out of her driveway onto this street. She was concerned about even more traffic being added with this project. Mike McConqil, 529 E. Branch St. spoke to the Planning Commission stating that he was concerned about the parking on the North side of East Branch Street. He asked that the white line be moved over to accommodate a wider area for parking on both sides of the street. He also had a concern about the parking and he stated that he would like to see some type of traffic control devices installed to slow the traffic down. Mr. McGonagil also suggested that the one way access easement be changed to a two -way easement and that it be lined up across from Le Point Terrace. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Vice -Chair Parker stated that the residents' of this area had a good point about the traffic and parking on this street and she would like to see this addressed when the project comes before the Planning Commission. She said that she had no problem with the Lot Line Adjustment. She wanted to insure that, when the project comes before the Planning Commission, the standards for Village Commercial are strictly adhered to. Commissioner Costello stated that the only thing the Planning Commission was considering at this time was the Lot Line Adjustment. However, he does feel that the comments and suggestions that were heard from the residents' of this area were valid because the traffic would only get worse when a project is built on this site. He stated that he felt that the Lot Line Adjustment was a sound reconfiguration and he saw no problem with this request. Commissioner Keen stated that he had no problem with the Lot Line Adjustment and he felt that the concerns of the residents' would be handled when the project comes forward. Commissioner London stated that this was a logical proposal for this site. His only concern was Condition of Approval No. 17, Exhibit A, that establishes the one -way drive which empties the traffic out onto East Branch Street. He believes that this should be changed to a two -way access easement. He was concerned that when the applicant came forward with the project, some members of the Planning Commission might not still be on the Commission and this issue would not be addressed. Mr. London asked if this could be removed, or could it be a two -way easement? Mr. Olds explained that the reason the easement was in place was to provide access to the rear Tots. If the easement were removed, there would be no access to them. Mr. Olds stated that the reason the access was one -way was that there was a concern by the Police Department of the site distance of this point when exiting onto East Branch. Commissioner Costello asked how difficult it would be for a future Planning Commission to handle this situation if Condition of Approval No. 17 was not changed? Mr. McCants stated that he was not sure how it would work to change it and he suggested that, if the Planning Commission felt there needed to be more flexibility, they could eliminate the wording for a one way access and leave it as an access easement. 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 5 Commissioner Keen pointed out that at the SAC meeting the Police Department had recommended that the access easement be one way because of the line of site distance when exiting this property. Chair Greene stated that he felt this was a logical approach to planned use and that the current configuration of the lots was unacceptable. The neighbors' concerns about the traffic were valid however, this is not the forum where these issues will be finalized. These concerns will be noted for the record and will be addressed and the traffic impacts mitigated when the project is brought forward for review. Whether the access easement will be a one - way or two -way road will be determined by the Police Department and Public Works Department after the review of the topography of the site and the judgement as to what is safe. Mr. Greene stated that the word "one -way" should be deleted from Condition No. 17. He also stated that, at the request of staff, Conditions Nos. 14 and 20 should be deleted as well. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1773 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 00 -005 AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 00 -002 TO RECONFIGURE TWELVE (12) LOTS INTO TEN (10) LOTS, LOCATED AT 528, 522 AND 520 EAST BRANCH STREET, deleting Conditions of Approval Nos. 14 and 20, renumbering the Conditions and deleting the word "one -way" from Condition of Approval No. 17. Commissioner London seconded the motion. Ms. Parker stated that Exhibit B -1 should also be modified to reflect the change in Condition No. 17. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene II. C CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00 -015; LOCATION - 579 CAMINO MERCADO; APPLICANT - HORIZON SENIOR HOUSING; REPRESENTATIVE - STEVEN PUGLISI AIA Chair Greene called a 5 minute recess of the meeting to allow the Planning Commission time to review materials received at the time of the meeting concerning the Horizon Senior Housing project. Chair Greene reconvened the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report stating the following: ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 6 The project site is located on Camino Mercado, adjacent to vacant property to the west approved for office use and residential development to the east. The proposed 84 -room assisted care facility is approximately 100,000 square feet in size and would be built into the side of the hill where a large building pad was previously graded. Beginning near the middle of the site, the facility steps up from one to three levels. The perspective drawings submitted with the application show that with the existing topography and vegetation, only one level is completely visible from the north, east, and west. The project will be highly visible, however, from the south across the Highway 101 corridor. The project includes a total of 50 parking spaces, 27 of which would be in a covered parking structure. The project plans incorporate suggestions from both the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Committee when this project was reviewed as a pre - application last summer. Specifically, the plans show an additional tower element on the southeast corner of the building, and a bridge connecting the activity area to the walkway at the rear of the project. In addition, the applicant submitted a detailed landscape plan, and perspective drawings for the north side of the building facing James Way and from across Highway 101 on Hillcrest Drive. The issue of building height was also discussed at the previous Planning Commission meeting. The Development Code allows a maximum building height of either 2 stories, or 30 feet, whichever is less, and a portion of the project is 3 stories tall. The applicant interpreted the method for calculating building height described in the Development Code as determining the average grade located under the proposed structure, and measuring up from that point to the top of the building. As long as the height at this point does not exceed 30 feet or 2 stories, then the project is in compliance with the Development Code. As the Commission directed, staff discussed this issue with the City Attorney, who agreed with this interpretation. The proposed project is subject to the development standards of the Professional Commercial District of the Oak Park Acres Planned Development, and to certain development standards of the Development Code. The project meets all relevant requirements for setbacks, lot coverage, parking and landscaping. There are no density requirements in the Professional Commercial District; however, the proposed 21 dwelling units per acre is less than the maximum of 25 dwelling units per acre required in the Senior Housing District, which seems an appropriate land use category to compare the project with. The structure meets all disabled access requirements, and also disabled access from the "path of travel" between Camino Mercado and the structure. The memo distributed earlier from Larry Schmidt of the Building Department explains this issue in more detail. Basically, the project will provide van transportation from the street to the entrance, which satisfies ADA requirements. Consistency with the Economic Development Strategy is addressed in the memo from the Economic Development Director distributed earlier this evening. The Strategy does not 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 7 specifically address senior housing projects, except with regard to taking advantage of land for affordable housing in accordance with the General Plan. During the environmental review process, 3 populations of Pismo Clarkia were identified and evaluated on the project site, which is a federally listed endangered plant species and classified as a State Rare Plant. As explained in the Initial Study, a biological survey was prepared for the project. To mitigate potential impacts to these plants, a 25 -foot buffer area is required, which is identified on the project plans. As mentioned in the report, none of the existing oak trees will be removed as a result of this project, and the proposed project is conditioned to implement tree protection measures during construction. The project is also conditioned to replace the Cork Oak trees shown on the landscape plan with Coast Live Oak trees. This will help mitigate the unknown number of native oaks removed when the site was previously graded. In response to the public hearing notice, staff has received one written comment regarding this project, which was distributed earlier tonight. There has also been one inquiry at the front counter. Both expressed concerns regarding increased traffic. As part of the environmental review process, a trip generation analysis was prepared, which indicates that 14 additional p.m. peak hour trips would result. This number is less than the 20 peak hour trips necessary to require a full traffic study. As conditioned, the applicant will be required to pay the City's Traffic and Signalization Impact fees. Also distributed earlier was the correct numbering for the mitigation measures, and a memo from the Public Works Department regarding modifications to the conditions of approval. Under condition no. 46, the words "and constructed" should be deleted, and a new condition no. 48 should be added specifying that project improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy. The exact wording is shown in the memo. Since all projects within an approved Planned Development must be approved by the City Council, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit Case No. 00 - 015 subject to the Conditions of Approval, as amended and re- numbered. Commissioner Keen stated that Condition of Approval No. 41 referenced a 200 -foot area that the owner will be required to maintain in the open space area. Mr. Keen asked who owned the open space? Ms. Heffernon stated that this open space area was granted to the City from the Rancho Grande project. Commissioner London asked what the number of employees would be at that site? He also asked if there had been any discussion about their working hours as a possible mitigation to the traffic? Ms. Heffernon stated that she believed that it was thirteen employees at any one time and that the working hours of the employees was not taken into consideration with regard to the traffic. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 8 Vice -Chair Parker and Ms. Heffernon discussed the mitigation measures with regards to the Pismo Clarkia and the Oak Trees. They also discussed the walkway around the back of the building. Commissioner Costello stated that he was still confused about the average height of the building with relationship to the hill. Ms. Heffernon and Mr. Costello discussed this issue. Mr. Costello asked, if this interpretation of the Development Code was used, what would keep someone from building a five -story building in the future where the same interpretation could be applied? Ms. Heffernon stated that the circumstances would have to be looked into at the time of the application of such a project. Mr. Costello reiterated that he was very concerned about this interpretation. He asked if the plans the Commission had received were drawn to scale? He stated that when he measured the building, it was thirty -five to forty feet high. Commissioner Costello discussed the ADA accessibility of the project. He stated that he had done some research on this subject and asked Ms. Heffernon if the building was ADA compliant. Ms. Heffernon explained how Mr. Schmidt of the Building Department had interpreted the language to determine that the project was ADA accessible. Mr. Costello stated the he was concerned that the City was opening itself for some type of liability. Mr. McCants stated that he could ask the City Attorney about this issue. Mr. Costello asked what the LOS was at the intersection of Camino Mercado and West Branch? Ms. Heffernon stated that the intersection was a LOS of C. Chair Greene wanted to state for the record the changes in the numbering of the mitigation measures. He stated that the original numbers started at eighteen and the corrected numbers start with one. Secondly, the Planning Commission had been asked to modify Condition of Approval No. 46 and to create a new Condition No. 48. Ms. Greene asked if the current Condition No. 48 was being deleted? Mr. Olds replied that a new Condition No. 48 was being added and the rest of the Conditions would be renumbered. Steve Puglisi, 226 Encanto Ave, Shell Beach, had the following comments: • With regards to the building height, Mr. Puglisi stated that the 30 -foot height rule, as with the two story rule would apply measured from the average height under the building not at the base. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 9 • With regards to the questions about the ADA appliance, the building is compliant from its parking lot. The applicant does not believe that they need to be ADA compliant from the street up to the building. If streets were required to be ADA compliant, there would not be any streets designed in excess of 8 %. Commissioner Costello stated that he was not in agreement with the interpretation of the height regulations. He was also concerned about the ADA compliance and felt that there was a possibility that the City would be liable if a resident were injured walking on the walkway from the building to the street. Mr. Puglisi stated that as soon as anyone leaves City property, i.e. Camino Mercado, they would be on private property and the City would not be responsible for any injuries. Vice -Chair Parker and Mr. Puglisi discussed the "nature trail" in the back. She asked if there would be a railing on the sidewalk going down the 15% walkway to the street? Mr. Puglisi stated that this had not been planned on but it could be considered as well as resting places for people to stop and sit. Commissioner London stated that he liked this idea and felt that this should be included. Chair Greene stated that the proposal for the front slope landscaping was a combination of plants using Baccarus. Mr. Greene said that this species was chosen for the hillsides around the Five Cities Center and it has not performed well. He would like to propose a change to the front slope planting area and make it a part of the approval process. Mr. Greene would like to propose a change by deleting the Baccarus and substituting Manzanita Sunset, and /or Carmel Sur. Commissioner Costello asked Mr. Puglisi for further explanation of the height issue. Mr. Puglisi explained that on the west view of the drawings, there is a note that reads, "maximum building height elevation 280, thirty feet above average finished grade ". Mr. Costello stated that there was nothing on the plans that showed what the average finished grade was. Mr. Puglisi referred to another page on the plans and stated that for this section of the building, which is what is called the rooms component, the rooms component starts at a lower elevation of 240, the upper finished floor is elevation 260, the average finished grade is 250. So, thirty feet above that is 280 and there is where the number comes from. Mr. Costello stated that the definition in the Development Code is the "highest point under the building ". He does not see a clear diagram showing the highest point under the building. Mr. Puglisi stated that on the site plan the building "moves" through 3 different elevations. The lowest point is at finished and existing grade of elevation 240. As you move up the ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 10 sides of the building, the natural and finished grade is both 250 and, at the top, 260. They are siting the building on all three of the different levels. That is why the applicant, as well as the City Attorney, is convinced this conforms to the ordinance. Chris Skiff, 475 Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo, stated that they were retaining the 15% slope to the driveway so it would minimize the grading and not disturb any more of the habitat or environment than absolutely necessary. Mr. Skiff said that benches are in the plans for the walkway and it was very important to him that the "seniors" would be able to get up and down the slope as carefully as possible. They would also put in a railing if the Planning Commission wanted it done. Mr. Skiff said that if Mr. Greene wanted to change the plants in the landscaping plan, they would be happy to do it. Commissioner London asked how many employees there would be and what the hours the shifts would start and finish? Mr. Skiff stated that the work shifts typically would change at 6:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Ron Livingston, 560 and 580 Dos Cerros spoke to the Planning Commission and expressed his concerns about traffic on Camino Mercado. Chris Skiff spoke to Mr. Livingston's concerns about the traffic. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner London stated that he felt this was a good project. He felt that a railing and rest stops on the walkway were definitely needed. Commissioner Keen stated that he was very impressed with the project. He feels that it fits the use, the area, and as the traffic in this area is becoming more congested, this project would have less of an impact. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she also liked the project and appreciated the fact that the applicant had gone beyond what was necessary to address the environmental concerns at the project site. The applicant is addressing senior needs and they have listened to the Planning Commission comments and have added them to the project. She also agreed that the handrails and resting - places are necessary on the walkway. Commissioner Costello stated that he had asked some tough questions and the applicant had provided the answers that show an interpretation that meets the standards. He said that he supports the project. He feels that this is a good project. Chair Greene stated that regarding the ADA compliance, and the concerns raised by Commissioner Costello, it would be a good idea that when this goes before the City Council the City Attorney be ready to render an opinion and guidance to them on this point. He agrees with the rest of the Commission that this is a good project. 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 11 With respect to the Conditions of Approval, the Planning Commission recommends the following changes: • Condition No. 18, subsection d, changed, adding a number 6, which reads, "Acraspophlis sunset and Carmel Sur are substituted in lieu of Bacarrus as a front slope groundcover. • Condition No. 46 be modified. • A new Condition No. 48, be added. • Current Conditions Nos. 48 through 74, be renumbered as Conditions Nos. 49 through 75. • Add a new Condition #19 and number forward from this point. The Condition would require hand railings, benches and /or rest stops along the walkway. • Condition No. 67, the word "hydrant" should be added to the second line. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: with the changes to Exhibit A, including Exhibits B1 -B6. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1772 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, INSTRUCT THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 00 -015, LOCATED AT 597 CAMINO MERCADO, APPLIED FOR BY HORIZON SENIOR HOUSING ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene II. D LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 00 -004; LOCATION - 419 LE POINT STREET; APPLICANT- HILLEL AND RACHEL JANAI Assistant Planner, Teresa McClish, presented the staff report as follows: The site is located at 419 Le Point, and consists of two parcels that are 18,293 square feet and 31,134 square feet in size, one of which is an abandoned railroad right -of -way property, and the other is adjacent to Corbett Canyon Creek. The property is developed with a single - family residence and a detached garage, both of which are located across the existing lot line dividing the two properties. The intent of the lot line adjustment is to place the two structures on one parcel and to create a lot that could be developed with another single - family residence. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 12 The site lies within the Public Facilities zoning district. On October 3, 2000 the Planning Commission made a Development Code interpretation to allow a single - family use in the Public Facility zone for this particular property. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment meets or exceeds site development standards for the adjacent residential zoning districts, which are considered applicable for this site. This lot line adjustment shall be recorded with a Certificate of Compliance for Lot Line Adjustments as required by Development Code Section 9- 04.140. Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 15, requires an additional twenty -five foot setback from the top of bank for Corbett Canyon Creek. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution approving Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 00 -004, subject to the conditions of approval. The Planning Commission briefly discussed the project. Chair Greene asked that the wording of Condition of Approval No. 4 be changed from "Exhibit B-1" to "Exhibit A -1 ". Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Leonard Leniqer, representing the applicant stated that he was available to answer any questions from the Planning Commission. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Vice -Chair Parker moved that the Planning Commission adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1774 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 00 -004 FOR TWO (2) LOTS, LOCATED AT 419 LE POINT COURT, APPLIED FOR BY HILLEL AND RACHEL JANAI with Exhibits A and A -1 and the modification to Condition of Approval No. 4. Commissioner Costello seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene II. E. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 00 -002; LOCATION — CITY WIDE Amendment to Chapters 7 and 9, of Title 9, of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code by establishing maximum building size for commercial uses. 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 13 Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, presented the staff report and stated that recently, by consensus, the City Council had directed staff to amend the Development Code to establish limits on building size for commercial uses. The ordinance is intended to address the impact of large retail stores on the City's fiscal and environmental resources and protect the City's rural atmosphere emphasized in the General Plan. As written, the proposed ordinance will not cause any existing commercial uses to be non - conforming. Ms. McClish stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached draft ordinance, make any changes deemed necessary or desirable, and adopt the attached Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Ordinance. Chair Greene stated that some time ago there was a discussion about the current configuration of the Wal -Mart store and the fact that it currently occupies Building A -1 in the Five Cities Shopping Center. Mr. Greene stated that adjacent to Building A -1 is an open space that is designated as A -2. Of all the structures planned for the west side of the shopping center, the only space that has not been built on is the space for Building A- 2. Mr. Greene remembers that there was a discussion concerning the shopping center and whether Wal -Mart could expand into the 17,600 square feet of space designated for Building A -2. He thought that the City had imposed some sort of Condition of Approval on the project so as to deny Wal -Mart the ability to expand into the additional space and incorporate it into Building A-1. Mr. Greene asked if there is anything about any limitations that the City placed on the occupation of Building A -2 that would prevent the occupant of Building of A -1 to construct Building A -2 and then remove the interior walls? Ms. McClish stated that she had no recollection of this. She stated that she was aware that there is the building pad adjacent to the Wal -Mart and that it is approved for the commercial use of 17,600 square feet. She was also aware that there was an existing ordinance that limits non - taxable retail for stores greater than 90,000 square feet, but she is not aware of any specific restrictions concerning the expansion of Wal -Mart. Mr. Greene asked if there was a Condition of Approval that limited Building A -1 to its current configuration? Mr. McCants stated that he was not aware of this condition. Commissioner London asked where the figure of 102,500 square feet came from? Ms. McClish replied that this was the figure recommended to staff by City Council as the figure which essentially takes the largest retail store in the City and goes above it so that this ordinance does not create any non - conforming uses. Commissioner Keen stated that on Page Four of the ordinance, F -2 deals with the maximum allowable height for a building or a structure and states that in no case shall any structure be of such a height or location as to obstruct any view due to elevation differential of the building site. Mr. Keen asked for an explanation of this statement and asked if this meant offsite viewsheds or onsite? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 14 Mr. McCants stated that this language is in the Development Code at this time and that his interpretation would be that it meant offsite or onsite. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Colin Johnstone, manager of the Arroyo Grande Wal -Mart, spoke to the Commission and stated that he was opposed to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Johnstone explained that Wal- Mart was only interested in being a "good neighbor" and an asset to the City of Arroyo Grande. He spoke about the amount of retail sales that this Wal -Mart has been doing since it opened and how much sales tax this has contributed to the City. He also spoke about Wal- Mart's concern for the citizens of the Five Cities area and he listed the different organizations Wal -Mart has donated time and money to. Mr. Johnstone explained to the Commission the difficulty of running this store because the amount of people who shop at the store create a demand for products that is very high and there is not enough room in this store for the amount of merchandize that is needed. Mr. Johnstone also explained the need for a Garden Shop in this area. Commissioner Keen asked Mr. Johnstone if WaI -Mart owned the adjoining property? Mr. Johnstone answered that Wal -Mart did own it. Commissioner London asked Mr. Johnstone what was going to be done with this property? Mr. Johnstone stated that there were no plans for this property at this time. Mary Burlinson, Wal -Mart employee, spoke in opposition to the ordinance and stated that the "associates" who work for Wal -Mart are very concerned about the community. She felt that this ordinance was targeted against Wal -Mart and that it would be unfair. Gerald Craig, WaI -Mart employee, spoke in opposition to the ordinance stating that many organizations will say that a store, more than 102,000 square feet is against the American way of life but that this is not true of Wal -Mart. He felt that this ordinance would "trample" on the rights of the citizens that need to shop somewhere where the prices are reasonable. Lee Simon, 1952 Sage St., spoke to the Planning Commission in opposition to the ordinance stating that competition in retail sales is not a problem for a community. Freda Simon, 1952 Sage St., spoke to the Planning Commission in opposition to the ordinance stating that she believes this store serves a need in the community especially for large families that need to stay within a budget. She stated that she drives to Santa Maria once a month and shops at Costco and HomeBase. She stated that she did not understand why the City of Arroyo Grande did not want her sales tax dollars. Antonio Tancozo, Wal -Mart employee, spoke to the Planning Commission in opposition to the ordinance stating that he felt that this would be an injustice and that Wal -Mart supplied the community with their needs. 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 15 Chris Ivy, 127 Bridge St, spoke in favor of the ordinance stating that he felt WaI -Mart was complaining that they could not sell their merchandize, bragging about how much they gave to the community and threatening to quit giving if this ordinance passed. He stated that many studies have been done to show that there are good, solid reasons for the community to restrict the square footage of "big box" stores. He did not feel this ordinance was being proposed to "pick on Wal- Mart ", it was being done for the good of the entire community. Mr. Ivy stated that he had handed staff and the Planning Commission some information that he would like to see added to the ordinance because, at this point, there was nothing to keep Wal -Mart from building on Building pad A -2. He asked the Commission to note the suggestions on the bottom of Page 1 of the information he had passed out, that they could add. Gerald Craig and Colin Johnstone, spoke in rebuttal to Mr. Ivy's statements. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Costello asked, when the Five Cities Center was originally approved, was any measure put in place that limited the size of stores to under 102,000 square feet? Ms. McClish stated that each building pad has a specific size requirement but she did not believe that there was any kind of regulation that limited building size in the Five Cities Center. Mr. Costello thanked everyone who had spoken and stated that both sides have raised good issues. He said that he appreciates what the "associates" at WaI -Mart do for this community as individuals. However, Mr. Costello said that this decision was not being based on WaI -Mart only. The original approval of the Five Cities Center was based on size and scope. Mr. Costello said that one of the many issues that has come before the Planning Commission is the problem with traffic around the shopping center, particularly at the intersection of Camino Mercado and West Branch Streets. Commissioner Costello stated that WaI -Mart is a good neighbor and has a place in this community. He said that this ordinance was not asking Wal -Mart to leave, or even to shrink in size, it simply says that no store will be greater than 102,500 square feet. He does not see that see that this is targeting any company. Mr. Costello stated that within a year the City will be looking at another project on the south end of the City that will include the potential for larger commercial space and this ordinance would apply to that project as well. Mr. Costello stated that he understands the reasons that the City Council asked for a review of this issue. Reviewing this issue is necessary to deal with the overall economic and commercial services of the entire community and to try to protect the components of the "rural atmosphere and the small town lifestyle" that are presently part of this City. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 16 Commissioner Costello stated that the City is going to go through some challenging times in the next few years where the City is going to have to try and define what these terms really mean. He feels that this may be a measure that is intended to do this. Vice -Chair Parker stated that Commissioner Costello had said this very well. She stated that she also did not feel that this was against Wal -Mart. She said that she realized that the Wal -Mart employees felt that this would be keeping them from something they wanted to do, but she does not feel that this would take away the rights of anyone to adopt this ordinance. Ms. Parker stated that she appreciates that several hundred Wal -Mart shoppers wanted to see the expansion with a garden center, but most of the shoppers did not live in Arroyo Grande. They did not have to deal with the problems, such as the traffic, having a larger store would create. The Council was trying to consider the City as a whole and how it would be effected by this ordinance. Ms. Parker stated that she wondered if such issues as traffic, as well as other environmental issues, should be added to the resolution. She said that traffic is a big issue for her and as the community continues to grow it is very important that we look at each step specifically and not grow at such a rapid rate that we can't take care of the people that live here. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she was in favor of this ordinance and she is in favor of passing it along to the City Council. Commissioner London stated that he agreed with Commissioners Costello and Parker statements. Mr. London said that he remembers when the fears people had before Wal- Mart came to Arroyo Grande and most of them have proved to be unfounded. Commissioner London said that he did not feel that bigger is necessarily better, but this appears that this is the philosophy of Wal -Mart. He does not feel that they need to sell everything and that they have done a commendable job with the space that they have. Mr. London stated that he supports the ordinance. Commissioner Keen stated that he disagreed with the other Commissioners. He believes that this ordinance was designed specifically to stop Wal -Mart from expanding and because of this he will not vote for the ordinance. Mr. Keen said that if this ordinance had come before the Planning Commission, not written specifically for stopping of Wal -Mart expansion of any kind, he probably would have voted for it because he is not in favor of "big box" stores. However, this is specifically written for WaI -Mart and he believes this is a travesty and he will not support it. Commissioner Keen stated that as far as the traffic issue at the Five Cities Center, the 17,500 square feet building pad already has a commitment to be built. Mr. Keen stated that he is not for Wal -Mart expanding, he is just against having an ordinance written specifically for one builder. 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 17 Chair Greene stated that he wanted to make it very clear that the Planning Commission was not enacting any ordinance but only making a recommendation to the City Council. They are the body that is vested with the authority to create laws for the City. Mr. Greene had the following observations. He said that while it may be appropriate to describe the ordinance as being directed to a limitation on Wal- Mart's ability to expand into the lot next door, it may be overly simplistic . to take this position because the City is considering a proposal to develop approximately 1.5 million square feet of commercial /retail and office space on the Frederick's ranch. He believes that the City Council has the authority to limit the size of retail establishments on this property. Mr. Greene stated that the effect of this limitation may be that large, discount retailers like Costco and other WaI -Mart competitors, might not be able to open in your shopping area. The City Council might have decided that, the preservation of Wal- Mart's market share is an objective and therefore they will strive to limit competition on the Frederick's property. Mr. Greene stated that it seemed to him that it was logical and reasonable to view this legislation as being non - specific with respect to Wal -Mart. It is reasonable to view this legislation as being supportive of the existing store. He sees a variety of very solid benefits to the community that would result from this legislation, which has nothing to do with Wal -Mart. Mr. Greene stated that, on the other hand, if the City Council decided to limit WaI -Mart and prevent its expansion into the adjoining 17,600 square foot lot, the City Council could do that and be well within their jurisdiction to do that. Mr. Greene stated that he was on the Planning Commission when the Five Cities Shopping Center was on appeal from the City Council back to the Planning Commission. He said that very sincere people spoke to the Commission at that time and promised that Wal -Mart had no intention of expanding into lot A -2 and would never propose such an extension. It comes as a complete surprise to him to hear that those representations that had been made are no longer valid. Mr. Greene feels that this situation has been oversimplified and turned into a pro versus con debate on WaI -Mart and he does not see this as being appropriate or necessary at this time. He is greatly impressed by the contribution that Wal -Mart has made to this community. These contributions are commendable as Mr. London said. However, voting on this ordinance should not be viewed as a referendum on how appropriately Wal -Mart has conducted itself in the community. He views it simply as an attempt by the City Council to try and determine where a small town ends and a big city begins. He sees this ordinance as a decision consistent with the leadership's vision of what a small town is. Chair Greene stated that the only thing that is unclear to him at this point is whether the recommendations that are contained in the document Mr. Ivy has handed out concerning the aggregation of floor space, management, and cash registers, are the kind of things that the City Council has had the opportunity to consider. He asked staff if they would comment on this. Mr. McCants stated that staff had not seen the language until this evening so they had not had time to review it, or ask the City Attorney to review it. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 18 Mr. Greene stated that the language in Mr. Ivy's memo could close a loophole relative to this particular store. He suggested that the City Attorney review the language and determine if it is appropriate to include it in the final ordinance. Mr. McCants stated that staff would review this definition and make revisions as appropriate in consultation with the City Attorney. Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission adopt: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND PORTIONS OF TITLE 9 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING MAXIMUM BUILDING SIZE FOR COMMERCIAL USES as amended with the change to Table 9- 07.040.A under "Office" to a maximum building size of 102,500. Commissioner London seconded the motion. He also asked that Paragraph 2 under Section F, be corrected from with to within. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello NO Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None ITEM. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS None RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1775 ITEM. V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT Commissioner Keen asked staff to please explain the letter that the Planning Commission had received from Joe DeLucia, the developer of the Village Centre project. Rodger Olds, Public Works Department, explained that the Planning Commission had received a letter from Mr. DeLucia regarding the issue of an access easement behind the Village Centre property. Mr. Olds explained that there was a misunderstanding between Public Works Department staff and what Mr. DeLucia intends to do for access behind his property. Mr. Olds explained that this lead him to do some investigation into what the intent was of the Planning Commission when the project was originally approved, especially with regard to Condition of Approval No. 44. He also explored the intent of City Council Resolution 1984, which requested that some sort of access be made between the various parking Tots and the Village Centre. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 19 Mr. Olds stated that he was looking to the Planning Commission for some interpretation as far as what the intent was of the Planning Commission at the time of approval and how the Commission would like staff to proceed. Mainly, the issue is that Mr. DeLucia would like to dedicate the easement to the City so that it would be a City easement through his property and eventually go and connect Hart Lane, Amanda's property, to the Village Centre Parking lot. Mr. Olds stated that staff had reviewed this with the City Attorney. The City Attorney does not want to open up any liability for the City by accepting this offer. Further, Mr. Olds stated that, in City Council Resolution 1984, it was recommended that this should be private parking. Commissioner Keen asked if this easement had anything to do with the Lopez water line? Mr. Olds stated that it did not. This easement assures that there will be access between the two parking lots, to connect Hart Lane with Wesley Street, and to create a common parking lot for all properties. This was the intent of Resolution 1984. Mr. Keen asked if there was an elevation difference between these properties? Mr. Olds stated that there was an elevation difference. This was addressed by leaving open how the common access between the driveways would be worked out. Mr. Olds explained that the alignment for the easement has not yet been determined. Commissioner Keen stated that he remembered that Mr. DeLucia was not supposed to dedicate this easement to the City but was supposed to maintain the easement himself on the Village Centre property. Mr. Keen stated that the Condition of Approval that determined this easement was written in such a way that the City of Arroyo Grande could open up the easement if necessary. Mr. Keen stated that he recalls that the circulation through the back of the Village and out to Larchmont Dr. was the reason this was required. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she remembered, having been on the Planning Commission when this project was approved, that the intent was that this easement be placed so that there would be access across the back of the Village shopping area. Chair Greene stated that he recalled the intent of the Planning Commission was to place an easement so that the adjoining property owners would have permission to cross Mr. DeLucia's property if it was decided in the future that they wanted to modify their property to permit a driveway. Mr. Greene did not recall that there was an empowerment to the City to place a driveway through Mr. DeLucia's property. Mr. McCants stated that this was a common practice to require an over and across easement to the parking areas adjoining the property. Mr. McCants stated that there was no requirement for anyone to maintain anything on anyone else's property. It was simply a responsibility to provide an access. The Planning Commission discussed this issue further with Mr. Olds. Chair Greene stated that he wanted to discuss the ordinance limiting the size of ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 20 commercial buildings in the City. He wanted the City Council to know that he remembered that when a previous Community Development Director had approved the Albertson's market, changing the configuration of what was three stores into one store, there was an appeal taken by the CCRD to the City Council. The City Council referred this appeal back to the Planning Commission and asked them to take testimony and make findings of fact regarding certain issues. During these hearings, evidence was presented that seemed to suggest that it was the intent of the City Council, when originally approving the Five Cities Center, that building A -1 was not to be merged into building site A -2. Mr. Greene stated that he believed that there had been some specific discussions about this. As a result of this, Mr. Greene seems to recall that the City Council went on the record as indicating that it was the intent of the Council that buildings A -1 and A -2 would remain separate buildings, not to be merged. Commissioner Keen stated that he was very impressed by the Memo Dave Crockett, Code Enforcement Officer, had prepared concerning the use of neon at different businesses in the City. Mr. Keen thanked Mr. Crockett for the memo and stated that he hoped the sign contractors in the area would be contacted to remind them of the City's policy. Mr. Keen asked that the report be distributed to the City Council. Chair Greene stated that, although the Cookie Crock was on the report that Mr. Crockett had prepared, he was certain that they had an approved sign program that allowed them to have some neon. Mr. McCants stated that he would look into this and inform Mr. Crockett if they had an approved sign program. ITEM. VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS Community Development Director Kerry McCants explained that he had been directed to let the Commission know that there was an item going to the City Council on December 12, 2000, which dealt with the appeal process of Planning Commission items by the City Council. Mr. McCants stated that the City Council had directed him to provide some explanation about how this process might work. He was also directed to have staff develop a proposed amendment to the Development Code that would provide for a new process whereby more significant applications would go to the Council as well as the Planning Commission. Mr. McCants explained that basically the Planning Commission would make a recommendation and the Council would review it. The City Council action would be the final action on the project. Commissioner Costello asked about the proposed change and if this was a selective process by the Council or would they appeal on any and all issues? Mr. McCants stated that it would be up to the Council to establish what they would appeal. Mr. McCants explained that the Council would receive an annotated Planning Commission agenda the day after the meeting showing what was approved or denied. The Council would make a decision at that point as to whether there was any project that they 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PAGE 21 wanted to appeal. ITEM. VII. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting on January 2, 2001. /aL4AJ41c2 ClQM4?.. Kathleen Fryer, Comm! on Clerk Laurence Greene, Chair AS TO CONTENT: Kerry McCant Communi • evelopment Director 1 1 1