Loading...
PC Minutes 2000-11-211 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER Acting -Chair Parker 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 ABSENT Chair Greene APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Commissioner London, seconded by Commissioner Costello, the minutes of September 21, October 3, and October 17, 2000 were approved as amended. ITEM I. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chuck Fellows spoke to the Planning Commission and explained a new organization that he has been instrumental in forming called, "Preserve the Village ". Mr. Fellows stated that the mission of the organization is to "preserve and enhance the Arroyo Grande Village environment." Henry Gonzales, 120 E. Branch St., stated that he was the owner of the Arroyo Grande Meat Company and voiced his concern about Senate Bill 1404, which authorizes the relinquishment, to the City of Arroyo Grande, a portion of State Highway 227. Mr. Gonzales was concerned that this would have the potential of hurting businesses in the Village. He also stated that he was never contacted about this issue. He felt that, as a business owner, he should have been contacted and allowed to voice his concerns. 1.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Copy of a letter written to Milton Hayes, by Tim Carmel, Arroyo Grande City Attorney, regarding the use of public utility access to Reservoir #4 by Cellular One. ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS II.B. 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 and stated the following: SLO Cellular signed a lease agreement with the City last June to establish a cellular communications facility at City Reservoir No. 4 located at the end of Huebner Lane off of Branch Mill Road. Per the lease agreement, the applicant must obtain all City approvals before occupying the site, including an approved Conditional Use Permit. Specifically, the proposed project is to attach 2 antennas, approximately 8-1/2 feet in height, on top of the water tank, and place a small equipment cabinet next to the tank in the designated lease area. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 PAGE 2 This is the first application for a commercial telecommunications facility that the City has reviewed as a Conditional Use Permit. Since the City has not adopted specific land use regulations for siting these facilities, all applications are considered on a case -by -case basis. The proposed project is located within the Public Facilities zoning district, which does not specifically allow wireless communication facilities. However, the Public Facility district does conditionally allow other uses if the Planning Commission determines that the proposed use is "similar to, and no more objectionable" than the other uses that are allowed. Staff believes that the proposed wireless communication facility fits with the intent of the Public Facility district and is no more objectionable than the allowable uses listed in the Development Code. In reviewing this application, the Planning Commission should be aware of certain federal regulations outlined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that affect local zoning authority in siting these facilities. The Act states that local zoning requirements may not: 1. Unreasonably discriminate among wireless telecommunications providers that compete against one another. 2. Prohibit the provision of wireless services. 3. Must act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is filed. 4. Must put any decision to deny a wireless service facility in writing and support such decision by substantial evidence contained in a written record. 5. And may not regulate wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. If a wireless telecommunications facility meets technical emissions standards set by the Federal Communications Commission, it is presumed safe. These conditions are deliberately broad based to preserve local control, but still provide a general framework for siting these facilities. Since many of the siting details are addressed in the lease agreement, the Planning Commission may wish to focus on the visual impacts of the proposed facility. In this case, the applicant is taking advantage of an elevated site with an existing tall structure, therefore requiring relatively small antennas to receive and send information at the necessary radio frequency. It is staff's opinion that the visual impacts of the proposed facility are minimal. As conditioned, the facilities must be painted to blend with the colors of the surrounding area. In response to an adjacent resident who shares the access driveway with the City and is unhappy about the poor condition of Huebner Lane, the project is also conditioned to improve the access road with a 2" overlay Ms. Heffernon stated that staff was recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit Case No. 00 -016 subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner London stated that the staff report indicated that the City had signed a lease with two separate cellular companies at different locations and has been contacted by 2 similar companies and received 2 more requests. Why did the City sign the lease first before requiring that a Conditional Use Permit be issued? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 PAGE 3 Ms. Heffernon stated that it was a "toss -up" which to do first but the City decided to get the lease first and then the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. London asked, in view of the Economic Development Strategy, what the City receives for this lease? Ms. Heffernon stated that the lease was for $ 1,000 a month. Acting -Chair Parker asked, with regards to Condition of Approval #21, why is the City requiring the applicant to pave the road when, in the SAC meeting Mr. Taylor stated that the City does not own it? Ms. Parker also asked if the applicant did repair the road, then who would be required to maintain the road in the future? Ms. Heffernon stated that after the easements had been researched it was decided that the City has the responsibility of maintaining the road especially now that the City is allowing commercial entities to use the road. The lease agreement does say that the City shall maintain the road. Acting -Chair Parker stated that she had heard that the road was not up to City standards. Will this road have to be brought up to City standards now? Kerry McCants, Community Development Director, replied that this was an access easement and not a public road, therefore, the same standards do not apply, but rather whatever standards the City chooses to apply. Ms. Parker asked about the relationship between Huebner Road and the Arroyo Linda project and whether if this road was used as a emergency access for that project would it have to be brought up to City standards? Mr. McCants stated that this was not a part of the current Arroyo Linda project. Acting -Chair Parker stated that the staff report indicated that this project complied with all applicable Development Code standards except the height standard. Should this fact be reflected in the findings of the Conditional Use Permit? Ms. Heffernon stated that language could be added to the findings if the Commission requested it. Ms. Heffernon pointed out that the water tank already exceeded the height requirements. Ms. Parker asked that this language be added to the findings of the Conditional Use Permit. Acting -Chair Parker opened the public hearing. Scott Harry, 733 Marsh St., San Luis Obispo, representative stated that the project has been reviewed by the City for approximately one year. He explained that this "tower" would not be an eyesore and would improve the cellular coverage in this area, especially for emergency response time. Commissioner London asked if the sites were self- contained and had a back up energy source? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 PAGE 4 Mr. Harry stated that there would be a back up battery system that would last anywhere from 12 to 24 hours. If the electricity was out longer, there was the possibility of bringing in a generator. Commissioner Keen asked if this company had other sites inside the City? Mr. Harry replied that they had one other site. Commissioner Keen stated that in the plan description there was a three -inch pipe holding the antenna, but it does not tell how big the antenna is. Mr. Keen asked Mr. Harry to describe the antenna. Mr. Henry replied that the antenna was an EMS, panel antenna with six -foot panels that have a width of 10 to 12 inches. There is a flat base that can be painted any color. Ms. Parker asked if the panels would be painted with a reflective paint? Mr. Henry stated that the paint used on the panels would be a flat paint. Acting -Chair Parker closed the public hearing. Mr. McCants stated that he had just been informed that the Public Works Director had expressed some concern with the impact of the antenna being located on the top of the water tank. He asked if it was acceptable to the Planning Commission to have the language read "as proposed, or another installation acceptable to the Director of Public Works ". Rodger Olds, Public Works Department, stated that Mr. Spagnolo was looking into the possibility of having the antenna directly adjacent to the water tank. The Planning Commission and staff discussed this issue. The Planning Commission did not feel that they should make a decision on this project until they knew specifically where the Public Works Director wanted the tower placed. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission postpone a decision and continue the item to the December 5, 2000 Planning Commission meeting requesting that the Public Works Director provide more information and input about where the antenna will be located. Commissioner Costello seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 PAGE 5 ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker ABSENT Chair Greene II.A.DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 00 -001; LOCATION — CITY WIDE; SUBJECT — ELIMINATING MINI - STORAGE AS AN ALLOWABLE USE IN ALL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report and stated the following: Last June, the Planning Commission expressed concerns about allowing mini - storage along the Grand Avenue corridor when reviewing a second pre - application for a combined mini - storage and commercial project located on the corner of Courtland and Grand. Commissioners responded favorably to the redesign of the commercial /retail component of the project, but recommended that the applicant revise the plans to reduce the amount of proposed mini - storage. On August 1s of this year, the Planning Commission took a stronger position on the issue by denying a proposal to expand an existing mini - storage facility based primarily on its inconsistency with the City's Economic Development Strategy. On appeal, the City Council upheld the decision of the Planning Commission and denied the project. The position of the City Council was confirmed on November 14` when a decision was made to proceed with the "East Grand Avenue Corridor Design Overlay" project. Because mini - storage was specifically identified as not being appropriate for the General Commercial district, direction was given to eliminate this use from all commercial districts. As written, the proposed ordinance will cause 3 existing mini - storage establishments to become nonconforming uses. These include the Arroyo Grande Mini - Storage, Crocker's Lockers, and Grand Avenue Self- Storage. Per the Development Code, these existing mini - storage businesses would not be permitted to expand their facilities without a Variance approved by the Planning Commission. Mini - storage facilities would continue to be allowed in the Industrial zoning district. As an alternative to eliminating mini - storage as an allowed use in all commercial districts, the Planning Commission may wish to consider adding a section to Chapter 11 of the Development Code to include specific development standards for "Mini- Storage Uses ". Criteria for the placement, access and design standards of mini - storage facilities may resolve some of the issues that have been discussed during previous Planning Commission meetings. Ms. Heffernon stated that if it were the desire of the Planning Commission to pursue an alternative, staff would return with a draft ordinance based on Planning Commission comments. For tonight's meeting staff has prepared a draft ordinance entitled, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande Amending Title 9, Chapter 7 of the Municipal Code to Eliminate Mini - Storage as an Allowable Use in All Commercial Districts" for the Planning Commission's consideration. Commissioner Costello asked when staff talked about a potential alternative to the adoption of the Ordinance, was staff talking about "expanding the language" in Chapter 9 -11 concerning mini - storage? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 PAGE 6 Ms. Heffernon replied that there was currently no specific language regarding mini - storage, so there would have to be a section added that would describe any detailed requirements that are unique to this use. Commissioner Costello stated that there was Section 9- 11.150 that talks about self- storage warehouses. Ms. Heffernon stated that this was correct and the language in this section could be expanded upon. Commissioner London asked what the difference was between Highway Commercial and General Commercial and why mini - storage was being "banned" from all commercial districts? Ms. Heffernon stated that the reason staff was suggesting all commercial districts was because all these districts are along East Grand Avenue and that East Grand Avenue was the concern of the Council. Commissioner Keen asked if mini - storage would still be permitted in industrial districts? Ms. Heffernon replied that it would be. Acting -Chair Parker asked that if mini - storage was not allowed in any commercial districts and a project proposing mini - storage was submitted, would it come before the Planning Commission as a Conditional Use Permit or would a zoning change actually be required to build mini - storage in commercial areas? Ms. Heffernon stated that mini - storage would not be allowed in any commercial district. Ms. Parker stated that in looking at the alternative language proposed by staff it appeared to her that mini - storage could go into any commercial spot as long as the Development Code criteria was followed. She asked if there would be any way that the Planning Commission could make a decision that mini - storage would be inappropriate in a commercial area? Ms. Heffernon stated that in this case it would require a Conditional Use Permit, just as it does now, to build mini - storage. Ms. Parker asked if the Conditional Use Permit could be turned down based on the fact that the Planning Commission felt that it was an inappropriate use for an area? Ms. Heffernon stated that the Planning Commission would have to make the findings in order to deny a Conditional Use Permit. Acting -Chair Parker opened the public hearing. Ted Moore, 123 Fairview Road, Ojai spoke to the Planning Commission and stated that, with regards to his proposed project, there is a small piece of property, about one -half acre on the site, that he does not know what to do with. He stated that he felt that in certain instances, ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 PAGE 7 mini - storage or self- storage is appropriate. He said that he believes that his property is a good example because he has a small area Perhaps the City could provide an exception where a part of a larger acceptable project could have a small amount of self- storage where it made sense to work for the immediate neighborhood as well as the retail /office project. The City could impose restrictions, such as insuring that the storage area was not visible from East Grand Avenue, it is a certain distance from the street, it is not more than 20% of the square footage of the project, if it has access that is not off the main street, etc. Mr. Moore stated that he felt there would be ways it could be "molded" so it might be a complementary part of certain projects. He also said that he had talked to mini - storage developers that told him the most successful projects are those that are close to office /retail as well as residential. Erik Justesen, RRM Design Group, spoke to the Planning Commission about the idea of a complete prohibition of certain uses in the Community. Mr. Justesen presented a zoning map and stated that there were certain parcels within the General Commercial zoning that would be appropriate for this type of use. There are 3 mini - storage facilities along Grand Avenue now that would become non - conforming therefore, if they wanted to upgrade their facility, "beautify" it, or improve it to some degree, they would be subject to review by the Planning Commission and Council. The Industrial district is so close to the freeway and El Camino Real that it would be highly visible and, Mr. Justesen stated that there might be higher and better uses that the City would want to attract to the Industrial districts. Mr. Justesen stated that disallowing this use forces it into other communities, where the idea of simply applying some performance standards to the use might be the best way to handle the situation. Mr. Justesen stated that the project being proposed at the corner of Courtland and Grand has approximately 23,000 square feet on the frontage, in a project design that is essentially upholds the City's goals for the beautification and revitalization of East Grand Avenue. Mr. Justesen stated that the revitalization of East Grand Avenue is an excellent goal and should be worked on. This project is an extremely well designed project that would go towards achieving the City's goal. This project also comes with a compromise and that is that a small portion of the back lot would be developed as a self- storage facility. This would be the funding source to allow the front portion of the project to be developed in the retail /office facilities. The back portion of the lot is not visible from Grand Avenue, and therefore not desirable for office space or retail. That is why they are proposing the self- storage for this area. Mr. Justesen suggested that the City put off this decision until the issue can be discussed within the context of the design overlay for the East Grand Avenue corridor. Mr. Justesen discussed what types of development would go along the East Grand Avenue corridor and further discussed the merits of his proposed project. Acting -Chair Parker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Costello stated that there were several key elements /issues to address as follows: • First the Economic Overlay and the changes proposed for the East Grand Avenue corridor. • The definitions of Commercial Districts in the Development Code, mini - storage is not addressed as to whether it is a commercial use or not. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 PAGE 8 • Section 9- 11.150 of the Development Code that does address self- storage warehouses, the intent is very specific for protecting existing uses from the impacts of these projects. • There are some very compelling arguments that indicate there may be a need for mini - storage that are closer to residential developments. Mr. Costello stated that when all of this is put together, it creates some questions in his mind about what to do. Should the City eliminate the use of mini - storage in commercial districts and restrict them to industrial areas. With the General Plan Update going on there might be some opportunity to rezone certain areas and expand the industrial zoning, although Mr. Costello did not think this was the best idea. He stated that he sees that there might be some merit to expanding Section 9- 11.150 with some very specific restrictions and requirements for permitting mini - storage in commercial zones. He felt that this would require more study and he felt that this issue might be too complex to decide at tonight's meeting. Commissioner London stated that he had some concerns about this ordinance. The project that Mr. Justesen talked about at the Corner of Courtland and East Grand that has come before the Planning Commission is, overall, a good project and that it would have a positive impact on this area of East Grand Avenue. The Planning Commission has heard several times that the piece of property that is proposed for the mini - storage is not useful to many people because of its location. When the project first came before the Planning Commission as a pre - application the Commission made several suggestions for changes. The applicant redesigned the project and given what the City is trying to accomplish in this area and with the small amount of mini - storage behind it the project makes sense. Mr. London stated that another issue was the project Mr. White brought before the Commission for the expansion of an existing mini - storage with an office building proposed on Grand Avenue. Mr. London felt that this would have gone a long way to eliminate some blight in this area, plus put a "face lift" on the existing storage and therefore this would have been a good project. Mr. London stated that he felt the City should look at this type of project on a case by case basis on their individual merits and not always overrule this type of project is a commercial area. If it is designed properly and if it is shown that there is a need. He does not feel that it is appropriate to not permit them in commercial areas. Commissioner Keen asked Mr. McCants if, in the proposed General Plan update, the Highway Commercial districts were going to be expanded? Mr. McCants stated that the draft Land Use Elements indicated that existing areas that are Highway Commercial would be mixed use types of areas. It is not far enough into the process to determine yet what the zoning will be. There is a possibility it will be a new zoning category for some of these areas that will allow for a mix of uses. Mr. Keen stated that one of the things the Commission needed to look was that they had been making decisions on a project case basis and not doing a lot of long range planning about the concept of how the City should look. Mr. Keen said that one of the things about the Design Overlay was that it would give the City a chance to come up with a vision of what the City would look like. If the Commission only looks at individual projects, they would have a "patchwork" like there is now. He would like to see the Commission not approve any projects when it is not sure it would meet the perimeters of the proposed Design Overlay. 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 PAGE 9 Mr. Keen stated that, from the perspective of the Economic Development Strategy that the City has adopted, mini - storage does nothing for the City as far as employment, income or revitalizing impacts on the area. Commissioner Keen stated that, looking at all these reasons, he would like to see mini - storage limited only to the Highway Commercial zones. He is not in favor of have mini - storage along East Grand Avenue or commercial areas because he does not believe they meet the goal of consistency, especially along Grand Avenue. Acting -Chair Parker stated that she agrees with the concept that the City needs to meet the requirements of the Economic Development Strategy especially in the overlay area of East Grand Avenue. Ms. Parker stated that if language was added to the alternatives presented by staff to make the restrictions stronger, for instance that any project should meet the criteria of the Economic Development Strategy, and that the storage unit would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood uses. In closing the door on this use in commercial districts it makes it very difficult for the Planning Commission to make overall, good judgements for neighborhoods. The Planning Commission would be stuck with one parcel at a time and, especially when you are trying to revitalize an area, it would be impossible to "get ahead of the game ". However, she does not believe that eliminating this use altogether is right. The restrictions should be tightened rather than an overall "no" to this use in all commercial areas. Mr. Costello stated the following: • The Planning Commission recommends that staff examine the options. • Language in Section 9- 11.150 regarding self -serve warehouses is expanded to include provisions consistent with the Economic Overlay. • Examine potentials for placing mini - storage use as a permitted function in appropriate commercial areas. (needs study) • Look at definitions in the commercial uses (Section 9- 07.20) to see if mini - storage is consistent with those definitions and for example, change the language to accommodate the needs of residential areas nearby to provide mini - storage if it is needed. Commissioner London asked if it would be possible to research the initiative process and see if the City could impose a tax on these types of storage facilities. After all, the City does offer services to these structures and does not receive much in return other than the property tax. Acting Chair Parker stated that she agreed with Commissioner Costello's proposals and asked staff if a motion was needed to take these recommendations to Council. Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to draft language that would take into consideration compliance with the economic overlay; expansion of the language in 9 -1 1.150 regarding self- storage warehouses; consider further regulating the use in commercial zones; and put this in a resolution to take to the City Council. Commissioner London seconded the motion. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 PAGE 10 Commissioner Keen stated that he thinks this motion too complicated and, after hearing the discussions at City Council he felt that staff had presented exactly what the City Council had asked staff to present to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Costello asked where the alternatives had come from? Mr. McCants stated that staff had constructed them as examples of possible alternatives of what the Commission might choose to pursue. Mr. Costello stated that he was withdrawing the motion he had just proposed. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1770 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND TITLE 9, CHAPTER 7 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ELIMINATING MINI - STORAGE AS AN ALLOWABLE USE IN ALL COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was defeated by the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE NO Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen NO Commissioner London NO Vice -Chair Parker ABSENT Chair Greene Commissioner Costello restated the motion that he had previously made as follows: Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to draft language that would take into consideration compliance with the economic overlay; expansion of the language in 9 -1 1.150 regarding self- storage warehouses; consider further regulating the use in commercial zones; and put this in a resolution to take to the City Council. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello NO Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker ABSENT Chair Greene ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 PAGE 11 III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS III. A PRE - APPLICATION 99 -012; LOCATION - 1405 EAST GRAND AVENUE; APPLICANT - TED MOORE, E.F. MOORE & COMPANY Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: The Planning Commission reviewed this project as a pre - application last April, and discussed applying some of the features found in the Village Design Guidelines to the project, such as placing the buildings closer to Grand Avenue with parking to the rear, modifying the architectural design to move away from the mission style commonly seen on Grand, and eliminating the fast food restaurant from the street corner. Similar to the previous submittal, the applicant proposes to construct four commercial buildings, including a Longs Drugs Store as the anchor. It is uncertain what type of commercial businesses would occupy the other 3 buildings, but the drive -thru originally shown for building "C" has been eliminated. Other modifications can be seen in the architecture, which has been modified to reflect some of the historical characteristics of the Village; the total floor area, which has been reduced by approximately 1,200 square feet; the pedestrian orientation, by including plaza areas in front of the buildings on Grand Avenue. A Conceptual Landscape Plan has also been prepared. Except for the height, which is shown to exceed the maximum by 3 feet in some places, the proposed project meets all relevant site development standards. The project also provides 35 parking spaces in excess of what the Development Code requires, allowing the flexibility of locating a restaurant in the shopping center. Being that this is a pre - application, staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the project plans and provide direction and comments to the applicant. The Commission should know that the formal CUP application has been submitted and reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee. Any suggested changes tonight will be incorporated into the CUP plans. Acting -Chair Parker asked if the applicant would be responsible for undergrounding the utility poles on East Grand Avenue. Ms. Heffernon stated that this project would be responsible for placing some utilities underground. She informed the Commission that this subject had been discussed at the November 21s SAC meeting. Acting -Chair Parker opened this discussion to the public. Ted Moore, applicant, spoke to the Planning Commission and stated that as the Commission would recall, when he had previously presented this project to them, they had had several suggestions and comments that he was asked to incorporate into his plans. Because Chair Greene was not at the meeting, Mr. Moore had met with him on a separate occasion and discussed this project. Mr. Moore stated that Mr. Greene had not liked the architectural style and so this had been changed to look more like the "village" style that Mr. Greene had suggested. Mr. Moore stated that he had eliminated the "drive- thru ", fast food restaurant from the project. The buildings in the front of the project will be for multi- tenant use. He stated that he does have some "better" restaurants interested in coming into the project. He said that he had pulled the buildings back to create public spaces and plazas on the street side where he could put fountains or public art. He felt that this could be a very nice "gateway" area to the ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 PAGE 12 project. He stated that he could have outdoor seating for a restaurant in this area as well. There are also walkways coming into the project from East Grand Avenue and one that goes through the entire project. There is also access off of Courtland that would service pedestrians coming from Berry Gardens. Mr. Moore stated that he has also looked into screening the parking lot as much as possible by using more landscaping. There will be low hedges along the street and since the property actually drops down from East Grand Avenue, this will help with the screening as well. Mr. Moore discussed, and asked the Planning Commission to please read, the comments he had submitted on the proposed design overlay for East Grand Avenue. Mr. Moore stated that, with this project, he had tried to give the City everything in terms of the essence of what it is trying to do with the overlay in terms of upgrading the quality of what is in the area now. He did not put the parking in the back because he did not believe it was a good idea in this location. Commissioner London stated that he liked the project better than the original submission. With regards to the "viewscape" from the southern and eastern elevations, will there only be a stucco wall? Mr. Moore discussed how this could be changed if the Planning Commission would prefer it. Commissioner Keen stated that he was also concerned with having a long blank wall in this location. He said that he would like to see something done to soften it until trees and vines could grow enough to cover it. Mr. Keen explained that he had driven through the Marigold Shopping Center in San Luis to look at the metal roofs and was disappointed to see that they were very faded. He also noticed that the awnings over the walkways had no fascia and he thought it looked very unfinished. He wanted to make sure that this project was not finished in the same way. Mr. Keen stated that he was very glad to see that the fast food building had been removed. He said that he noticed that there was a decorative sidewalk coming from Building B. He commented that the decorative sidewalks that were stamped looked very nice, however he does not think that they are appropriate for people in wheel chairs. He hoped that there would be some other way to designate the walkway that would be a smoother finish. Mr. Keen also commented on the fact that the signs should be placed where the trees won't grow and cover them up. Commissioner Costello stated that he was having a hard time visualizing what the project would look like from East Grand Avenue and he asked the applicant to bring a graphic to show what the project will look like when the trees are grown. He also said that he would like to see some kind of a fountain in the center of the parking lot that would be an entrance feature. He stated that he was not happy with having the parking lot in the front, but he "reluctantly" sees the economic drive for that. However, he would like to minimize the visual impact of the parking lot and trees go a long way towards doing that. 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 PAGE 13 Mr. Costello said that what Mr. Moore had done with Buildings B and C looks really good but he would like to see some sort of architectural feature or fountain between Buildings A and D looking from East Grand Avenue. Commissioner London asked, if Buildings B and C wind up being a series of small businesses, would they need back doors on the buildings? Mr. London stated that he was concerned that all of these small businesses would have trash containers outside their back doors. Mr. Moore stated that if they are not shown on the plans at this time they would be there. There will also be a walkway on the back of the building as Mr. London had previously requested. Mr. Moore stated that there are trash areas at the ends of the buildings. Acting -Chair Parker asked if the wall on the south elevation of Building B could have something put on it to soften it, as it is facing the parking lot. She stated that she liked the project and thanked Mr. Moore for changing the architecture. Ms. Parker stated that she still did not understand why Building A could not be put in the front of the project. She said that the parking would be right off of Courtland, which will be a very busy street, and the parking will be very visible from Courtland. However, she said she would not disapprove this project because of this reason at this point. Ms. Parker stated that she did not like the metal roofs. She would like to see some other material used for the roof. III. B TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 00 -004; TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2306; LOCATION - WEST SIDE OF SOUTH ALPINE STREET BETWEEN CERRO VISTA LANE AND CERRO VISTA CIRCLE; APPLICANT - CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT; REPRESENTATIVE - DON RITTER Assistant Planner Teresa McClish presented the following staff report: Tentative Parcel Map 2306, located on the west side of South Alpine St. between Cerro Vista Lane and Cerro Vista Circle, was approved by the Planning Commission on January 19, 1999, and is due to expire on January 18, 2001. The property has recently changed title and the new owners, Castlerock Development, are requesting a one -year time extension to have sufficient time to process the map. In order to grant a time extension, the Planning Commission must make the finding that there have been no significant changes in the General Plan, Municipal Code, or character of the area within which the project is located that would cause the approved project to be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare. Since approval of the project in 1999, there have been no significant changes to either the General Plan, Municipal Code or character in the project area that could cause the project to be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare. In conclusion, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, granting a one -year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map 2306. Don Ritter, Castlerock Development, stated that he was in attendance to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 PAGE 14 The Planning Commission asked Mr. Ritter if he was aware of the condition of approval that required a consultant from the Chumash Indian Tribe on site during the excavation processes? Mr. Ritter stated that he was aware of the condition. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 00 - 1768 Commissioner Costello seconded the motion. The was 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 ABSENT Chair Greene A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE -YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2306, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH ALPINE STREET BETWEEN CERRO VISTA LANE AND CERRO VISTA CIRCLE APPLIED FOR BY CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT III. C TIME EXTENSION CASE NO 00 -005; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2240; LOCATION - 410 S. ELM STREET; APPLICANT - ZADDIE BUNKER TRUST; REPRESENTATIVE - GARY WHITE Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report as follows: Tentative Tract Map 2240 is a nine unit PUD located at 410 South Elm St. The Planning Commission approved the project on November 18, 1997 and granted a one year time extension last December establishing a new expiration date of December 7, of this year. Staff is currently reviewing the tract map, improvement plans and items necessary to satisfy the conditions of approval. In order to approve the time extension the Planning Commission must make the finding that there have been no significant changes in the General Plan, Municipal Code, or character of the area within which the project is located that would cause the approved project to be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare. There have been no such changes since the approval of last years time extension. Gary White, applicant, stated that he was in attendance to answer any question the Planning Commission might have. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 PAGE 15 Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: Commissioner London 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 ABSENT Chair Greene ITEM. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS None RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1771 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE -YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2240 FOR A NINE PARCEL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 410 SOUTH ELM STREET, APPLIED FOR BY ZADDIE R. BUNKER TRUST ITEM. V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT Commissioner Keen stated that he was concerned about the neon that is being used in signage in the City. He said that recently he has seen neon used in signs at the Fair Oaks Theatre and on other buildings. He asked if someone could look into this and how this problem could be controlled? Mr. Keen suggested that the sign contractors in the area be contacted and informed of the sign regulations within the City. Mr. McCants stated that he would have the Code Enforcement Officer look into this. Acting -Chair Parker asked if staff would please look into the problem of Mulahey Ford parking on the sidewalk on Traffic Way. Mr. Olds stated that he would look into this matter. Commissioner Costello had some questions about the letter Mr. Carmel had sent to Milton Hayes. ITEM. VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS Mr. McCants presented an update on the East Grand Avenue overlay district to the Planning Commission. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 PAGE 16 Mr. London asked if a member of the Planning Commission was going to be present at the public meetings that the City and the Chamber of Commerce would be holding. Mr. McCants stated that he would need a .volunteer from the Commission to attend those meetings and Mr. London stated that he would be happy to attend. ITEM. VII. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting on December 5, 2000. ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commis Clerk AS TO C ' NTENT: Kerry McC. nts Commu y Development Director Parker, ctin -Ch Nanci g air 1 1 1