PC Minutes 2000-09-19ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 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 7:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL
X Commissioner Costello
X Commissioner Keen
X Commissioner London
ABSENT Vice -Chair Parker
X Chair Greene
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of September 5, 2000 were approved as amended.
VICE -CHAIR PARKER ARRIVED AT THE MEETING.
ITEM I.
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1. Letter to the Planning Commission from Sharon Shepherd, dated September 19, 2000
regarding Agenda Item No. III., Pre - Application for the Chevron Station.
2. Letter to the Planning Commission from Liane Peterson, dated September 18, 2000 regarding
Agenda Item No. II. A. Conditional Use Permit for the New Hope Church.
3. Memorandum to FILE regarding Public Hearing Notices for Agenda Item No. II. A. Conditional
Use Permit for New Hope Church
4. Memorandum to the Planning Commission from Kerry McCants, Community Development
Director regarding Status of Cleanup on Tract 1998 adjacent to James Way and La Canada
ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
II.A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT CASE NO. 00 -004; LOCATION 900 NORTH
OAK PARK BLVD.; APPLICANT - NEW HOPE CHURCH; REPRESENTATIVE - ROBERT
BURNETT
Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and stated that the New Hope
Church is located in the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Oak Park Acres Planned
Development at the intersection of Oak Park Blvd. and James Way. The church facility
accommodates both the Little Oaks Preschool and the Royal Oaks Christian School.
Ms. Heffernon further explained that the church was originally approved in 1984 as a two -
phased project in which a scaled down Phase 1 was ultimately constructed. Since the original
Conditional Use Permit did not include the operation of a school facility, an amendment was
approved in 1997 to allow for both a preschool and elementary school. The City imposed a
maximum occupancy of 90 children for the preschool and 154 students for the elementary
school for a total of 244 students. Ms. Heffernon stated that the total of 225 students quoted
in the staff report is incorrect.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 2
Ms. Heffernon further explained that the church was proposing a second amendment to the
original CUP to place a 960 square foot modular building on the east side of the property
boundary to provide additional classroom space for the Royal Oaks Christian School. The
temporary classroom would allow the school to keep the number of students down in the
existing classes and will not exceed the maximum occupancy. The request is for a three year
time period.
Ms. Heffernon stated that as conditioned, the exterior materials and colors of the modular
structure will match the existing church facility and the proposed project meets all relevant
Development Code requirements.
To date, staff has received two written public comments from neighboring property owners, which
were previously distributed.
Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
resolution approving Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 00 -004 subject to the conditions of
approval.
Commissioner London asked about the three- (3) year Conditional Use Permit time period. He
stated that according to his calculations this would end on September 19, 2003. However, in
the staff report, Exhibit A, paragraph 3 there is a different date. Which date was correct?
Ms. Heffernon stated that the deadline Mr. London was referring to was in reference to the
Conditional Use Permit itself, which was for a two -year time period. However, under special
conditions of this CUP, the time period would be three years after the issuance of a building
permit.
Commissioner Costello asked how many students were permitted at the school?
Ms Heffernon replied that 90 students were permitted at the pre - school and 154 students were
permitted at the elementary school.
Mr. Costello asked if the 90 children allowed for the pre - school were full time equivalents. If for
instance, some of the children were going part time, they could actually have 120, and if 60 of
them were part time this would be the equivalent of 30 full time. He asked if the numbers still
added up to the limit of 90 children?
Ms. Heffernon replied that the way the school is licensed there can be no more than 90 students
during one day attending the pre - school.
Mr. Costello asked if there were licenses that restrict the number of children that can be
educated at this facility? In other words, does someone license the facility, other than the City?
Ms. Heffernon stated that the school was licensed by the State and that the license is for the
number of students that was approved by the City.
Mr. Costello asked if the original Conditional Use Permit allowed for a specific number of
classrooms?
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 3
Ms. Heffernon stated that the original Conditional Use Permit allowed 10 classrooms. She also
stated that the actual resolution approving the school facility is not specific about the number of
classrooms. The details on the number of classrooms were in the staff report.
Mr. Costello asked if the original Conditional Use Permit specified what the number of
classrooms should be, or was this an issue?
Ms. Heffernon stated that the original Conditional Use Permit was for a phased project,
however, they had submitted a revised project that was smaller than originally approved.
Therefore, she is not sure if ten classrooms was the number that was on site now.
Commissioner Costello asked if Ms. Heffernon knew if there was a limit set on the number of
classrooms or not?
Ms. Heffernon stated that she understood what Commissioner Costello was asking and identified
the Memorandum that he was referring to, however the final resolution for the Conditional Use
Permit did not specify the number of classrooms.
Vice -Chair Parker asked Ms. Heffernon to identify the exact parcel this project was referring to
with regard to the maps in the PD zoning section in the Development Code. Ms. Parker and Ms.
Heffernon then discussed the uses in the PD zoning and what the allowed setbacks would be.
Ms. Parker stated that the residents in this area had complained because the property was not in
compliance regarding drainage, grading, lighting shields and solid waste on the property. She
asked if they were in compliance at this time?
Ms. Heffernon stated that they were in compliance with drainage, grading, and lighting shields.
With regards to the solid waste issue, she stated she would defer this question to Pastor
Barnett.
Mr. Campbell stated that the drainage issue had been addressed several years ago. It had been
required in 1996 and it was addressed shortly thereafter.
Vice -Chair Parker and Ms. Heffernon discussed the number of children that was allowed by the
Conditional Use Permit and how many students were attending the school.
Vice -Chair Parker asked about the temporary permit that was being issued for three (3) years.
She stated that she does not recall the Planning Commission ever allowing three years for a
permit. Vice -Chair Parker asked about temporary permits on a Conditional Use Permit. She
asked if a temporary permit was based on the request of the applicant or was it at the discretion
of the staff?
Ms. Heffernon stated that the Planning Commission had the discretion to change this time period
to whatever they felt was appropriate. The three -year time limit had been discussed with the
Staff Advisory Committee. It was decided that, with the applicant's need, and what staff was
willing to consider temporary without putting in additional improvements, this was an
appropriate time limit.
Pastor Robert Barnett, 766 Naples, Grover Beach stated that at this point there were only 104
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 4
elementary students enrolled at the elementary school, 70 pre - school children per day and that
the school did not exceed the maximum allowed per day.
Pastor Barnett gave a brief history of the school explaining that he had come to pastor the
church 3 years ago. Within a few days of his arrival he had attended the City Council hearing on
the Conditional Use Permit. It was at this time that he learned about the problems the neighbors
had had with the church and the property on which it is located. His goal since then has been
to be a "team player" and address the concerns of both the neighbors and the City.
He stated that he had apologized for the way the previous pastor had opened the school without
the proper City permits. He further explained that he had also agreed to address the issues of
drainage and solid waste that had been stored on the site behind the fence. These issues were
taken care of at the time of the City Council hearings.
Pastor Barnett stated that he had heard that there was still some concern about construction
materials that are stored on the site and he had instructed his staff to remove these materials.
He also said that he wanted to stay within the constraints of the Conditional Use Permit and he
wanted to assure the City and the neighbors that this was the intent of the Church. The Church
was not looking at expanding further, but rather in the future, they would like to separate the
Church from the school facility.
Vice -Chair Parker and Pastor Barnett discussed the number of students in the school and the size
of the classrooms. Ms. Parker asked what the plans for the school were in the future as the
three -13) year time limit did not allow them very long to decide what to do?
Pastor Barnett stated that they had to decide what was best for them to do and what, feasibly,
they could do. He did not have the answers to this question at this time.
Ms. Parker stated that the neighbors had had many concerns at this site and the Church had
taken care of this. She wanted Pastor Barnett to know that she appreciated this very much.
Concerning the construction material that still remains on the site, she asked if there was any
way to put this into storage or move it somewhere that the neighbors do not have to look at it?
Pastor Barnett stated that this material was going to be taken care and that it would be gone in
the next few days.
Commissioner Costello asked if the church was considering building to the north of the current
church site and how far north would they be building?
Pastor Barnett stated that, although they have room to build to the north, there was another
parcel of land towards the ocean that they have looked at and would possibly consider. They
are doing the research to find out what will be best both economically for the Church and for the
Community.
Commissioner Costello stated that he was appreciative of the willingness of the church to
consider the neighborhood when making their decisions.
Commissioner Keen stated that the map showed that the church owned two parcels at this
location and he asked if they had been merged into one parcel? He stated that it appeared that
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 5
the church was built over the parcel lines.
Ms. Heffernon stated that her drawing of the church building was not drawn to scale and that it
did not go over onto the second parcel. She also stated the Assessor's parcel map showed this
area divided into two parcels.
Chair Greene stated that he appreciated Pastor Barnett's sincerity in taking care of the problems
at this site. He stated that the issue of the past problems with the neighbors had nothing to do
with granting or denying the request for a modular schoolroom. Mr. Greene referenced the letter
from the Peterson's concerning the materials stored. He informed Pastor Barnett that this item
would be going on to the City Council for final approval. Although the Planing Commission
would not make the removal of the materials a condition for approval, he wanted Pastor Barnett
to know that he had said these materials would be removed and that there were members of the
City Council present at this meeting that would know of this promise.
Wayne Russell, 367 Hollister, representing New Hope Church spoke to the Commission stating
that he had met with a representative from the City and the following items would be addressed:
• A new fire hydrant would be installed on the site.
• New landscaping will be put in place to help screen the new modular building.
• The modular roof will be painted to match the terra cotta tile roof of the church.
Commissioner Costello asked what type of roof the modular unit had?
Mr. Russell stated that it had a metal roof.
Vice -Chair Parker asked if the modular unit complied with all the State safety codes including fire
standards?
Mr. Russell stated that the modular unit was being leased from a company that leases or sells
these types of units to all the public and school buildings in the area and he assumed that they
would comply with all State regulations.
Commissioner Keen stated that, according to the drawings, the air conditioner units were
located on the James Way side of the building. He wondered if they could be placed on the
north end so they would not be visible from James Way?
Mr. Russell stated that they did not have an option because of the way the modular has to sit on
the property. It has to back up to the pre - school play yard and another existing classroom and it
would be too noisy to the have the air conditioner located next to the classroom. He also stated
that the air conditioner would be screened with the new landscaping.
Commissioner Costello stated that he did not have a problem with the project as it had been
presented, however he does not believe that the Development Code allows metal roofs. In
Development Code Section 9- 10.090 for Mobil Homes and Manufactured Home requirements,
section 3.A , states "a roof constructed of asphalt, composition shingle, tile, crushed rock or
similar roofing material, except metal ... is acceptable ". The Land Use Element also states, that
in keeping with the small town character of Arroyo Grande, metal roofs should be avoided. Mr.
Costello stated that this issue would have to be addressed in deciding whether or not to approve
this project.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 6
Commissioner Costello stated that aside from this, the limit to the number of classrooms is
included in the original CUP and he felt that the Commission should make sure this condition is
watched, especially with the possibility of a new school building being built.
Vice -Chair Parker asked staff about Condition No. 6 that stated that the modular building should
be removed three years after issuance of a building permit. She asked if the church would be
able to come back and ask for an extension?
Ms. Heffernon stated that if the church wanted to extend their time limit they would have to
come back for another amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.
Ms. Parker asked why Condition No. 7 was included in this permit? She didn't think that it was
the usual requirement to condition what color the roof would have to be.
Ms. Heffernon stated that the ARC had asked that this be a condition.
Ms. Parker stated that the way Pastor Bennett had discussed this situation with the neighbors
and the fact that he is trying to make amends and make things acceptable with the
neighborhood was commendable. Therefore, she does not have a problem with the project.
She said that there were certain things were all right with her because this was only a temporary
situation. For instance, she does have a problem with the ten -foot set back, but in this case she
is willing to overlook it. She also felt there should be trees between the building and the edge of
the property, but again, because this is temporary it would alright. Ms. Parker stated that she is
willing to accept the metal roof because this is a temporary building and the church is willing to
make it look better by painting it. She also stated that she does not believe that the color of the
roof should be in the Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Keen stated that he thought that in the original Conditional Use Permit, the
reference to classrooms was meant to be a reference to Sunday School classrooms. The
problem arose when the church wanted to change the verbiage from Sunday School classrooms
to regular school classrooms.
Commissioner Costello stated that he felt there was still a void in what was permitted and what
was not. He would like the language of the CUP to be more specific and cleaner.
Commissioner Keen stated that with regards to the metal roof since this was a temporary
building he felt that this was all right. Also, since the ARC saw fit to put a condition about the
roof color in the permit to make it blend in with the existing structures he feels this is
appropriate. He stated that the three -year time limit was a good condition. He also said that he
liked where the modular unit was placed on the site rather than on the north side of the building
where it would infringe on the neighborhood.
Mr. Keen asked Mr. Campbell to explain why Condition No. 14 asked for the modular unit to be
fully sprinkled but they were putting in a fire hydrant instead. He felt that the Condition should
be amended to have the words "either /or" inserted if the fire hydrant was going to take the
place of the sprinklers.
1
1
1
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 7
Chair Greene asked Mr. Campbell if he had language that could be used to modify Condition No.
14.
Mr. Campbell stated that the language should be "alternatively, an onsite fire hydrant to be
located as approved by the Fire Department ".
Commissioner London stated that he did not have any problem with this project.
Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt:
RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1761
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CASE NO. 00 -004, THEREBY AMENDING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 84 -368, APPLIED FOR BY THE NEW HOPE CHURCH,
LOCATED AT 900 NORTH OAK PARK BOULEVARD.
with Exhibit A as amended Vice -Chair Parker 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. B. PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 00 -004; LOCATION - 1166 EAST GRAND AVENUE;
APPLICANT - GRAND AVENUE SELF - STORAGE; REPRESENTATIVE - JIM CRAVENS
Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and stated that the owner of Grand
Avenue Self- Storage was applying for a Planned Sign Program Amendment to place one ground
sign adjacent to the Wet Pets ground sign at 1164 Grand Avenue. The site is located in the
General Commercial District. Ms. McClish explained that Grand Avenue Self- Storage is located at
1166 Grand Avenue behind Wet Pets. The owner of Wet Pets has a Planned Sign Program,
approved in 1996, for their signs. Both parties have agreed to have the Grand Avenue Self -
Storage ground sign on the Wet Pet's property since it will be more visible from Grand Avenue.
Ms. McClish stated that at the current time there is one ground sign and one wall sign for Wet
Pets, and one wall sign for Grand Avenue Self- Storage on the site. All the signs are non -
illuminated. Ms. McClish explained that the proposed ground sign is consistent with all
Development Code requirements. The proposed ground sign is 24 -sq. ft. and would be located in
a narrow planter area.
Commissioner Costello inquired how the sign was situated on the lot.
Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 8
Jim Cravens, representing the applicant asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions
he could answer. Vice -Chair Parker asked if the sign was wooden with raised letters and Mr.
Cravens replied that it was.
Chair Green closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1763
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM
AMENDMENT CASE NO. 00 -004, APPLIED FOR BY GRAND
AVENUE SELF STORAGE, LOCATED AT 1166 EAST GRAND
AVENUE
with exhibit A. Vice -Chair Parker 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. C. AMENDMENT TO THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 11
OF TITLE 9 REGARDING SECOND RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner stated that the City Council had recently directed staff to
review and revise Development Code Sec. 9- 11.140 for second residential units. Ms. McClish
stated that State law provided provisions to allow second units unless findings can be made that
they create a health, safety, or general welfare problem. Second residential units help the City
meet its affordable housing requirements and "fair share allocation" established by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development.
Ms. McClish explained to the Commission that the Housing Element in the City's General Plan
encouraged the development of second residential units and quantified the City's objective to
allow the development of 50- second residential units between 1990 and 1997. The City has
approved 16- second residential units since 1990.
Ms. McClish stated that the changes to the ordinance included clarification of Conditional Use
Permit requirements, expanded property development standards and the inclusion of findings
specific to second residential units.
Commissioner Keen stated that in the staff report Ms. McClish had read a section concerning
what the State says the City was allowed to do. He asked for clarification concerning this
statement. He also asked Ms. McClish to further explain about the number of units, which Ms.
McClish had stated was fifty, that was in the General Plan.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 9
Ms. McClish stated the State law essentially mandates second residential units and provides
provisions, which the Ordinance was based on. The General Plan includes goals and objectives
to encourage second residential units to meet housing requirements and there is a specific
objective to allow the development of fifty second residential units.
Mr. Keen stated that where it talks about an attached second unit in the Ordinance, there should
be a requirement for a firewall between the units. He asked if the Building Code included a
firewall in this instance? If it doesn't, he felt it should be added into the language of the
Ordinance.
Mr. Campbell agreed with Mr. Keen that this was an important issue, however, he did not know
if it was included in the Building Code. He stated that it would not hurt to add the language to
cover this.
Mr. Keen asked what the statement in the ordinance meant that stated "additional parking may
be required if the findings indicate it is necessary "? He asked what kind of findings these would
be? He stated that he did not feel that the new requirement of one parking space was
sufficient.
Ms. McClish stated that the language used in the Ordinance came from the state law section.
The State law does not include any language requiring covered parking spaces. Therefore, staff
felt that the language dealing with this had to be removed from the current ordinance. However,
the current proposed section does give the Commission discretion when approving the parking
requirements.
Mr. Keen stated that it was still not clear to him what kind of findings the Commission would
have to have to require the additional parking? He would like to have the ordinance worded in
such a way that it did not leave any room for a Commission decision on this.
Ms. McClish stated that the findings provided at the end of page six of the Ordinance referred to
the second unit being compatible with the neighborhood. For instance, if all the houses in the
neighborhood had covered parking, then to be compatible, you may require a covered parking
space.
Commissioner London asked if it would be feasible to require that second residential units be
behind the primary residence to avoid the situation the Commission had just dealt with on James
Way?
Ms. McClish stated that they had included language that stated that an applicant would not be
able to revert to the old setbacks. There is also language stating that the front yard set back
shall be equal to or greater than the maximum front yard setback of the adjacent parcels.
Mr. London stated that this still did not answer the problem of those homes that have a large
front yard that would meet the setback requirements, but by adding the second residence,
would be totally inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
Kerry McCants, Community Development Director, stated that the reason staff had structured
the Ordinance in this way was that the findings needed would allow the Commission to make
this kind of decision on a case to case basis.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 10
Mr. London stated that this would be true if the project came to the Planning Commission before
the building permit had been issued.
Mr. McCants stated that staff had done the best that they could to deal with this situation.
Mr. London asked what the reason was for having only one utility meter at the residence?
Mr. McCants stated that this was done to make it more difficult for someone to subsequently try
to create an additional parcel and sell one side.
Mr. London asked if the second residence could have its own address?
Mr. McCants stated that he did not have an answer to that question.
Mr. London asked why there was a condition restricting the possibility of having a second
driveway?
Mr. McCants stated that it was important to recognize that this is a secondary use on an
existing developed property and having a separate driveway would create the perception of an
additional separation between the two units.
Vice -Chair Parker stated that she felt this was a huge improvement and she felt that it would
help the Planning Commission have something concrete to base its decisions on. She said she
was appreciated staff putting together this ordinance.
Ms. Parker asked if there was a period of time set by the State in which the City was supposed
to have approved fifty second residential units?
Ms. McClish stated that the fifty units was a City goal and that the State only provided the
provisions on how to shape the ordinance. The State does have language that encourages
having second units to meet the City's affordable housing requirements.
Vice -Chair Parker stated that on Page Six (6) of the staff report, Number Five (5) it stated that
"the proposed second dwelling unit will not cause unreasonable noise, traffic congestion,
parking..." and then it says "congestion ". Was this a mistake in the language of the ordinance?
Ms. McClish stated that a change would be made to correct it.
Ms. Parker stated that she appreciates staff referring to the fact that there are the necessary
infrastructure capabilities before the City continues to add on second residential units because
she believes this addresses one of Commissioner Keen's concerns about having enough water
for buildout.
Commissioner Costello asked if the deed restriction solved the problem of someone coming back
and trying to split a lot with a second dwelling unit on it and creating a new parcel? He also
asked what the deed restriction actually accomplished?
Ms. McClish stated that the deed restriction follows the land in terms of change in ownership,
but someone could request a lot split. They would then have to meet all the requirements for a
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 11
subdivision. The deed restriction requires that the owner reside in one or the other of the units.
Mr. Costello asked what would happen if there was a lot that exceeded 24,000 square feet and
it has a second resident dwelling on it, then someone asked to split the lot into two 12,000
square foot parcels. Could someone then ask to put a second residential dwelling on the two
12,000 square foot lots?
Ms. McClish stated that there was language in the ordinance referring to requirements to meet
not only property development standards, but zoning requirements as well. This is where the
issue of density requirements would be looked at. The state law reads in such a way that the
City is allowed some discretion to look at density in situations such as Mr. Costello was referring
to.
Chair Greene asked if the new parking language was drawn from the State law and was the
Commission free to deviate from this language and continue to use the language that currently
existed in the Ordinance requiring one covered and one uncovered parking space? Or, is the
Commission mandated to adopt the new language of one parking space as the threshold?
Ms. McClish stated that the Commission was not mandated to use the new language. She said
that the City Attorney suggested the new language. The City is allowed to develop an
Ordinance that includes some restrictions but State law also provides that the cities do not
create unreasonable restrictions. This was the reason that staff used the language from the
State law with regard to parking.
Mr. Greene asked if anyone had ever found that the existing language created an unreasonable
restriction either through some Appellate Court decision or through some finding made by a City
staff member.
Ms. McClish stated that the City Attorney was not comfortable including specific language for
covered parking.
Mr. McCants stated that the City Attorney was more comfortable using the approach of looking
at the findings that were listed at the back of the Ordinance and using them to make the finding
that, for instance, covered parking was required in a certain case because everyone on the street
had covered parking.
Mr. London asked what the City intended to do when the owner of the property, after building
the second unit, moves and there are two rental units?
Ms. McClish stated that the deed restriction that is required for the second dwelling unit
prohibits the owner of the property from residing elsewhere.
Mr. London asked what enforcement action could the City take when it becomes aware of this
kind of violation?
Mr. McCants stated that the City would have to go to Superior Court and have the court enforce
the deed restriction.
There was no public comment.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 12
The Planning Commission briefly discussed the ordinance and felt that the ordinance was more
restrictive and would provide them with better guidelines to work with when making their
decisions on second unit dwellings.
Chair Greene asked about the possibility of crafting language for the parking spaces that would
be required. He suggested that Section 7 be modified to read, "a minimum of one covered and
one uncovered off street parking space shall be provided" and then adopt the remaining
language from the State law. The words "each bedroom" should be deleted.
Mr. Campbell quoted language from the State law that stated "parking requirements for second
dwelling units shall not exceed one parking space per unit or one per bedroom. Additional
parking may be required providing that a finding is made that additional parking requirements are
directly related to the use of the second unit ".
Mr. Greene and Mr. Campbell discussed the fact that State law regulates the number of parking
spaces and the original language should be left as it was presented.
Vice -Chair Parker 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 THE
ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SECOND RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS
as amended. 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
RESOLUTION NO. 1762
III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. PRE - APPLICATION 00 -003; LOCATION — 415 E. BRANCH STREET; APPLICANT —
DEBLAUW BUILDERS, INC.; REPRESENTATIVE — JOSEPH BOUD AND
ASSOCIATES
Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, stated that on August 1st, the Planning Commission had
reviewed a pre - application for the Creekside Center and had recommended that the applicant
return with alternative plans showing the parking area located away from the Branch Street
frontage, and incorporating the rustic facade of the Loomis building into the project design. The
applicant has submitted alternative project plans based on these comments, and a letter
highlighting the most prominent changes. These include placing the buildings and structural
elements on Branch Street to better mask the internal parking area, and emphasis on creekway
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 13
improvements and pedestrian access. The overall project is roughly 7,000 square feet less than
the previous submittal.
The letter also discusses the feasibility of using a portion of the existing barn in the project
design. Based on the poor condition of the structure and Building Code compliance issues, the
applicant has determined that this option is not viable.
The project continues to integrate the historic village theme into the architecture. Although the
materials used in the construction of the project will conform to the Village Design Guidelines, the
applicant specifically requests that the Planning Commission consider the use of seam metal roofing
material in the project design.
The Planning Commission should know that project access to and from Le Point Street and Branch
Street remains a significant concern with the Public Works Department. Site planning should
therefore remain flexible until the access and traffic issue is better analyzed. Vice -Chair Parker
stated that she had spoken to Mr. McCants about the preservation of the historical barn. She
asked if he could explain again how this was be dealt with in the CEQA process.
Mr. McCants stated that when the applicant actually submits the application the City will
undertake the environmental review that is required under CEQA. An initial study will be done
and at this point in time the City will be asking for additional information. One of the items the
City will ask for is an architectural historian's report on the historical significance of the two
existing structures that are on the site and what the appropriate mitigation measures that will
preserve whatever the historical significance is.
Ms. Parker asked if at this time it would be decided what would need to be done to preserve the
building, or if it could be moved?
Mr. McCants stated that if it is determined to be historically significant, then follow up work
would have to be done by an architect or engineer to determine to what extent the building, or
some of the components of it, can be saved in order to preserve the historical significance of it.
The mitigation measures that are required under the recent changes to CEQA are more stringent
than they were in the past.
Ms. Parker asked how the number of parking spaces would be determined?
Ms. Heffernon stated that it would be based on the amount of square footage, or the amount of
use that was strictly commercial and then depending what type of residential units were built
would determine the amount of parking required.
Commissioner Costello stated that metal roofing was included in the request. He asked if metal
roofs had changed enough so that they can be incorporated and still retain the rural small town
character that the General Plan requires?
Ms. Heffernon stated that the language in the General Plan allows this to be decided on a case
by case basis.
Commissioner Costello asked how serious an impact could there be from traffic?
Mr. Campbell stated that the Public Works Department was anticipating an access alternative
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 14
study that might include relocating the driveway entrances, controls at the intersections with
islands, or an access off of Crown Terrace. In terms of the site design, there might be different
ways of getting into the parking lots but he believes the lots and the buildings would stay in the
same configuration.
Commissioner London stated that he noticed that there was a 7,000 square foot reduction in the
size of the project from the original proposal. Does this include not using the existing residence
that was originally proposed for commercial use?
Joe Boud, representing the applicant, spoke to the Commission and stated that he had reviewed
the previous comments from the Planning Commission and they had changed the project to
reflect some of the concerns of the Commission.
Mr. Boud stated that the original project had included the house, however the project before the
Planning Commission tonight did not include the house. Mr. Boud asked the Planning
Commission to remember that this was a conceptual design and some of the design details, such
as the parking, are still being worked on.
Mr. Boud explained that the following changes had been made to the project:
• In response to the Commission's comments about the parking in the front of the project,
they have located a building in the front. There will be a "tower or marquee" with
landscaping. There will be a slight rise with a ramp for ADA access as the project needs to
gain elevation to be one (1) foot above the flood level. In order to meet the setbacks for the
floodway area, they have created a small patio in this area.
• The creek enhancement section will not change as both the applicant and the Commission
felt that this was a very important area of the project.
• The circulation for the pedestrians will be further emphasized by having pedestrian access
points from several locations in the project.
• The residential area would be accessed below for parking purposes.
Mr. Boud stated that there are other design options they are looking at but their main concern
tonight is to hear from the Commission as to whether or not the project is on the "right track ".
Mr. Boud stated that they recognized the importance of this "gateway" entrance from the east
of Branch Street into the City and they did study the potential of utilizing and using either
components, or the entire Loomis Feed Store. Mr. Boud stated that the barn sits approximately
sixteen inches onto the right of way, it does not have a foundation, and it is not structurally
sound. He said that in discussing this with the Building Department, they discovered that they
would have to bring the building into full code compliance in order to convert it into use that
would be compatible with the rest of the project. He stated that they did not believe this would
be possible or desirable, however they will continue to study the integrity of the structure and
will satisfy the standards of CEQA in terms of its historical value.
Mr. Boud stated that he believed a homogenous development that is compatible with the other
features of development of the Village, and one that is compatible on site, to force this building
to fit in with the rest of the project will be very difficult. Concerning the existing office building,
which was commented on at the previous Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Boud said that
they intended to put a "new face" on the building so it will blend with the rest of the complex.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 15
Mr. Boud stated that they have investigated extending the creek walkway plan along the east
side of the building and it looked like there was a strong possibility of integrating the walkway
down into the creekway.
With regards to the materials that will be used in construction, which was brought up by
Commissioner Costello, Mr. Boud believes that the metal roofing will give the development 1) an
opportunity to be a modern structural element that could be very attractive, and 2) it gives a
greater opportunity to mask some of the mechanical equipment that is necessary in a
commercial development.
Mr. Boud stated that they had been in touch with staff from Regional Water Quality, the
Department of Fish and Game and the Army Core of Engineers. The applicant is fully aware of
what their standards and expectations are, and will make their applications concurrent with the
City and these other agencies.
He stated that there was a very large easement running through the property, which is why the
circulation has been designed as it has been. He briefly discussed the issues that may have to
be dealt with regarding the circulation.
Commissioner London asked if the residence on the property was definitely not going to be
used?
Mr. Boud explained that it would be very difficult to bring the house into building code
compliance. Mr. DeBlauw has been in touch with the historical society and they will see if the
house can be moved.
Commissioner London asked if the parking issue was basically controlling the building sizes and
the configuration of the project? He stated that he hoped that in the lower right hand corner of
the parking there would be some architectural item that could be placed there to break up the lot
and add to the streetscape. He said that he felt the changes they had made to the project were
a great improvement. Also, Mr. London stated that he did not have a problem with the metal
roofs.
Commissioner Keen asked about the elevation of Building D.
Mr. Boud stated that it is difficult to tell from this angle of the drawings just how this building
will look but it does go into the cut bank of the hillside.
Mr. Keen stated that from this elevation, Building E does not show. He asked if it would be the
same height as the front building?
Mr. Boud stated that Building E would have parking below grade and the finished floor of E,
which would probably be the residential area would have the same finished floor of Building C.
Mr. Keen stated that the only roof that he could see that would have enough slope for a metal
roof would be the "gazebo" structure. Would this be true?
Mr. Boud stated that there may be other elements throughout so that there would be continuity
in design.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 16
Vice -chair Parker stated that the back of Building D, since it will be facing other residences,
finished in a way that will be compatible with the other residences and will there be some
landscaping that will dress it up?
Mr. Boud stated that the building will take into consideration the "uphill" neighbors.
Commissioner Costello stated that there is an easement that runs from top to bottom, from Le
Point Street down to East Branch. He asked if there was anyway to incorporate some sort of
visual feature in the lower right corner to break up the parking?
Mr. Boud stated that they would place some type of element in this area.
Mr. Costello asked if the structures on the site are found to have some historical significance,
would the applicant be willing to work with the historical society in some type of preservation
efforts?
Mr. Boud explained how they had tried to integrate the buildings into the new development and
their effect on the circulation, parking, overall design continuity, and the opportunity for
landscaping did not make it a feasible alternative. However, if the buildings are found to be
historically significant through the CEQA review process, whatever it took to be in compliance
with the CEQA determination they would be willing to do.
Commissioner Costello stated that he would like to see the "Village look" captured back into this
project.
Chair Greene asked if it was too early to tell what percentage of the roofing would be metal?
Mr. Boud stated that, yes, it was too early.
Mr. Greene and Mr. Boud discussed the proposed identification tower and the existing facade
and roof on the office building.
Richard DeBlauw, applicant for the project, spoke briefly to the Commission and stated that he
had spoken to the Loomis family and that there was a possibility that they would want to move
the smaller house that existed on the property to Tar Springs Ranch. Also, the proprietor of the
feed store might want to move the location of his business and take some of the materials from
the feed store with him.
Commissioner Costello stated that:
• He felt that the applicant was on the right tract with the project.
• He would like to see the buildings blend into what makes the Village unique.
• He could be a little more flexible about the metal roofs if it is attractive and adds to the
project.
• He is very concerned about the traffic and the circulation particularly with regards to
Paulding School.
Vice -Chair Parker stated that:
• She has received many comments from people that the Loomis Feed Store holds a great deal
of historical significance to the Village. If, through the CEQA process, this were found to be
1
1
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 17
historically significant, she would expect this to be incorporated into the site. She wanted
the applicant to know that she, as well as many other people, feel strongly that this is an
important part of the Village.
• She was very pleased that the applicant had incorporated all of the significant comments
from the previous Planning Commission into the plans. This was a big improvement to the
project.
• She does not like metal roofs and would object to them. She believes that they are a
modern structural element and would not fit into the Village area.
• She also believes that the traffic is going to be a huge problem. Having the hours of
operation different from those of the school is a great idea.
• She would also like to see this match the buildings in the Village. She thinks that the
applicant's idea of coming up with different ideas for the different buildings is a very good
one.
Commissioner Keen stated that:
• He appreciated that the applicant had incorporated the suggestions of the Planning
Commission from the previous meeting especially moving the building to the front and
changing the parking lot.
• He was glad to see the bridge concept taken out of the plans because he did not believe it fit
in with the project.
• He believes that Building D will have a real problem with the roof because Crown Terrace will
be so much higher. Trying to make that roof look good will be a challenge. It might be a
good place for some kind of a gabled roof so the residences on crown Terrace will not be
looking down on a lot of equipment.
• He also has concerns about the traffic.
• He, like the other Commissioners, feels that the project needs to blend in with the Village.
• He likes the way the elevation drawings look at this point.
Commissioner London stated that:
• The project is significantly better than the original plan.
Chair Greene stated that:
• Concerning the seamed metal roof, hopefully Mr. Boud has understood that the way the roof
is presented will make a difference in how it will be accepted.
• Mr. Greene felt that it was an excellent idea to link the walkway behind Buildings C and E
with Branch Street. He encouraged the applicant to do everything to accomplish this as he
feels that this would be a very attractive element for the project.
• The office building is an eyesore and he is very glad to see that this building will be brought
into conformity into the rest of the project.
• He would like so see the design be "aggressive' in incorporating as many seating areas as
possible.
• The landscaping will be very important. He encouraged the applicant to put in more
landscaping, especially trees, that the City standards call for.
• He would like to see the creek area be revegitated to bring it back to an environment
consistent to what it used to be.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 18
B. PRE - APPLICATION 00 -008; LOCATION — OAK PARK PLAZA /WEST BRANCH
STREET; APPLICANT — ROBERT TACHOVSKY
Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, stated that two years ago, a 20,000 square foot
parcel was created within the existing parking lot of the Oak Park Plaza next to the
Quarterdeck Restaurant. Since any proposed development would take away existing
parking spaces, parking was the main topic of discussion during the public hearing
process. The applicant proposes to develop this new parcel with a Chevron gas station,
convenience store and car wash, all of which would be open 24 hours a day.
When the Staff Advisory Committee reviewed the project last month, issues were raised about:
1. the circulation of the parking lot, since the gas station would eliminate access across
that section of the parking area;
2. the number of parking spaces being removed;
3. the potential widening of West Branch street to 5 lanes, which would take an
additional 10 feet from the property frontage;
4. traffic impacts;
5. security of a 24 -hour operation;
6. noise impacts and water usage.
The Architectural Review Committee had similar concerns regarding the parking situation, but
also advised the applicant to provide more landscaping and revise the sign plans to be within
development standards. Overall, the ARC approved of the proposed mission style architecture
and preferred that the canopy remain separate from the main structure.
As outlined in the staff report, the proposed project is subject to the development standards of
the Oak Park Acres Planned Development, the performance standards for service stations, and
certain development standards of the Highway Commercial District. Since some of these
standards conflict, staff recommends that the Planning Commission apply the standard that best
relates to the circumstances of the project. Development Code issues that the Planning
Commission may want to consider include parking, setbacks, landscaping, separation of the
canopy from the main structure, height of the pole sign, and necessity of a 6 feet high solid wall
to separate the project from the rest of the shopping center. Other issues to consider include
traffic, noise, and water use impacts. Distributed earlier this evening was a letter from a
residential neighbor, who is primarily concerned about increased traffic in the project area.
Staff would like to clarify that the project would not be subject to any additional right of way
along Branch Street as indicated in the staff report. Therefore, the minimum parcel size remains
unaffected.
Being that this is a Pre - application, staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide
direction and comments to the applicant.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed the project with regards to the parking issues, the
creation of the parcel, and the placement of fuel tanks close to the property line.
Mr. Keen pointed out that if a project were developed in this location that did not have any
parking, there would be no shared parking for the Quarterdeck restaurant which could greatly
hurt their business.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 19
George Garcia, architect for the project, discussed the following issues:
• The fuel tanks would have a two -foot setback from the property line.
• The applicant had reviewed the existing parking study and found that when this parcel was
created there were 61 excess parking spaces. This project would take up 54, which would
leave an excess of 9 spaces.
• They could apply for a reduction in parking.
• This would not be a service station. There would be no service of cars at this location.
• There would be ten fueling positions that could serve as parking spaces.
The Commission discussed the project with Mr. Garcia with regards to the issues of ingress and
egress from the station, traffic, and parking.
Jim Wood, owner of the parcel spoke to the Commission and stated that:
• The four parcels were all tied together by CC & R's and shared parking.
• With regards to the question of moving the parcel, the relocation would require the
cooperation of all the property owners at the center, which would be a very complicated
process.
• At the time the map for this parcel was recorded, all the tenants including the owner of the
Quarterdeck supported it.
He discussed the problems he has had finding a tenant for this location. He stated that he had
an agreement with the owners of the Quarterdeck that he would not lease this location to a
restaurant that would be competitive with their restaurant.
Chair Greene stated that when the project to create a parcel in this area had come before the
Planning commission, he remembered that this parcel was to be used for a bank. He asked Mr.
Wood if he was correct in thinking this?
Mr. Wood stated that he did not share Mr. Greene's recollection in stating that the use would be
a financial institution or a bank.
Commissioner Keen stated that he was not in favor of a gas station on this property. He did not
feel that this was a compatible use with the other businesses, primarily because of the parking.
The gas station and car wash would consume almost all of the 20,000 square feet of the parcel.
If the parcel could be moved closer to the main driveway and if the car wash was removed he
might look at it differently. However, as it is he could not support the project.
Vice -Chair Parker stated that she could not support the project. She felt that there would be too
much of a traffic problem with the project. The City has a huge problem at the Brisco Road
intersection and off ramp, and this would further impact the problem there.
Ms. Parker stated that the setbacks were not deep enough. The problem that this would create
with the parking is too much. She said that no one could ask people going to the Quarterdeck
restaurant to walk through the gas station to get there. No one would do this and the
Quarterdeck would lose too much business.
Commissioner Costello stated that he did feel that there needed to be a gas station in this part
of town but this was not the place to put it. However, the impact on existing parking,
particularly for the Quarterdeck restaurant, would put an undue burden on them. If the parcel
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
PAGE 20
could be moved to the west, so there was still parking adjacent to the restaurant, maybe he
could support it. But, as it is now, he could not support it at this location.
Mr. Costello stated that he also had a problem with the impact on the circulation in this area,
especially the Brisco Road intersection.
Commissioner London stated that this was not an appropriate place for this business. He felt
there would be a problem with the stacking at the pumps, impacting West Branch. He said that,
as far as he was concerned, moving the parcel would only move the problem.
Chair Greene stated that he did not feel that the creation of this parcel was a solid planning
decision. He did not feel that moving the parcel was the answer. This was not an appropriate
business for this center. He stated that he could not support this project under any
circumstances.
ITEM. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
ITEM. V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT
Commissioner Costello asked if staff could address the issue of metal roofs and clarify this issue
for the Planning Commission.
Chair Greene asked Mr. McCants to bring the Planning Commission up to date with the Grand
Avenue Gateway Design Overlay.
ITEM. VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP
REPORTS
None
ITEM. VII. ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Costello the meeting was
adjourned at 12:00 a.m. to the next scheduled meeting on October 3, 2000.
ATTEST:
Kathleen Fryer, Commission • erk
AS T • CONTENT:
Kerry Mc 'ants
Community Development Director
Laurence Greene, Chair