PC Minutes 2000-06-21ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 21, 2000
PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Greene called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo
Grande to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
X Commissioner Costello
X Commissioner Keen
X Commissioner London
X Vice -Chair Parker
X Chair Greene
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Commissioner London, seconded by Commissioner Keen, the minutes of May 2,
2000 were approved as amended.
ITEM I.
I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
1.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
II.A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 99 -012, LOT MERGER CASE NO 99 -001,
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 99 -002; LOCATION - 1086 GRAND
AVENUE; APPLICANT - RICHARD DE BLAUW
Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report and stated that last January, the
Planning Commission considered this project as a pre - application and discussed parking,
landscaping, building security and traffic - related issues. In general, the comments were positive,
stating that the project would help provide vitality to the Grand Avenue corridor.
Consistent with the pre - application, the proposal is to construct a 19,910 square foot, two -story
office building on a one -acre site. Existing on the property is a house converted to a commercial
use and an accessory structure, both of which will be removed. A lot merger for the two
existing parcels is also required since new construction is prohibited across property lines.
The proposed project meets all relevant site development standards of the Development Code,
including setbacks, lot coverage, parking, and landscaping requirements. The Architectural Review
Committee considered the project last September and recommended several conditions be included
as part of the project approval, such as additional berming along the Grand Avenue frontage to
better obscure parking, a masonry wall along the rear property line to provide a buffer between the
residential development and proposed project, screening of all roof - mounted equipment, measures
to prevent staining of the building from the balcony drainage, and measures to prevent swallow
nesting in the corbels. These conditions have been added to the draft resolution of approval.
Based on comments from the Planning Commission during the pre - application review, the
conditions of approval require the landscape plan to include native trees and shrubs in place of the
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 21, 2000
PAGE 2
Magnolia trees and Gazania plants, and to be reviewed and approved by a representative of the
Planning Commission. In response to written comments from an adjacent property owner, the
landscape plan has also been conditioned to eliminate the planting of any pine trees along the north
property line.
With regard to traffic, the applicant was required to prepare a traffic study based on the estimated
number of peak hour trips generated from the project. At the applicant's request, the City Council
considered an exception to the traffic study requirement last April. At that meeting, the City
Council directed the applicant to work with staff to identify measures to bring the peak hour trips
down to be within the level of service policy. Since then, the project description has been revised
to include traffic mitigation measures, and a revised traffic analysis has been prepared. The
analysis concludes that the surrounding intersections and roadways have sufficient capacity to
accommodate the project traffic without reducing the level of service to an unacceptable level.
- Another matter for the Planning Commission to consider is the undergrounding of overhead
utilities. To comply with the Development Code, the applicant must remove the one utility pole
located on the southwest corner or the property within the Grand Avenue right -of -way, and
underground all of the associated overhead wires. The applicant is requesting that the utility
pole remain, and that they bond or pay an in -lieu fee for their fair portion of undergrounding
along the Grand Avenue frontage. Currently, the City has no mechanism for collecting
development fees for the future undergrounding of utilities along Grand Avenue.
In compliance with the Environmental Quality Act, staff has conducted an Initial Study and
determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A draft
negative declaration with mitigation measures has therefore been prepared for the Planning
Commission to consider.
In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
the two resolutions contained in the staff report, and thereby approve Conditional Use Permit
99 -012, Lot Merger 99 -001, and Certificate of Compliance 99 -002, subject to the conditions of
approval.
Vice -Chair Parker asked for an explanation of the floor area ratio as it pertains to a two -story
building. She also asked for some clarification on, and questioned the landscaping requirements
on commercial property. She did not feel that the amount of landscaping as shown on the plans
was correct.
Chair Greene suggested that the Public Hearing be opened so that staff would have an
opportunity to research the questions Ms. Parker was asking.
Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing.
Duane DeBlauw spoke briefly to the Planning Commission concerning the project. He stated
that they had worked diligently with the Traffic Consultant, Steve Orosz, to find ways to reduce
the "trips" generated by this project. He stated that they will have language in their leasing
agreements that would encourage such things as staggered work hours to reduce peak hour
trips.
1
1
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 21, 2000
PAGE 3
Commissioner London noted that the side stairway was moved from the rear of the building to
the side. He was concerned about the safety issue and did not want a situation where someone
could hide out of sight in the stairwell.
Vice -Chair Parker felt that it would be a good idea if the entrance for the elevator could be
placed directly across from the doorway entrance to allow for easier access for wheelchairs.
She also stated that the block wall that will be installed on the north side be a "decorative"
block wall.
Chair Greene asked staff to discuss this issue and create language for Condition of Approval No.
13 which would address this.
Richard DeBlauw addressed the Planning Commission concerning his request to allow some relief
from the undergrounding of the utilities that had been required by Public Works.
Ms. Heffernon responded to Vice -Chair Parker's questions about the landscaping. Ms. Heffernon
pointed out the Development Code sections that staff had used to determine the landscape
areas and setbacks for this project and explained staff's interpretation of them.
Commissioner Costello had a question concerning Mr. DeBlauw's request to bond or deposit
funds in an account that would contribute towards the future undergrounding of utilities. He
wanted to be clear that the City had no account at this time to accept these kind of funds so the
Planning Commission could not consider Mr. DeBlauw's request.
Chair Greene had a question concerning the traffic mitigation measures stated in the project
description and if those measures needed to be stated in the Conditions of Approval? He stated
that he did not see when they had been added to the final Conditions of Approval. He also
questioned Exhibits B1 -B5 and asked if they were the correct exhibits?
Ms. Heffernon stated that referring to them in the Conditions of Approval could include the
mitigation measures. She also stated that Exhibits B1 -B5 were not shown correctly in the staff
report and this would be changed before the final Conditions of Approval were approved.
Duane DeBlauw wanted to clarify a point in the letter requesting that the project be relieved
from some of the utility undergrounding requirements. He stated that it was his understanding
that P.G.& E. did have some means of providing some of the funding for undergrounding the
utilities on Grand Avenue.
Richard DeBlauw addressed the undergrounding issue for the project and explained to the
Planning Commission the reasons why they were asking for relief from the Public Works
requirement. He had the following reasons:
• One of the lines would have to be put under Grand Avenue.
• They are being asked to put wires underground in front of the neighboring businesses.
• One of the poles contains high voltage lines with transformers, which will cost a great deal
to underground.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 21, 2000
PAGE 4
The Planning Commission discussed the issue of undergrounding the utilities at this site with Mr.
DeBlauw.
The following members of the public spoke in favor of this project:
Dick Blankenburq
Joe Wolosz
Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Keen stated that he liked the project however, he felt that some of power lines
should be put underground. The applicant's suggestion that there be a bond or money deposited
is not an option at this point. He would like to see the lines between poles 2 and 3 (as shown
on Figure A) put underground. The power pole with the transformer can remain because it
would be too much of a financial burden for the applicant to have to change it.
Commissioner Keen asked Craig Campbell, Public Works Department, to explain the water line
easement change and if this easement went between two property lines on Linda Drive?
Mr. Campbell stated that the water line and easement were too close to the existing building.
They will be relocated to parking lot area. The easement is only on one property on Linda Drive.
Commissioner London stated that he agreed with Commissioner Keen that the utilities should be
put underground and he felt that leaving the power pole with the transformers would be a good
compromise. He also felt that it was a good project.
Commissioner Costello stated that he agreed with Commissioner Keen and Commissioner
London however, he felt the City had a larger problem with the concept of undergrounding the
utilities in general and that this problem needed to be solved.
Vice -Chair Parker stated that she felt this was a very good project. She would like staff to
follow through on the Conditions of Approval to ensure that the block wall was more decorative
than just plain. She also felt that the applicant had a legitimate request for relief with regards to
the undergrounding of utilities and the removal of the pole with the large transformers.
Chair Greene asked that the following be changed:
■ Condition of Approval #51 should be modified to read that undergrounding should be
completed as shown on Figure A between poles two and three, and poles two and three
should remain.
■ Condition of Approval #13 should be modified to read "decorative masonry wall ".
• The correct Exhibits B1 -B5 should be inserted into General Conditions #4.
• With regards to the traffic mitigation - the language from Section 5 of the Initial Study should
be inserted into Mitigation #7.
Finally, Chair Greene stated that he did not agree with the trip distribution as stated in the traffic
analysis. However, he felt that as improvements are made to the Brisco Road Interchange, this
would be mitigated.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 21, 2000
PAGE 5
Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF
DETERMINATION, AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CASE NO. 99 -012, LOCATED AT 1086 GRAND AVENUE, APPLIED
FOR BY DE BLAUW BUILDERS, INC.
Including Exhibit A with amendments. 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. 00 -1747
Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt:
including Exhibit A. Commissioner Costello seconded the motion. The motion was approved by
the following Roll Call Vote:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT MERGER CASE NO. 99 -001
AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 99 -002, LOCATED
AT 1086 GRAND AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY DEBLAUW BUILDERS,
INC.
ROLL CALL VOTE
YES Commissioner Costello
YES Commissioner Keen
YES Commissioner London
YES Vice Chair Parker
YES Chair Greene
RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1748
II.B. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 00 -002; LOCATION — 1180 MAPLE STREET;
APPLICANT — MOLLY AND ERNEST SANTA CRUZ
Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and explained that the proposed
project is a lot line adjustment of 2 lots, located at 1180 Maple St. and 181 South Elm Street.
There is one single - family residence on the Maple Street Lot, Lot A, and 2 unoccupied residences
on Lot B. Both lots are zoned MF - condominium /townhouse. The purpose of the Lot Line
Adjustment is to extend the rear yard area of the Maple Street Lot.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 21, 2000
PAGE 6
The Planning Commission on March 18, 1997 approved this project. Since the Lot Line
Adjustment was not recorded within the two -year approval period, the application expired in
1999.
Parcel A, will be increased from 7,657 square feet to 13,052 square feet, and Lot B will change
from 21,324 square feet to 15,929 square feet. The Lot Line Adjustment will be recorded with
a Certificate of Compliance.
Parcel A is an existing non - conforming lot with regard to minimum lot width. However, the lot
line adjustment does not change the lot width and does not increase the non - conformity of the
lot.
Development Code requirements are met for both parcels with the exception of the rear yard
setback on Lot B. For the MF zone, the rear yard setback is 15 -ft; although here a 10 -ft setback
is allowed because the standards in effect prior to 1991 are applied. The rear residence on the
adjusted Lot B, is 6 -ft from the new property line. As the house is in severe disrepair, a
condition of approval includes a deed restriction to ensure that before the house is occupied, it
must be remodeled or moved to conform to all the requirements of the Development Code and
Building Code including the 10 ft rear yard setback. The shed that existed on the adjusted
property line has been removed.
Finally, Ms. McClish stated that staff has determined that the proposed project is categorically
exempt under the CEQA Guidelines, and recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached Resolution approving Lot Line Adjustment No. 00 -002 subject to the conditions of
approval contained in Exhibit "B ".
Vice -Chair Parker questioned the fact that the approval of this Lot Line Adjustment would create a
non - conformity. She asked if the deed restriction would ensure that when the subject lot was
developed it would be brought into compliance?
Ms. McClish replied that the Lot Line Adjustment did not create a non - conforming lot, only the use
on the lot was non - conforming. The deed restriction would ensure that when the lot was
developed, the non - conformance would not continue.
Commissioner Costello asked if by approving this project, it would increase the number of units that
could be placed on the two lots?
Mr. McCants replied that the property is zoned Multi - Family and this Lot Line Adjustment would not
increase the number of units that are allowed.
Molly Santa Cruz, 1180 Maple Street stated that the owner of the subject lot would, most likely,
sell the lot in the future.
Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission adopt:
1
1
1
1
1
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 21, 2000
PAGE 7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 00-
002 FOR TWO (2) LOTS, LOCATED AT 1180 MAPLE STREET,
APPLIED FOR BY MOLLY AND ERNEST SANTA CRUZ
including Exhibit A. 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
YES Chair Greene
III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1749
III. A. PRE - APPLICATION CASE NO. 00 -005; LOCATION - COURTLAND AND GRAND AVENUE;
APPLICANT - KEVIN WING
Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, explained to the Planning Commission that the proposed
project was to construct a combined personal storage facility and commercial retail /office
complex on a 5 -acre vacant site located on the northwest corner of Courtland Street and Grand
Avenue. The Planning Commission had reviewed a similar project as a pre - application in
December 1999. Ms. Heffernon stated that per the Commission's comments, the project had
been revised to decrease the amount of self- storage space relative to commercial retail space, and
to provide a greater pedestrian orientation.
Ms. Heffernon stated that the buildings had been designed with a historic village theme, and the
walkways along Grand Avenue and Courtland Street had been enhanced with patio areas and
sidewalk seating. The parking area was located behind the commercial buildings, away from
Grand Avenue, and would be accessed from either a shared driveway on Grand or from Court land
Street. The proposed number of parking spaces exceeded the amount required per the
Development Code by approximately 27 spaces.
The applicant was proposing to retain the one large oak tree located on the east side of the
property. Given the amount of compaction and paving around the root zone of the tree
necessary to construct the project as proposed, it would be uncertain how well the tree would
survive. Details on how exactly this would be accomplished will be required when the formal
application is submitted.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 21, 2000
PAGE 8
The Staff Advisory Committee considered this project last month and commented on issues
regarding fire protection, road improvements, location of existing easements, and clarification of
property lines.
During the Architectural Review Committee meeting on June 5` members suggested that the
storage facility include more articulation on the east elevation, the landscape plan have a variety
of tree species including large box oak trees to replace the ones previously removed, and the
walkways be textured or include some kind of an ornamental feature. In general, the consensus
was that the design of the storefronts and parking layout is a considerable improvement from
the previous submittal.
Finally, Ms. Heffernon stated that since this was a pre - application, staff recommended that the
Planning Commission review the project and provide direction and comments to the applicant.
Eric Justesen, RRM Design Group, spoke to the Commission and gave an overview of the
project.
Pat Blote, architect for the project, spoke to the Commission and gave an overview of the
architectural design of the project.
Commissioner Keen had the following questions:
• What type of materials /construction will the buildings be made of?
• What would the project look like with regards to the elevation?
• Would the back access gate have a turn around or would this be an exit only gate?
• Would the lots remain as two separate lots?
Commissioner London had the following questions and comments:
• Because the roofs of the storage units will be seen from the street, what will the roof be
made of?
• With regard to the exit, for security reasons he would suggest that this be a turn around area
and not an exit.
• There needs to be trash enclosures somewhere on the property.
• What type of fence would be put around the property?
Vice -Chair Parker had the following questions and comments:
• She had a concern about security at this type of facility.
• Will there be access to the storage units from the driveways?
• Likes that the parking is in the middle of the project.
• Will there be an elevator installed in the units that have two stories?
• There should be a restroom somewhere in the facility.
• What type of retaining wall would be installed on the northwest corner of the property?
Ms. Parker stated that when the previous pre - application for this project had come before the
Planning Commission she had suggested that the developer should talk to someone from the
Economic Development Committee. She wondered if this had been done?
Mr. Justesen stated that they had met with Diane Sheeley and had had a general discussion
1
1
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 21, 2000
PAGE 9
Mr. Justesen stated that they had met with Diane Sheeley and had had a general discussion
concerning the type of development that would be relevant to this site, the City's economic
goals, and developing a project for this site. The rear portion of the property is a very difficult
piece to develop with regards to what types of users would be successful there. He felt that
this project was a good balance with the mini - storage being a "good neighbor" and the
commercial development in the front.
Ms. Parker stated that one of the main concerns in the economic development strategy was the
development of businesses that would create jobs in this area. The Citizens' Survey that was
done in conjunction with the General Plan Update also stated that the priority was to develop
jobs, promote tourism and promote retail businesses. Another priority goal of the economic
strategy in Arroyo Grande was to "continue to enhance and increase the retail utilization of the
Grand Avenue corridor ".
Ms. Parker stated that she felt that a mini - storage unit was "dead space ". It did not offer any
jobs and very little in the way of revenue for the City. Further, it does not meet the goals of the
General Plan, nor does it meet the Economic Development Strategy Goals.
Ms. Parker did feel that the mini - storage would be a good buffer between the commercial area in
the front and the residential area behind the property. But, she felt that developing 65% of the
property with mini - storage was too much.
In answer to Mr. Costello's questions about the manager's residence and if the storage area
would have a controlled entrance, Mr. Justesen replied that the residence was a combination of
a residence, office and storage facility for supplies. There will be a garage for the manager of
the facility to use. The facility would have a controlled entrance.
Mr. Costello stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner London and would not like to
see an exit on the rear of the property. He felt that a turn around would be more secure. He
also did not know if 24 feet would be wide enough for the access ways.
Chair Greene stated that he felt the following changes would be appropriate:
• That building #4 should only be one story. It would relieve the overall impact of the project's
appearance from Courtland. This would also reduce the square footage of the mini- storage
by approximately 10,000- 12,000 square feet.
■ He would like to see the parking spaces for the retail /commercial area reduced. There are 27
spaces above the threshold currently set by the Development Code. He would like to see
fewer parking spaces and more landscaping instead.
Mr. Greene felt that the redesign of the project is excellent. The proposal for a "village"
architectural look is exactly what he was hoping to see on Grand Avenue. He is concerned
about giving up space that could otherwise be use for revenue generating commercial /retail and
using the space for businesses that do not create jobs or revenue. Mr. Greene stated however,
that he knew this parcel had been vacant for at least 10 years and he wondered if the applicants
would explain why they felt that no other office /business would work here.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 21, 2000
PAGE 10
Kevin Wing and Ty Martin, applicants for the project, spoke to the Planning Commission and
explained that they had evaluated all the uses and what would work best in this area. They had
looked into assisted living housing, office space, and commercial /retail space. Nothing seemed
to work in this space except for the storage facility.
ITEM. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
ITEM. V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT
Commissioner Keen brought up the issue of the undergrounding of the overhead utilities and
stated that the City should create a policy for this.
Commissioner London asked Craig Campbell if it would be possible to obtain a cost estimate for
the undergrounding of utilities on a project before it came before the Planning Commission so
that the Commission would have this information before them when making a decision.
Chair Greene stated that it would also be helpful before a project came to the Commission, to
know for certain whether adjacent property owners would object to having someone working on
their property putting utilities underground.
Commissioner Costello stated that it was still difficult for him to understand the policy of LOS
that the Council had adopted. He was still confused by what a LOS of C actually meant.
The Planning Commission discussed the LOS policy issue.
ITEM. VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP
REPORTS
Mr. McCants informed the Planning Commission that the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000/2001
had been adopted at the City Council meeting on June 19, 2000.
ITEM. VII.
On motion of Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner London the meeting was
adjourned at 10:30 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting on July 5, 2000.
iniamitesu Gxzeivq_)
Kathleen Fryer, Commission CI k Laurence Greene, Chair
AS TO
Kerry. M ' . is
TENT:
Community Development Director