Loading...
PC Minutes 2000-04-04ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 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 Acting Chair Parker ABSENT Chair Greene APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Commissioner Costello, seconded by Commissioner London and by a unanimous voice vote, the minutes of March 21, 2000 were approved as written. ITEM I. I. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE I. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Memorandum to Kerry McCants from Larry Greene regarding the Longs Pre - Application project. ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1I. A. VARIANCE CASE NO. 00 -001; LOCATION - 1597 CHILTON STREET; APPLICANT JACK AND DEANNE CROFT Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, explained that last August, the Planning Commission approved a Lot Line Adjustment for the subject property that formed a usable lot for a new single - family residence. A variance was also approved that reduced the required average lot depth from 110 to 96 feet. The applicant is now requesting a Variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet. Since most of the homes along Chilton Street were built prior to annexation and therefore subject to the County's development standards at that time, they are closer to the street than what would be allowed under today's development standards. The 20 -foot setback would allow the applicant's house to be aligned with neighboring houses on either side, and provide a view up and down the street similar to what other houses currently enjoy. Further, Ms. Heffernon stated the six (6) findings that must be made to allow the Variance and gave a brief explanation of how each of them could be affirmed. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff believes that the circumstances would result in a loss of property right without a variance, and therefore recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution approving the variance request subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Keen asked why the house next door had a 21 -foot setback? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 2 Acting Chair Parker asked if curb, gutters, and sidewalks would be required? Kim Romano stated that Public Works had reviewed the request to waive the sidewalk requirement in this case. The request was granted because of the nature of developments along Chilton Street. The street has 20 feet of pavement and there are no sidewalks on the street. In lieu of sidewalks the Public Works Department is allowing a widened roadway cross section with asphalt shoulder. Commissioner Costello referred to the minutes of the March 7 meeting of the SAC, saying that Larry Schmidt had commented that the width of right of way was not consistent down the length of the street and it should be looked into. Has this been done? Ms. Romano stated that the width of the right of way is not consistent and it appears that this lot is the only one that offers the five- (5) foot of dedication along Chilton Street. Acting Chair Parker opened the Public Hearing. David Sansone, 604 Hillside, stated that he was in attendance to represent the Crofts and would be happy to answer any questions the Commission had. Acting Chair Parker closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner London stated that he felt the proposal met the findings needed for the Variance and was in support of the project. Commissioner Keen stated that he also felt that the findings needed for the Variance had been met. However, he had a question about the setback being set at 20 feet. He would like this changed to read that "the house is built no farther forward that the existing residence to the right, which is identified as "No. 9" on Exhibit No. B. Commissioner Costello stated that Commissioner Keen has raised a point that he felt the same way about, and he felt it would be prudent to insure that the new residence did not sit further forward that the other houses on the block. He asked staff to find the language that would establish this condition on the project. He also felt that the request for the Variance met all the conditions that were necessary. Acting Chair Parker stated that she did not have a problem allowing the Variance, however if Mr. Keen and Mr. Costello would feel more comfortable changing the language, she did not have a problem with that either. Ms. Parker also asked the applicant's representative if he felt there would be a problem with this change. Mr. Sansone stated that he did not feel the applicant would have a problem with the change. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 3 RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1738 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VARIANCE CASE NO. 00 -001, LOCATED AT 1597 CHILTON STREET, APPLIED FOR BY JACK AND DEANNE CROFT With the language substituted for "20 foot setback" to be "no farther forward than the house referenced on the submitted drawing as '09 and Exhibit A and B. The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Acting Chair Parker ABSENT Chair Greene III. NON- PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 00 -002 FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2207; LOCATION — SOUTH OF ORCHARD AVENUE; APPLICANT — JH LAND PARTNERSHIP, L.P. Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, stated that the City Council originally approved Tentative Tract Map 2207 on April 22, 1997 which involved the subdivision of a 57 acre parcel into 38 clustered single family residential lots and two (2) open space lots. The site is located on the southeastern portion of the City and has historically been used for grazing livestock. There are no structures or improvements on the property at this time. Ms. Heffernon further stated that the Subdivision Map Act automatically grants a two -year approval for all maps, which established an expiration date of April 22, 1999 for the subdivision. The Map Act also allows the City to allow three, one - year time extensions. This is the second Time Extension the applicant has requested. Ms. Heffernon explained to the Planning Commission that since the last Time Extension was approved, the property has changed title and the new owners are ready to record the final map. Staff is currently reviewing the improvement plans and other documents necessary to satisfy the Conditions of Approval. Ms. Heffernon told the Commission that they must make the finding that there have been no significant changes in the General Plan, Municipal Code or character of the ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 4 area within which the project is located that would cause the approved project to be harmful to the public health, safety or welfare. Ms. Heffernon stated to the Planning Commission that since the project was approved in 1997 there have been no significant changes to the General Plan, Municipal Code or character area that could cause the project to be harmful to the public health, safety or welfare. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution granting a second one -year time extension for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2207. Commissioner Costello asked if the Clark Center had been considered in the original approval for Tract 2207? Ms. Heffernon stated that she was not sure if it was or not. Commissioner London asked if a road would be put through the project as a means of alleviating some of the problems. Mr. London stated that the City Council, at a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and the Traffic Commission would be discussing traffic circulation for the General Plan update on Thursday, April 6th Because of this, he felt at this juncture, under the current circumstances, approving the continuation of this project would not be prudent. Mr. London asked if the staff had reviewed the material that was handed out for the April 6th joint meeting? Mr. McCants answered that they had seen the material and that there was no proposal about any alignment in that area. Acting Chair Parker asked if there had been a new traffic study done on this project since the new LOS standards were put into place by City Council? Also had City Council reviewed this project since the new LOS standards? Ms. Heffernon stated that no new traffic study had been done and that the City Council approved this project in 1997 and since then had not reviewed it. Commissioner Costello stated that he had some definite concerns about the numbers in the traffic study from 1997 and had how those have changed today. Mr. McCants stated that the standard that the Planning Commission needed to weigh was whether there has been a sufficient enough change in the circumstances in the area that would impact health, safety, and welfare. The Planning Commission had to be able to affirmatively make that statement to deny the time extension. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 5 Mr. Costello asked, if in his mind the level of the flow of traffic at the intersection of Orchard Street and Fair Oaks is significantly worse than what is stated in the original traffic study and if he believes this is a change in the conditions, could this then be justified as a substantial change? Mr. McCants stated that the criteria had to be evaluated by Mr. Costello and had to be an absolute statement on his part that this is in fact a change, and that it does effect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens. Even though this was a non - public hearing item, Acting Chair Parker invited the public to speak on the matter. Carlo Alfano, 609 Woodgreen Way, Nipomo, explained that he had been involved in this project for 8 years and that the reason for asking for the extension was that the original owners could not decide what they wanted to do with the property. He stated that the once the decision was made, Mr. Alfano had gone forward in good faith and spent $ 100,000 on engineering drawings because he believed that he had a Vested, Approved Tentative Tract Map. The Planning Commission discussed several different issues concerning the project with Mr. Alfano, including the issue with traffic. Jane Fine, 265 Pleasant Lane submitted a letter to the Planning Commission and read it into the record. Judy Tappan, spoke and reminded the Planning Commission that when the new high school is built in Nipomo, it will help to reduce the traffic going to the existing school. Acting Chair Parker brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion. Commissioner London stated that in light of what has been brought up at tonight's meeting with regard to the traffic issues in the City, it would not be prudent to grant the Time Extension. Commissioner Costello stated that he remembered this project coming before the Commission a year ago for the first Time Extension. He said that many of the things that bothered him a year ago, still bothered him today. In listening to tonight's discussion, he looked at the original Conditions of Approval. In Condition No. 108, it states, "the Orchard Avenue extension shall be closed to all traffic except bicycles, pedestrians, and emergency vehicles when the Collector Street is connected to Valley Road ". Mr. Costello said that this would be great when it ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 6 happened, but he did not see anything that stated that it had to happen. That is irrelevant because it is not a change in the condition. Mr. Costello stated that the decision tonight is whether or not to grant an extension to the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Mr. Costello stated that his decision would be based on the points that have been discussed by staff and the Planning Commission as to whether or not there are significant changes to the General Plan, Municipal Code or character of the area that cause the project to be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare. Mr. Costello further stated that he had taken into account that the high school would be reduced in size and that should effect the foot traffic in that area. From his personal observation, foot traffic in this area far exceeds what was listed in the original traffic study. He finds this to be one of two things, either a flawed traffic study prepared for the original consideration, or a change in the conditions. He will make his decision based on this. Acting Chair Parker stated that she also had concerns about granting the last Time Extension. A year ago when this was granted, the Planning Commission recommended that the project come back to reflect the changes that have happened in the Community. Ms. Parker stated that she was less inclined than before to believe that this is a responsible project for the public at this time. She believes that the establishment of the Circulation Element with the General Plan update is based on the City's new LOS standards. The traffic counts indicate that Valley Road is an increasing problem. The fact that the County has the intention to enhance Halcyon Road the effect on Valley Road traffic leaves everything in a tenuous position. Even three years ago, during that traffic study for the project, one of the intersections was already at an LOS D, which is not acceptable. Acting Chair Parker stated that she realized that the traffic at the high school would decrease when the school in Nipomo is built in four years. She also believes, that with the build -out of the community it will not take much time to bring it back up to current levels. Finally, she stated that she believed that it was prudent to deny the Time Extension. She believes that it would be the best thing possible for the Community to request that Mr. Alfano go over his project and present it again under the new standards, and that a new traffic study be taken that reflects the new General Plan LOS standards. The El Campo PSR and the Brisco Road PSR have been in place for three or four years. She said that she has been very involved with these PSRs, the City has spent time and money on them, and there are a lot of community members who are trying desperately to make good public decisions on traffic circulation in the City. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 7 If the Planning Commission were to approve this project, which has such a different outlook now than it did three years ago, it would prohibit the possibility of the options that everyone has been so carefully looking at and may negate options that would be a benefit to the community. It would be irresponsible to approve this extension into the County when we do not know what the County is going to do. Ms. Parker said she believes the grounds for denial are the PSR circulation studies, which are critical, and the newly adopted LOS standards, both of which have significant General Plan and Development Code implications. It is in the best interest of the Community to deny this Time Extension. Commissioner Keen stated that if this project came in as a new project it would be scrutinized in a totally different way, but he does not feel the Planning Commission can go back and punish the applicant of an approved project because there are changes in the Circulation Element. Mr. Keen stated that the road that they were required to show on the map (which dead -ended into the County), the applicant did not want in the first place. It was a circulation requirement at the time. There were several alternatives for this property discussed at the time of the application and many options investigated and it was determined that they would not work or were not feasible. So, to say that the Planning Commission should stop this project until there was a new traffic study on the same proposals again, is not prudent. Mr. Keen stated that he has always believed, and promoted, that this project go out to Valley Road rather than down Orchard Street, and he believes that the project was conditioned to try to direct it this way. Mr. Keen also believes that the amount of traffic from the school will be reduced when the new school in Nipomo has been built. Finally, Mr. Keen stated that he would not be in favor of denying this Time Eextension on the facts presented at tonight's meeting. Mr. McCants asked Acting Chair Parker if he could present some additional information, specifically with respect to vested maps. He read the following from the Subdivision Map Act, "the approval shall confer the vested right to proceed with the development in substantial compliance with ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the time the vesting map is approved or conditionally approved ". It goes on to say, "the local agency may condition or deny a permit, approval, extension, or entitlement if it determines any of the following: (1) A failure to do so would place the residents of the subdivision or the immediate ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 8 community, or both, in a condition dangerous to their health or safety, or both. (2) The condition or denial is required, in order to comply with state or federal law." The Planning Commission would have to determine one of these conditions was present in order to deny the Time Extension. Acting Chair Parker asked about the language in the staff report that dealt with this same issue. Mr. McCants stated that the language in the staff report was the language _in the City's Development Code. The State Map Act supercedes that language in this case. Ms. Parker asked if the Planning Commission was being asked to grant a Time Extension on the vesting tract map? Mr. McCants replied that this was correct. Ms. Parker asked if the language that was in the staff report was incorrect? Mr. McCants replied that the language in the staff report was what was in the City's ordinance, however the state language should have been included in the staff report as well. Ms. Parker stated that, in other words, the Planning Commission needed to determine if they felt that an unacceptable LOS would be dangerous or hazardous to the surrounding community. Mr. McCants stated that this was true and that the determination should also include the residents of the subdivision that was to be built. Commissioner London asked if the LOS could be considered a hazard to health and safety? Acting Chair Parker stated that according to the EIR booklet, the LOS was something that was taken into consideration as public safety. The EIR booklet states that the City must state what is an acceptable LOS, specifically for that reason. Mr. McCants stated that the Planning Commission has the discretion to deny the project Time Extension, however they must be prepared to make the findings for this denial in an affirmative manner. The Commission has to be able to state affirmatively that this will in fact create a dangerous situation for the residents of the subdivision or surrounding community. 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 9 Acting Chair Parker asked if it was true that in the EIR study guide the problem of traffic impact and increased LOS causes an environmental danger to the community? And is this why the City designates a standard LOS? Mr. McCants replied that typically LOS deals with delay factors and congestion. Kim Romano, Public Works, stated that the LOS is used to define congestion based on the Highway Capacity Manual. She believes that one definition is that it considers comfort, convenience and safety of motorists. Mr. McCants stated that the purpose of the environmental process in the State of California is disclosure. It is to provide all decision - makers that are involved, as well as the public, with as much pertinent information as possible about the potential impacts of a project as are reasonably available. Commissioner London asked if at a later date there is found to be a significant change in the circulation element, does the City then go back and change the street layout, or will it be this way forever? Commissioner Costello stated that it seemed to him that the Planning Commission cannot rule on what should be, or on the flaws of the project as it was originally planned, the Commission can only make a change on "the General Plan, Municipal Code, or character of the area ... ". This comes down to a subjective decision. He stated that he did not like a lot of elements of this project, but in defining a "character change" that makes it unsafe, he can't do this. He felt it was unsafe then and now, so it hasn't changed any. He does not feel there is a basic change in the area that has created an unsafe condition with this project. Mr. London asked if there was any further definition of "welfare or safety "? Mr. McCants defined the language "welfare and safety ". Ms. Parker stated that with the circulation and LOS in the area changing as drastically as it has in the last three years, with the addition of Clarke Center, and the addition of this project and possibly the next project (if it is not annexed into the county portion), she truly believes that poor circulation elements are a serious safety issue. Based on this, and the fact that the City has changed its LOS standards, she does not have a problem denying the Time Extension. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE -YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2207, LOCATED SOUTH OF ORCHARD AVENUE APPLIED FOR BY JH LAND PARTNERSHIP, L.P. Commissioner London seconded the motion. With the following roll call vote the Planning Commission was not able to come to any decision. ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen NO Commissioner London NO Acting Chair Parker ABSENT Chair Greene RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1741 B. PRE - APPLICATION CASE NO. 99 -012; LOCATION — 1405 GRAND AVENUE; APPLICANT — TED MOORE Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, presented the staff report to the Planning Commission, and explained the proposed project. Acting Chair Parker stated that Chair Greene, who was absent from the meeting, had submitted his comments on the proposed project in writing, and asked that they be entered into the record. Commissioner Keen was concerned when he was looking at the submitted plans that the Courtland Street extension did not line up correctly with the street on the other side of Grande Avenue. Was this just the way the drawing looked or was it the way it was going to be? Ms. Romano stated that it was just the way it looked on the drawings and that the street did line up. Commissioner Keen stated that the plans indicated that some of the roofs were 33 feet in height. The ARC did not comment on this and he wondered if this was going to be the height on the finished project? Ms. Heffernon stated that when the formal Conditional Use Permit was considered, this would be addressed and the Development Code standards would be adhered to. 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 11 Commissioner London asked if the residence on the property would remain and how would anyone drive in and out of the residence? Also, even though the ARC recommended that the drive - through be removed it did not appear to Mr. London that the applicant had done this. Mr. London asked if the Development Code had any specifications for drive - through restaurants? Ms. Heffernon replied that the residence would remain on the property. Secondly, the applicant has not revised the plans at this time and the Development Code has specifications for drive - through restaurants in Section 9-11.080. Acting Chair Parker asked: • If this project needed a traffic study before it could come back to the Planning Commission? • Who determines what kind of trees are planted and who is responsible for the cost? • She was concerned that Building D was the only building which showed a trash enclosure next to it. Don't all buildings need to have a trash enclosure? • Would there be any property loss when Courtland is lined up to connect across Grand Avenue and will this change the floor /area ratios? • Would the customers have to cross the drive - through area in order to enter the restaurant building? Ms. Heffernon replied that: • The applicant would have to have a traffic study done. • The Parks and Recreation Department would determine the types and number of trees to be planted in the easement. • As far as she could determine, there would not be any significant loss of property when Courtland was lined up. The applicant would have to dedicate a right of way for Courtland, however this would still be the applicant's property. This would all be taken into consideration when the applicant filed the Conditional Use Permit application. • Ms. Heffernon stated that she was not sure how the final site plan would look. Ted Moore, developer of the project spoke to the Planning Commission further explaining his project. He gave the following answers to some of the questions that the Planning Commission had raised: • The Courtland Street extension was a "misdraw" on the plans and there are five to ten feet dedicated for the street. • The residence that now exists on the property now will be removed. • As far as some of the architectural features and color, the developer is very flexible. The towers were used to break up the "monolithic" look of the buildings. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 12 • The developer has not found a tenant for the drive - through restaurant at this time. If the drive - through is a major issue, he asked the Planning Commission to let him know now. Commissioner London had the following comments: • This is the "gateway" to the City of Arroyo Grande. He would like to see some kind of an upscale restaurant at this location rather than a fast food restaurant. Commissioner Keen had the following comments: • There is a 30 -foot height limit in the Development Code and the tower height as shown on the plans is 33 feet. • He is very concerned about the fast food restaurant especially the driveway in that location. One of the reasons is that they will want to use their corporate logo and it would not match the rest of the shopping center. He wants to see the restaurant match the other buildings. • If there had to be a fast food restaurant, he would rather see it located on pad B so that the driveway goes between the two properties. This would move it away from the corner. • He likes the looks of the project and the buildings. • He discussed with the applicant some alternative ways of placing the project on the land to move it forward so the parking would not be so prominent in the front. Mr. Moore stated that the Longs Corporation would not be in favor of this project unless it was configured this way on the property. He did not feel that there was an alternative way to place the project. If the project is turned the parking lot is too shallow plus the project would be facing away from Grand Avenue. Mr. Moore stated that he is willing to do whatever he can with landscaping, etc. to soften the look of the parking lot. Mr. Keen stated that he is concerned that when the trees grow and start blocking the signs on the stores they will be cut down. Commissioner Costello had the following comments: • He is also concerned about buildings that sit back off Grand Avenue and have a large parking area in front of them. He felt that this idea could meet with some opposition. • He had some concerns about how the traffic would flow with regards to the commercial vehicles loading and unloading merchandise. Mr. Moore explained how the traffic flow was configured and the explanation satisfied Mr. Costello's concerns. 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2000 PAGE 13 • Mr. Costello again stated that the fact that the building sits so far back on the lot might be a major drawback. Mr. Costello encouraged Mr. Moore to read Chair Greene's letter. • Mr. Costello agreed with Commissioner Keen that moving the fast food restaurant to the other side of the development was a good idea. Mr. Moore discussed some of the concerns mentioned in Chair Greene's written comments. Mr. Keen reiterated that he was still opposed to having a drive - through in the front of the project. IV. DISCUSSION Acting Chair Parker stated that David Sachson had not received a letter thanking him for his tenure on the Architectural Review Committee. After a brief discussion the Planning Commission directed staff to write a thank you letter which could be signed by them and sent to Mr. Sachson. V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS VII. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner London the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting on April 18, 2000. ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commission CI AS TO )CONTENT: Kerry nts Community Development Director Nanci Parker, Vice Chair / ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PRIL 4, 2000 P E 13 • Mr. Costello again stated that the fact that the building sits so far ba• on the lot • ht be a major drawback. Mr. Costello encouraged Mr. Mo• e to read Chair t eene's letter. • Mr. Cos ello agreed with Commissioner Keen that moving a fast food restaurant o the other side of the development was a good ide Mr. Moore discu• ed some of the concerns mentioned in C ir Greene's written comments. Mr. Keen reiterated th he was still opposed to having drive - through in the front of the project. IV. DISCUSSION Acting Chair Parker state that David Sachs • had not received a letter thanking him for his tenure on the A hitectural Revi: Committee. After a brief discussion the Planning Commission dir- ted staff t• write a thank you letter which could be signed by them and sent to Mr. achso V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS A' • COMMENT VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT D • ECT VII. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Commissioner -en, seconded by Co • missioner London the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. to t next scheduled meeting •n April 18, 2000. ATTEST: COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS Kathleen Fryer, Co mission Clerk Nanci P. ker, Vice Chair AS T • CO T: U Kerry M is Comm Development Director