Loading...
PC Minutes 2000-02-011 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 2000 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Parker called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL X Commissioner Costello X Commissioner Keen X Commissioner London X Vice -Chair Parker ABSENT Chair Greene APPROVAL OF MINUTES NONE ITEM I. I. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE I. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Information packet from Howard Mankins regarding Non - Public Hearing Item III.A., 121 East Branch Street. ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS II. A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00 -001; LOCATION - 501 FAIR OAKS; APPLICANT - ST. PATRICK'S CHURCH; REPRESENTATIVE - GREGORY D. SOTO Joe Prutch, Contract Planner explained to the Planning Commission that the applicant was requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of expanding the west parking lot, which would increase the number of parking spaces from 125 to 175. The new parking lot and the existing parking lot will be repaved and restriped. Some of the existing planters would be removed and new ones would be installed. Vice -Chair Parker asked if the parking spaces would be the standard size of 9 feet by 18 feet? Mr. Prutch replied that they would be the standard size. Vice -Chair Parker opened the Public Hearing. Greg Soto, representative for the applicant stated that the applicant had reviewed the Conditions of Approval and the only question was the requirement for a Landscape Plan. It stated in the Conditions of Approval that the plan needed to be submitted prior to the commencement of construction. He asked if this could be changed to read prior to laying the new base for the pavement so the applicant could start removing trees and taking out some of the old pavement. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 2000 PAGE 2 John Knepf, Corbett Canyon, was concerned with the number of trees being removed and stated that in Grover Beach there is a Five to One replacement program. He was surprised to see that Arroyo Grande had a One to One replacement program. Commissioner Costello asked where people coming to church were parking now and if the exits and entrances would remain the same? Mr. Soto replied that the majority of the overflow parking was on the street. Furthermore, the exits and entrances would remain in the same area, however they would be changed so one was entrance only and one was exit only. Commissioner Keen asked that the applicant make sure the lighting was pointing down. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1734 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT CASE NO. 00 -001, LOCATED AT 501 FAIR OAKS AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY ST. PATRICK'S CHURCH wth Exhibit "A" and a modification to Condition No. 15 to read "after demolition and prior to construction ". Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE _YES Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker ABSENT Chair Greene II. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99 -008; VARIANCE 99 -007; LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 99 -003; LOCATION - 1375 GRAND AVENUE; APPLICANT - ZADDIE BUNKER TRUST; REPRESENTATIVE - GARY WHITE Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner stated that the applicant proposes to improve the property in two separate phases. Phase 1 would include constructing 18,450 square feet of additional mini - storage space, a 1,109 square foot manager's apartment above a two -car garage, a 3,625 square foot stormwater basin and an access drive off of Grand Avenue. Phase 2 would remove the existing key shop and add 2,750 square feet of office /retail space with 11 parking spaces. The 1 1 1 t 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 2000 PAGE 3 applicant is requesting approval of Phase 1 only under this Conditional Use Permit application. Consideration of Phase 2 will occur later under a separate application. Ms. Heffernon explained that the existing mini - storage is accessed from Poplar Street through a residential neighborhood. The primary access for both the existing facility and the proposed expansion would be from Grand Avenue with the existing Poplar Street access converted to an emergency access. The applicant is requesting a Variance to deviate from three site development standards as follows: 1. A twelve -(12) foot high masonry wall along west property line. 2. A four (4) foot setback from the front property line. 3. The proposal exceeds the maximum floor area ration by 9 %. A Lot Line Adjustment is requested to reconfigure three (3) lots into two (2) lots Ms. Heffernon stated that Staff believes that the circumstances of this particular project are not exceptional enough to justify a Variance and that site design alternatives should be considered that comply with Development Code requirements. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission "deny the project without prejudice" thereby allowing the applicant to return to the Planning Commission with revised plans that comply with Development Code standards. In the event the Planning Commission decides to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Variance applications, staff has prepared the appropriate resolutions for Planning Commission action. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 99 -003 subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Costello asked if the proposed driveway entrance change was intended to be in Phase I? Ms. Heffernon answered that it would be in Phase I. Vice -Chair Parker discussed and had questions about: • The wall on Grand Avenue and the requested variance. • The entrance on Poplar St. access and if there was enough room for an emergency vehicle to make the 90 degree turn and come out the Grand Avenue access, or will it have to turn around and come out at Poplar? Also, did the Fire Department have any concern because they could not make the turns? • Why was there no justification for the Variance in the staff report? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 2000 PAGE 4 Kim Romano, Public Works stated that with the proposed development there will be emergency access only and the entrance on Grand Avenue would serve both the new mini - storage and the existing one. This will also be addressed in improvement plan review to assure that the final site plan allowed enough turn around space. With regard to the Fire Department, they do not have enough room to turn around near the mini - storage however, the Fire Department has required that the project have sprinklers installed, so they do not have a problem with the emergency access as it is. Ms. Heffernon replied that if the Planning Commission feels that if they can make the findings they should do so. Staff did not feel that could make the findings, therefore they did not list any justification. It would be up to the Planning Commission to state how they would make the findings. Commissioner Keen asked how staff interprets metal roofing on a steel building? Mr. Keen thought that the Development Code did not allow metal roofing. Ms. Heffernon stated that staff would look in the Development Code and find the language that Mr. Keen had been referring to. Vice -Chair Parker opened the Public Hearing. Gary White, representative for the Zaddie Bunker Trust, spoke to the Planning Commission about the following concerns: Reduced Setback — The current mini - storage is existing on a zero lot line at this time. The applicant is proposing to continue with this, laterally for continuity. Mr. White stated that he realizes that the Development Code requires a 15 -foot setback. However, he does not believe the intent was that this be required when a lot is not fronting on a major thoroughfare. Further, Mr. White stated that it did not seem to have any benefit to set the buildings back from the proposed property line that the project was proposing to create. Floor Ratio Area — Mr. White stated that this was more of an oversight on the architect's part when designing the project. The project could be scaled back, however they were trying to maximize the property. He explained to the Commission that they were below the coverage area of the lot even though they were proposing a higher floor area ratio. Mr. White felt that because this was a Mini - Storage it would not generate a tremendous amount of traffic on a daily basis. The trip counts that have been stated in the traffic analysis are 4 to 5 a day during peak hours. Therefore, the 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 2000 PAGE 5 floor area ratio would not impact the area because it would not create additional trips. Wall Height — This was, designed as a viewshed buffer from traffic eastbound on Grand Avenue. Right now it is possible to see the existing facility because there is only a chainlink fence. The architect felt this would be more aesthetically pleasing. The wall could be lowered, but then more of the building would be visible. They would also like this wall height for added security to the storage facility. Mr. White explained that given the topography of the property the retaining wall on the project side would have to be there. They could remove the wall but the retaining wall would have to remain because of the topography. Mr. White also discussed the turnaround, which was mitigated by installing fire sprinklers, and the emergency road access gate on Poplar Street will be left there. Finally, Mr. White discussed the City's requirement that the utilities be put underground. He had done some research into this and found that the preliminary estimates are somewhere between $200,000 to $300,000 to underground the lines at the front of the property. Commissioner London asked Mr. White if it wouldn't make more sense to abide by the setback and push the front building back on the property? Mr. White replied that he did not feel it would be a problem heeding the setback requirement, is it really the intent of the Development Code to require a setback in this type of situation. Commissioner London felt that from an aesthetic standpoint, as far as the new building and parking lot that is being proposed, having the setback with some greenery and maybe a tree or two would add to the project. Commissioner London asked Mr. White if he had discussed the undergrounding of the utilities with staff? Mr. White replied that he had not discussed this issue with staff except, as it was a condition of new projects. Mr. White stated that he would like staff to look at his project on a "stand alone" basis. Commissioner Costello asked if there would be a new retention basin intended to service the new development or to replace the existing one? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 2000 PAGE 6 Mr. White replied that it was their intention to leave the existing basin to collect what it was designed for on that one parcel, but he thought the Conditions of Approval asked for all the drainage to drain to the newly proposed basin? This is an issue that will have to be discussed as he is not sure what is being asked. Craig Campbell, Public Works, stated that the portions that drain to the existing basis are those between that basin and Grand Avenue and they will continue to do so. The existing mini - storage will be drained into the new basin. Commissioner Costello asked what kind of use was proposed for these buildings? Mr. White replied that he did not know at this time. Mr. Costello and Ms. Heffernon discussed the upcoming Longs project and how it would relate to this commercial development. Vice -Chair Parker stated that the Development Code recommends that there is a buffer between commercial and residential uses by using a wall that should be at least six feet high. She would like to see a nice block wall rather than the chain link fence with barbed wire on top. She also stated that she was happy to see that the entrance was being moved to Grand Avenue. Further, she asked if the gate at the emergency access would be changed? Finally, she asked where the trash enclosure was for Phase 1? Mr. White replied that there would be a crash gate with a KNOX Box at this access. Also, they would have to add another trash enclosure. Ms. Parker asked about the width of the hallways in the second floor storage area and if they were wide enough? Mr. White replied that this was an "industry standard design" and that they were wide enough. In fact, they are ADA compliant. Mr. White went on to explain that the 2 story would only be feasible to do if they are allowed to use the density that they are proposing. If they have to reduce the structure by 15% then, more than likely, the 2 story would have to be removed. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she was concerned about the parking and how much was required at this type of facility. Mr. White replied that the existing 70 -unit facility has four to five people per day maximum. With the new facility doubling the size, there would be a maximum of 10 cars a day. There is no parking need at this type of facility. 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 2000 PAGE 7 Ms. Parker stated that there should be some type of designated lane where people parked which would also allow for emergency access. She also felt there should be restroom facilities on the premises. Mr. White stated that they have considered not doing a Lot Line Adjustment but doing a lot merger instead thereby gaining area and complying with the floor area ratio. James O'Keef, of Kings Fish & Chips of Arroyo Grande, stated that he does not see any problem with this project, however, he was wondering if the Planning Commission was considering both phases? He felt that the mini - storage was a good idea. Ms. Heffernon stated that the reason the second phase was not being considered tonight was because of the traffic considerations. This issue will not be settled by the City Council until February 22, 2000. Vice -Chair Parker closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Costello stated that the Planning Commission was looking at three different issues. The biggest problem was the Variance. Looking at the four (4) foot lot line and 59% coverage the problem with this is that if a four foot lot line is allowed on this project and the Phase 2 property is sold and they ask for a four foot lot line, how would the Planning Commission deny them their request? When looking at the criterion that needs to be made, he cannot see that there is any hardship if the project is redesigned. Further, Mr. Costello stated that the explanation of the parking satisfied any questions he had and that he felt that there was some for negotiation on the height of the fence, because it would provide a benefit to the surrounding areas. Finally, Mr. Costello stated that the four -foot setback and the 59% coverage were what he had the big problem with. Commissioner London stated that he could not support the project with only a four - foot set back and the 59% coverage. Further he would like to see a public restroom and a trash enclosure brought into the inside of the project so it doesn't present a visual problem with the adjoining property. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 2000 PAGE 8 Mr. London asked staff about the undergrounding of the utilities and that with all the projects on Grand Avenue, isn't the conduit being installed by the City? Could Mr. White wait until this is done and sees then what he has to do? Kim Romano, Public Works stated that there is nothing going on with this section of Grand Avenue at this time. The Longs and Berry Garden project will be required to put utilities at their sites underground. Mr. McCants stated that staff has not discussed the undergrounding requirement with the applicant prior to this evenings hearing. Mr. McCants said that the Development Code requires the undergrounding of utilities under the circumstances that are specified. At the January 18 Planning Commission meeting the Commission had allowed some deviation from this requirement. There were specific circumstances that were defined at that hearing that were used to make that decision. Mr. McCants stated that he did not feel that there was sufficient information on this project to make a determination at tonight's meeting. Mr. Campbell explained to the Planning Commission that if an applicant wants to make the argument that he should be relieved from this condition because of expense, the City would ask that he do so with a formal request. This has not been done at this time. Commissioner Keen had the following points: Wall Height: The City in the past has allowed higher walls primarily when the higher wall is only observed from the property that it is effecting, not from the viewshed of people adjoining the property. Those who will see the wall that Mr. White is proposing are outside the boundaries of the property. Although Mr. Keen feels the wall would hide some of the metal buildings, he has a problem with the Commission allowing something that much above the normal wall height limit. Four -Foot Setback: Mr. Keen stated that he agreed with Commissioner Londonabout this issue. If the zero lot line were on Grand Avenue, it would be different because no one would be building on the front of the property. However, if there isn't a legal setback and the adjoining property sells, they would be punished. As long as the property is divided in the manor that Mr. White is requesting, Commissioner Keen felt there should be a 15 -foot setback. Floor Ratio: Mr. Keen stated that there is a 50% maximum in the Development Code and the applicant will have to deal with this. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 2000 PAGE 9 Over Head Utilities: Mr. Keen stated that he felt the lines running along this side of Grand Avenue were primarily telephone lines. With the possibility of the City redoing Grand Avenue from Elm Street to Oak Park Blvd., Mr. Keen asked what the possibility would be of Mr. White contributing his fair share to some kind of a fund to help place the lines underground? Then this could all be done at one time instead of in a piece meal type of way. Trash Enclosure: This should be added to the Conditions of Approval. Finally, he does not have a problem with the Lot Line Adjustment. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she did not have a problem with the Lot Line Adjustment and felt it was a good idea. She also does not have a problem with the wall height and felt that the height could be used in this area for safety and also to make the project look better from the outside. There needs to be a front setback of at least ten to fifteen feet. It is especially important in this situation if the adjoining property were to be sold somewhere down the line. Ms. Parker felt it was very important to follow the Development Code in this type of situation. Ms. Parker also had a problem with the metal roofing and felt that somewhere in the Development Code it stated that this was not allowed, however, it may be that this it was prohibited in the Village. She stated that because of personal experience, she was a strong supporter of "buffer zones ". They need to be created as often as possible for the different uses, especially the uses that are so different. Finally, she feels strongly about the undergrounding of the utilities. She can't believe that it would be over $300,000 to accomplish this in this area. She would like the applicant to work with staff and the different utility companies and bring the information back to the Planning Commission so they can make an informed decision. Commissioner Costello moved that in light of issues of setbacks, floor area ratios, wall height, restrooms, trash enclosures, and cost of undergrounding utilities, the Planning Commission deny the project without prejudice. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 2000 PAGE 10 ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker ABSENT Chair Greene ITEM III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS III. A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99 -011; LOCATION — 121 E. BRANCH STREET; APPLICANT — EDDIE EL -HELOU Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner explained that on October 19, 1999 the Planning Commission approved CUP 99 -011 to construct a two - story, 2,679 square foot commercial building and improve the existing pedestrian access way located between East Branch Street and the Parking Coral. Three separate access easements totaling thirteen (13) feet in width made up the pedestrian access way. Since the proposed plans showed the structure built over one of these easements, the applicant was required to obtain City relinquishment of the easement as a condition of approval. The applicant has instead submitted revised plans showing the structure outside of the pedestrian mall easement, and hence the building three (3) feet narrower. The applicant has also proposed to modify the second floor balcony located on the East Side of the building. The revised plans show a three (3) foot wide balcony along the full width of the building, which is an additional foot wider than the approved plans (reference Attachments 1 and 2). The City Attorney has reviewed the proposal with regard to the balcony extending over the pedestrian mall easement, and he has determined that the overhang can be allowed subject to a legally binding agreement that runs with the land permitting the City to remove the balcony if deemed necessary. Ms Heffernon told the Commission that the Architectural Review Committee considered the revised project on January 10, 2000 and determined that the modifications were in substantial conformance with the approved project plans (reference Attachment 3 for ARC meeting notes). A non - public hearing notice was sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project. Staff has not received any comments or correspondence to date. Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the revised building plans and determine that they are in substantial conformance with the previously approved project. If the Planning Commission determines that the revised plans are not in substantial conformance with the approved project, then the proposal will be resubmitted as a formal Conditional Use Permit Amendment. Commissioner London asked if the narrower building was still within the Building Code? 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 2000 PAGE 11 Commissioner Costello asked if the balcony was now a "real" balcony and would the only access to the offices upstairs be from that balcony? Or would there be some kind of access from the inside as well? What would happen if the City required the balcony to be removed. Mr. Campbell stated that the Building Code would require interior access to those offices. Vice -Chair Parker asked if anyone in the audience had a comment that they would like to make to the Planning Commission? Vice -Chair Parker stated that the last time the Planning Commission had seen this project the building was three (3) feet wider. Why had the developer decided to reduce the width of the building? Mr. Campbell explained that the existing brick patio is a pedestrian mall in favor of the City as an easement. The applicant discovered that he could only build on this three -13) foot if the City Council relinquished their rights to the easement. Although this was not taken to the City Council, it was apparent that they were opposed to this idea and the applicant decided to change his plans. Eddie El- Helou,, applicant spoke briefly to the Planning Commission and stated that he was willing to answer any questions that the Planning Commission might have. Commissioner Costello asked if it became necessary to remove the balcony, would Mr. El- Helou be willing to do so? Mr. El -Helou replied that he would be willing to remove it. Howard Mankins, 200 Hillcrest, owner of the adjacent property spoke to the Planning Commission stated that he was in opposition to this project and if there was any part of the building, such as the balcony, that encroached on the three foot easement he would terminate his agreement with the City for the use of the rest of the easement. Toby Charles, wanted to voice his concern about this project because there is not enough room to build a building on this lot, and he did not believe that the new building would add anything to the character of the Village. Brad Anderson, representative for Mr. El -Helou stated that the proposed building does not encroach into the easement and the balcony that overhangs the easement meets all building codes as an accessory use. Further, Mr. El -Helou has stated that he would enhance the current walkway thus improving the pedestrian walkway and making it an enhancement to the Village. Lenny Grant, 106 Joyce Way, Architect for the project said he wanted to state that this hearing had nothing to do with the easement, but that the issue is whether the building is in substantial conformance with the approved project. He stated that he would argue that the building was in conformance and this is what the Planning Commission needed to rule on. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 2000 PAGE 12 Peter Skarduff, has a business close to the project and he wanted to make sure the character of the Village remained intact with this project. He was also concerned with the amount of sunlight that would come in to the pedestrian walkway after the building was built. Edan Norten, expressed his concerns with the drainage, lighting in the walkway and how the project will look. He also stated that he had heard that people were not notified about this project. Vice -Chair Parker explained the notification process to Mr. Norten and what was being done to make sure people would be noticed in the future. Gary Andreini, 909 Robin Circle, asked the Planning Commission to consider everything they had heard at tonight's meeting when making their decision. Margo Rutherford, 1 19 E. Branch had the following concerns: • The height of the building is over 3 stories, which is higher than the building next to it, which will not look good. All the buildings around it are only one (1) story. • People always use the walkway and this will change the atmosphere of the Village. • Mr. El -Helou had visited her in the summer, but he told her he was only opening a small engraving shop. It was only later that she found out that he was opening the same business, a jewelry store, as she has. • Also, she was never notified about the project. Commissioner London stated that the project appears to be the same. The issue before the Planning Commission tonight is, the clarification that the project is in substantial conformance with the project that was approved originally, and Mr. London believes that it is. Commissioner Keen stated that the Planning Commission was dealing with an approved project and he was glad to see that the building is not being built on the easement and this was a good compromise. Mr. Keen felt that the walkway would appear to be more open that some people thought because of the windows in the new building. Commissioner Costello stated that the Planning Commission was looking at whether the revised project was in substantial conformance with the approved project. The building is 27.7 feet which is less than allowed in the Development Code. He would like to ask Mr. EI -Helou to reconsider having a balcony. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she felt strongly about the Village and thought that this building would be fine and would look good enough in the Village. She felt that the revised plans were in substantial conformance with the originally submitted plans. Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission find that the revised plans of Conditional Use Permit 99 -100 as submitted are in substantial conformance with the original approved project. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 2000 PAGE 13 ROLL CALL VOTE _YES Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker ABSENT Chair Greene IV. DISCUSSION None V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT Commissioner Keen apologized to Kim Romano about the comments he had made concerning the PSR at the previous meeting. Commissioner Costello inquired about the plans to widen Oak Park Blvd. up towards Brighton Street. VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS None VII. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner London the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting on February 15, 2000. ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commissi AS TO erry Mc Comm n NT: n s Development Director Clerk Nanci Parker, Vice Chair