Loading...
PC Minutes 2000-01-041 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2000 PAGE 1 ELECTION OF A TEMPORARY CHAIR PERSON Commissioner Keen moved that Commissioner Costello act as temporary chairperson for the January 4, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner London seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. CALL TO ORDER Chair Costello 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 ABSENT Vice -Chair Parker ABSENT Chair Greene APPROVAL OF MINUTES NONE ITEM I. I. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE I. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Comments from Larry Greene concerning the LOS issue to be heard at the Planning Commission meeting of January 4, 1999. 2. Letter received on January 3, 2000 from Joe H. Shumate with comments concerning the proposed Zoo Med project. ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS I1. A. AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99 -001; LOCATION — 136 BRIDGE STREET; APPLICANT — CAREY JAMES (Continued from December 21, 1999) Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planned explained to the Planning Commission that the applicant was asking for an amendment to approved Conditional Use Permit 99 -004 to change the use of the second floor from residential use to office commercial. The applicant has made the necessary modifications to the project so that this change will be in compliance with Development Code regulations. The changes are: 1. Modification of the off - street parking configuration to include one (1) additional parking space. 2. The carport originally required for the upstairs apartment has been eliminated. 3. Minor alterations to the exterior appearance including a reduction in the number of windows on the north elevation from six (6) to two (2); the relocation of one of the windows on the south elevation from the first to the second floor; and a fifty -five (55) ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2000 PAGE 2 square foot reduction of the second floor and corresponding increase in size of the back porch have also been planned. Commissioner Keen asked if there were any significant changes to the project and also wanted to see the changes in the windows on the overheads. Commissioner Costello questioned whether the one space that had been added was adequate to meet the Development Code requirements? Ms. Heffernon answered yes to both questions. There was no public comment. Commissioner London moved to adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1725 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT CASE NO. 99 -001, LOCATED AT 136 BRIDGE STREET, APPLIED FOR BY CAREY JAMES wth Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Keen seconded. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE X Commissioner Costello X Commissioner Keen X Commissioner London ABSENT Vice -Chair Parker ABSENT Chair Greene ITEM III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS III. A. PRE - APPLICATION 99 -013; LOCATION - 1189 EL CAMINO REAL; APPLICANT - Z00 MED LABORATORIES (Continued from December 21, 1999) Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner presented the staff report explaining that Zoo Med Laboratories was proposing to construct a 50,000 to 60,000 square foot sales outlet and light manufacturing facility (phase 1), ultimately expanding to a 100,000 square foot facility (phase 2). Approximately 2,000 square feet would be used for retail sales. The company manufactures and markets a wide variety of products for reptiles, including food, vitamins, heating and lighting equipment, cages and terrarium accessories. The company manufactures approximately 50% of the products sold. Zoo Med currently occupies eight 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2000 PAGE 3 buildings in San Luis Obispo, totaling 35,000 square feet. The company wishes to expand its business and relocate to Arroyo Grande. Ms. Heffernon further explained that the project site is located on El Camino Real, east of Hillcrest Drive, and is developed with a single - family residence, detached garage and a barn. Two of the structures are partially demolished. A total of 81 trees exist on site, 56 of which are coastal live oaks. The site is surrounded by residential development to the west, industrial development to the east and vacant property to the south. The Development Code restricts all manufacturing uses to properties zoned Industrial. Since the project site is designated Residential (Condominium/ Townhouse), a General Plan Amendment and rezoning are necessary to change the land use designation from Residential to Industrial. Finally, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommended that the Planning Commission should review the project and provide direction and comments to the applicant. Commissioner Keen stated that in the SAC meeting notes the owner was asked if the business produced any hazardous waste materials and the applicant had replied that there were none to speak of. His question was whether there were any hazardous waste materials or not? Ms. Heffernon replied that, from what the applicant had explained to her, there were no hazardous waste materials. Commissioner London had the following questions and concerns: ■ Where will Phase I be placed on the property? ■ Have they submitted a traffic study? • What exactly does the applicant mean by a metal building? ■ He had a concern as to whether or not this type of business should be allowed in this area and would it be appropriate? Ms. Heffernon stated that unfortunately the applicant was not in attendance tonight and it was difficult for her to answer some of Mr. London's questions. One of the reasons the applicant wanted to have the Planning Commission hear this pre - application was because they wanted to see if the Commission would be at all willing to consider this option. Commissioner Costello has the following questions and concerns: • Would this zoning change be determined as part of the General Plan Update or would the applicant make a separate application? ■ He was very concerned by the impact on the residences nearby. ■ What hazardous materials would there be? • Would there be any odors that would be emitted from the building? ■ What kind of sound levels would there be from the manufacturing? ■ What would the traffic impacts be? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2000 PAGE 4 • Does this project abut onto Hillcrest? Ms. Heffernon replied that the project does abut Hillcrest, however the portion that does is an easement. Acting Chair Costello stated that although this was not a public hearing, the Planning Commission recognized that there were many people in the audience that had been invited to comment on this item and he opened the hearing to the public. Mike Douglas, 1183 El Camino Real stated that he lived in the trailer park next to this property. He was concerned about the driveway next to his property and the possibility of early morning deliveries that would be noisy. He was also worried about any hazardous waste materials. Scott Seelos, 257 Hillcrest stated that he was concerned with the following: • This project would have a negative impact on his property. • The project would not be appropriate for this area. It is too close to Single Family residences. The Multi Family zoning provided a buffer between the two zonings (Industrial and Single Family). ■ There would be a problem with the parking. • This would have a very negative impact on the environment. • This was a natural habitat and if it were developed it would be obliterated. ■ Not only would there be a negative impact as far as noise and traffic but it was now very difficult to egress onto El Camino from Hillcrest. This would make it even more difficult. • He was concerned about any pollution with this business. Jim Fogerty, 1202 Montego stated that he lived right behind the property and he was concerned about: • What the metal building would look like? He did not feel this kind of a building would fit into this area. • The pollution from noise, traffic, and light would be unacceptable. The neighborhood had already had to put up with the light from the Wal Mart Center. Joe Kusik, 260 Hillcrest was concerned with: • The stability of the hill and the City water tank that is at the top of it. Would all the grading have the effect of disrupting this stability? ■ The parking layout would impact into the residential areas surrounding the project. • The road that goes up the hill from El Camino to Hillcrest should be blocked unless they are going to build a retaining wall there. The soil is very unstable and would not support any heavy vehicles at all. 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2000 PAGE 5 Joan Richardson, stated that this area was a beautiful natural area with many Oak trees. There are hawks and other wildlife in this area. This is their last habitat. She asked that the Planning Commission please protect everyone from this kind of development. There should not be manufacturing on this parcel. Julie Marr, 255 Hillcrest Dr stated that this project would: • Create too much traffic • There are no sidewalks and it is very dangerous. Wendy Beckkham, 220 Hillcrest stated the following: • When they bought their home one year ago they researched this area and found that it was for Multi Family. • This is a natural habitat with many different animals. • It would create more traffic, which is already a problem. Nina Seelos, 257 Hill Crest felt that this project would: • Create more traffic, which is already heavy now. • To put any access through the current easement would destroy a beautiful Oak tree that sits in that corridor. • Since the zoning is Multi Family it would ruin the buffer between the Industrial and the Single Family zones. Bill Tappen, 1525 Chilton stated that he realized that change in any area was inevitable, however: • This would not be good planning to put industrial up against Single Family residential. A buffer is needed in between. • The Mobile Home Park would be locked in between industrial areas. He would hate to see the mobile home park disappear as it is part of the affordable housing in the City and therefore very needed. Barbara Kusik, spoke on behalf of her mother who owned the property at 260 Hillcrest. Here mother is 86 and is very upset by this. The buildings for this would be right behind her house. Also, before the Planning Commission decides anything about this project they should go and look at the building Zoo Med has in San Luis Obispo. It is not the kind of building that should be built in Arroyo Grande. Acting Chair Costello asked the Commission members for their opinions. Commissioner London stated that he wondered how this could be considered to begin with. He felt that this Multi Family zoning had been thought out to have a buffer between the Industrial and Single Family residential and it would be inappropriate to rezone it. He wanted to let the public know that he appreciated their comments but eventually there would be something built on this property and the wildlife would be effected. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2000 PAGE 6 Mr. London felt that this was a good example of a buffer zone. He would not support this type of project being built in this area. Commissioner Keen stated that he has always been an advocate of the properties along El Camino Real being Highway Commercial although not necessarily Industrial. This was prior to the 5 Cities Center. He is not necessarily in favor of changing this piece of property to Industrial. Any day now the trailer park could be sold and turned into some other use at that site. The City needs Industrial zoning and this is one reason that so many of the people in the City are interested in the Frederick's project. If there is no Industrial zone in the City, there will be no way for any more jobs to be brought into the City. He also wanted the members of the public to know that this is already zoned for Multi Family so many of the things they commented on, the natural habitat, beautiful Oak trees, etc. would probably change if a Multi Family project was built on that site. He would not support a metal building. He stated that if anyone had looked at the 3 options for the "fix" for Brisco /Halcyon Road interchange, they would find that in Option #3, the freeway ramps would wipe out this whole property as well as effect other pieces around it. He would rather see this parcel remain in the Multi Family zone. Acting Chair Costello stated that he "echoed" several of the issues discussed by the other Commissioners. He did feel that there was a need for a buffer zone in this area. He would have some extremely difficult questions for the developer to answer if this particular project is put in a large size industrial building. These would include issues with noise, traffic, lighting and circulation to name a few. He does not know if he could support a project of this type. He stated that the City of Arroyo Grande does need some Industrial zoning but he does not believe this is the appropriate spot. Acting Chair Costello thanked those in the audience that had attended the meeting and had given their comments. III. B PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS ON THE STANDARDIZATION OF CITY POLICIES REGARDING TRAFFIC STUDIES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS (Continued from December 21, 1999) Commissioner London stated that for him this was a very difficult issue to deal with. It is primarily an engineering issue of which none of the Commission was capable of analyzing to the proper extent. He did have some observations however that he would like to share with the City Council. The City, if it is serious in wanting to deal with the problems with traffic, needs to hire a designated traffic engineer, either on staff, or to be shared with the other cities and jurisdictions in the area. It was his view that the City needed a "corporate" memory and sending out for individual studies does not lend itself to having a proper background of the overall traffic problem in the City. 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2000 PAGE 7 The City looks at each project when it comes in to decide what that project is generating with regards to traffic. Mr. London stated that he does not think that enough consideration is given to the effect that other projects that have been approved and projects that have already been completed have on the overall traffic. He would hope that there would be someone on staff that would pull everything together and try and keep the "traffic flowing ". Mr. London said that of all the different plans he looked at, he liked the Cal Trans guide and felt that it would best serve as a starting point for establishing a model for the City. He would like to see more of an analysis on the part of the City staff until such time when the City could hire a traffic engineer. He would like staff to give the Planning Commission a more in depth view of what any project would have on the existing traffic levels. As far as the LOS, he would like to see all LOS at a level of C. However, he stated that he had lived all over the country, and while it is a nice standard to have, he thinks that the City has to recognize that there are certain intersections in Arroyo Grande that are not going to be able to operate at a LOS of C. The City should couch their recommendations based on the acceptance of a LOS of less than C standard. Further, some of the studies from the different cities that he had looked at had a LOS E as not desirable but acceptable. He would suggest that there are a few intersections that will have to be accepted as having a lower LOS. Commissioner Keen first stated that it was important to determine how the LOS should be interpreted. Not the engineering LOS, but the perception of it. It is important to look at this and adopt an interpretation of it into one of the City's programs. It gives the layman a much better interpretation of exactly what LOS means. In the City of Ventura — Traffic Study Guidelines, page seven (7), it describes LOS of C it describes "C" as "conditions of stable flow, delays of low to moderate, and full use of peak directional signal phases ". LOS of D is described as "conditions approaching unsuitable flow, delays are moderate to heavy, and signal time deficiencies are experienced for a short duration during peak hour traffic period ". This means that an LOS of D, if you want to accept this as an explanation, if the traffic signal clears the traffic waiting or approaching, and doesn't cut people off so you have to wait through 2 or 3 lights, then he doesn't know of any LOS of D intersection in the City of Arroyo Grande other than at extreme peak times. Mr. Keen stated that he travels through the Brisco Road intersection every day and he does not remember any time, except when the signal was malfunctioning, when the traffic did not clear through the intersection. Further, it was easier for him to look at level of service in some kind of a description and relate it to an intersection than it is to just think LOS of C and that it is not acceptable. He feels it would be easier if there was a concrete description to look at. Mr. Keen went on to say that in the Higgins Traffic Report of November 10, 1999 it alluded to the intersection of West Branch and Grand Avenue, where the City is saying this ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2000 PAGE 8 intersection is a LOS of F but yet hardly anyone ever has to stop on Grand Avenue. This makes the LOS of that intersection an A. It is difficult to say that a whole intersection is at the worst LOS because the side street is impacted by a certain amount of traffic. So, when the City is talking about LOS for this type of intersection, they have to take into consideration that the whole intersection is not a level of F but possibly a level of A with some extreme inconvenience for the adjoining side street, which of course would need to be addressed. He stated that he was somewhat confused by the Traffic Committee's interpretation of this issue. With regard to the short term LOS, referred to in the Santa Barbara County criteria, the only place he could find any criteria at all was on one chart for Santa Barbara County on page 4 and 5. The thresholds there of significance were pretty extreme. They said that at "LOS of D, E, or F an additional five or more peak hour travel trips would be considered significant ". He felt they would be significant at a LOS of D, let alone E or F. As far as the time that is allowed for an intersection from a project going to a LOS of D, Mr. Keen feels that this depends on the particular intersection. Some of the intersections could operate at a LOS of D if the criterion of Ventura's explanation of D is used without a big problem. As long as the traffic is clearing the intersection each time and it is only this way at peak traffic times he feels it would not be a problem. He has a problem with saying that an intersection is a level of C or D when it is only this way for and hour and a half in the evening. It is inconvenient, however you cannot design a whole intersection for an hour and one half a day. On the other hand, he is not saying that the traffic should be averaged over 24 hours. That would not be a legitimate measure either. Commissioner Keen agreed with the comments submitted by Mr. Greene that the City should keep C as the goal in the General Plan. As far as the short term for LOS of C, he doesn't know. - If there is 'a LOS of C and it will go to a LOS of D for a certain amount of time, does this mean that, even if a project is going to make improvements to bring the LOS back to a C, the project will not be approved because the City does not want any inconvenience at all? Mr. Keen stated that when he first saw the traffic studies that used delay times he was impressed and felt that this was a good idea to have them done this way. But, after reading some of the material he has changed his mind. He feels that the City should go back to the Highway Capacity Manual and use it as a guideline for the LOS in conjunction with the guide from Cal Trans. Finally, with regards to the peak traffic counts, he would hate to say that these have to be done during the school year or during the summer because he believes that the individual intersection reflects this. He would like to see the Public Works Department determine when the counts should be done as related to when there really is peak traffic. 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2000 PAGE 9 Commissioner Costello stated that as he was going over all the background materials they were given to help them on this issue there was something that really struck him. In the Highway Capacity Manual it stated that "the LOS represents a range of conditions. It varies widely in terms of both the users perception of service quality and the operational values used to describe them ". In other words, it is a subjective criteria and not objective. Therefore, since it is subjective the direction the City needs to take is to try and tie this off a bit. In the explanation of LOS in the City of Ventura — Traffic Study Guidelines, which he found to be a very good document, on page 7 the description of a LOS of C stated "conditions of stable flow, delays are low to moderate and full use of directional signal phase is experienced ". He feels the issue is to define "low to moderate" and not leaving it as a subjective condition. Mr. Costello stated that the most important thing to do is to have measurable and definable criteria. Define what the LOS levels are so that it is not subject to interpretation. So, it is critical that the City comes up with measurable and definable criteria that can be applied universally. In terms of the six questions that were posed by the City Council and keeping in mind that the City needs to establish the LOS criteria, he feels that a LOS of C is what the City should establish as acceptable. However, this does not mean there should not be any exemptions, the City should leave itself room to work with exemptions when they can be justified. He stated that he would define short term as twelve (12) to eighteen (18) months maximum. If the City were going to allow short term exemption there has to be mitigation that is definite and funded, not just speculative in nature. In terms of measurement criteria for evaluating the LOS, again, there should be clearly defined objective measurements that can be used for all traffic studies. With regards to the "peak traffic counts ", he felt that the City needs to evaluate what is the busiest time for a particular intersection and pick the time that is most appropriate for that intersection. Mr. Costello stated that he really liked the Ventura City document. They did an excellent job of laying out the criteria and means to attack the traffic problems. He would like to see the City use this as a model. Finally, he believes that the City should work with the applicant as much as possible. The applicant should know the measurable and definable criteria and the City should have a realistic formula set up for the traffic impact fees so the City does not find itself with large projects with nothing to fund them. Each project needs to pay its fair share. Commissioner Keen and Commissioner London both stated that they liked the Ventura City guidelines and that this should be used as the City's model. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2000 PAGE 10 Commissioner London stated that he felt there should possibly be a standardization of the criteria within the Five Cities area. He felt everyone should be looking at this matter in a similar Tight. Commissioner Keen asked Mr. McCants if there was anything else the Planning Commission needed to do at this time with this issue. Mr. McCants replied that the Planning Commission had given excellent comments, in particular the discussion on how to deal with the Level of Service and the general consensus that the Ventura approach to the standardization of traffic studies were particularly valuable. IV. DISCUSSION None V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT Commissioner Keen stated that he had complained about Rite -Aid's lights and he understood that they have been corrected. He thanked staff for taking care of it. 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 8:30 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting on January 18, 2000. ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commis Community Development Director Clerk Adiduumcsu Ottiihti Laurence Greene, Chair 1 1