Loading...
PC Minutes 1998-05-191 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin presiding. Present were Commissioners Greene, Haney, O'Donnell and Rondeau. Also in attendance were Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder, Associate Planner Bruce Buckingham and Contract Planner Lezley Buford. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDED PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 92 -104, VARIANCE CASE NO 98 -208, AMENDMENT MODIFYING EXISTING BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNS; APPLICANT: K -MART; LOCATION: 1570 WEST BRANCH STREET Contract Planner Lezley Buford advised the Commission that the applicant was requesting both a variance and a planned sign program to allow replacement of the existing K -Mart sign with their new corporate logo. In 1992, K -Mart applied for and received a sign variance. The signage existing at that time included a large "K -Mart" over the entrance, a sign indicating "Auto Service" and a sign indicating "Garden Shop ". The total sign area was 273 square feet. The signage approved in 1992 totaled 267 square feet. A variance was approved to allow three wall signs instead of the two signs allowed by ordinance. The proposed changes to the existing signs would be: 1. The "K" over the main entrance would be removed, and would be replaced by an internally illuminated "K" having a height of 8 ". 2. Blue internally illuminated letters reading "BIG" and an internally illuminated "swoop" would be installed. 3. The signage removed totals 128.66 square feet. The new signage totals 232 square feet. 4. The existing signage for the garden shop and pharmacy would remain. Contract Planner Buford explained that the City's Sign Ordinance allows a major tenant in a commercial center to erect and maintain one ground and one wall sign, and limits the maximum sign area of any one sign to 70 square feet. The applicant is proposing signs that would total 345.33 square feet. A variance is needed with regard to the number of signs requested (3), the square footage of the main entrance sign (232 square feet) and the total sign area 345.33 square feet. With regard to the variance, Staff feels there are some special conditions and they are recommending approval of the variance due to the location of the K -Mart. After staff's presentation, Chair Lubin opened the public hearing and invited comments from the audience. Sue Nodeergen, 9359 Feron Blvd., Rancho Cucamonga, CA, representing K -Mart spoke briefly to the Commission. She stated that what they were asking was to be allowed to replace the existing 10 foot "K" with an 8 foot "K". The K -MART will be taken off above the garden shop and pharmacy. This will reduce the overall signage area. The Corporation feels that this will be helpful with the new competition from the Wal -Mart. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 May 19, 1998 Nanci Parker 129 E. Cherry, Arroyo Grande, CA asked the Commission to clarify a section of the Development Code with regards to sign regulations. The Commission in turn asked Staff to clarify. Lezley Buford explained that there was some contradiction to this section of the Code. It may have been intentionally left this way to allow for some concession with regard to some discussion about allowing larger signs when there is more frontage. Staff believes this is something that would be appropriate to examine when they do a cleanup of this particular ordinance. Commissioner Greene commented that the Commission had recognized this same point at their May 5, 1998 meeting. Commissioner Haney commented that there are two places in the code that states the maximum allowance for any sign is 70 feet. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rondeau stated that while there are several conflicting sections in the sign ordinance, and since K -Mart has competition coming, he feels there should be an exception made. He applauded them for eliminating two signs. The sign they are proposing to use is very attractive. It is also very needed because is set back a considerable distance from the street frontage. Commissioner O'Donnell stated he agrees with Commissioner Rondeau that because of the setback of the building a larger sign is required. He feels the current sign is unattractive. It is taller than the structure. The new sign is a better - looking sign. The square footage is more and he tends to lean towards not making exceptions to the sign ordinance as much as possible. He likes the attractiveness of the sign however, he feels they should keep to the size limits of the code as much as possible. If it means reducing the size of the sign, then that's the way he feels they should go. Commissioner Greene felt that the sign, in and of itself, is an improvement. However, his interpretation of the sign ordinance is that it requires signs to be 70 square feet or less. It is necessary to look to the explicit language of the code in making a decision on this issue. As Commissioner Haney pointed out in two different locations, the code says 70 feet is the maximum. With respect to the variance issue, he agrees with Commissioner O'Donnell. The last commission meeting resulted in some discussion and criticism of the Central Coast Town Center sign plan because of the way that it deviated from the sign ordinance. It was unanimous that the Commission was not inclined to approve most of the signage that was suggested by the applicant. They would risk establishing a dangerous precedent by making the findings that are set forth in the resolution. The Commission would then be obligated to allow others the same consideration. It would be difficult for him to say that the K -Mart center would suffer unnecessary hardship that would otherwise not be shared by others in the surrounding area. The finding they are required to make is that "a survey of similar uses shows that major tenants within comparable shopping centers have signs similar proposed by the applicant". He is not sure that is quite true because he does not feel there are similar shopping centers in the city. The Central Coast Town Center could use the decision as a way to leverage equality from the Commission and the City Council when it comes time to propose their sign plan. Circumstances that are sited as exceptional or extraordinary that would justify the variance would apply in the same fashion to the Central Coast Town Center as well. He is extremely sympathetic to the 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 May 19, 1998 people at K -Mart but to grant this seemingly innocuous request would put them in a posture to be unable to defend the position the Commission took at the last meeting. Until there is some resolution of the conflict in the current sign ordinance the granting of this variance will constitute a grant of special privileged that would be inconsistent with the limitations that the Commission wants to see imposed. Commissioner Haney stated that at the last meeting he had distributed some materials that called out the General Plan provisions that dealt with signage. He was distributing them again for their consideration. He was going to refer to two or three of them because they concern what is being discussed at this time. Commissioner Haney explained that in the General Plan 6.12 it states "Balance the need for signs within commercial areas as a means to identify businesses with the rural small town character of the community. "It is very clear here that we are using signs to identify not to advertise. We want to be in scale and we want to emphasize our unique small town quality as a community". Sign proliferation, sign wars, and out of scale signs do not fit with the character of a small town rural community. Everyone within the Five Cities area knows where the K- Mart is. He doesn't think a bigger sign here aids in identifying the location. It may help pull some traffic off the freeway and may be of some assistance to tourists, but "we all know that we can soon find the major stores ". He doesn't see that there is a significant advantage to be gained by the community in allowing out of scale signage. Another comment at 6 -12e requires that sign placement and heights be consistent with the low profile nature and scale of the community. 6 -12(k) states "strengthen the sign ordinance with respect to design, compatibility with rural small town architectural themes." All of these things point to the need for revisions to the sign ordinance and to bring the scale of overall signage down for future developments and for new applications. It would be opening "an enormous can of worms" if the Commission started allowing a significant variance from the sign ordinance. All of the major shopping centers in the community sit back from the street, so all of them could use these arguments to support larger signs. He would ask the applicant to do a study on what is being done around the country for K -Mart in areas that are "sign sensitive ". What he recommends as a compromise is that the applicant return with some examples of what they do in "sign sensitive areas. Try to stay within the boundaries of what was approved earlier, meaning the 126 sq. ft. Chairman Lubin stated that he looks at the conflicts within the sign ordinance as conflicts that have to be resolved. He looked at the change in the height of the sign, which was an 8 -foot sign vs. the 10 -ft sign. The sign will actually appear smaller. He also noted the lack of visibility of the "K" because of the trees in the parking lot. He also felt some concern about the competition factor. In 1992 The City Council approved a significant variance to the sign program by approving the signage at that time. With the removal of the other signs, only 80 square feet is being added. He does not have a problem with the variance request. Ms. Nodeergen told the Commission that K -Mart has run into the same problem before, in other City's where they are also concerned that the sign is too large. That is why K - Mart is requesting the removal of the other two signs. Commissioner Haney moved that the Commission request the applicant to come back with a 6 foot alternative for the K and the square footage that is involved there and present that in addition to what has already been presented. The Commission would make a decision at that time. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 May 19, 1998 Commissioner Greene seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Green, Haney, O'Donnell, Rondeau, and Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 98-125, PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR BEACON SERVICE STATION; APPLICANT ULTRAMAR/BEACON; LOCATION: 610 GRAND AVENUE Contract Planner Lezley Buford advised that the applicant was proposing the following changes to the existing signage: 1. Removal of the existing canopy spandrel to be replaced with 36" wide blue aluminum banding on four sides of the canopy with the Beacon copy and eagle logo on the east and west elevations. 2. New 30" aluminum banding on the four sides of the building with "UltraMart" copy on the south elevation. 3. A 2' by 2' non - illuminated eagle logo on the south elevation. The signs, as proposed, are consistent with the provisions of Development Code Chapter 9 -13 and have been reviewed by the AAC and SAC. Commissioner Haney asked how many signs were already on the property. His understanding was that the monument sign was non - conforming. Fernando Baluyot, representative for the applicant, explained in further detail the improvements that were proposed for the project. Stan Robertson, owner of the Beacon Service Station stated that all he was trying to do was to clean up the area and improve the looks of the station. Commissioner Haney complimented the applicant on the design and how much better the area would look when this was accomplished. He asked how the monument sign could be brought into compliance. Commissioner Greene stated that he too thought the proposed changes were a significant enhancement to the area. He was also concerned about the monument sign. He asked the applicant to see if there was a way to bring the sign into conformance with the current Development Code. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he was very impressed with the suggested changes. He saw this as a major improvement. He was comfortable staying with the proposed resolution. Commissioner Rondeau agreed with Commissioners Greene and Haney. The project would improve the looks of the station, however the monument sign is not in compliance with the existing sign ordinance and needs to be changed. 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 May 19, 1998 Commissioner Lubin stated that he liked the total sign program. He is not concerned about the monument sign but is undecided about what to do in this situation. He felt there should be some type of compromise. Commissioner O'Donnell moved that the Commission approve the proposed Resolution for Planned Sign Program Case No. 98 -125, applied for by Utramart/Beacon located at 610 Grand Ave. Commissioner Lubin seconded the motion. The motion was defeated by the following roll call to wit: AYES: Commissioners O'Donnell and Lubin NOES: Commissioners Haney, Greene, and Rondeau ABSENT: None Commissioner Haney stated that he would like to have the applicants make an attempt at bringing the monument sign into conformance. Commissioner Greene moved that the Commission provide the Applicant with the opportunity to return to discuss this issue at a date and time that is convenient for the Applicant, specifically for the purpose of helping the Commission deal with the Development Codes' limitation on approving projects with a non - conforming sign. It is in the Community's best interest, the Applicant's best interest and the City's best interest to go forward with this project in a fashion most consistent with the Development Code. Commissioner Haney seconded the motion. The motion was passed by the following roll call to wit: AYES: Commissioners Greene, Haney, O'Donnell, Rondeau, and Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - BERRY GARDENS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -002, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 97 -007 & VESTING TENTATIVE TRACE MAP 2260; APPLICANT: CHARLES BAKER Commissioner O'Donnell announced to Chairman Lubin that he was standing down during this discussion. Associate Planner Bruce Buckingham provided the background information on Berry Gardens Specific Plan to the commissioners. The proposed Berry Gardens Specific Plan area covers approximately 49 acres located south of Grand Avenue, East of Oak Park Boulevard, and north of Ash Street. The applicant is one of four property owners within the area, which requires the adoption of a Specific Plan as designated by the City's General Plan. The applicant is proposing the development on approximately 37 acres of the site consisting of 160 single- family residences and 43 multiple family residences, for a total of 203 residences. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 May 19, 1998 The applicant submitted an Addendum to the Draft Specific Plan on April 7, 1998. As part of the Addendum, the applicant has requested that the remaining three properties within the Specific Plan area be eliminated from the applicant's project. Therefore, the Draft EIR primarily addresses the impacts associated with the development of the 203 residences on the 37 acres. Mr. Buckingham pointed out that the purpose of the public hearing was to allow public comments on the content of the Draft EIR. The California Environmental Quality Act requires that the public have 45 days in which to provide comments on the Draft EIR. Mr. Buckingham reminded the Planning Commission that they cannot take any action to approve the Specific Plan until the Final EIR is completed and certified as to its adequacy. The Final EIR will contain responses to public comments and will also include any changes that result from public comments. No decision can be made tonight; the meeting tonight is only to receive comments. Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing tonight and allow public comments on the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission may also provide comments tonight as they see fit. Lastly, he introduced David Foote of FIRMA, the environmental consulting firm that prepared the EIR. Mr. Foote will be taking notes on the comments made by the public and commission. After Staff's presentation, Chair Lubin opened the meeting for public comment. Rob Strong, representative for the applicant, Charles Baker, stated that Mr. Baker first made application approximately a year ago. The density that was originally proposed has been reduced. Comments from the Planning Commission, City Council and neighbors have been integrated into the project. A central park was proposed, the ponding basin has become larger open space area, the townhouses are located adjacent to Oak Park Blvd. and patio homes adjacent to the Town Homes. The patio homes are duplexes with a common wall and are open on three sides. The majority of the development is single - family and based on neo- traditional design. Darrell Pilkington 933 Sandalwood Avenue, stated that he was here tonight in favor of the project. The project has been in the process for seven years. He recently heard that they have been asked to increase their retention basin to go from a 200 -year storm to a 700 -year storm. He stated that he worked for the County of San Luis Obispo Engineering Road Department for twenty -two years. During that time he went through some huge storms. To even think of making them worry about a retention basin for this project that would handle a seven hundred - year storm; they wouldn't have to worry about the basin because The City of Arroyo Grande would be wiped out. Neal Maloney, 1900 Woodland Drive, San Luis Obispo, stated the he was concerned about two major issues. The first is the isolation of their property and in relationship to the residential property where they abut. They feel that the developers should be responsible for creating some sort of a buffer from their property and should consider the drainage for their property. The second issue concerns taking some footage from their property to build Courtland through this area. The, easement would reduce the buildable area on their property. Although he endorses this project he would like to see these issues addressed. There being no further comments from the public, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 May 19, 1998 Commissioner Greene was concerned with the following areas of the EIR: 1. The EIR identifies Land Use Element policy 1.5, page 4 of the draft talking about land use in this community in the following way, "at such time as they are no longer economically viable, permit the conversion of existing strawberry fields located south of Grand Ave. near the western city limits to urban use, subject to preparation to a specific plan". Implementation actions are identified as "if converted use the southern portion of the property for single family residences less than 5.0 dwellings per gross acre, and rural residence less than 2.0 dwelling units per gross acre. The EIR points out that the proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan and this land use policy because it involves a significant zoning change. Mr. Greene wanted to express the areas that concern him at this time. These areas will be addressed more specifically during a discussion of the specific plan. 2. Land Use Element policies 2.1 and 2.2 subsection G. He would like some documentation that establishes that the subject properties are no longer economically viable as continued agriculture production. 3. Land Use Element 2.3 talks about broadening the range of /and encouraging innovation of available housing types. Subsection D of Land Use Element Policy 2.3 requires development within Townhouse /Condominium areas of amenities found in typical suburban community subdivisions such as common open space areas. Is this being addressed properly? 4. Land Use Element Policy 2.6 requires that Town House and Condominium projects include enhanced design features including upgraded active recreational facilities and increased parking. This project does not appear to meet these issues. 5. From the density issue referenced in the Draft EIR it appears that the tentative tract map will create a density increase of about 79% more than the existing General Plan allows for the project. 6. Land Use Element Policy 6.3, Subsection (e), requires the provision of open space and recreational opportunities within urban residential portions of the city. Does the park provide enough open space to satisfy the General Plan requirement? 7. Section 6.6 of the Land Use Element requires that residential streets be designed to minimize traffic. The project as proposed does not identify how the connection will be made from Courtland to Ash St. 8. With respect to the environmental issues, most importantly public services, his major concern is the impact of the project on the local schools. He is also concerned about the ability of the Police and Fire Departments to respond to emergencies with the increased demand this project will place on them. Commissioner Rondeau had no comment at this time. He felt Commissioner Greene had covered those items that were of concern to him. Commissioner Haney felt that the letter from the Matsumoto family was inadequate support for determining that agricultural production in this area was no longer viable. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8 May 19, 1998 He agrees with Commissioner Greene's comments concerning the open space opportunities in proximity to the multi - family area and he views this as a significant impact! Commissioner Haney also concurred with Commissioner Greene's comments about the density issues and their cumulative impact on Police, Fire and public safety. It is impossible to build the houses and then declare that you have a problem and try to solve it at that time. Chairman Lubin congratulated David Foote and FIRMA for an excellent report. He had 4 issues that he wanted to reemphasize to make sure they were covered in total context. They have been addressed, but he wanted to make sure that they continue to be addressed and that no one loses sight of the significance of them. 1. The first is traffic and the traffic flow throughout the whole project. There were significant concerns about the traffic on Courtland and how it approached Grand. Also, Court land as it went to the bottom portion. Also the traffic pattern flowing out of the project. 2. The open space issue is also a concern him. Is a one -acre park enough for that many homes? 3. The third issue is site drainage. Are all surrounding properties protected? We need to be "good neighbors" with Grover Beach with regards to this. 4. Lastly, his concern is the water supply. How would Arroyo Grande be affected by another eight -year drought? Would there be enough water for build out for not only this project, but also other projects that are pending in the City. David Foote spoke briefly and complemented the Commission on the thoughtfulness of their comments. He wanted to clear up some questions that the Commission had. He spoke briefly concerning about issues that the EIR would not be able to take further, or not be required to take further. NON - PUBLIC HEARING - PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW OF RITE -AID; LOCATION: CORNER OF OAK PARK BLVD. AND GRAND AVENUE Acting Community Director Helen Elder presented the staff report for the pre - application hearing. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to get comments from the Commission after a presentation of the project by the applicant. Dan Lloyd. representative of Halferty Development, spoke to the Commission. He explained that they were available tonight to listen to any comments the Commission might have regarding the plans that have been submitted. The project was much larger at one time when Vons was a major component of the project. The existing parcel comprises 2.58 acres. The proposed Rite Aid pharmacy is approximately 16,708 sq. ft. and a proposed building on pad A is shown at 6,600 sq. ft. Vons has tried to market the property, but has had no success. They are proposing to put in a prototypical Rite -Aid facility at this location. The environmental work was done with the previous project and has established a background for the project and they know what the issues are. It is a much smaller project that was first proposed. Some of the important aspects of the former project are incorporated in their design such as widening Grand Avenue and providing a right turn lane onto Oak Park Road. The project has received favorable feedback from the AAC. • 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 9 May 19, 1998 The commissioners had several questions about the design and use of the project. What the use of Pad A would be; overall traffic impacts including additional turning lanes on Grand Ave & Oak Park Blvd; what the design of the garden center would be; what plaza merchandise would be displayed in front of the store; would there be landscaping in the parking area; how the drive through pharmacy would work; and finally how the loading docks in the rear of the building would be designed. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM - FY 1998/99 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder explained to the Commission the reasons for reviewing the Capital Improvement Program. The Commission needs to be aware of what is planned and make sure it is consistent with the General Plan. The CIP Budget includes all expenditures for Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Water and Sewer and special revenue funds and it covers a longer period of time than the annual budget process, anticipating when new improvements are needed or when existing facilities must be replaced. The relationship between the General Plan the CIP Budget results from the policies in the General Plan for future growth. Public Works Director Don Spagnolo, and Craig Campbell from John Wallace & Associates, were present to answer any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Haney asked about the Drainage Master Plan (page 252 of the CIP Budget) and the Transportation Systems Improvement Plan. Director Spagnolo explained that the Drainage Master Plan was a carry over project that has been ongoing and should be completed soon. Commissioner Lubin complemented staff and stated that he was very impressed with how the CIP budget process was handled and equally impressed with the final document. Commissioner Greene moved that the Planning Commission find the CIP Budget in conformance with the General Plan. Commissioner Haney seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Haney, Greene, Rondeau, O'Donnell and Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: None NON - PUBLIC HEARING - STATUS OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder presented the latest report on the General Plan Update process. The department is currently working on setting up Workshop No. 2, which will be the second of three workshops and the second out of approximately 20 public meetings that will take place. The workshop will be held on June 20, 1998. A notice will be sent out to all addresses in the City, announcing the next workshop, as well as a notice placed in the newspapers. The Commissioners did not have any questions and thanked Ms. Elder for her update. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 19, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION /COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEMS AND COMMENTS There will be a joint meeting with the City Council and the Planning Commission on Thursday, June 18, 1998. This meeting will focus on: Redevelopment Implementation General Plan Update Status The tentative calendar for upcoming projects was discussed. Ms. Elder reminded the Commission that the election of a new Chair and Vice Chair is scheduled for the July 7, 1998 meeting of the Planning Commission. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS There were three additional items for written communications as follows: • Agenda Item III A Draft: Notes from the May 18, 1998 AAC meeting • Agenda Item III A Draft: Design standards and guidelines for large retail establishments • Newsletter from Wyndham residents, 222 S. Elm Street Prior to adjournment of the meeting, Commissioner O'Donnell gave a brief farewell to the Commission members, saying that he had enjoyed his term as Commissioner. Chair Lubin thanked Commissioner O'Donnell for his service to the Commission. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P. m. ATTEST: Kathleen S. Fryer, Commission AS TO CONTENT: fL, Helen M. Elder, AICP Acting Community Development Director Page 10 1