Loading...
PC Minutes 1998-04-211 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1998 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin presiding. Present are Commissioners Haney, Greene, O'Donnell and Rondeau. Also in attendance are Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder, Deputy Public Works Director Craig Campbell and Contract Planner Lezley Buford. MINUTE APPROVAL Hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of February 17, 1998 were approved as prepared, on motion by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Haney, and unanimously carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 98-549, ADJUST LOT LINE BETWEEN LOTS 3 AND 4; APPLICANT: HOWARD MANN /ESI CENTERS, LLC; REPRESENTATIVE: ROB MARSH, RRM DESIGN GROUP; LOCATION: FIVE CITIES CENTER AT WEST BRANCH STREET AND RANCHO PARKWAY Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder introduced Lezley Buford, new Contract Planner with the City working on this item. Contract Planner Lezley Buford reviewed the staff report dated April 21, 1998. She explained the proposed lot line adjustment is between two existing commercial lots located at the Five Cities Center. The lot line adjustment would relocate the lot line westerly around the retention basin and enlarge the existing Parcel 3. The purpose of the lot line adjustment is to allow the first building of the approved development to go forward. She explained this action is necessary to remove the existing lot line since a building could not be built over a lot line, and also to create a separate parcel for the retention basin. She reviewed the conditions with regard to the existing easements. It is staff's recommendation that the Commission approve the project as proposed, making the findings listed in the staff report, and imposing the recommended conditions. After completion of the staff presentation and Commission's questions of staff, Chair Lubin opened the hearing for public comment. Jerry Michael, RRM Design Group, 3701 South Higuera Street, representing the applicant, stated the proposal is a simple lot line adjustment to move the existing line to allow construction of a building. Kirk Scott, 520 Via Vaquero, inquired about the new name of the applicant on the project, and if in the future the applicant will come back and request that the line be put back. Mr. Michael advised that at this time, they are only requesting to move the lot line, and later on after the buildings are constructed they will need to come back and adjust the lot lines and record the tract map, however, at this time it is not possible to establish the lot lines as they would like to see them. He further explained that at this time they do not know exactly where the lot lines are going to be, and as the buildings and tenants develop, the lot lines may have to be adjusted, even if it is only a few inches. However, at the time for recordation, the final tract map will be submitted to the City and they will have to find the map in substantial conformance with what has been approved, and that will be the City's opportunity to agree or disagree with where the applicant wants to put the property lines. Mr. Michaels stated he doesn't yet have the information with regard to the name change. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 April 21, 1998 Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing, reserving further comments to the Planning Commission Commissioner Greene stated he had spent a considerable amount of time studying the Subdivision Map Act after the Commission was asked to evaluate whether the lot line changes resulted in substantial compliance with the originally approved plan or whether it deviated from the plan. He stated he doesn't believe the Commission has a legal basis to deny this request at this time. However, he does feel if there are material changes in the future, they would have to be brought back to the City. The other Commissioners agreed with Commissioner Greene's comments. Chair Lubin stated he anticipates there will be other lot line adjustments as the buildings are actually situated and getting the lots sized up as the tract map is coming in, however, he was surprised to see that the drainage basin is being isolated as a separate parcel. There being no further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1652 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 98 -053, APPLIED FOR BY HOWARD MANN /ESJ CENTERS, LLC On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Haney, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Greene, Haney, O'Donnell, Rondeau and Chair Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 21°` day of April 1998. NON - PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 97 -559, INTERPRETATION OF CONDITION NO. 46 ON RESOLUTION 97 -1636; APPLICANT: ED DORFMAN; LOCATION 1097 FARROLL AVENUE Craig Campbell, Deputy Public Works Director, reviewed the staff report dated April 21, 1998. He advised that on October 7, 1997 the Planning Commission approved Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 97 -546, Conditional Use Permit 97 -559 and Variance Case No. 97 -203 to construct a 37 unit Planned Unit Development, Morning Rise II, located on the south side of Farroll Avenue. A question has come up where the interpretation of Condition of Approval No.46 of the Use Permit and Development Code Section 9- 15.050.A has become an issue between the developer and staff. Because of that the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission provide the interpretation of that condition. Condition 46 calls for all existing utilities that are on -site, and those in Farroll Avenue along the South side of the street in front of the project shall be placed underground. The wording in that condition was an attempt to implement Development Code Section 9- 15.050.A, which calls for all development projects to underground utilities that are on their property frontage between their property and the centerline of the street, Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 April 21, 1998 or that are within six feet of the sides and rear of the boundary, unless they are very high voltage utilities. Mr. Campbell advised there are three utility poles that fall within those limits. In discussing the matter with the applicant, it was his interpretation that poles 1 and 3 (shown on graphics displayed at meeting) should have been removed by other projects. He stated that staff recommends that converting Poles 1 and 2 to underground utilities is necessary to satisfy Condition of Approval No. 46 and Development Code Section 9- 15.050.1. Chair Lubin asked why Poles 3 and 1 were not removed when Morning Rise I and the Gin project were approved. Mr. Campbell stated that they probably should have been removed. He further stated there has been an evolution of the handling of this issue over the years, starting from the first Gin project that didn't have a condition addressing this to Morning Rise I which had a vaguely worded "comply with the utilities section of the Development Code ", to the next Gin project that required "underground everything on site to the new standard conditions of approval." In this case the Development Code requirements must be applied. Mr. Campbell noted that this condition has been applied with the new Standard Conditions of Approval. Chair Lubin stated that Condition 46 specifically refers to the South side of the street in front of the project, and he asked if that is in conflict with the Code that states "...and also within six feet." Mr. Campbell stated, that he didn't think so because improvements in the property frontage almost always include a transitional area to meet adjacent properties. After discussion between the Commission and staff, Chair Lubin opened the discussion for public comment. Ed Dorfman, 224 La Cresta, applicant, stated he had interpreted Condition No. 46 as requiring removal of the one utility pole fronting on the project. The two utility poles adjacent to the property are not directly on the frontage of his property. Staff is requiring the utility poles in front of the project site and in front of neighboring sites be placed underground. He pointed out that the two parcels adjoining his project were recently developed and were not required to underground the utilities fronting their project. He stated it seemed unfair to require Morning Rise II pay the high costs of undergrounding with minimal gain. He requested that the Commission make the interpretation that Pole No. 2 be removed and leave the other two poles in place. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed public comments, and restricted further discussion to the Commission. Commissioner O'Donnell stated he met with Mr. Dorfman and visited the site yesterday. He referred to the original resolution adopted by the Commission in October, Conditions of Approval No. 16 reads: "Prior to occupancy, the developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 9 -15, Improvements: "All above ground utilities shall be placed underground." However, Condition No. 46 states; "All existing public utilities which are on site, and those on Farroll Avenue along the south side of the street in front of the project shall be placed underground." He stated his interpretation of Condition No. 46 is that pole removal would apply only to those in front of the project and not 6 feet beyond the project boundaries. He further pointed out that the Keith /Gin project did not have Condition #16 included, however, Morning Rise I did have the condition and the pole was not removed and, therefore, he would have made the same assumption as Mr. Dorfman. He further stated, in his opinion, at this time it would be unfair for Mr. Dorfman to be required to remove Poles 1 and 3. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 April 21, 1998 The Commissioners were in agreement that it would be unfair to have the developer remove all three poles at this time. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Rondeau, and unanimously carried, the Commission determined that Mr. Dorfman be required to remove only Pole No. 2. Along with the determination, Commissioner O'Donnell recommended that staff look into revised and clear Conditions of Approval so that this problem doesn't occur again. NON - PUBLIC HEARING - INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS; LOCATION: EL CAMPO ROAD /ROUTE 101; APPLICANT: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE/DON SPAGNOLO, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Craig Campbell, Deputy Public Works Director, stated that El Campo Road /Route 101 Interchange Alternatives Analysis Report is before the Commission tonight for comments. This report is the result of an authorization of $50,000 from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments funding. This expenditure enabled review of interchange alternatives in the vicinity of the existing El Campo Road /Route 101 intersection. The next step will be moving toward a Project Study Report (PSR). Mr. Campbell reviewed the three objectives of the study as listed in the staff report, dated April 21, 1998. He advised the information contained in the analysis will be utilized to develop a project description that can be used as a basis for the preparation of a Project Study Report. Commissioner Haney referred to the charts of each of the alternatives in the analysis. He referred to the theoretical capacities indicated in the tables, specifically the Grand Avenue overcrossing. He commented that this is probably the most critical intersection in the City in terms of the amount of traffic that moves through there, and his concern is that the underlying analysis as it relates to Grand Avenue may be flawed. Also, he questioned that the fundamental conclusion was that future year 2000 traffic conditions would essentially be identical to existing traffic conditions based on a comparison of existing and baseline LOS values. He noted it is a fact that the existing traffic conditions are going to be much different in the year 2000 because of future developments such as the Central Coast Town Center, Berry Gardens, and a number of other projects that are imminent that will impact not only the Grand Avenue overcrossing, but many of the other strategic intersections in the City. He also questioned whether or not when compiling the analysis, if all of the approved projects and their traffic volumes have been incorporated into the analysis. He stated, in looking at the analysis, he believes that our traffic congestion is worse that what is reported here. Patrick Williams, 2420 Brady Lane, asked if a report was available for him to see what is proposed. Mr. Campbell advised a copy of the report is available in the Public Works Department. Mr. Williams stated the first consideration should be safety. He suggested the overcrossing be from El Campo Road or Fair Oaks Avenue to allow traffic to get on and off safely. Kirk Scott, 520 Via Vaquero, stated his feeling that this particular study is probably the most important study we have on the books right now, and he is very concerned that the correct figures be used in the study and reflect the developments already approved and those that are now being proposed for future development. He further stated, in his opinion, this particular study is extremely important, and suggested taking a closer look to be sure the right traffic figures are in there. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 April 21, 1998 Hearing no additional comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public comments, and restricted further discussion to the Commission. Commissioner O'Donnell stated he was absent when the study was distributed to the Commission and did not have a chance to review it, however, he concurred that any studies that are done need to look at the whole picture and need to be accurate. He expressed his concern about traffic circumventing the City, noting that the El Campo interchange is where that could happen. He also expressed concern about traffic going through the Village, and suggested that be looked at also in the study. Commissioner Greene reviewed the projected cost of the three alternatives described in the report and recommended that the City actively pursue Alternative #1.A. Commissioner Haney stated he believes the study is helpful and points out a number of problems for the City. In looking at future projections, reflected in Table 3, Page 8, we see Levels E's and F's because of the unfolding development burdens. With regard to the cost estimates, Commissioner Haney also questioned the validity of the numbers in the report. Chair Lubin stated he would not want to see Traffic Way closed and for that reason, he would definitely be in favor of Alternative 1.A. He stated, in his opinion, the City -wide traffic situation has to be considered to see what is happening, and this is just one step in the process. He also stated as the City moves forward on this, he would like to make sure that the numbers are valid because they are important, and he would like to know how they were arrived at. He referred to Otis Page's letter of March 26, 1998 addressed to the City Council, with copies to the Planning Commission and Traffic Commission, referring to the Arroyo Linda Crossroad's Specific Plan and the El Campo Interchange Study. He requested simplified information be provided that the Commission can absorb. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW - CONVERSION OF 28 APARTMENT UNITS INTO CONDOMINIUMS; APPLICANT: WASSILY VON BISKUPSKY, LOCATION: 1173 FAIR OAKS AVENUE Contract Planner Lezley Buford presented the staff report dated April 21, 1998. She advised that the project site is the site of a 28 unit apartment complex on approximately 1.4 acres. The applicant proposes to convert the complex to air space condominiums. The existing carports would be converted to garages, a building containing individual storage units would be constructed, and other site improvements would occur. Ms. Buford advised Development Code Section 9- 04.130 provides development standards and conditions for conversion of apartment complexes to condominiums. These requirements are in addition to the requirement that the structures meet the existing Uniform Building Code. She noted that the structures proposed for conversion are two -story buildings and were constructed with a common sewer lateral that serves the ground level unit and the unit directly above it. The Development Code requires separate utility services for each dwelling unit. Constructing separate laterals in this situation would involve removing and replacing walls, concrete slabs and footings. The applicant has stated that such an undertaking is not feasible and believes that the Code offers relief in cases where individual metering is inadvisable or impractical. She advised that in 1992 the applicant proposed an amendment to the Development Code to exempt air space condominium conversions in buildings with two or more stories from the separate sewer line requirement. The amendment was denied by the City Council. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 April 21, 1998 Ms. Buford noted that the Staff Advisory Committee reviewed this project on March 24, 1998, and expressed concern regarding the proposal and the likelihood of meeting all of the Code requirements, particularly building and fire. After further comments from the Commission and staff, Chair Lubin opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. W. Von Biskupsky.2927 De La Vina Street. Santa Barbara. applicant, referred to his letter to the Community Development Department, dated April 20, 1998. He reviewed the requirements for condominium conversion and described how he proposed to meet the majority of those requirements. He stated the main problem is the requirement for separate utility services, noting that the issue in dispute is the requirement for individual sewer lines. He further stated that constructing separate laterals would not be feasible and would require opening walls, slabs and footings. He stated the requirement for one hour fire walls, water and electricity are no problem. With regard to open space, he offered three apartments for low cost housing as a concession for the open space requirement. Hearing no further discussion from the audience, Chair Lubin restricted further comments to the Commission. Commissioner Haney stated he feels it is important to follow as closely as possible to the standards of the Development Code and try to implement those requirements in condominium conversions. Commissioner Greene stated the project appears to present significant deviations from the standards in the Development Code, and he could not recommend going forward with the project as presented. Commissioner Rondeau inquired if the buildings would have to brought up to the Code with regard to earthquake standards. He stated in this particular instance he doesn't feel he has enough information to make a recommendation at this time. Commissioner O'Donnell stated he is concerned about the issues of health and safety, and the issue of utilities as far as the plumbing is concerned. He commented he would have a difficult time recommending something that doesn't meet the requirements of the Development Code. Chair Lubin stated he is not sure he agrees with the reasons for the change in the laterals or the change in the fire walls, however, standards are established in the Development Code, and we need to follow the Development Code in terms of utilities, fire and safety. PENDING APPLICATION REVIEW - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98 -565 /TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 98 -548, DISCUSSION OF PLANS TO CONSTRUCT 27,250 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL /RETAIL BUILDING AND A LOT SPLIT; APPLICANT: ROBERT ANDERSON; LOCATION: 200 STATION WAY (VILLAGE CREEK PLAZA). Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder advised that the Staff Advisory Committee (SAC) reviewed the application for this project on March 24, 1998, and provided comments to the applicant regarding parking and site access, landscaping, loading areas, public improvements, and other site design issues. They also discussed the relationship between the proposed project as Phase 3 of the Village Creek commercial development. The Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) also reviewed the project on April 6, 1998. Their comments included issues such as a common design theme for all three phases, and the issue that sidewalks should connect pedestrian access to the buildings via a stamped decorative treatment pavement through the parking lot. They requested the applicant return with design details, including Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 April 21, 1998 materials, color boards, and roof design details. She stated that since that time, Dr. Anderson reviewed the comments provided by the AAC and SAC and requested a study session with the Planning Commission. She further noted that staff is currently reviewing the project regarding parking, landscaping, sidewalk improvements, etc. Staff is also in the process of reviewing the previous master plan approved in 1985. She pointed out that previously the Development Code allowed 1 parking space to 200 square feet of space; the current ratio is 1 to 250 square feet. Robert Anderson. 2775 Coast View Drive, applicant, stated he proposes to build the last phase of Village Creek Plaza, and has re- designed the project to four smaller buildings with mixed uses of office and retail. He noted that parking has been an issue with some of the owners in the Association. He stated he has reviewed the history of the project and the Development Code, and at no time during the history of the project did the City ever require any particular ratio other than what is defined in the Development Code. He further stated he doesn't think parking is an issue because it is determined by the Development Code. Dr. Anderson stated the issues that were discussed during the AAC meeting were the substandard sidewalks and the landscape strip. He proposed removing the existing substandard sidewalk and creating a ten foot landscaped strip between the street and parking lot, and provide a new sidewalk on the northeast side of Station Way. This would allow continuation of the existing parking lot in its present form, without a ten foot, mid -block jog to the other side and would satisfy the requirement for a ten foot landscape strip with a three foot high earthen berm between the street and parking lot. This would also provide consistency with the rest of the shopping center. Mike Miner, 316 Oro Drive, owner of Parcel 2 of Village Creek Plaza I, reviewed some of the history of the Plaza and expressed concern with regard to potentially serious parking problems with the proposed development of Parcel 3. He referred to the information contained in his letters dated April 20 and April 21 and copies of the Planning Department's approval of Mid Coast Land's Lot Merger of 1994, and the Corrected Parking Supplement, stating that the documents stipulate that Parcel #2 must use parking from Parcel #3, which is the reason the parking lot was installed there by the original developer. Tom Thompson, 900 Robin Circle, owner of Parcel 5, and his concern is that parking not be allocated from his parcel to alleviate parking deficiencies across the street. He spoke of a judgement and the outcome was the developer would have to separate the parcel he acquired and would have to provide him the building and the parking lot. He suggested looking at the scope of the project to meet everyone's needs. He referred to Parcel 5 and Building E, stating he hopes that the City requires that parking be contiguous to the building. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the discussion and restricted further comments to the Commission. Deputy Public Works Director Craig Campbell stated, in his opinion, it would be desirable to have sidewalks on both sides of the street, and the current standards call for sidewalks on both sides of the street. He further stated he recommended the 4 ft. wide sidewalk be widened to 6 ft. because of the fire hydrants and utility poles. In answer to Commissioner Haney's question regarding original approvals and entitlements, Acting Community Development Director Elder advised that staff would have to go back and look at the previous ordinance under which the original project was approved. She commented this is a complicated issue and will take time to research the files. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8 April 21, 1998 Commissioner Haney stated that in looking at the Development Code, loading docks are required. Ms. Elder noted that this item was discussed at the AAC meeting. Dr. Anderson proposes that there be a limitation of the uses to commercial /retail and office uses. With regard to architectural design of the buildings, Ms. Elder advised the AAC's determination was to basically work with the applicant and his design with the intent complement the existing buildings but that the architectural character of the new building did not have to be the same as the existing buildings. Dr. Anderson commented that the Architectural Advisory Committee liked the design of the buildings shown in the design element. Commissioner O'Donnell stated it seems there is enough parking proposed based on what is shown and, in his opinion, the parking appears to meet the requirements of the Development Code. However, he does have a problem with the loading dock. The way it is designed now, there will be some problems and he would like to see that issue addressed. With regard to the sidewalks, he stated crossing the street seems like a viable solution and, at this time, it would be acceptable for the applicant to do what he had originally intended. As far as the landscaping, Commissioner O'Donnell stated he would need to look at the landscaping when the plans come back to the Commission. Commissioner Greene stated his feeling that the Village Project is not up to the standards that the community expects and this particular project is not an aesthetically pleasing one. He feels more work needs to be done to make it more pleasing. He also stated he could not understand why there were no sidewalks, and he feels sidewalks should be installed on both sides from Fair Oaks Avenue up to a point where you cross the street. He commented 27,000 square feet may be too much space, and the issue of traffic is a concern, and more development will increase demands on Fair Oaks, Station Way and Traffic Way. He suggested down sizing the project to help mitigate the traffic problems. With regard to parking, Commissioner Greene stated he would like to reserve judgement on parking problems until he has a chance to review the history. As far as landscaping, he stated he would like to see more landscaping, more open space and greenery, and less concrete. Commissioner Haney stated this is a very important project to sustain the Village area and he is strongly supportive of this site being developed to pull people into the Village area. He preferred that the sidewalks be continuous to Fair Oaks Avenue. He encouraged the applicant to work with the other tenants to solve the parking problem so that the project can move ahead. He expressed a concern about the loading and unloading facilities, which is a requirement of the Development Code and would require a Variance or some other means to delete that requirement. Regarding the issue of landscaping, Commissioner Haney referred to the Development Code, Section 9- 12.130 requiring a minimum of 10% of the gross lot area used for off - street parking and access be provided in landscaping in the interior of the parking area. With regard to the design and architectural elements, he pointed out that at the rear of the buildings there are large blank walls that are visible from Fair Oaks Avenue and, in his opinion, those need to be looked at a little more closely. He also suggested perhaps going to a two story building with a new design and he would be closer to a 22,000 square feet. He suggested moving forward with the project and working with Miner's Hardware on the parking problems. Chair Lubin spoke regarding the parking issue, commenting that the tenants need to find a way to work together, and he agreed with the suggestion to down size the project to what was originally proposed. With regard to landscaping, Chair Lubin stated he would like to see the required landscaping as called for in the Development Code and, in his opinion, enough landscaping has to be provided to make this an attractive project. He further stated he feels the