Loading...
PC Minutes 1996-05-211 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1996 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairperson Keen presiding. Present were Commissioners Beck, Tappan, Lubin, Carr and Soto. Commissioner Deviny was absent. Community Development Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck, Associate Planner Scott Spierling, Public Works Director John Wallace, and Parks and Recreation Director John Keisler were in attendance. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM (CONTINUED) - REQUEST FOR A RE- INTERPRETATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 95 -1524 - TEMPORARY SIGNS; LOCATION - CITYWIDE; APPLICANT - TIM MULLAHEY Community Development Director Liberto-Blanck presented the staff report. She stated that the item had been continued from the May 7 meeting to allow the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate findings for the Resolution. This had been accomplished and the Resolution was in the packet for Commission consideration. After Chairperson Keen asked the Planning Commission for additional comments, he stated that the Resolution appeared to reflect the Commission's request. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1559 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RE- EVALUATING THE INTERPRETATION ESTABLISHED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 95- 1524 On a motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by the following roll, to wit: Commissioners Carr, Soto, Beck, Lubin, and Keen None Commissioner Tappan Commissioner Deviny NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS (NEW) - A. Review the Capital Lnprovement Program for Consistency with the General Plan Community Development Director Liberto - Blanck introduced Public Works Director John Wallace who presented the staff report. Mr. Wallace explained that the City initiated a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) in FY1996 -97. The CIP presented in the packet includes the Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Water, Sewer, and Special Revenue Funds construction projects proposed throughout the City. Mr. Wallace explained that the projects are proposed for budgeting by the City Council and some large projects will cross fiscal years. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 May 21, 1996 There was discussion regarding various elements of the plan. The Commission agreed that the format made the report easy to read. On a motion by Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Soto and unanimously carried, it was found that the Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan. B. Discussion regarding Citywide Tree Program Community Development Director Liberto - Blanck introduced Parks and Recreation Director John Keisler who presented a slide presentation of what is being done to integrate existing trees with buildings on lots throughout the City. He also stated that the City has other programs such as celebrating Arbor Day and having citizens donate trees. Mr. Keisler presented a handout on Pine Pitch Canker. He explained that it is a fungus which is attacking all species of pine in the State. There was discussion regarding trees monitored by the City; assistance that the Parks and Recreation Department provides to the citizens; and the Landmark Tree Program. The Planning Commission took a break and re- convened at 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM (CONTINUED) - PUBLIC HEARING - GENCOM, INC., APPLICANT; LOCATION WEST BRANCH STREET /CAMINO MERCADO AND RANCHO PARKWAY (RANCHO GRANDE); ANDY MARTON, REPRESENTATIVE A. PD Amendment to change the zone designation of a portion of the project area from General Commercial with a specific plan requirement to PD Specific Plan /Planned Development Ordinance Case No. 96 -001; B. PD Specific Plan for a commercial development of approximately 360,000 square feet and Associated Architectural Review /Conditional Use Permit Case No. 96 -541 (Specific Development Plan); C. 20 Lot Subdivision /Tentative Tract Map No. 2220; And, D. Proposed Sign Program /Planned Sign Program Case No. 96 -118. Community Development Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck introduced Mike Multari of Crawford, Multari and Starr to present the staff report. Mr. Multari presented a packet of letters received to date on the project; all letters have been forwarded to the Environmental Impact Review (EIR) consultant and will be responded to in the Final EIR. The comment period for the Draft EIR ended May 20, 1996 and it is anticipated that the Final EIR will be available in two weeks. The Planning Commission will be asked to determine if the Final EIR is adequate and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision. The EIR consultant will be present at the June 4 meeting to answer any questions that may arise. Mr. Multari reviewed the staff report and focused on the major issues that were raised by the public and the Commission at the meeting of April 16: 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 May 21, 1996 Economic Issues - the issue of whether a project of this size is feasible for the City of Arroyo Grande would normally be left to the developer; however, the question could lead to public policy issues: • If the project is built, but fails -- there could be vacant and under- utilized buildings; and, • • Will the project "cannibalize" existing business, especially in the village. Mr. Multari stated there is a certain amount of "leakage ", that is, money that local people spend out of the area and tourists bring into an area and these are usually considered to be equal. Arroyo Grande itself cannot support a project of this magnitude; however, studies show that "leakage" from the 5 Cities area is approximately $60 million and coincidentally a project the size Gen Com is proposing could generate $60 million in sales. This type of project is aimed at a "regional market ". It is true that some small retailers may be hurt by large volume retailers, but usually small business has a unique niche in the community based on their level of service and personalized care of their customers. Most of the competition for this center will probably come from other large retailers in Santa Maria or San Luis Obispo. Fiscal Impacts - a project of this size will benefit the City due to the method of local government financing in California. Since approval of Proposition 13 property tax has been de- emphasized and sales tax has become the primary funding source for most cities. The amount of money brought into the City by a project of this magnitude would be substantial. Traffic - there have been many useful comments received in the past few weeks regarding traffic concerns. The Draft EIR proposed immediate, intermediate and long term mitigation. The Traffic Commission is studying this issue. The issue of increased traffic on Rodeo Road will be more fully addressed in the Final EIR. The Omni -Means study, which included Brisco Road, was released on May, 10 and there will be further discussion on this issue at a later meeting. Site Circulation - there are two main issues of concern: • the increased traffic flow through existing neighborhoods and any associated problems that may create; and, • the potential increase in traffic on existing streets such as West Branch. There have been many suggestions to separate the commercial and residential traffic: such as moving the main entrance to the center from Rancho Parkway to West Branch; create an additional project entrance off Camino Mercado; connect the parts of the project by underpass beneath Rancho Parkway; build a new street to parallel Rancho Parkway to the south of the project; and, place a gate at Via Vaquero. These suggestions will be responded to in the Final EIR. Community Character - this is a very subjective matter and one where staff requests Planning Commission direction. The developer has taken several steps to mitigate the impact of a large commercial development on the neighboring residences; however, this is a large development and there are several options for the Commission to consider in reviewing this application: Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 May 21, 1996 • accept the project for what it is, a large development and the impacts can be minimized by landscaping and architecture; • consider a development with smaller tenants and buildings. The feasibility of this type of project is unclear and would be more competitive to existing businesses in the community; • amend the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and consider a mixed use project of commercial and high density residential; however, this property does have a development agreement allowing 40 acres of commercial to be developed; or, • allow large box commercial with fewer large tenants. Parking - the number of spaces required is difficult to determine because the exact use of each space is not known. There is an option in the Development Code to reduce the required number of spaces by 30 %, if the tenants have varied hours of operation. Staff suggests that 50 spaces be put into landscaping and some spaces be utilized for a park and ride location. Signs - the original concept was for signs higher and larger than the sign ordinance would allow. Staff suggests that some latitude be given to the applicant in the area of signs since this center is regional in concept and will be drawing people from the freeway. A more detailed program will be submitted for review at a later time. Views - at the last meeting there was concern expressed with the benchmark utilized by the EIR subconsultant in preparing the video on views. The developer has determined that the residents were correct and corrections need to be made to the calculations. St. Patrick's School - the principal raised several issues of concern at the last meeting. GenCom, Inc. has corresponded with the school and willingness to work towards an amicable solution. Air Quality - there are mitigation measures proposed; however, most of the customers will probably arrive by car. There are preliminary Conditions of Approval provided in the packet for review by the Commission. The EIR mitigation measures are not included in the draft. They will be added after the final EIR is completed. Staff is requesting direction from the Planning Commission regarding Community Character, reducing the parking on site, limits to the height and size of the sign, comments regarding suitability of alternative circulation, and any information that the Commission would request for the next meeting. Staff suggests that the item be continued to the June 4 meeting, where the Final EIR should be available and the Commission could make recommendations to the City Council. Chairperson Keen opened the public hearing. 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 May 21, 1996 Jerold Tuft, 542 Avenida De Diamante, Secretary Rancho Grande Homeowners Association - read a letter into the record and stated that the proposal should not be approved as presented. He stated that the concerns of traffic, air pollution, loss of view, impact on the school, security of the neighborhood, scale of the project and the number of parking spaces should be addressed further. Rancho Parkway is purely a residential road, the homeowners would like to see alternatives which would better serve the developer and the community. John Hare, 613 Avenida De Diamante - stated that he was quite impressed with the staff report on the project, he feels that the traffic study is flawed and inadequate because: • Rodeo Drive was omitted from the study of the existing street network; • Draft EIR recognizes some major intersections have significant problems but says that mitigation of those problems is beyond the scope of this project; • eventually several hundred more homes will be developed in this neighborhood, the City should make full and adequate preparation for that added traffic. Tony Ferrara, 759 Via Bandolero, Rancho Grande Commercial Development Citizens Committee - presented a handout to the Commission. He stated that the conclusions in the Omni - Means study address the long term concerns of the citizens. He would like the Planning Commission to evaluate the two sets of converging -data in the Draft EIR and the Omni -Means study. He reviewed his handout which addressed: • Air Pollution - their goal is to keep the awareness level up regarding the potential for a smaller scale project; • Noise - they request empirical data regarding CNEL tables, they are very difficult to understand; they would like to see large scale plantings and not palm trees as a buffer between the residential; they ask about the City position regarding delivery times for large trucks; and they are proposing staggered buildings along Rancho Parkway; • Size and Relative Scale - they would like to see comparison drawings to compare the residential structures existing and the commercial structures proposed; • Police Protection - they state that in the Draft EIR the principal focus was on site mitigation measures directed towards the commercial tenants, there was no discussion of the impact on the surrounding residential community; and • Viewshed - the committee hired an architect to shoot the elevations for house #5, the elevations were different that those presented by the EIR subconsultant. He reviewed the differences and stated that a three (3) foot viewshed should be utilized as that is the height when seated. He illustrated of the effect of staggering the buildings along Rancho Parkway on the overhead projector. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 May 21, 1996 Tony Detweiler, 202 Avenida De Diamante, Rancho Grande Commercial Development Citizens Committee - stated that he will discuss traffic and proposed circulation for the project. He presented a handout for the Commission. The committee has conferred with a traffic consultant and has a petition with 111 signatures requesting that the Planning Commission review the site plan. One of the most sensitive issues is the location of the main entrance. As proposed on Rancho Parkway, there are concerns regarding stacking distance, number of left hand turns, and number of trips generated onto the adjoining residential streets. It is suggested that the main entrance be moved onto West Branch Street, north of the theaters and that a signal be located at West Branch Street and Rancho Parkway. It is also suggested that a north entrance be sited along Camino Mercado. He presented an overhead showing the larger view of circulation in the area. Commissioner Tappan asked about the isolation of the smaller part of the center if some of these proposals were enacted. Mr. Detweiler agreed that would be a problem and suggested that possibly an underpass would alleviate the problem. The Commission took a break and re- convened at 9:15 p.m. Raymond Burnell, Principal St. Patrick's Catholic School - stated that at the April meeting he had raised five (5) issues of concern: 1) noise abatement for the school and the convent; 2) security access on /off the property; 3) attractive nuisance of the construction site for the children; 4) possibility of property realignment; and 5) increased traffic flow during peak school use hours. He has received correspondence from GenCom, Inc. and feels that they are willing to make a good faith effort to work with the school regarding these concerns. The school property is owned by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Monterey and they have yet to meet with GenCom. They have requested copies of the traffic information as it becomes available. Mr. Burnell's chief concern is the 335 children in the school and their quality education. He believes in the economic vitality of the community but doesn't want to sacrifice the school. He believes that progress is being made to achieve both these ends. Ron De Carli, Executive Director of San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), which is the Regional Transportation Planning and Programming Agency, involved with major highway related projects throughout the region, also the Congestion Management Agency for San Luis Obispo County. His agency has been reviewing the project. They are also working with a consultant and contracted and provided funding for the Omni -Means study. Staff specifically requested analysis of the Brisco Road interchange being aware that development of this site has been under consideration for some time. His agency feels that any development on this site needs to mitigate the congestion concerns at Brisco Road. He is pleased with the proposed traffic mitigation issues suggested for this project such as: the Park and Ride lot, TDM, Transit Stop. Key concern is Brisco Road interchange. DEIR identifies long term need to improve interchange, identified as a capital cost of five to eight million dollars. States that there is a minimal opportunity for state or regional money for the improvement. CalTrans and SLOCOG policy has been that those who benefit help pay for the project. There is no funding plan in place to fund this project. Potential problem in securing future revenue stream. They request that the City evaluate more specifically the impacts on the interchange and come up with some type of funding program. Staff, SLOCOG and CalTrans have been trying for years to identify solutions to the problem. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 May 21, 1996 He presented brief synopsis of an option that has worked elsewhere. He presented a handout to the Planning Commission. The concept is from European traffic design. The article shows a modern roundabout that was developed in Vail Colorado to maintain a two lane road under a freeway interchange with a roundabout at both interchanges. This has been extremely successful. City of Santa Barbara has constructed a similar design. CalTrans has recently approved a similar design in Milpitas. They have had initial conversation with traffic consultant and this may be possible at Brisco. Cost is approximately two million versus five to eight million dollars excluding right -of -way. Personal Comments as resident: in support of infill project and increased tax base which is needed by the City; in favor of regional center; disappointed with site design which doesn't utilize newer concepts; stated that opportunity exists to become a destination center; suggests a more consolidated, pedestrian friendly design for the project; discussed type of projects in downtown San Luis Obispo; and feels if project were more consolidated some of the concerns of the residents might be addressed. Larry Greene, 393 Rodeo Drive - stated that the scope of the project is too large and it is incompatible with the existing character of Arroyo Grande. He applauds the concept of amore pedestrian friendly design. He is aware that development is inevitable but would suggest consideration of a smaller center. He is concerned with light and glare pollution. The small town character is what makes Arroyo Grande such a special and unique place to live. He is concerned with traffic and the fact that Branch Street is a two -lane road which services many types of facilities and questions if it will be adequate to serve this type of facility. Rodeo Road has become a shortcut though it was designed as a residential street. Rodeo Road was not included in the Draft EIR but it will be impacted by this project. He believes that most northbound traffic will utilize Brisco Road not Oak Park and that the developer must help mitigate these impacts. Andy Marton, GenCom, Inc. representative - stated that he appreciated all. of the comments made by the neighbors and the Commission and that they are working with staff and the various consultants to address any concerns. He addressed specific items: • Economic Issues - the numbers in the staff report are very accurate, they are the same that GenCom and their prospective tenants are utilizing to study the feasibility of the project; • Downsizing the Project - there is a development agreement with the City for 400,000 to 600,000 square feet of commercial, they felt that this was too large a project and so they are proposing 360,000 square feet. Any smaller would not make economic sense for them; • Parking for the Site - according to the City Development Code, buildings of 360,000 square feet require 1,500 plus parking spaces. He pointed out that there are already 577 parking spaces existing on the site. He stated that GenCom has been working with the Rancho Grande Homeowners to address their concerns and will continue to do so. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8 May 21, 1996 Chairperson Keen closed the public hearing and requested Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lubin complemented staff on an excellent presentation, he felt that concerns raised by the neighbors were being considered. He addressed the specific issues staff requested: • Circulation and Traffic - stated that increased traffic will bother everyone and indicated that some improvements can still be made; he is not a great fan of traffic circles but open to discussion; • Community Character - stated that the issue of design must be continually addressed; not overly concerned with the concept of a large center; in agreement with staggered effect of buildings along Rancho Parkway; • Signs - agreed that signs should be downsized but will reserve additional comments until specific designs are presented. Commissioner Soto expressed a need for Remote Medical Response Unit on the north side of the freeway and asked if it would be possible to park a truck on this site; and commented that staff had done a terrific job regarding the economic issues. In response to staff request for direction: • Circulation and Traffic - stated that the impacts on Rodeo Drive need to be addressed more clearly; interested in the concept of a roundabout and would like to see how it could be implemented at Brisco Road; • .Community Character - without specific design, colors and landscaping will reserve additional comment; • Parking Lot Design - could support alternative entrances; expressed understanding of how the number of parking spaces was reached; and felt that the tieing together of the facility into a more condensed and pedestrian friendly environment which would eliminate driving on site would be a positive factor; and, Signs - no specific comments at this time. Commissioner Tappan stated that approval of this project would be a balancing act to determine the best solution for the City and the residents. He spoke to specific issues: • Circulation and Traffic - can support moving the main entrance to West Branch; expressed concern with an entrance on Camino Mercado because of existing grade; supported smaller entry on Rancho Parkway to allow access to both halves of the center; expressed need to include Rodeo Drive and study the impacts on the east end of Branch Street; stressed need to link both sides of the center; • Parking Lot Design - unsure of specifics of parking lot design and will reserve comment although he expressed agreement with the idea of less parking and added landscaping; and, • Community Character - would like to see offset of buildings along Rancho Parkway and questioned height if the buildings were staggered; Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 9 May 21, 1996 • Parking Lot Design - supported concept of "destination" location; expressed concern with massive parking lot; suggested more pedestrian areas for seating, as well as additional landscaping for softening; and, • Signs - no specific comments at this time. Commission Carr expressed a need to have more information regarding the cost of the project to the City, specifically what will the City have to provide as far as service and amenities. He expressed concern with the amount of commercial square footage being built in the County. In reply to staff request: • Circulation and Traffic - would like to see more information regarding traffic roundabouts and possibly consider them as an alternative; • Community Character - expressed concern with maintaining the rural character of the City; would have difficult time supporting the project in its current configuration; would like to see more regarding "destination" location concept; • Parking Lot Design - stated that he would like to see this broken down more specifically regarding the existing and proposed spaces; and, • Signs - no specific comments at this time. Commission Beck stated that staff had done a good job in presenting the economic issues, she agreed that the City needs new revenue. In answer to staff request: • Circulation and Traffic - suggested a pedestrian walkway between the two (2) sides of the project; agreed with the entry at Camino Mercado; • Community Character - would like to see Arroyo Grande remain small and rural, but this is not realistic; would like to see something creative in the design; moving in right direction; • Parking Lot Design - no specific comments; and, • Signs - will comment when specifics are provided. Chairperson Keen spoke to issues discussed at this meeting: • Circulation and Traffic - had no objection to major entry on Branch, .north of theaters; concerned with the stacking distance on Rancho Parkway for proposed entrance; not viable to isolate easterly section of the project but a tunnel is not the answer; concerned that Camino Mercado may be too steep for entry; expressed surprise that Sizzler had not agreed to being relocated; • Community Character - stated that the community is changing and this must be considered; • Parking Lot Design - with the landscaping as proposed it is significantly broken up; • Signs - due to concept as a regional center feels that some concessions will have to be made for freeway visibility; Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 10 May 21, 1996 Commissioner Lubin stated that he does not visualize a consolidating the project into an enclosed mall. Commissioner Carr agreed but suggested that perhaps separate buildings in a square with pedestrian area on the inside and parking on the outside might be possible. Commissioner Tappan stated that it might be difficult to keep the major retailers if this were considered. Commissioner Soto stated that with all the restaurants being considered, he would like to see some bus parking spaces considered; he also suggested the relocation of Rancho Parkway to a more southerly route. On a motion by Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Lubin, and unanimously carried, the item was continued to the special Planning Commission meeting of June 4, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS A. Update of Projects - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Agenda Item No. IV.A.; 'Letter dated 5 -16 -96 from GenCom, Inc. to Raymond J. Burnell, Principal at St. Patrick's Catholic School 2. Agenda Item No. IV.A.; Letter dated 5 -20 -96 from Anthony Detweiler 3. Agenda Item No. IV.A.; Letter dated 5 -20 -96 Rancho Grande Homeowners Association 4. Agenda Item No. IV.A.; Letter dated 5 -20 -96 Rancho Grande Commercial Development Citizens Committee 5. Agenda Item No. IV.A.; Packet of letters received to date addressing the Draft EIR presented by Mike Multari. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner Beck, seconded by Commissioner Tappan, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. to the special City Council /Planning Commission joint meeting May 29, 1996. ATTEST: Lucille eese, Commission lerk AS TO CONTENT: o- Blanck, Community Development Director n Keen, Ch-AI-person 1