Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-19-05CALL TO ORDER CITY OF ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 19, 2005 — 7:00 P.M. Chairperson Porter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and Commissioner Beraud led the Pledge of Allegiance. Rr)l I r Al I Present: Commissioners Fonzi, Kelley, O'Keefe, Peterson, Beraud and Chairperson Porter Absent: Commissioner Jones Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Community Development Director Warren Frace, Deputy Community Development Director Steve McHarris, Deputy Public Works Director Jeff van den Eikhof, Deputy Executive Director of Redevelopment Marty Tracey, and Recording Secretary Grace Pucci. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: By Commissioner O'Keefe and seconded by Vice Chairperson Beraud to approve the agenda. Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote. PUBLIC COMMENT Orem CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON APRIL 5, 2005. Commissioner Fonzi requested the following change to the Minutes of April 5, 2005: Page 4, first sentence of first motion, changing the word "exiting" to "existing." MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Kelley to approve Item #1 as amended. Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote. Commissioner Jones joined the hearing at 7:05 p.m. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-0144, EL CAMINO REAL LUBE AND GO WITH CAR WASH Applicant: Atascadero Enterprises, 2505 Theatre Drive, Suite A, Paso Robles, CA 93446 Phone: 239-2662 Project Title: El Camino Real Lube and Go with Car Wash - Conditional Use Permit 2004-0144 Project 7095 El Camino Real Location: APN 030-081-008 Project The proposed project consists of an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Description: construction of a new 2,114 square foot 2 -bay automotive maintenance lube and oil garage with an attached waiting room and drive-through car wash facility. The project would include a minimum of six vehicle parking spaces and a large 36 -foot wide front paved area and a 51 -foot wide rear paved driveway to accommodate vehicle queuing area entering and exiting the facility. No native trees are proposed for removal and the project will take access from El Camino Real. General Plan Designation: General Commercial (GC) Zoning District: Commercial Retail (CR) Proposed Based on the initial study prepared for the project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. Environmental The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for public review at 6905 El Camino Determination: Real, Suite 6, Community Development Department, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Community Development Director Warren Frace and Deputy Community Development Director Steve McHarris gave the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Adam Scattini, applicant, gave a presentation on the project and distributed a copy of the presentation to the Commission. (Exhibit A) Mr. Scattini answered questions of the Commission and stated an approval with a 15 year review period would be acceptable. Joe Simonin, applicant, stated he would be very willing to work with the Commission and staff to make the project acceptable. Mr. Simonin answered questions of the Commission. Robert Fisher, applicant's architect, discussed the design of the project and reviewed the Conditions of Approval in dispute: ■ Should put the four foot wall back in to screen the site. ■ Mitigation Measure No. 15.d.2: "northerly" driveway should be changed to read "southerly" driveway. ■ Condition of Approval No. 2: "3 -bay" lube and oil facility should be changed to read "2 -bay tandem" lube and oil facility. ■ Condition of Approval No. 6: the deeper tones are fine and the applicant's are willing to work with staff on color. ■ Condition of Approval No 10: moving the building back 15 feet would render the site unusable. ■ Condition of Approval No. 15: this not applicable as no easements are required from the three sides as with this layout the project is completely self-contained. ■ Condition of Approval No. 17: the easement at northerly half of the southern driveway is for the benefit of Video Palace not this applicant. ■ Conditional of Approval No. 16: this area has already been heavily studied and an additional traffic study is not necessary. Mr. Fisher answered questions of the Commission. Maureen Luebbers, Paso Robles resident, stated she likes the project and the convenience of the location, and does not want Atascadero to be a tourist town. Fred Mensing, Atascadero resident, expressed his support of the project and spoke of the need for this type of business in Atascadero. David Athey, Paso Robles resident representing his father, who is an Atascadero resident, stated his support for this project and outlined its benefits to the community. John Slober, Nipomo resident, stated his nursery trucks travel throughout the state and he could support this project because this type of use is convenient. Chairperson Porter closed the Public Comment period. Commissioner comments were a follows: Commissioner Kelley: 1. The current building is an eyesore and something needs to be done at the site. 2. This is a difficult piece of property and several others have tried to develop it. 3. The applicants have been cooperative with the city and he sees no problem with having them work with staff to create a beautiful building, and the community supports this as no one has spoken against it. 4. It is important to give local residents the opportunity to open a business. 5. Regarding the four finding requirements that must be met to approve the project: Requirement 1—there are similar businesses in the study area, and he would be in favor of reviewing the permit in 10 years. Requirement 2—this is a good business at this time, and will provide a service for the public. If this changes in the future then the CUP can be reviewed and the applicant can participate in a Master Plan of Development at that time. Requirement 3—the gateway to the downtown is at least 10 years away, and this would be a better use than what is there now. Requirement 4—he feels the applicants are willing to cooperate with the Commission and staff. Commissioner O'Keefe (prepared statement): 1. The 101/41 interchange is not designed as one of the four gateways in the General Plan. It will however be a hub for moving many vehicles in all four directions and drivers will be focusing on driving rather than the scenery. 2. There was a good reason for keeping the downtown area north of Highway 41 as identified in the General Plan zoning. 3. The Von's center does not lend itself to foot traffic except within the center and supermarkets are not located in the downtown. This proposed use within the center would be convenient for coffee, shopping and oil change. 4. The City Council has expanded the downtown study area and made a policy regarding this type of use in that area, however, "study" means information is being gathered and a policy not backed up by an ordinance is going on a slippery slope. The City Council policy is not substantive. 5. Future master planning is a nice idea but there are eight parcels with different owners and Von's is done with their major remodel. 6. The 36 foot paved area will be stamped concrete not the blacktop that is in front of Von's and Rite Aid. 7. The staff is recommending one access with only right turns for ingress and egress, theses conditions would not be imposed on other uses such as a restaurant. 8. Can't agree with staff finding that the project is inconsistent with the General Plan or with the immediate neighborhood. 9. Zoning and the General Plan are consistent with the project and the City Council policy does not change this. 10. She can make the findings for the CUP and trusts that the applicant will come up with a good design with staff's help. Commissioner Fonzi: 1. Her initial impression was that she did not want this business in this location, and would rather have a restaurant; however, the footprint for this lot is very small and limits parking, which would not work for a restaurant without parking. 2. This project will bring jobs and tax revenue to the community. 3. The public could take their car in for service and do other errands within the center while waiting. 4. An outstanding design for this site is necessary as it is highly visible. 5. Would like to vote for the project, but what the applicant is proposing does not impress her at this time. She would like the applicants to work with staff to revise the project incorporating more landscaping, smaller signs, the patio area to be facing EI Camino Real and no bays facing EI Camino Real. Vice Chairperson Beraud: 1. She has spoken to people who feel this project use would be a step back for this site. 2. This type of business is needed in town but this is the wrong location for it. 3. This site does not allow for the changes previously requested by the Planning Commission. 4. Appreciates that the applicants are willing to include condition to review the CUP in 15 years, however, CUP's are hard to monitor and enforce, and the business may be sold, etc., then what would happen to the site. 5. At this point she must support staff recommendation. Commissioner Peterson: 1. Agreed with Commissioner O'Keefe's statement. 2. Would like to be certain there will be a berm with some height in the landscaping around the entire perimeter for screening. 3. Prefers the original building design—the higher peaks and larger face in the current design makes the building too bold and it will stand out too much. Would prefer a simpler design with some enhancements. 4. Applicant appears to be very willing to work with staff to enhance the site. Commissioner Jones: 1. The design as presented tonight is a major step back. 2. The project and site blew apart when the potential for the easements in the back was lost. That offered the connectivity to allow the public to enjoy the other uses in the center. 3. Would be willing to look at this again if the applicants started from the original design and made improvements, however, he does not see that tonight and is disappointed with the project. . Chairperson Porter: 1. He is in favor of the project, which stands on its own merit. 2. His concern is not with the use, but rather the layout, architecture and landscape, which he feels can be mitigated. 3. Regarding the four items for denial as presented by staff, the first three were not in place at the time the application was taken out and he does not advocate changing in mid stream. 4. The landscape and design issues can be mitigated, and the applicants appear willing to work with staff. MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Peterson to adopt Resolution PC 2005-0009 (Attachment 4) certifying Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2005-0002; and, approving Conditional Use Permit 2004-0144 to include the Master Plan of Development (EXHIBIT B) based on findings and subject to Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring, and with the following changes to the Conditions of Approval: 1. Condition of Approval No. 2: "3 -bay" changed to "2 -bay tandem," square footage to change to 2,114. 2. Condition of Approval No. 10: will be omitted. 3. Condition of Approval No. 15: the mutual access agreement is taken care of in their easements deal. 4. Condition of Approval No. 16: a full traffic study will not be required, but if they need to provide information to the traffic they will add to the condition, that is a reasonable request to make to interject it into the traffic studies that have already been made. 5. Atascadero Mutual Water Company condition requiring a separate water meter for landscaping shall be removed. 6. The CUP shall sunset at 15 years. 7. Condition of Approval No. 17: shall be removed as the applicant doesn't have the authority to do that. 8. Final architectural design shall be at the approval of staff and if that can't be met it shall be returned to the Planning Commission. Motion passed 5:2 by a roll -call vote. (Jones, Beraud opposed) COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS Commissioner Kelley suggested that a workshop with the applicants for Colony Square and the Planning Commission would be beneficial before the project went forward. Community Development Director Warren Frace asked the Commission to explain the issues that they would like more information on. Commission comments were as follows: 1) traffic flow through the project, 2) assurance that applicant would actually build out the project, 3) specifics on location of retail space within the project. Director Frace stated staff would come up with a time within the next two meeting dates to bring the applicants before the Commission to answer questions. Commissioner Fonzi enquired if a date has been set for a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss affordable housing. Director Frace indicated that June 14th may be a possible date and the meeting would occur prior to the City Council meeting. Commissioner O'Keefe asked about the West Front project. Director Frace stated the project has not been resubmitted yet. Commissioner Jones asked about the status of both projects on Principal. Director Frace stated that grading permits have been issued for the Principal project that is under construction, and construction drawings are being reviewed for the West Pac project. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Warren Frace reviewed the agenda for the next Planning Commission meeting on May 3rd ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Porter adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on May 3, 2005. MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY Grace Pucci, Recording Secretary The following exhibit is available for review in the Community Development Department: Exhibit A — Lube N Go presentation. Adopted 5/3/05