CITY OF SOLVANG PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 4, 2018 6:00 P.M. Regular Hearing of the Planning Commission Council Chambers Solvang Municipal Center 1644 Oak Street Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Robert Clarke, Chair; Gay Infanti, Vice-Chair; Jack Williams, Aaron Petersen, Daniel Johnson None Staff Present: Holly Owen, Planning & Economic Development Director Roy Hanley, Assistant City Attorney Brynda Messer, Assistant Planner CALL TO ORDER: Chair Clarke called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. He followed stating that public comments would be limited to three minutes. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG 1. PRELIMINARY MATTERS: A. Public Comment: Requests from the public to speak to the Commission on matters not on the agenda Lansing Duncan: Asked if he would be allowed to speak on an item regarding the Merkantile not on the agenda. Chair Clarke responded, stating that he should wait for the item to speak. B. Requests for Continuance, Withdrawals, or Additions of Ex-Agenda items None. C. Conflicts and/or Ex-Parte Communications None
D. Approval of Minutes May 7, 2018 Motion to approve the minutes with changes made by Commissioner Petersen and seconded by Commissioner Williams. Vote is 5-0. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON NEW DEVELOPMENT AND CITY PROJECTS A. Project: The Merkantile Building A Addition Address: 1980 Old Mission Drive APN: 139-540-051 Planner: Holly Owen Hearing on the request of Joshua Richman, Owner/Agent, to consider the approval of an Amendment to the existing Development Plan [application filed April 2, 2018], to add 2,553 square feet to an existing 6,994 square foot commercial office building (Building A), pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 11-16-4 (Permit Procedures), in the C-2 zone district. Staff is proposing that a Categorical Exemption be found adequate for environmental review pursuant to Section 15301 of the State Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Commissioner Petersen excused himself from participating with this item, due to a possible conflict of interest. Holly Owen, Planning Director, presented the staff report. She explained that the addition to the building would be to serve the US Forestry Service administrative building. She added that a condition of approval would be to apply for and gain approval of a lot line adjustment. Paul Poirier, Architect, presented his report of the project. He followed up on several questions he had previously received from We Watch: The building will not get any higher; it will be more contemporary; it will have a park look; three trees will be removed, but they will be replaced; building will be more efficient with less space for more people; seventeen (17) parking spaces will be in a secured lot; the entire site is over-parked. (The site has more parking spaces than the minimum required by the Zoning Ordinance). Kevin Elliott, Supervisor for the Forest Service, stated they sought this area out for the Forest Service. He is thankful to be here. The building will have 50 maximum employees, who want to be part of the community. Josh Richman, owner, stated he was approached by the Forest Service and stated there are many items the Forest Service needs, including the secured parking and the
flag pole. He stated he feels the community will benefit with this expansion. He stated this will not be a fire station; it is strictly administrative offices. Chair Clarke opened public comment at 6:23. 1. Susan Bott: Feels it is an uphill battle to fight new development Feels change orders start after original approvals granted Feels it should not be approved Approving this will set precedent and show that rules do not matter, you can just change things later Please make the rules and process mean something 2. Gabe Rosetti: Resident of Old Mission Drive Feels this is a piece meal project Stated concerns regarding parking Asked how many offices, employees, and government vehicles will be on site The formula used to calculate parking is flawed Stated concerns about traffic along Old Mission People for New Frontiers are parking along Old Mission 3. Nancy Emerson: She is from WE Watch Provided letter to commissioners and applicant Concerns about tree removal and parking Concerned about where the new employees will park How many visitors will be coming to the Forest Service and where will they park Concerned about the outdoor lighting. Hopes the lights will not be too high, light pollution. Stated some of the trees that will be removed are mature, why do they need to go What are the size of the replacement trees and can you save the sycamore in the planter 4. Karry Rossetti: She is an Old Mission Drive resident and it is hard to not get emotional Lots of people walk on Old Mission Excited for the new eight (8) homes along Old Mission Concerned with hearing about a secure building and hearing about possible terrorism something bad can happen Asked Commissioners to consider where this will be in relation to the neighborhood Thinks the project will be a detriment to the neighborhood Please turn it down
5. Lansing Duncan Stated he would need more than five minutes Chair Clarke stated he will grant him four minutes Lansing asked the commissioners if they had looked at the plans Seems it is shoe horned in Believes the Forest Service is a great use, but has concerns about parking Was amazed there is no discussion on Forest Service vehicles People will be coming and going and need adequate parking Asked the Commissioners to continue the item until they received more information 6. Margie Hunt: Home owner on Honey Locust Has two children; enjoys their neighborhood Does not want people parking on the street Has concerns about the loss of trees; believes the improvement will lower her property value Please consider the families that live in the neighborhood Chair Clarke closed public comment at 6:45. Chair Clarke suggested the architect respond to some of the comments. Kevin Elliott, US Forest Service, stated there would be less than ten (10) visitors per day. He stated that the entire development has 52 extra spaces for the amount of tenants on site. Mr. Richman also stated there will be a reciprocal parking agreement for both lots, so anyone can park anywhere on the site. Mr. Poirier also explained if the previous entitlement has been approved (for a brew pub), then there would have been at least 60 or more employees. He also stated the lighting will be the same, the fencing will have vines growing on them, and they will replace more trees than that are being removed. Clint Pearce stated there were two scenarios at the beginning of development, one included demolishing the existing building and constructing a large retail building with a brew pub and the other was utilizing the existing building. If the Cal-Trans alternative was approved, there would have been a bigger parking issue with the additional employees. Chair Clarke asked for Commissioners comments. Commissioner Infanti: Asked for clarification of the lot line adjustment. Holly Owen, Planning Director responded stating there were already two parcels, but the Forest Service needed to be on their own parcel as the Federal Government required it. Asked what the original parking requirements were. Ms. Owen stated the total number is 184 spaces, but Planning staff evaluates the parking for each tenant that
submits. Confirmed that only two spots were lost with the new addition so there is still plenty of excess parking on the site. Asked what the finished grade will be she wants to know that the buildings will not be any higher. Stated the plans refer to the Edison Company in regard to utilities. Ms. Owen stated that is an error; it shall be PG&E. Commissioner Clarke: Believes parking is an issue Is excited for the Forest Service Wonders if all concerns have been addressed Kevin Elliott of the Forest Service stated he will tell his employees they are not to park on the street. Commissioner Williams: Asked if parking will be lost with the processing of the lot line adjustment; Ms. Owen answered no, it s basically just moving a lot line, and there will be a reciprocal parking agreement filed. Asked if these are the final drawings. Ms. Owen answered yes, these are the drawings for the commission to approve from. Stated there are minor errors on sheet C2. Stated the letter from Public Works referred to a utility plan. Ms. Owen stated there are public works conditions of approval that refer to the utilities. Brynda Messer stated the applicant will submit grading and site work plans to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. Asked for clarification on where the flagpole will move to. Asked for clarification on windows and doors on the elevations. Commissioner Johnson: Stated he has issues with parking and the neighborhood Wants to know how we can make the street safer? What ideas does anyone have to make it safer? Asked if there will be any sort of generators or other items creating additional noise. Mr. Poirier answered, no there will not be any generator as it is not an essential services building. Commissioner Infanti asked staff if the Planning Commission can require red curbs along Old Mission. Ms. Owen answered that portions of Old Mission already have red curbs. Commissioner Infanti asked if we can make a recommendation regarding light spill on to the neighborhood, and Ms. Owen answered that Condition C-5 will address that. Commissioner Infanti stated there was a typo in D-14g and A0.1 shows ADA spaces under Phase 1, but should be Phase 2.
Chair Clarke stated he has already closed public comment, but received another request, and re-opened public comment at 7:13. Rod Simmons: Lives at 758 Mesa Vista Supports the proposal at the Merkantile Understands the controversy Was present at City Council meeting for the appeal. Stated he met with the building department and all trees that have been removed have been per plan He stated they worked with an arborist and trees were protected Upset that people are claiming there was a bait and switch Thinks some of the comments have been wrong Chair Clarke closed public comment at 7:16 Commissioner Infanti made a motion to accept and approve PC Reso 18-06 and accept the NOE. Commissioner Williams asked if an additional condition will be added regarding no parking along Old Mission Drive. Ms. Owen stated it will be condition E-9. Commissioner Infanti made the motion to accept PC Reso 18-06 to approve the amendment to the Development Plan with the addition of a COA that will not allow parking by Forest Service Employees to park on Old Mission Drive and accept the NOE and seconded by Commissioner Johnson. Vote is 4-0-1, with Commissioner Petersen not participating in voting due to a possible conflict of interest. Chair Clarke stated we should address Old Mission safety, and Ms. Owen said she will work with the Public Works Director and the neighborhood. Commissioner Infanti asked if there would be another landscape plan to be approved by the BAR, and Ms. Owen stated yes. Chair Clarke adjourned the meeting at 7:20.