Loading...
PC Minutes 2008-04-151 1 1 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Ray presiding; also present were Commissioners Barneich, Keen, and Marshall; Commissioner Tait was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planners Teresa McClish and Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2008 6:00 P.M. AGENDA REVIEW: The referral items were moved up before Item II.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of April 1, 2008 were approved as presented on a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Ray. The motion passed on a 4/0 voice vote. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. I.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AFTER AGENDA PREPARATION: None. IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION/ NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: SINCE APRIL 1, 2008: Case N MEX 08 -002 ASP 08 -008 Gayle Ansell Sara Vandenburg of Signworks (for Carl's Jr.) Address 502 Hawkins Ct. 1590 W. Branch St. escriptiont 42 sf addition to existing 840 sf secondary dwelling Allow continued lighting under all valances (to revoke condition #5 of ASP 08 -006) Action A A. Planner J. Bergman K. Heffernon Commissioner Barneich asked about ARC's approval of lit valances. There were no further questions or concerns. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. AMENDED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 08 -001; APPLICANT — MICHAEL BOYLE; LOCATION —100 WEST LEPOINT STREET. Associate Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report for consideration of an application to convert existing ground -floor commercial space in a mixed -use project to two (2) apartments. In reply to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Foster further explained one neighbor had expressed concern with existing traffic in front of his driveway and the lack of landscaped vegetation between the two buildings; Neighborhood Services is working PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2008 PAGE 2 on contacting the doctor's office about needing a permit to operate past 6:OOp.m.; the request is due to not being able to lease the space; with potential future conversion of the other units, they could condition both owners to pay parking in lieu fees. Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment. Mark Vasquez, applicant's representative and graphic designer, spoke in support of the conversion of existing space into two residential units. Since the owner purchased the building, he hasn't been able to lease the commercial spaces. The change from commercial to residential use is a reduction in parking requirements based on City formulas. With the original project layout, they tried to ensure there would be no parking problems, including adding space in front of garages for guest parking. The original plan also allows for future extension of Le Point Street, which may allow additional parking in the basin area in the future. In response to the landscaping concern, there is about a 10' difference in grade, so bushes wouldn't be seen, and trees couldn't be planted due to concrete footings. There's no change to the external structure (only internal improvements). In reply to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Vasquez replied that the second floor apartment is now rented. The parking meets City requirements (and exceeds them with the guest parking available in front of garages.) There's one regular and one ADA parking space adjacent to the building and one space on Le Point Street. There's no off -site parking on Nevada. John King, 101 Le Point Street, expressed concern about landscaping, windows that face into his kids' bedrooms, and parking. Mr. Foster responded that possibly the Parks and Recreation Department could check the existing landscape versus the original plan. Chair Ray closed the public hearing for public comment. Commissioner comments: Barneich • She can support the project as proposed, but would like to add the condition stating if the other unit converts, extra parking or in lieu fees will be provided. Keen • He agreed and also supports the project with the additional parking conditions. • It may help to suggest to the other occupant that employees park elsewhere. Marshall • He's in favor of the conversion from commercial to residential use. • He supports the idea of addressing future parking needs. • In regards to landscaping, they should be in compliance with the original development project approval in order to proceed with this project. He'd like to add the condition that compliance if verified before converting this space. o Mr. Foster noted that some Tots have been sold off to different owners, but the landscaping for this parcel could be checked. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2008 and adopt: PAGE 3 o Mr. Vasquez noted that while the landscaped area in question belongs to this owner, there's an open space easement on it, so the HOA is responsible for the landscape maintenance. Ray • She was there and parking seems like a problem during the day. She's concerned there may be an even bigger problem if they wait until conversion of the other two units. There aren't many apartments in the City, so more are needed. Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barneich to approve Amended Planned Unit Development Case No. 08 -001, with the following changes: • Add a condition that requires upon future conversion of the other mixed use structure, both have an obligation to meet the new parking requirement of two spaces each. • Verify landscape plans for this lot before allowing conversion. Discussion: Commissioners discussed the merit of a condition based on future conversion of the other structure, and whether the deferred parking condition would be enough to solve the current problem. Chair Ray felt current parking wasn't adequate as is, and would be even less so in the future; but Commissioner Marshall felt the information he had available indicated the current parking is adequate as is. RESOLUTION 08 -2059 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AMENDED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 08 -001; LOCATED AT 100 WEST LE POINT STREET; APPLIED FOR BY MICHAEL BOYLE The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marshall, Barneich, and Keen NOES: Chair Ray ABSENT: Commissioner Tait the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15 day of April 2008. B. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 08 -001 and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 08 -001; APPLICANT — GREG WOODARD; LOCATION — THE PIKE AND ELM Associate Planner, Ryan Foster presented the staff report for consideration of an application to construct a twenty -three (23) unit residential development on 1.27 acres PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2008 Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 4 of vacant land in the Office Mixed -Use (OMU) zoning district consisting of five (5) apartments and eighteen (18) townhomes. In reply to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Foster stated there are street trees that will be reviewed along with the landscape plan by the Parks and Recreation Director; the density bonus is different than inclusionary housing requirements; if there aren't vines on the trash enclosures, they can be added as a condition; the project is entitled to a parking reduction based on density bonus; and whether the gate to 7 -11 is locked is at the applicant's discretion at this point. In response to Commissioner questions, Mr. Devens added that there should be enough room for a condition to be added for bike, and he hasn't had a chance to check on concerns about left -turn movements out of the driveway on the Pike and La Vista. Steve Puglisi, project architect, discussed the changes made from previous Planning Commission and staff comments. He deferred discussion on street trees and trash enclosure vines to David Foote. The 7 -11 gate will be keypad - controlled for the benefit of residents, so people don't enter the other way. In response to Commissioner questions, he stated stamped concrete could be added at the path to the 7 -11 gate; if the gate becomes problematic to residents, they'll be able to close it off; lighting can be further developed for that walkway area; the trash enclosure on the Pike can be checked for site distance issues; and he's not aware of 7 -11 having any pedestrian access concerns. David Foote, landscape architect, spoke in support of the project. There's not enough room in the sidewalk for tree wells for the street trees, but he could put them in a planter near the wall. He can add vines to the trellises. The trash enclosure needs to slide a few feet away from the driveway, then he can verify how the site distance works. In response to Commissioner questions, he stated there could be Melaleucas, but they're just candidate trees at this point; there's not much protection against tagging on the wall until the groundcover grows up; the location of accessible parking spaces and walkways to affordable units was by agreement with City staff; and the street probably is wide enough to paint bike lanes. Larry Royal,,1244 Sage Street, requested additional time and information for neighbors, so they could comment. His neighbor (Kim Green at 1220 Paul Place) bought her home in January and never received a notice. This looks better than the last project, but he questioned how power poles will be addressed (his property has 5 poles on it). He also expressed concern about apartment windows facing his home. The Pike and Elm were recently aligned better, but still aren't straight; there are school bus drop -offs; and there's a lot of traffic; so the turn issue is very real. Kids congregate at the 7 -11 after school; and both the 7 -11 and a fence behind his wall gets tagged regularly. Also, there was no large project sign posted onsite like the last time. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2008 In response to Commissioner questions, Mr. Devens stated that there is a condition to underground utilities, and the "zigzag" was restriped a couple months ago to best match turning movements given the skewed angle as it goes into EIm Street. Mr. Foster stated that the notice addresses are based on County records, which would answer why Ms. Green didn't get noticed; the lack of a large onsite project sign does not disqualify Planning Commission consideration tonight; and there are two windows per duplex that would look beyond the 10' setback (from bedroom #3). Mr. Puglisi did not know about the onsite project sign and apologized for it not being there. Chair Ray closed the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 5 Commissioner comments: Barneich • There should be additional landscaping. She shared photos of the Peoples Self Help Housing development near SESLOC. She appreciated the landscaping efforts on EIm Street with evergreens. • Root barriers should be added for street trees. • She likes the idea of low income housing and rentals, but doesn't think a balance has been achieved through the PUD process. PUD Findings are very strict in that they're getting a better project, and she doesn't think they are, particularly findings #2 and #7. Keen • Parking will be a problem with the PUD reduction, particularly since most of it is in garages (where people usually store things other than cars). • There was a previous project where neighbors didn't want the utilities undergrounded, so their lawns wouldn't be dug up, and this seems like a similar situation. Marshall • This is the only vacant lot in the middle of the neighborhood. Hopefully vandalism and loitering will be better with homes there. • He understands the privacy issue of windows looking into neighbors' backyards. • He didn't share the above commissioners' landscaping and parking concerns. • Left turns out onto the Pike may be dangerous, but left turns in should be fine. • He would like the bike lane extended and stamped crosswalk treatment connecting buildings 2 and 5. Ray • Overall, the project looks nice. It looks good from the street. • It's good that the project is now completely residential. • She's satisfied with the ag buffer issue, which was a big sticky point from the beginning and now is adequately addressed. • The tradeoff of open space for high density is fine; and the density level is fine. • She was concerned about traffic, but defers to Public Works' approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2008 PAGE 6 • She agreed with Commissioner Barneich's landscaping issues; but had other reasons in addition for not being able to approve this project tonight. She can't make findings #2 or #7. o She's concerned that the studios are only being used as a vehicle for a density bonus; they're inconsistent with the rest of the project, awkward and inadequate. She likes the affordable housing, and the City needs more studios, but she's concerned how it's clustered without adequate parking. A better design could be done for this project. The studios don't meet the "reasonably disbursed" code. Mr. Strong commented that the issue of like units and being dispersed applies to a uniform project, whereas this project is not uniform by design (with ownership vs. rental units). While commissioners have discretion over project approval, staff felt this design better provides for the different uses. The City can interpret the requirements of Section 16.80.060 regarding "reasonably dispersed and comparable with market rate units" to recognize that the project design provided rental affordable studios versus market rate ownership townhomes. The staff recommended and other projects have been approved involving similar separate and distinct affordable units rather than dispersed and uniform mix (e.g. Grace Lane and Cherry Creek), but this interpretation is within the discretion of the Planning Commission and /or City Council. Barneich • The higher density is fine, and hopefully makes these more affordable, but too many amenities have been given up for the people who live there. Keen • He understands the "reasonably disbursed" concerns, but this is a really good place for very low income units; and because of what they are, he doesn't have a problem with them being grouped together. Marshall • He agreed with Mr. Strong that since this is a multi - family project, locating the affordable studios together as a transition between larger homes and the commercial area (7 -11) was not a problem. o Commissioner Barneich commented that clustering the affordable studios together may be a worse design. o Commissioner Ray agreed it would not be as apparent from the street as people drive by. Perhaps the parking could be improved by exchanging the trash enclosure and parking space #6. Mr. Strong noted there was a member of the public who arrived late and would like to comment on this item. Chair Ray reopened the public hearing. John McMullen, 731 South Elm, spoke about concerns with too many cars parked on Elm Street. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2008 PAGE 7 Further discussion: In response to Commissioner Keen's concerns on undergrounding utilities, Mr. Devens replied that they may be eligible to pay in lieu fee if certain circumstances exist. In response to Commissioner Marshall, he stated that it can be conditioned one way or it can be left up to the applicants. In response to Chair Ray's question about uniform inclusionary housing, Mr. Strong replied the code was written with the intent that affordable housing wouldn't be identifiable in an otherwise uniform development. In response to Commissioner Barneich, Mr. Foster stated that the apartments don't have private yards; the average rear yard size of the townhomes is 415 sf; and the width ranges from 10 to 13 feet. Mr. Puglisi clarified that there are garden areas in the front yards of the ground floor units only. Mr. Devens noted that per condition 45, they do want a backflow device on the water service. Also, the applicant has requested relief from condition 55, so he suggests adding wording to the end that states, "or alternative solution acceptable to the Public Works Director." Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen to approve Tentative Tract Map Case No. 08 -001 and Planned Unit Development Case No. 08 -001, with the following changes: - o Prohibit left turns out onto the Pike. o Extend bike lanes to the City limit line. o Add a stamped concrete crosswalk between buildings 2 and 5. — o Light the walkway between the studios and 7 -11. _ o Modify condition 55 with the addition of wording to the end that states, "or alternative solution acceptable to the Public Works Director." o Switch the trash enclosure and parking space #6. o The trash enclosure must have vines. – o The trash enclosure shall be checked for site distance. o Modify condition 45 per Mr. Devens' request above. Discussion: Commissioner Barneich requested that a condition be added that there be true street trees planted in tree wells, but Commissioner Marshall felt there's not enough room in the sidewalk, and they're fine behind the sidewalk. Per Commissioner Barneich's request, Commissioners Marshall and Keen agreed to add conditions: • Add root barriers to condition #87. • Use Chinese Pistache instead of Melaleucas. and adopt: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2008 RESOLUTION 08 -2060 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 08 -001; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PIKE AND SOUTH ELM STREET; APPLIED FOR BY GREG WOODARD The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marshall, Keen, and Chair Ray NOES: Commissioner Barneich ABSENT: Commissioner Tait the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15 day of April 2008. There was a 5- minute break at 8:35p.m. PAGE 8 C. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 07 -001, AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITY WIDE (continued from April 1, 2008 meeting). Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman presented the staff report for consideration of staff recommended changes to section 16.68.050 of the Municipal Code related to requirements for placement of utilities underground or the payment of in -lieu fees. He then responded to numerous technical questions from Commissioners. Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment. Kami Griffin, 514 May Street, stated that in general the ordinance better addresses goals to ease up regulations on small projects. It would be harder to produce mixed use projects without it. It's still onerous on small projects (100 sf of space or smaller is only a bathroom in today's houses). Her property would be hard to underground, because it would involve digging up the street. Also, it would be difficult, because her street is mostly built out. She proposed a sliding scale for the in lieu fee — higher for a 500 sf habitable addition where there's 75% buildout in the neighborhood) and smaller for vacant lots. Chair Ray closed the public hearing for public comment. Commissioner comments: Marshall • Move all references to service connections to their own section to aid for better understanding. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2008 PAGE 9 • He liked Ms. Griffin's suggestion about sliding scales for the price of in lieu fees. • Add wording "Within 6' of any lot lines within the property " to indicate they don't have to work on the neighbors property. • Pg 7, section D, correct the grammar. • More than just 2 steps in the sliding scale would be more appropriate. • Add a reference to the final map for subdivisions. • Under alternatives, yes allow them for variances, but not for plot plan reviews. Ray • She agreed there should be another step in the sliding scale, because as is, there's too big a drop. With larger projects (and more savvy builders), there's more incentive to cook numbers to get the lower fee. • The different steps for residential vs. commercial areas are good. • Different steps based on buildout sounds good, but it's hard to define the "neighborhood" boundaries in order to make such a calculation. • On page 6, instead of waiving the fee, perhaps collect a minimum like $100. • She agreed with Commissioner Marshall's idea to separate the service connection references into their own section. Keen • It's better to underground than allow service drops. • The 6' requirement shouldn't have to be left in the code. o Commissioner Marshall felt it was to keep from requiring action on neighbors properties. • He would also like to see some sort of sliding scale for in lieu fees. o In response to Commissioner Keen, Mr. Strong replied that Public Works will figure the cost. He also noted that, historically, projects have only had the options to underground utilities or request a complete waiver. Then, the $232 fee was created, but that is not nearly sufficient to cover the actual cost (though it's still better than a complete waiver). He understands commissioner requests for more steps in- between, but this would at least be an improvement on current policy. Staff could make the changes requested tonight and return at a future meeting. Barneich • She agreed that it's better to have a fee paid than a complete waiver. Chair Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barneich to continue Development Code Amendment Case No. 07 -001 to the Planning Commission meeting on May 20, 2008. The motion passed on a 4/0 voice vote. Commissioner Barneich made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. The motion passed on a 4/0 voice vote. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2008 D. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 08 -001; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, presented the staff report for consideration of an amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 16.32 (Residential Districts), to allow for clustering of Tots with provision of open space in certain residential zoning districts. She discussed the three largest Residential Rural (RR) neighborhoods and how they may be affected by the proposal. There's one change in Table 16.32.050 -A, which adds a word in the table to: "reduced minimum building site area allowed with provision to permanently preserve sensitive habitat and /or public open space corridors..." Commission Questions: Marshall • There are two basic ways to do clustered subdivisions — as a PUD or with dedication of open space (as the County uses). The goal is to combine for these districts? Correct. • Was there only one Land Use category where it's not allowed and not proposed to change (Residential Estate, RE)? Correct. • Is there a value in saying we don't want a cluster smaller than half of the already allowed lots or is it better to leave things alone? We don't have a minimum standard to reduce a lot, and these are for % or 1/3 acre lots. They will have to make findings that they're compatible with existing neighborhood, so probably that would preclude super small lots. • Is there a value in saying that if we do a cluster, it needs to be a minimum percentage of open space? We could, however, the purposes will probably be different for each subdivision (e.g. protected plant, steep hillsides, etc.), so if we started with a percentage, we would probably have to deviate, anyways. o This leaves us more flexible? Yes. Chair Ray opened the hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. PAGE 10 Commissioner comments: Keen • No comments. Barneich • This is a perfect reason for clustering or PUD's. • If James Way changed from 1 acre to 1/2 acre and clustered development, it wouldn't be out of character, since the Village Glen and Highlands are fairly close together. They would still look fairly the same as you drive by. They will need to stay away from Oak trees and Pismo Clarkia. • She can approve it as proposed. Marshall • Clustering subdivisions is a valuable tool, and he supports making that option available in more land use categories. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2008 Ray • She understands and feels this is a necessary part of the process to protect dwindling resources in the City. • She's fine with the DCA as is. Commissioner Barneich made a motion, seconded by Commissioner to approve Development Code Amendment Case No. 08 -001, with the following changes: o Wording as suggested by staff — word "public" in front of open space. (exh A of resolution, pg 2) and adopt: RESOLUTION 08 -2061 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 08 -001c, AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 16.04 DEFINITIONS AND 16.32 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: TO ALLOW FOR THE CLUSTERING OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH PERMANENT OPEN SPACE PROVISIONS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL RURAL, RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN AND RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE DISTRICTS The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marshall, Barneich, Keen, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: Tait the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15 day of April 2008. III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioners were reminded of the special meeting on April 29; and Chair Ray reminded staff she would not be present at the May 6 meeting. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2008 ATTEST: KATHY MENDOZA FOR L REARDON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of July 1, 2008) PAGE 12 1 1