Loading...
PC Minutes 2004-04-20C` se No Applicant Address, Description Pla Viewshed Review 04-003 Steven Rutland 174 Fairview Drive A 531 sq. ft. addition, including a 252 sq. ft. loft. A. Koch 1 1 1 CALL. TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Guthrie presiding; also present were Commissioners Arnold, Fowler, and Keen; Commissioner Brown was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, and Cal Poly Planning Interns, Dave Javid and Kristin Krasnove. AGENDA REVIEW: No Changes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of April 6, 2004 were unanimously approved as written, on a motion by Commissioner Arnold, seconded by Commissioner Fowler and with a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Brown being absent. I. MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 - 6:00 P.M. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. II.A. MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE FEBRUARY 3. 2004 - SUBJECT TO 10 -DAY APPEAL: The Commission had no concerns with Viewshed review 04 -003. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. IV. NON PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. SENSE OF COMMUNITY SURVEY; VILLAGE OF ARROYO GRANDE; CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. Staff report prepared and presented by Planning Interns, Dave Javid and Kristin Krasnove. Kristin Krasnove and Dave Javid, graduate students from the City and Regional Planning Department of Cal Poly, explained the results of a neighborhood survey conducted in two communities: the Village of Arroyo Grande and Laguna Lake, San Luis Obispo (these two communities were chosen as case studies). They stated that the Village of Arroyo Grande possesses many of the qualities currently promoted by advocates of Smart Growth and New Urbanism, including a mix of uses within close proximity of each other, connected by pedestrian friendly paths. The survey was intended to determine the residents "sense of community" and mode of travel choices and the results used to evaluate the principles of New Urbanism and Smart Growth by examining how particular neighborhood design qualities, that are naturally present MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 PAGE 2 within the selected neighborhoods, impact the residents' use and perception of their environment. A detailed explanation of the results of the survey was explained to the Commission (the survey was conducted within a 1 /4 mile radius of the Village core). Following are some of the highlights of the survey results: • The Village of Arroyo Grande scored high due to the parking being placed behind buildings and having pedestrian access from the parking to the street. • There is lack of sidewalk consistency. • Streets are wider than prescribed discouraging some people to walk. • Trees are well spaced. • Length of residency — the percentage good. • Negative feedback mostly concerned high speed traffic and traffic circulation. • Residents would like to see undergrounding of utilities and more street trees. • Drive alone trips high to all destinations; biking and public transportation not used much. Ms. Krasnove stated survey results for the Village (compared to Laguna Lake) did not show that a walkable community gives an improved sense of community (New Urbanism); analizing the data Village residents feel a better sense of community, but it is not due to walking. Residents had concern with traffic and did not feel comfortable walking (this may be due to traffic being faster due to the wider streets). The Commission asked questions and made comments: • Other communities should be looked at to try to further understand what makes a sense of community. • Other factors may influence sense of community, such as how long people have lived in the neighborhood. • Sidewalks do not always encourage walking. • To make a walkable community including schools and grocery stores how large would an area have to be? • Age may be a factor in people not walking compared to other communities. Mr. Strong thanked the interns for their presentation; stated that Kristen Krasnove had previously been on staff as an intern and that Dave Javid was at present volunterring his time to the department. Mr. Strong then reminded the Commission that the Sphere of Influence workshops scheduled for tomorrow, April 21, could include a discussion on new urbanism. He concluded by stating that City very much staff appreciated the study. Steve Devencenio, SLOCOG, Places Workshop, thanked staff and the Commission for the opportunity to allow them to participate in their first presentation of this new process; stated they learned a lot from feedback from the workshop and have since been able to make improvements to their presentation. Commissioner Keen stated he had really enjoyed the opportunity to participate in the Places program, it was a very interesting tool and he thought that envisioning growth 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 PAGE 3 fifty years ahead was a lot to do; he suggested that the terms used in the program be simplified to allow a lay person to better understand. Commission Guthrie stated he agreed with Commissioner Keen's comments, but would like to have had more time on some pre- discussion at the beginning of the workshop to help orient participants. In conclusion, Mr. Devencenzio stated that in the upcoming programs more time would be given to educate and give background information to help participants understand the process; Arroyo Grande may get a second chance to participate in the future. Ms. McClish thanked Mr. Devencenzio and stated staff would be utilizing the tool, especially to look at densities proposed in the future. B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 03 -008; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION - CITYWIDE. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Teresa McClish. Ms. McClish stated that this meeting was to discuss revisions to Commercial Mixed Use District regulations for East Grand Avenue, other General Commercial, Office, Industrial zoning districts; the focus tonight would be on four main issues: • Revisions to the Zoning Map (Exhibit 'A' draft Ordinance). • Revisions to Sectiion 16.36, Mixed Use and Commercial Districts (Exhibit 'B' to draft Ordinance). • Proposed language pertaining to design character for mixed use. • Revisions to Sectiion 16.56 pertaining to parking standards. Ms. McClish further stated that the proposed revisions reflected Planning Commission discussion at the March 26, 2004 meeting and community input from the Places3s workshop. She stated that at the workshop almost all groups utilized a high percentage of mixed -use development types in the project study area and attempted to provide for increases in both jobs and housing. No groups maintained strict commercial character on E. Grand Avenue and many included high density housing developments proximate to E. Grand to provide for a transition to adjacent single - family residential districts. Ms. McClish described the proposed zoning in some detail; stating that Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) is shown in Table 16.36.030A, and requested the Commission's input in removing the "heavy manufacturing" which included four allowed uses: • Cement products • Machine shops • Rubber and metal stamp • Petroleum distribution plants MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 PAGE 4 Additional Proposals: • Properties facing E. Grand Ave, in at least the first 100 feet (on the upper floors), would not require the residential portion; this would also relate to East Branch Street (Village area). • It would not be required that the minimum densities to be met in the Highway Mixed Use or Industrial Mixed Use, but would still satisfy the General Plan requiring them in the other Mixed Use Districts. • Housing: Described density as included in Exhibit `B'. • Design Guidelines and Standards will have a section for each of the districts. • Parking: There will be a focus on: shared parking and a means for parking reductions will be provided determined by the number of uses that parking would serve; provide a greater walking distant range (500 feet); and and an allowance for a percentage of parking reductions. In conclusion, Ms. McClish said that staff was looking for more direction from the Commission and would either bring forward the Ordinance with all the districts included at one time, or separate out each district for individual Public Hearings. Commission Questions and Comments: Arnold: • Thought that the limited live -work housing in the Industrial zone may not be appropriate and there may not be enough units to warrant allowing this. • Max building height: 48 feet/4 stories thru a "use permit process "? Ms. McClish explained that this was referring to a "Conditional Use Permit ". • Concern that if 48 feet is allowed, how would this impact the neighborhoods behind; he suggested that some reference be made to allow some graduation take place as buildings get closer to the existing neighborhood. • Concern with setting a blanket height with residential as there are a lot of small lots in Arroyo Grande and this could produce bad projects; he suggested an alternative of having some tiering for size of projects for both height and density or consolidation of parcels (2 acres) then these ideas may become viable. Keen: • Agreed to strike the heavy industrial and heavy manufacturing uses from the Ordinance. • Asked if the guidelines would be the same for Highway Commercial as Traffic Way. Ms. McClish replied that the zoning and development standards would be the same, but the Design Guidelines and Standards would differentiate. • The height definition: 48 feet is too tall; he objected to all the references to this in the tables and stated that he thought 48 feet not suitable for this community; he had no objections to any other items on the tables. • Asked for clarification on the Industrial. Ms. McClish stated a column could be inserted in Section 16.36.030A with the IMU and incorporate the intent of that 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 PAGE 5 district with the other mixed -use districts; Section 16.40 (current Industrial district) requirements could be moved to Specific Standards. • Concern for the Industrial area: If small projects get piece - mealed into this area it may not leave enough land to create jobs. Even so, as much as he is for an Industrial area he did not want to see projects included that would look bad from the freeway and not be in character with the City; additional jobs on East Grand Avnue will not suffice for head of household jobs enabling local home ownership. • He would like to see a "parking study analysis" done by a traffic engineer not just an engineer or architect. • Shared parking: Need to be careful with this because of potential business changes. Fowler: • Pointed out some typographical errors re Exhibit 'B': wording needs to be changed re Highway Commercial on map Did not remember discussing 48 feet height at previous meetings. Page 4, E. confusing use of "gateway entrances" in sentence. - Page 5, F. Retail facilities... needs to be reworked, wording is awkward. • Industrial area with heavy machinery, does this limit existing businesses such as Mier's Landscape Supplies and Sebastions fuel dispencing? Ms. McClish said they are considered light industrial uses. • Table 16.36.030, PED designation although better is still too restrictive ; there is a need to encourage businesses to come in on Grand Avenue. • Page 13: "Personal Services Restricted ", asked for clarification. Mr. Strong explained that it can cover a variety of uses in the current definiation including Tattoo parlor, check cashing service etc. Ms. Fowler stated she would like to see the "NP" removed for "check cashing ". Mr. Strong stated that a pending apeal case may clarify the City's intent. Guthrie: • The "heavy industry" could be eliminated, but he would like to have machine shop work (or anything that could be enclosed) be permitted; a small concrete facility should be allowed as this is very useful; he would like to include circuit board wiring in the table. • Four stories /48 feet height should require some sort of minimum lot depth or width • Concerns with housing requirement, but liked the relief of first 100 feet of lot depth. An alternative would be to allow transfer of residential credit to other parts of the lot. He would like to see some scenarios worked out showing examples. Mr. Strong said he would like to make proposals less susceptable to variances; a CUP could be required for larger lots or be included under Special Exceptions for heights. The apparent consensus is to stay with 35 feet height or three stories with a reference to Specific Use Standards and a height exception for large, deep lots. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 Ms. McClish stated that the Gateway MU has 40 feet/3 stories for a base maximum height and the other districts are scaled down to 35 feet and asked if the Commission objected to this? Four Commissioners stated the new bank looked too high, Commissioner Fowler disagreed stated the height was fine, they agreed to 35 feet/three stories with possibility of an exception. After discussion it was decided to make an effort to do all the sections at one time, going though it district by district. Commissioner Guthrie asked that 4 or 5 scenarios be worked out on certain size lots. Mr. Strong said he would bring forward some concept drawings for minimum lots and there may also be some projects coming forward to show some real life examples. Commission Keen said he had a problem with telling someone they have to put residential in if someone wants to build commercial (re mixed -use). Commissioner Guthrie said he would like to see a minimum density /FAR per lot. Ms. McClish replied that this can be done for commercial, but not residential. Mr. Strong referred to his memos re Mixed Use Multiple Family Residential Inventory Analysis and Discussion Item No. 1 Economic Development Strategy Concerning Motel Developoment Along 101 Corridor and asked the Commission for their comments: Commission Comme Arnold: • Re Discussion and suggested Keen: • Re Discussion nts: Mr. Strong said he would delete 6 & 8. Item: Questioned if #6 would be an appropriate site for a hotel removing this off the map. Item: Questioned #2, thought a motel would not have enough exposure at this site. Arnold: • Thought that #2 could work, but not #6. • He had struggled with #8, a hotel would be more appropriate than housing. • #7 would be a good visitor service. Fowler: • #8, viability for a motel would be questionable as far as exposure. Guthrie: • Delete #4 also as this lot is too narrow. PAGE 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Presented by Rob Strong, Community Development Director. 1. Motel development along Highway 101 in Arroyo Grande. Already discussed above. 2. Secondary Dwelling Yard Requirements. This item is deferred until May 4, 2004 meeting. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Keen asked if the lot coverage percentage included pavement" Mr. Strong said this would be discussed in more detail at the zoning workshop as he was not sure and this does need to be defined. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Re letter from Alder House, dated April 16, 2004: During the 2001 General Plan Update, Alder House requested that two lots they owned (North of the Alder House) on Alder Street, be reclassified for senior residents and allow an annex to be built. It is still zoned single family and they would like to set a date for the City to initiate a Development Code Amendment; additiionally it was also shown erroneously on the General Plan as a P.D. The Commission agreed that this would be acceptable. PAGE 7 In reply to a question from Commissioner Arnold, Mr. Strong said they would have a draft response to the Housing comments, in response to HCD, probably at the next meeting for discussion. Mr. Strong informed the Commission that the City Council was considering televising the Planning Commission meetings and would like to know Commission's opinion. The Commission 4/0 (Commissioner Brown absent) unanimously opposed the CATV coverage as being too political and stated it encourages soap box versus discussion. The Commission suggested that instead the City budget be spent on posting the entire Planning Commission and City Council staff reports on the website. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR MAY 4, 2004: No discussion. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. on a motion by Commission keen, seconded by Commissioner Arnold. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 ATTEST: e AY - cv14 LYN REARDON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Approved at PC meeting of May 5, 2004) PAGE 8 1