Loading...
CC 2015-01-13_10a Resolution Denying S_Courtland and Grand ProjMEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: MATTHEW DOWNING, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002; SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009; LOCATION -SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH COURTLAND STREET; APPLICANTS -MFI LIMITED AND NKT COMMERCIAL; REPRESENTATIVE -RRM DESIGN GROUP DATE: JANUARY 13, 2015 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution denying without prejudice General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001, and Conditional Use Permit 14-009. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: None. BACKGROUND: At the regular meeting of December 9, 2014, the City Council reviewed the proposed project, considered all the facts and public testimony, took tentative action to deny without prejudice the proposed project, and directed staff to return with a resolution with appropriate findings for denial of the project. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Staff has developed findings for denial of the proposed project without prejudice, consistent with concerns of the Council. Findings that could not be made in the affirmative are indicated in bold italics in the attached resolution. Generally, the Council could not make findings in the affirmative based on the proportion of the site proposed to be dedicated to residential use as well as the proposed detached single-family format of housing. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 16.12.120, the denial of the project without prejudice allows for the applicant to submit the same or substantially the same project without restrictions. If the project was denied with prejudice, the applicant would not be able to reapply for the same or substantially the same project until January 13, 2016. Item 10.a. - Page 1 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002; SPECIFIC PLAN AMEND~ENT 14-001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009 JANUARY 13, 2015 PAGE2 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: 1. Adopt the Resolution denying without prejudice General Plan Amendment 14- 002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001, and Conditional Use Permit 14-009; 2. Modify and adopt the Resolution denying without prejudice General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001, and Conditional Use Permit 14-009; 3. Modify and adopt the Resolution denying with prejudice General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001, and Conditional Use Permit 14-009; 4. Do not adopt the Resolution, request concurrence from the applicant to reopen the public hearing for a future date after providing adequate notice; or 5. Provide direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Adoption of the Resolution would deny the proposed project, consistent with the tentative action taken by the Council on December 9, 2014. Denying the project without prejudice could allow for the applicants to reapply for a substantially similar project within one ( 1) year of the denial. DISADVANTAGES: Denying the project without prejudice would allow the applicant to reapply for the same or substantially similar project, requiring additional work by City staff and advisory bodies. However, reapplication for the project would require payment of application processing fees to recover City costs associated with processing the application. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Procedures for the Implementation of CEQA, staff has determined that adopting the prepared Resolution is exempt ·from environmental review in accordance with Sections 15061(b)(4) and 15270(a) of the CEQA Guidelines that states CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The agenda was posted at City Hall on January 8, 2015. The staff report was posted at" City Hall and on the City's website on January 9, 2015. Item 10.a. - Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-002, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 14-001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-001, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-009; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH COURTLAND STREET; APPLIED FOR BY MFI LIMITED AND NKT COMMERCIAL WHEREAS, the project site is located in the area of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan and is identified as Subarea 3; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for Specific Plan Amendment 14-001 to amend the Berry Gardens Specific Plan as it relates to the development of Subarea 3; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for General Plan Amendment 14-002 to amend the General Plan Land Use Element as it relates to development in the area of the intersection of Ec~st Grand Avenue and Courtland Street to include single-family detached housing at multi-family densities as part of mixed-use projects; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001 to subdivide Subarea 3 into forty-four (44) parcels, including two (2) commercial parcels, forty-one (41) single-family parcels, and one (1) common area parcel; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for Conditional Use Permit 14-009 to develop two (2) commercial buildings of 5,000-5,500 square-feet each, four (4) second-floor condominiums of approximately 1,000 square feet-each in a vertical mixed-use arrangement; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Committee of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the project at a meeting on November 3, 2014 and December 2, 2014, recommending approval of the project; and · WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing on November 18, 2014 and December 2, 2014, recommending the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing on December 9, 2014, and considered all written evidence and oral testimony; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has reviewed the draft Mitigated Item 10.a. - Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE2 Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the City Council tentatively denied the proposed project and directed staff to return with appropriate findings for denial; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: General Plan Amendment Findings: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan and will not result in any internal inconsistencies within the plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not be consistent with the City's goals to increase commercial and high-density residential development in an attached housing format on East Grand Avenue and would instead facilitate the development of single-family detached housing. 2. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare; There is nothing contained within the proposed General Plan Amendment that will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, as the proposed General Plan Amendment involves the allowance of single-family residential development on the project site as part of a mixed-use development and at a density comparable to multi-family densities consistent with the Mixed-Use (MU) land use designation. 3. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment are insignificant or can be mitigated to an insignificant level, or there are overriding considerations that outweigh the potential impacts; The proposed General Plan Amendment has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for implementation of CEQA and the impacts of the proposed project have been included in a draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration dated November 10, 2014 and have been reduced to an insignificant level. Specific Plan Amendment Findings: 1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would facilitate the development of single-family detached housing in the Gateway Mixed- Use corridor and would be inconsistent with LU5-10.1 of the General Item 10.a. - Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE3 Plan, which calls for a high intensity, mixed-use, pedestrian activity node on the subject property as a priority example of revitalization of the corridor segment known as Gateway. 2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern; The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would facilitate the development of single-family detached housing in a commercial district on the last significant remaining vacant commercial property within the City and would remove the revenue generating potential of the site, negatively impacting economic development, public welfare, and resulting in an illogical land use pattern. 3. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is necessary and desirable in order to implement the provisions of the General Plan; The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would fail to implement the provisions of the General Plan, particularly LUS-10.1, which calls for a high intensity, mixed-use, pedestrian activity node on the subject property as a priority example of revitalization of the corridor segment known as Gateway. 4. The development standards contained in the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will result in a superior development to that which would occur using standard zoning and development regulations. The development standards contained within the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will facilitate the development of single-family detached housing on the last significant vacant commercial property within the City, which would not be a superior development compared to development of the site with full commercial uses. 5. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create internal inconsistencies within the Specific Plan and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Specific Plan it is amending. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create any internal inconsistencies within the Berry Gardens Specific Plan and is consistent with the Berry Gardens Specific Plan as it provides for both commercial and residential development. Vesting Tentative Tract Map Findings: 1. The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, plans, programs, intent and requirements of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, as well as any applicable specific plan, and the requirements of this title. Item 10.a. - Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE4 The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map would create more that forty (40) residential sized lots on the last significant vacant commercial property in the City and would not be consistent with the General Plan, specifically LU5-10.1. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is 4.47 acres of vacant land adjacent to one of the City's main commercial corridors and is suitable for commercial development but would not be suitable for single-family detached housing. 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is 4.47 acres of vacant land and is identified with the Mixed-Use land use designation of the General Plan, which allows high density residential development. The proposed infill residential development w,ill not exceed the maximum allowable density of the district and is comparable to multi-family densities. 4. The design of the tentative tract map or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the tract map is not anticipated to cause environmental damage due to the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Regulations for Implementation of CEQA. 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. With approval of the General Plan Amendment, the design of the subdivision will be in compliance with the Mixed-Use performance standards of the Municipal Code, which will allow adequate design and separation of incompatible uses to prevent serious public health problems. 6. The design of the tentative tract map or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public-at-large for access through, or use of, property within the proposed tentative tract map or the alternate easements for access or for use will be provided, and that these alternative easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. There are no. easements for the public-at-large currently on the subject property. Emergency access easements to the multi-family housing project to the south will be modified and recorded. to ensure adequate access is maintained for emergency response purposes. Item 10.a. - Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. PAGES 7. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements as prescribed in Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the California Water Code. The proposed development will retain the 95th percentile of water discharge on site and excess discharge will be directed to an existing infiltration basin across South Courtland Street. No discharge of waste will result in a violation identified in Division 7 of the California Water Code. 8. Adequate public services and facilities exist or will be provided as the result of the proposed tentative tract map to support project development. There are adequate provisions for public services to serve the project development and no deficiencies exist. Conditional Use Permit Findings: 1. The proposed use is permitted within the subject district pursuant to the provisions of this section and complies with all the applicable provisions of this title, the goals, and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City. The proposed development of single-family detached residential uses is not consistent with allowed uses for the Gateway Mixed-Use zoning district per Municipal Code Section 16.36.030, the Berry Gardens Specific Plan, and the Arroyo Grande General Plan. 2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located. The development of single-family detached housing on the last significant vacant commercial parcel within the City would remove the revenue generating potential from the site and would impair economic development and the character of the Gateway Mixed-Use district. 3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is proposed. The site is 4.47 acres of vacant land and is identified with the Mixed- Use land use designation of the General Plan, which does not allow for development of single-family detached housing. The development of such housing would not be suitable for the project site. Item 10.a. - Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE6 4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure public health and safety. 5. The provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities were examined during development of the Initial Study and subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and it was determined that adequate public services will be available for the proposed project and will not result in substantially adverse impacts. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity. The proposed development of single-family detached housing on the last significant vacant commercial parcel within the City would remove the revenue generating potential from the site and would impair economic development of the City and of the Gateway Mixed- Use district, resulting in detrimental impacts to the public welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby denies without prejudice General Plan Amendment 14-002, Specific Plan Amendment 14-001, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-001 and Conditional Use Permit 14-009 On motion by Council Member ___ , seconded by Council Member ___ , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 13th day of January, 2015. Item 10.a. - Page 8 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE7 JIM HILL, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ACTING CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Item 10.a. - Page 9 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Item 10.a. - Page 10