Loading...
PC Minutes 2007-10-161 1 1 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Ray presiding; also present were Commissioners Barneich, Keen, Marshall, and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon and Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2007 6:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve the minutes of September 4, 2007 with, corrections to name spellings; the motion passed on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Keen abstaining due to his absence. Chair Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve the minutes of September 18, 2007 as written; the motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Barneich abstaining due to her absence. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Ray stated that three additional Administrative Items (Agenda Item IV) were brought forward for Planning Commission consideration in addition to those already listed on the Agenda: 1. Minor Exception Case No. 07 -010, Applicant, Bayliss, 263 Rodeo Drive 2. Temporary Use Permit Case No. 07 -012, Applicant, Prim, 324 Poole Street 3. Temporary Use Permit Case No. 07 -020, Applicant, Rabobank, 1026 E. Grand Ave II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 07 - 009; APPLICANT — WOOD WINERY; LOCATION —136 BRIDGE STREET Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal to establish a wine tasting room within an existing mixed -use building. An art gallery is also proposed in the adjacent building. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit case no. 07 -009. Change- owner will also open art gallery also. Staff answered Commission questions. Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment. Mr. Wood, applicant, described their proposal and asked the Commission if they had any questions. The Commission had no questions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 2007 PAGE 2 Chair Ray closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission comments: Barneich: • Approves of the proposal as submitted. Keen: • Concurred with Commissioner Barneich. Tait: • He agrees with the applicant's statement that this would be great for tourism and great for Village and an ideal location. Marshall: • He is really pleased to see this in town rather than out in a rural area and hopefully it will be a model for other businesses in the County. Condition No. 5 in the Resolution was a typo and should be removed. Ray: • She agrees with the other Commissioner's comments. • This will bring in foot - traffic, which will be good for other businesses also. Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by Chair Ray to approve Conditional Use Permit Case No. 07 -009, and adopt: RESOLUTION 07 -2048 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 07 -009, APPLIED FOR BY WOOD VINEYARD AND WINERY, LOCATED AT 136 BRIDGE STREET The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marshall, Ray, Barneich, Keen and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of October, 2007. PAGE 2 B. Continued from 9/18/07 meeting: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 07 -002 & DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 07 -005 — AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for consideration of a Planning Commission recommendation to City Council to approve a General Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment to update the 2005 Amended Housing Element, amend Chapter 16.80 of the Development Code regarding Affordable Housing 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 2007 PAGE 3 Commission comments and questions: PAGE 3 requirements and adding Chapter 16.82 regarding density bonuses for consistency and compliance with State law. Ms. Heffernon introduced Lona Laymon, Rutan & Tucker, LLC, consultant for the City for help with the update of the Housing Element and Development Code in response to State law. Keen: • Has a concern regarding the discussion on page 4 of the staff report about "concessions or incentives" being granted to developers, reducing development standards when necessary to make a project "economically feasible" and how this would be determined. • Has a concern regarding the discussion on page 7 regarding parking standards — the numbers quoted would not be high enough to include any guest parking. • Housing Element, page 82, regarding water availability; he understands the State wants more housing for low- income families, but if the City runs out of water by making density bonuses this may not be fair to someone that has a project that has lived here /waited for many years and then may not be able to build. Ms Heffernon: With regards to any projects that come forward they will have to go through the environmental review process. • Page 87, No. 6, discusses what the Council is supposed to be doing to alleviate the water situation by putting the Conservation Element into play; however, he has not seen this happening. Kristen: • Agrees with Commissioner Keen on his concerns regarding "concessions or incentives" being granted to developers. In addition, if a developer asks for concessions and modifications on development standards the City may have to prove why they are required. Plus if the City grants unlimited waivers, we could end up with a project that is not livable. Ms. Laymon described how the State law, regarding density bonuses, had been dramatically revised and is a huge concern for local agencies. Although the statute does not provide any findings there are two different areas of the statute where the City has some power - the incentives and concessions, which are based upon the number of affordable houses provided, and the waivers and modifications of development standards (so called unlimited), which are based upon a developer claiming that these are necessary to make the density bonus feasible. However, the applicant would have to prove to the City that the concessions and waivers of standards are necessary, and if the approving body does not believe that substantial evidence has been provided with respect to the findings it can deny them. This is defined in the Government Code as being, "a significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact based upon objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, and conditions, as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete ". PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 2007 PAGE 4 PAGE 4 Marshall: • Would the impacts have to be related to CEQA or could other things be considered impacts? Ms. Laymon: The statute does not define this, but supported written findings such as from your General Plan, that relate to public health and safety standard or condition could be used (CEQA like standards). Kristen: • Understands that affordable housing is necessary, but she has a concern regarding quality of life standards and would like to make sure that the City would be able to demand such from a developer. Ms. Laymon: Developers will usually want to work with the City so they can go forward with their project; the City can encourage which incentives and concessions they would recommend they ask for. Tait: • In reference to Commissioner Keen's comments regarding water availability, this could be a "specific adverse impact ". • Could a developer receive a density bonus by paying an in lieu fee rather than providing affordable units? Ms. Laymon: No, they have to build the units. • Page 3, Continued Affordability, 2nd sentence, questioned the requirement for moderate - income condominium units. Ms. Laymon: The reference to moderate - income condominiums units should be removed as this has been changed. Marshall: • The staff report contains phrases such as "It is unclear... ". Is someone working on the clean -up legislation? Ms. Laymon: There may be some clarification from the legislative level during the next few years, but she is not aware of any at present. • He hopes the City will participate in the League of California Cities for help with legislative cleanup. • He asked for clarification on land donations. Ms. Laymon explained, with an example used by APA, how a 500 unit market rate project can receive a density bonus by donating land zoned at densities that can accommodate and are suitable for a 50 unit very low income project — that brings them to 10% which gets them the first threshold level of the additional density under the land donation; the developer has to get the permits and approvals (for development of the donated land) as a condition of donating land. • This land donation potentially contradicts our other policies to assimilate affordable housing into the neighborhoods; it would contradict what we have been trying to achieve; it is not good to have lot of affordable housing in one project. • The "Child Care" statute provides no guidance on how findings are to be made and enforced. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 2007 PAGE 5 PAGE 5 • In the Ordinance, Page 6, 16.82.050, it states that the applicant may also request a meeting with the City; this should be clarified by stating "City staff'. • Page 13, 16.82.090, A.1. Child Care Facility Density Bonus — asked for clarification. Ms. Laymon: Her interpretation is that if the Child Care Center is not large enough the square footage would have to be rounded up to provide one unit, or the density could be distributed by increasing each individual home by a number of square feet. • Condo Conversions: Why would we want to do this? Ms. Laymon: This was added due to the statutory provision; the APA interpretation is that this would only come up in the rare instance where the conversion creates additional units on the site. Ms. Heffernon: Our Housing Element is quite strict on condo conversions and the City discourages this. Ray: • Are we just rubber - stamping State law tonight? Ms. Heffernon: We are going through this process to try to understand the new statute and to translate it into our ordinances. • The Child Care concession would not work. • These mandates seem like an undue burden on the City. Is what we are looking at tonight the law or an interpretation of the law to put into the City's Municipal Code? Ms. Laymon: 92% of it is verbatim from the State law; most of the language we added has to do with the redevelopment agency under the affordability governance. • Page 4, 2 bullet - regarding concessions on affordable units for very low income, lower income, and moderate - income units and how this can be defined. Ms. Laymon: The explanation is referenced in the definitions and refers out to the Code; for moderate income households these are set by HCD and change every six months; agreed with Commissioner Ray that it would be more clear if language were included on page 4 of the staff report, 2nd and 3 bullet, after "...moderate income units..." add "... common interest development households...". Ray: • Is this encouraging apartment buildings due to parking ?. Ms. Laymon: If anything it may discourage apartments as a developer would have to build low income or very low income units and these are much more expensive to provide than moderate income. Director Strong explained that provisions are triggered when a developer requests consideration of a density bonus; experience will be the best education. Staff will probably consult on requests where we need to make findings. Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 2007 PAGE 6 Tait: • Has a big concern that by having land donations the City may end up with segregation by income if all the low- income housing is kept together. The Commission had no further comments. The Commission thanked Ms. Layman, for the good discussion and for clarifying their questions on the staff report and proposed Ordinance regarding the City's density bonus and affordable housing incentives. Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, to approve the Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment and the Ordinance approving the Development Code Amendment regarding the Affordable Housing Element with the following suggestions: • Clean up the phrase "meeting with the City" — Page 6, Ordinance, 16.82.050. • Make sure the information regarding the income levels and information defining the units is consistent. In addition, (not part of the Resolution) the Commission recommended that the City should encourage the League of California Cities to pursue items currently still unclear. and adopt: RESOLUTION 07 -2049 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07 -002 AND AN ORDINANCE APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 07- 005 TO UPDATE THE 2005 AMENDED HOUSING ELEMENT AND AMEND CHAPTER 16.80 OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AND ADDING CHAPTER 16.82 REGARDING DENSITY BONUSES FOR CONSISTENCY AND COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marshall, Keen, Barneich, Tait, and Chair Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of October 2007. 7:45 p.m.: The Commission took a 10- minute break. PAGE 6 1 Case No: ;., 3 ,App. ' Aaliressu ' � De c tior =..a. p q ' Actio PP_ P l n ner a 1. ASP 07 -022 John Scharin 1400 E. Grand Ave. Office Signage on small monument sign in Spencer's Shopping Center. A. J. Paulding 2. ASP 07 -021 AT &T 1138 W. Branch St. Replacement of existing Cingular sign with new Alta Wireless Sign A. J. Paulding 3. MEX 07 -010 Frank & Carolyn Bayliss 263 Rodeo Dr For an exception to fence height due to sloping topography proposed to be up to 8 feet for privacy. A. J. Paulding 4. TUP 07 -012 Joan Primm 324 Poole St To allow a 5"' wheel trailer on applicants property during home renovation A. J. Bergman 5. TUP 07 -020 Rabobank 1026 E. Grand Ave To allow a 28 -ft tall illuminated artificial Pine tree. A. J. Bergman PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 2007 PAGE 7 III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. PAGE 7 IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION/ NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: SINCE SEPTEMBER 18, 2007: Item No. 1 Commissioner Barneich stated that in regard to the proposed trees for the diamonds in the parking lot, the existing native sycamores are not doing well and it would be better to plant London Plane if these types of trees are to be chosen. She thanked Director Strong for encouraging the owner to replace the non - conforming sign in the parking lot (with the banners) and replacing it with the new monument sign. Item No. 2 In reply to questions from Commissioner Tait, Director Strong stated that the sign has a new logo and a two -line sign and meets all the specifications. The Commission had no further concerns with respect to the administrative items already approved by the Community Development Director. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Director Strong: Administrative Item CUP 05 -018, Equity Reach (pulled for discussion by request of the Planning Commission at their meeting of 9/18/07) Director Strong explained that the ARC had not approved the arches over the windows of the Equity Reach building. In addition, the ARC had requested that the arches be removed and the building patched and painted over after the removal; the faux marble columns should be painted a neutral grey, and additional street trees be planted. During further discussion with staff and Equity Reach it was decided that patching and painting may not look good and it was agreed that it look better if awnings (with sides) be installed over the windows to hide the arches and that faux stone wainscot be added to all to all four sides of the building to add interest to it. The ARC approved the recommendations. The cost of approximately $30,000 for installing these items may be offset with a $10,0000 Facade Enhancement Grant. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 2007 PAGE 8 PAGE 8 In reply to Commissioner Barneich, Director Strong stated that the trees would be City recommended species. Commission Comments: Barneich: • Is agreeable to the ARC recommendations. • The work should be completed within six months, not one year, but the street trees should be installed in the next couple of months and this could allow them to be watered by the rain during rainy season. Ray: • She is in support of what the ARC is recommending. • With construction going on, installing the trees first may not be a good idea. Director Strong suggested they meet with the applicant and the Tree Guild on the tree species and to determine where the street trees should be installed and also incorporate with the City on the Village Green project. The work should all be completed by March 2008, due to the timing of the Facade Enhancement Grant. Keen: • Likes these improvements much better than before. Tait: • Likes the improvement of the awnings and wainscot. Marshall: • He is satisfied with end result. 2. Director Strong: Draft 2007 -08 Annual Report on the General Plan Director Strong explained that The State Annual Report would be transmitted to the State by April 1, 2008, as this year the State had modified the submittal date from October 1 to April 1 annually. After Council review of the State Report, Council Member Guthrie directed staff to increase the priority of the CEQA Guideline Amendments; staff will endeavor to achieve this, but consultant help may be requested. The principal activity of the department is the Conservation and Open Space Element, which will be a major undertaking and may require some consultant help also. A lot of the commitments made in the General Plan will be updated in policy form and implemented by Development Code Amendments. Commissioner Tait asked if the Energy Conservation Element would be included in the Ag Element. Director Strong said that it would probably be included in the Conservation Element. Commissioner Marshall stated that the information on Page 5, under Parks and Recreation states that the bike and pedestrian path through Soto Sports Complex would be completed in 2008, but this has already been done. Director Strong agreed and stated that this was a typo. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 2007 PAGE 9 Commissioner Ray asked for an update on customizing a LESA model for the City. Director Strong stated that he would be reporting to the City Council on the Ag buffer, and the Ag Element - the LESA model may be addressed at that time. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Barneich asked for an update on Chili's restaurant. Director Strong stated that the building was proceeding; they are requesting utilization of the patio; there are some concerns with the visibility of the proposed additional roof equipment. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Applebee's Restaurant will be celebrating their Grand Opening on Friday and Saturday, October 18 & 19. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. ATTEST: n LYN REARDON- SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: L ROB COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of November 20, 2007) CAREN RAY, CHAIR PAGE 9