Loading...
PC Minutes 2004-07-201 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 Acting Community Development Director/ Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner Teresa McClish, Assistant Planners Ryan Foster and Jim Bergman. AGENDA REVIEW: Item IV.A. was moved before item III.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of June 29 and July 6, 2004 were unanimously approved with one change ( "Reynolds" to "Runels "), on a motion by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, and on a 3/0 voice vote, Commissioner Brown being absent, and Commissioner Keen abstaining due to absence at both meetings. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 - 6:00 P.M. I.A. MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE JULY 6, 2004 - SUBJECT TO 10 -DAY APPEAL: ase 1. PPR 04 -008 Howard Mankins 1190 El Camino Real escriptio Revised placement of the phase 2 storage shed. anne J. Bergman The Commission had no concerns. Ms. Heffernon stated the Minor Use Permits would be approved after a ten -day appeal period. IV. NON PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 04 -006; APPLICANT — ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL; LOCATION — 345 HALCYON. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster. Mr. Foster stated the time extension request is for an approved parking lot expansion, Conditional Use Permit Case No. 02 -006. The only change to the area since the project was approved is the proposal to Office Mixed Use zoning. Approval of CUP 02 -006 expired in June, but due to circumstances which caused the delay, staff felt it was warranted to grant the time extension and not require a re- submittal of duplicate plans. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold approving Time Extension Case No. 04 -006. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 RESOLUTION NO. 04 -1930 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TIME EXTENSION 04 -006 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02 -006, LOCATED AT 345 SOUTH HALCYON ROAD The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Arnold, Fowler, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Brown the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20 day of July 2004. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 03 -008; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Teresa McClish. This proposal is to satisfy and implement goals of the General Plan, including Land Use, Housing Element, and Economic Development. The Development Code Amendment is a tool used to implement those policies. She shared existing and proposed zoning maps, with descriptions of the Fair Oaks Mixed Use (FMU), Gateway Mixed Use (GMU), and Highway Mixed Use (HMU) zones. The biggest challenge is trying to accommodate a high density use on what has been previously strictly commercial, while not allowing residential areas to become a detriment to the business community. One of the safeguards is to keep housing out of first floor business locations. Toward that end, maximum heights are proposed at 35 feet or 3 stories, to accommodate residential use on second and third stories. Also, larger minimum Tots are proposed to encourage mixed use, because larger lots better facilitate mixed use than in smaller ones, due to parking, open space, etc. The Cal Poly concept drawings aren't to dictate design, but to give a conceptual idea of what could be built. Ms. McClish answered Commission questions regarding the staff report. Arnold • What was rationale for raising the lot size in GMU, but not in FMU and HMU? Ms. McClish replied that the graduated lot sizes proposed show higher intensity use for allowed building size and more complex building in GMU, as opposed to HMU, where it will probably still be car uses and other uses that won't sit on large lot sizes. Also, with existing lot sizes, it would still allow for some subdivision. The HMU district has several existing smaller lots. Guthrie • Asked about lot sizes at Longs center and Santa Lucia Bank areas. PAGE 2 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 .PAGE 3 • Requested Ms. McClish to further describe districts for participants in the audience. Ms. McClish gave an in -depth description of code changes as shown by Exhibit B. Keen • Requested clarification on lots in OMU fronting Halcyon or Grand Avenue as it relates to the standard that requires that 75% of maximum residential density be built. Ms. McClish clarified that this standard required by the Housing Element is not required for projects on lots that front E. Grand Ave. in the GMU or FOMU districts. Fowler • Stated that on page 3, under HMU, there's wording as "Gateway entrances to Arroyo Grande" and would like that removed or changed for being confusing, because the other zone is "GMU ". Ms. McClish will eliminate the word "gateway" and just leave "these entrances ". Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public. Bob Dias, 1203 E. Grand Ave., asked what would happen to current properties that wouldn't fall under the allowed uses — specifically, would they be asked to move out? Chair Guthrie answered they would continue as "legal, nonconforming" properties. Nobody would be forced to move. Nothing happens unless they're redeveloped, and only then they would have to follow the new,regulations. The diagrams shown were just some examples of what could be built — not plans for construction. Robert "Bob" Crockett, 931 E. Grand Ave., Crockett's Auto Body, asked what would happen to his property, since the proposed zoning is different than current zoning. Chair Guthrie replied it would become "legal, nonconforming" (be grandfathered in), and there would be no problem unless they wanted to add to the existing buildings. Dale Riper, S. Rena St., asked if setbacks from side streets (as opposed to Grand Avenue) will be similar to setbacks for houses? His concern was a row of houses with one setback, but a commercial building being all the way to the street. Ms. McClish answered that if a lot fronts on a side street, the front yard setback could be zero to five feet. However, each new commercial or mixed use project would come before a public hearing and at least be noticed, so there's still a mechanism to address his concern. He also noted new zoning promotes "rear or alley way access ", and shared concern of promoting driveways (hence traffic) off residential streets. Ms. Heffernon replied there would be connecting driveways to Grand, instead of one for each business. Its not prohibiting driveways off Grand, but avoiding have multiple driveways. It would be likely that some businesses might have one driveway off Grand and the other off a side street. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 PAGE 4 Howard Mankins, owner of lot at 704 Grand and Alpine, asked what if his residential property burns down (in HMU)? Ms. McClish replied that would enact a section of the code for fire/ natural disasters. If a property is legal, nonconforming, the owners can rebuild within a year of the disaster. What if he wanted to tear down the residence and build an office. Could he build an office under 10,000 sf? Yes, the lot just can't be subdivided any more Could he build an office building with zero setback and an apartment above? Office use is allowed, but residential use for HMU is for a live /work scenario. (Owner/Tenant must run office to live upstairs). In regards to permitting, would the office require a CUP? For live /work yes, but for office only, it would be a MUP. If I was to build a residence, I could do an over the counter permit. Why can't I get an OTC permit to build an office? The City spends a lot of time reviewing permits, it's costly, and it delays projects for a long time. Maybe they could create a checklist of requirements. A CUP is involved when there's a possible environmental impact, as subject to state law and CEQA. Efforts are to give potential applicants clear expectations of,what will be required. If there's a change in use in a commercial area, it usually needs to be evaluated per CEQA. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to public comment. Commission Comments: Arnold: • He's concerned about transitions from commercial to residential areas. He wouldn't want an active parking lot next to a home. It could be difficult on smaller lots, but on larger lots they would want a larger setback. Fowler: • Encouraged reviewing Mr. Mankin's suggestion. It should be easier for property owners, who follow the rules, to get their projects through. Keen: • He has adjacent property, but checked and it's not a conflict per City staff, since there are no projects going on. He's concerned that with a minimum density, property owners might not be able to build large enough buildings to incorporate residential use in this area for lack of money. Guthrie: • In response to other comments, he wants to actually achieve a Mixed Use zone that encourages certain intensity and mix of uses. Otherwise, the mix of housing options wouldn't likely be achieved. Ultimately, he thinks they will need min FAR's, and knows this would be difficult in this early transition phase. • In regards to larger lot sizes, since they can't force owners to consolidate, they also don't want to allow them to subdivide into smaller lots making mixed use more difficult. 1 1 1 MINUTES. PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 V. DISCUSSION ITEM: None. m ,� CI ;: ,PAGE 5 • Address potential language to minimum setbacks against residential neighborhoods. • In response to Howard's suggestion, the reason for CUP process is that a commercial project is inherently more intense use than residential (0.7 peak hour trips vs. 20 peak hour trips for residential vs. fast food). o Ms. Heffernon added you could have an office building with a low impact, where someone with 10 times the impact moves in and the City needs to have a chance to review such projects. o Ms. McClish added there was a list removed by prior ordinance, because it didn't work. There was a list of different uses and if one use was more intense than another, they could do a Plot Plan Review. It didn't work well - not to say that another list couldn't work. It's very project specific. Commission recommended changes to the Tables: Table 16.36.030 -A • Mortuary, funeral home: (FOMU) Change from CUP to NP • Agricultural product processing: (HMU) Change from CUP to NP • Storage - Outdoor: (HMU) Change from MUP to NP • Adult business retail: (HMU) Change from CUP to NP • General Retail -5,001 to 19,999 sf: (HMU) Change from CUP to MUP • General Retail - 20,000 to 102,500 sf: (HMU) Change from MUP to CUP • Second hand store: (HMU) Change from NP to MUP • Equestrian facilitiy: (HMU) Change from CUP to NP • Library, museum: (HMU) Changefrom CUP to MUP Commissioner Fowler asked, as an example, if the owner of Crockett Auto Body wanted to sell the business after it becomes legal non - conforming due to these zoning changes, would the new owner be able to keep the business as is? Ms. Heffernon replied that would be fine, so long as they didn't make any changes /additions of more than 25 %. If they wanted to do more than that, it would not be an allowable use in this district. This item was continued to August 3, 2004, on a motion by Commissioner Guthrie, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, and on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Brown being absent. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: • Commissioner Keen asked if the new style of check cashing business would be considered different than in the past. Ms. McClish noted check cashing is listed in the definition for adult businesses. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR AUGUST 3, 2004 MEETING: • There will be agenda items coming forward in regards to "adult businesses ", such as medical marijuana and head shops. Dates are to be announced, but will likely be in one to two months. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner ` een, seconded by Commissioner Fowler. ATTEST: KATHY ME N DOZA, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: KELL E F NON, ACT G COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Approved at PC meeting of August 17, 2004) PAGE 6 AMES GUTHRIE, CHAIR 1 1 1