Loading...
PC Minutes 2003-12-021 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 CALL TO ORDER — The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Guthrie presiding; also present were Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Keen and Fowler. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner, Jim Berman, and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes to the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of November 18, 2003 were unanimously approved as written on a 5/0 voice vote. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. ITEM II.A: NOTICE OF MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE NOVEMBER 18, 2nn3_ Minor Use Permit 03-032 Paradise All Parking Lot Car Show R. Foster British Car Club behind City Hall Aril 18, 2004 Minor Exception 03-011 Paul & 574 May Street Front yard setback J. Bergman Katherine decreased by 2 feet Petker "Minor Use Permit 03-010 Will & K ay 1071 Fairoaks Secondary dwelling J. Bergman Wright unit. *Minor Use Permit 03-010 was approved by the Community Development Director and added to the above list at the meeting for Commission Approval. Chair Guthrie said the Commission would review this item at the end of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM III.A: CONTINUED ITEM: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 03-004 & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 03-006 APPLICANT — MILLISSEE K. THOMPSON; LOCATION — 1169 MAPLE STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. Mr. Bergman explained that this was a continued review from the meeting of November 4, 2003, of a proposal to divide an existing Multi -Family Apartment parcel into three (3) individual lots, modify the existing residential unit, and add two additional residential units. Mr. Bergman then gave the highlights of the staff report. Finally, Mr. Bergman stated that there was a Condition missing in Exhibit 'A' for "in -lieu fee for affordable housing" and recommended this be included in the motion. MINUTES PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 Commission Comments: • Concern with what is considered "attached" units. • Could two of the units be attached together to form a common wall to allow more open space? Mr. Bergman said leaving space between the units allows more access for maintenance, does not require access agreements and provides guest parking adjacent to each property. • Concern with lot 3 — like to see the lot size larger and more uniform in size with the other lots. Mr. Bergman said if more space was located onto parcel three it would need some sort of access agreement for the guest parking space. • Could the house be removed and have condominiums continue toward the street. Mr. Bergman said the applicant wishes to retain the existing house. • The letter from the designer to the neighbor requesting a shared driveway should have had more motivation to encourage this to happen. • The property did not have a sign on it noticing the meeting application. • Should an access and maintenance agreement be required for this project? • What is the purpose of requiring attached housing in a Multi Family zone? Mr. Strong said it would otherwise have to be a Development Code amendment. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. John Hopkins, architect answered questions from the Commission: • Lot 1 does have less impervious surface than lots 2 & 3, but the surveyor could do a more detailed analysis. Mr. Strong said Public Works could verify that there will be not be an increase in impervious surface. Commissioner Keen noted that this had been addressed in the Conditions of Approval No. 66. Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. Commission Brown: • Below units per acre, but design could be better. • Like to see Lot 3 larger. • Not happy with the "attached" definition. Commissioner Fowler: • The project meets with the Development Code requirements. • The project is compatible with the neighborhood — the zoning is correct. • Approved of the project. • Did not believe the applicant should be asked to tear down the home to make the change in the property. Commissioner Arnold: • Liked the design of the second story home (not looking over the neighbors). • The existing home should not be saved and would like to see the condos continued. • Could support the project if the driveways were shared with condos to the rear. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 PAGE 3 Commissioner Keen: • Did not believe the units needed to be attached. • With the 3 foot setback there should be no fencing so the houses can be worked on. • Did not think the sun porch was attractive - it narrows down the driveway to 16 feet. • All onsite utilities would need to be undergrounded. • Approved of the project. Chair Guthrie: • The purpose of requiring "the attachment" is to increase density otherwise this would not meet the new Housing Element. • Had a conflict as the project achieves its goal, but may be precedent setting. • The lot lines are rather contrived. • The small lot is difficult to develop. • Has concern about on-site retention. Commissioner Fowler made a -motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen to approve Planned Unit Development 03-004 and Tentative Parcel Map 03-006, with the following modifications: 1. Include a Condition regarding a 3% affordable housing fee. 2. No fence to be installed in yards with a 3 -foot setback. and adopt: RESOLUTION 03-1910 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 03-006 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 03-004 LOCATED AT 1169 MAPLE STREET, APPLIED FOR BY MILLISSEE K. THOMPSON The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fowler, Keen, Brown and Chair Guthrie NOES: Commissioner Arnold ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEM III.B: CONTINUED ITEM: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 03-006; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — VICINITY OF TRAFFIC WAY AND STATION WAY, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, and Community Development Director, Rob Strong MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 PAGE 4 1 Ms. McClish gave the presentation of the staff report explaining that this was a continuation of consideration of the revision of the Design Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay D-2.11 for the vicinity of Traffic Way and Station Way. The City Council at their meeting of October 14, 2003, continued the whole proposal to allow the Design Guidelines and Standards to be reviewed in conjunction with the zoning proposal. Ms. McClish reminded the Commission that the Design Overlay D-2.11 covers both Traffic Way and Station Way; and includes specific uses for some areas. The ARC made some revisions to the Design Guidelines and Standards and made revisions proposed for the Development Code to help address the interface between the auto retailers and the adjacent residents 1) Section 16.36.020: all Commercial projects proposed in Mixed Use Districts be required to meet appropriate standards for mixed use projects, and 2) Section 16.52.0609, Specific Use Standards for Vehicle Retailers: requires additional screening. The Design Guidelines and Standards promote "Route 66" style. Commission Arnold: • Recent upgrade of the sign for the Mullahey Ford does not reflect the art deco style and this may take a long time to happen. Ms. McClish said staff has continued to process projects for this area with very few Guidelines to follow. The Station Way Guidelines do not promote art deco but must match design of the area. The City is hoping to eventually produce better design for this gateway area that also serves as a transition to the Village. Commissioner Fowler: • Page 3: Asked for clarification on the screening height of the landscaping — does it have to be 12 feet high immediately. Ms. McClish said it should allow time for the trees to grow. • Permitted Uses/Industry: Under Printing and Publishing, why is this not permitted in the VMU District? Ms. McClish said that it is under the Industry/Manufacturing area and is not a typical use for the Branch Street area, but could be accommodated in an area like Traffic Way. • These Guidelines and Standards still reflect planning for the short term. • Art Deco style is gaudy with neon etc. and will not enhance the area and does transition to the Village Guidelines where three or fewer colors are recommended. Commissioner Brown: • Exhibit B, page 2, 20 -foot setbacks from residential uses: Would like the chart to contain more language included to clarify. • Page 3 — 4 lighting: Like to see more specific language. Ms. McClish stated that the Development Code does contain very specific language relating to this. • How about the designs for shared parking. Mr. Strong said the specific shared parking designs are not a part of the concept plan and will be resolved later with the Traffic Commission. They will be looking at alternatives with the involvement of the neighborhood. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 PAGE 5 Chair Guthrie asked if the 12 -foot high landscaping screening and whether this was required on a 20 -foot setback. Mr. Strong stated that the 20 -foot was a building setback requirement, but landscaped screening could be accomplished on a 5 -foot setback; 12 foot high screening would be a tree or shrubs: fence height remains at 6 feet, with 8 feet allowable through a minor exception. Commissioner Arnold: • Exhibit 'C', Page 4: "Victorian period details", why is this included when Art Deco is recommended. Mr. Strong stated this applies to the interface between the Village and the Traffic and Station Way areas. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Ellen Gaver, 121 Allen Street: • Thanks City staff for the considerable amount of effort that had been made to address their concerns. • Concerns still with screening, noise, and lighting. Screening: Will there be a requirement to landscape the fence on their property line and who would enforce this. Lighting: the tree on the Christianson site has been trimmed and now all the light and view of their site has been revealed. Do they have to do the screening now? Noise: We have a noise issue now with an auto lift on a business that creates tremendous noise; how can this be dealt with as the language only addresses auto dealerships. Many of the problems will be dealt with as Use Permits are acquired and will be worked on a case-by-case basis. Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street: • Changing of Allen Street (to Short Street) as a one-way street may be the only solution for people living on this street. However, if this happens the only way out would be to go to PC Railway Street and may cause problems with other areas. Mike Short, 211 Allen Street thanked staff for their consideration of having a one-way street. Mr. Strong said the Traffic Commission would be resolving this in the future. Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. Commission Comments: Commissioner Keen: • The Interfacing of the Guidelines for businesses between Traffic Way and Station Way: There should be clarification that if a business goes through a lot the same facades should be allowed. Ms. McClish said this would be clarified in the headings and the character of the adjacent areas has to be considered. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 PAGE 6 • Page 2, No. 2 of the Guidelines & Standards: Do not remove "including motels" language as this may be a better use for property. • Page 3, No. 6: Should not state, "In no case shall" ...as some angle parking may b e required. • Reference to shared parking: Concern how the calculations on any reductions in parking are done; there has been some problems with shared parking ratios. Commissioner Arnold: • Re screening using vegetation: Clarify percentage and how translucent, time of maturity replacement, if plant dies. Mr. Strong said the Village guidelines has similar provisions and this could be repeated or made general design guidelines and applicable to all. Commissioner Fowler: • Concern with screening wording. • Color wording not appropriate • Does not like "auto age". Commissioner Brown: • Commended Ms. McClish on her work on the Guidelines. • Had concern with regard to preferential treatment of businesses based on tax revenues for the City. • Residential and mixed-use conflict is just beginning. Friction between different uses will need time to adjust, but appreciate the effort that has been made. Chair Guthrie: • Would it be a better alternative to have no Design Guidelines for this area? • Auto dealership next to residential is a fairly aggressive use, but they are in place arid we are trying to accommodate. • Likes the Art Deco style. • Not comfortable with the designation of Visitor Services. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold recommending that the City Council adopt Development Code Amendment 03-006, rezoning a portion of the Highway Commercial, General Commercial and Village Mixed Use Districts to Traffic Way Mixed Use; revising Design Guidelines and Standards for the vicinity of Traffic Way and Station Way, with the following amendments: 1. Page 2, No. 2 Special Considerations: Reinsert wording "including motels". 2. Page 3, No. 6: Change language to allow angle parking. 3. Expand the color palette to reflect the design designation. 4. Exhibit 'B' table, No. 7, 0-15 feet setback include language to be more specific. MINUTES PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 and adopt: RESOLUTION 03-1911 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 03-006 REZONING A PORTION OF THE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND VILLAGE MIXED USE DISTRICTS TO TRAFFIC WAY MIXED USE; REVISING DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR THE VICINITY OF TRAFFIC WAY AND STATION WAY The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Arnold, Brown and Chair Guthrie. NOES: Commissioner Fowler ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 2nd day of December 2003. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IV.A: PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 03- 009; APPLICANT LENNY GRANT; LOCATION — BARNETT ST. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster. Mr. Foster gave an overview of the proposal explaining that this was a review of revisions to a proposal for a mixed-use development consisting of twelve (12) residential units and one (1) commercial building with underground parking. The Commission previously reviewed the project on September 2, 2003 and the applicant has revised this proposal to remove the commercial component and is proposing a totally residential project. Noise may be a major issue with this project. Mr. Foster then stated the highlights of the staff report. Commission Questions to Staff: • Commissioner Keen — why is there a carport on unit 7? • Commissioner Arnold — 4 units as moderate income ($200,000's) no real discount. Mr. Strong stated the City would attach deed restrictions so they remain affordable or can require low and very low income. • Commissioner Brown — Public safety issue with two entries and exits? Mr. Foster — Building Code does not require this. • Commissioner Brown — are there drainage issues or concerns? Victor Devens, Public Works: the City does have storm drain facilities (drainage zone B) that can be used. • Commissioner Arnold — agreed that this site is appropriate for all residential; but he would like to the split face block be stone. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 PAGE 8 Lenny Grant, applicant, stated that the revised project is more suitable for the site; it is a gateway to the Village from the freeway; it is turn -of -the -century architecture located close to services and with a pedestrian lifestyle. Commission Comments: • Noise will have to be specifically addressed in the Conditions of Approval for the residences at this site. • This project may be more suited to low and very low-income housing. Mr. Cabreas, representative, stated that if low or very low-income housing is imposed on the project it may become unfeasible to develop. In reply Mr. Strong stated that there could be two low or very low units or 4 moderate -income units. • Public Works is concerned with the access and recommends it come off the intersection of Barnett Street and Cornwall Street. • The north and east elevations may be an issue (too high). • Having only one entrance to parking garage will require Code amendment. • The courtyard may not work because of traffic noise. • Affordable housing — condo fees need to be considered, moderate income may not be achievable. • Redevelopment funds may be available for the affordable housing. • There appears to be ingress and egress problems per current Code. • Parallel parking would be a problem as designed. The applicant thanked the Commission for their input and confirmed that the Commission were agreeable to: • The density - 16 units with four moderate -income units included (would also review two low-income to see if economically feasible). • Reduce the massing for the north elevation. • Exit and entrance into the parking to line up with Barnett Street (to be reviewed with Public Works). DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Initiate Development Code Amendment for parking structure access. The intention is to come back with several options. The Commission agreed to initiation of the Development Code Amendment. 2. Initiate Development Code Amendment for PUD in MFA district, including SFR units. The Commission requested that this come forward at the same time as other residential Development Code Amendments based on the new Housing Element. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Minor Use Permit 03-010; Applicant - 1071 Fairoaks; The Commission had no concerns regarding this proposal. Commissioner Arnold said he would be absent the meetings of January 6 and 20, 2004. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 PAGE 9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: 1. The City Housing Element was adopted by the City Council. 2. The Farroll Road project "Parkside" was approved by City Council. 3. Since the Housing Element has been adopted staff will be coming forward with Development Code Amendments for residential districts as well as affordable housing provisions. ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ATTEST: LAN REARDON-SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: ROB TRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 1 1 1 1