Loading...
PC Minutes 2003-09-021 1 1 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING — PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 CALL TO ORDER — The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Guthrie presiding; also present were Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Fowler and Keen. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster and Jim Bergman, Planning Intern, Kristin Krasnove and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW - The Commission agreed to move Item II.B. to the last Public Hearing Item due to the applicant's late arrival. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: - The minutes of July 15, 2003 were unanimously approved as written on a 5/0 voice vote. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter dated August 29, 2003 from Jacqueline King re VTTM Case NO. 02 -002, DCA Case No. 02 -002, GPA Case No. 02 -001 & SPA Case No. 02 -001, Public Hearing Item II.C. 2. Letter received from Helen Yager, 213 Elm Street re Viewshed Review 03 -004, Public Hearing Item II.A. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.A - VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 03 -004; APPLICANT — STEVE ACCORNERO; LOCATION — 195 NORTH ELM. Staff report prepared and presented by Planning Intern, Kristin Krasnove. Ms. Krasnove presented the staff report giving details of the proposed second story and explaining that this was being heard due to the written comments objecting to the expansion and the fact that it would block views. Commissioner Brown asked how Condition No. 6 re the use of the garage could be enforced? Mr. Strong said it may be difficult to enforce, but could be monitored occasionally, at random, by Code Enforcement. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Steve Accornero, representative, described the proposed project stating it was his client's intention to improve the look of his property and he confirmed that his client would be occupying one of the residences. Commiss oner Brown asked Mr. Accornero if his client had considered a redesign after the neighbor's complaints? Mr. Accornero said they had not considered redesign as the highest level of the house was only 22 feet. Chair Guthrie had a concern with the turning radius of the two garages and that there may be a conflict with the `hobby' garages. The applicant stated that there had never been any problem backing out of the existing garages and the new garage is a straight back out. In addition, the driveway is wide enough to back out from the rear garage if necessary. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Brown stated he could approve the project as if the Conditions of Approval recommended by staff were included. Commissioner Keen stated he could not approve because the second story would block the view from other homes. Commissioner Arnold said approving this could create a domino effect. Commissioner Fowler stated that this would improve the look of the area, not decrease the value of any other properties in the area and there are other two story homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Guthrie stated that he believed there are other ways to achieve additional space and not have such a massive effect on neighborhood and that this was too large of a building. Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, to approve the Resolution denying approval of the Viewshed Review case no. 03 -004, and adopt: RESOLUTION 03 -1900 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPROVAL OF VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 03 -004, LOCATED AT 195 NORTH ELM, APPLIED FOR BY STEVE ACCORNERO The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Arnold, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: Commissioners Brown and Fowler ABSENT: None PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.C. — VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 02 -002; DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 02 -002, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 02 -001; SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 02 -001; APPLICANT — DON McHANEY; LOCATION — NORTH SIDE OF FARROLL AVE BETWEEN OAK PARK BLVD AND GOLDENT WEST PLACE. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Heffernon and Assistant Planner — Jim Bergman. Mr. Bergman gave the presentation, describing the highlights of the proposal and explaining that circulation in the proposed development would be through a newly created "N. Bakeman Circle ", a private 20 foot wide access drive and access to the 13 single family homes would be through the completion of the cul -de -sac on Dixson Street. He further stated that SAC and ARC had reviewed the project and explained their recommendations. There are still many technical details outstanding that relate to sewer, water, drainage, and traffic. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 In reply to a question from Commissioner Arnold Ms. Heffernon stated that ARC had reviewed plans of the single - family homes and these had inadvertently not been included in the Commission's packets. Commissioner Brown asked why a General Plan Amendment is being required when the General Plan Update has just been completed. Mr. Strong said at the time of the General Plan, the applicant had not submitted a request for change. In reply to further questions from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Strong then explained how the density was calculated, why the proposal was part of a Planned Development and the requirement in the Development Code that 25% of the project be affordable housing versus the text of the General Plan Housing Element proposing "25% of the increase ". Mr. Bergman then clarified how the density was calculated for the project. In reply to a question from Chair Guthrie, Mr. Strong said Public Works has numerous technical concerns that have been inadequately addressed at this time: including storm drainage, sewer lines, water lines, deficiency of fire flow for the entire area and the connection of the water line across Soto Park, and the street width. He further stated that staff believes this project has merit and is appropriate to the neighborhood, but we are interested in the neighborhood opinion. In reply to Commissioner Arnold's question, Mr. Strong stated the traffic study that was previously submitted has been amended to discuss the current project, but there are problems with the assumptions made. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. PAGE 3 John Mack, Architect, for S & S Homes, gave his presentation and described the changes made since the proposal was last submitted to the Planning Commission: traffic redirected from the Dixson exit with a cul -de -sac; the needs of the community have been addressed with affordable homes; there are three plan types each with different prices; all multi - family units will be fitted with fire sprinklers in lieu of the 40 -foot street width. The Commission questioned the applicant at length regarding the numbers /ratios being used for the distribution of traffic and expressed concern that there were no numbers for the intersection at Farroll Avenue and Oak Park. Mr. Mack stated they had studied the most impacted intersections that could change the LOS and the ones that staff had asked them to study. Chair Guthrie disagreed with the distribution figures and said the figures were understated on Oak Park Blvd. Commissioner Keen explained that logically he had a problem with the SANDAG traffic study guidelines because the price of the proposed houses would require both parties in a home to work so there would be double the traffic stated (majority will go north on Oak Park). Commissioner Brown recommended that it would be better if the traffic engineer were present to defend the issues raised in the SANDAG report. Mr. Mack asked that the criteria be made clear to them. Chair Guthrie stated the issue was not with SANDAG, but the last time significant questions were raised re the distribution; the numbers are not realistic. Commissioner Brown asked that in terms of the traffic, could configuration of project be different to generate less trips. Mr. Mack replied that the master plan considered what was best for Dixson Street and providing affordable housing for the community. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. PAGE 4 Commissioner Brown stated the street width should be the normal 40 -foot, curb -to -curb. Chair Guthrie said if there was no parkway there could be a 40 -foot road and no sprinklers would be required. Paul Usavaqe, 1374 Dixson Street: • Concern with turn onto Oak Park Blvd; it has been somewhat addressed, but still some concern- most traffic goes north on Oak Park to Hwy 101. • Traffic has changed since Oak Park opened up. • Lot sizes as proposed in Phase I not in character with rest of neighborhood and amending General Plan Update is a concern. Pete Gallagher had concerns with: • Size of 13 lots some on flag lots which could create a problem. • Lots sharing common drives may pose significant amount of problems. • Does not agree that these are medium priced homes. • 32 foot street: No provision for children in neighborhood. • Design does not provide pedestrian access to Soto Park on Ash — need easement to back of Soto Sports Complex, need to provide for children's recreation. • Density of 60 units and zero lot lines is problematic. Jackie Kirk - Martinez, 1379 Dixson Street: • Re the Oak Park and Farroll Avenue intersection peak time traffic: does not agree with distribution numbers. • Concern with place for children to play to avoid accidents. • Horse shoe (cul -de -sac) concern with fire and density with no outlet. • Concern with flag lots in keeping with the Dixson St. Mr. Mack in response: • The average lot size on Dixson Street is in keeping with the neighborhood and has extra buffer as it is in between two streets; the single fronting lots are smaller. • There are no flag lot configurations; all homes will have street frontage, but the common driveway access can be removed if preferred. • Recreational facilities: we showed some park area, but Parks & Recreation does not want another pocket park to maintain. Every unit has open space. • Benefits of zero lot lines: we moved units to provide more room on one side. • Site circulation: the Fire Chief said they preferred a 20 -foot paved road width or fire sprinklers. • Traffic issue: like to have some guidance on what reference to use. Commissioner Arnold: • This is a better design than before - will not dump traffic onto Dixson. • Only 4 or 5 Tots that are 6,000 most lots 8000- may need to make lots bigger on Phase I. • Pedestrian access between Phase I & 2 would benefit the neighborhood. 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 • Why no twin homes? — would look better, give driveways adjacent to one another and provide larger yards. • Like to see a bus route on Farroll Avenue (maybe where Tots 12 & 13 are) trying to cut down on traffic. • Retention basin plan: suggest take lot 13 and make retention basin and pocket park for younger families to use. • Like to see more homes with adjacent driveways to provide more parking. • Opposed to carports because Plan C only has 10 feet in front - no room to park. Will look untidy. • Think this type of affordable project is needed, but Tots are very small. Like idea of twin homes. Many unresolved issues: traffic study, drainage issue. Commissioner Fowler: • Very happy to see the loop — addresses the issue of Dixson Street. • In favor of more affordable housing, but find these Tots very small. • Like the idea of twin homes. • Manny unresolved issues- traffic, drainage. PAGE 5 Commissioner Brown: • Went from one extreme to another with the density. • Ne'ghborhood concern with lot size and hope the mix and configuration in the number of single family residences — like to see more Tots in the 6200 sq ft range. • Agree with Commissioner Arnold on shared driveways, carports and parking issues. • Families with small children need a place to congregate and with affordable housing there will probably be a lot of small children. • Pedestrian access to Soto Park needs to be addressed. • Should have landscape treatment even with 40 -foot roadway. • Like to hear from Traffic Engineer. Commiss oner Keen: • Dixson Street: size of Tots should be more compatible with the existing. • Problem with no parking in front of garages for most of the Tots. • The Development Code (quoted code) specifies that open space be provided for Multi - Family and that a minimum of 500 sq ft of common recreation area and open space shall be provided for each residential lot in the subdivision. This project does not provide recreation place for young children and does not meet the required standards. • Traffic concerns. • Th City needs to address the drainage. Chair Guthrie: • Liked the changes re the cul -de -sac. • Streetscape looks the same — it is important to establish what the streetscape would be. • Shared driveways are a good solution for small and odd shaped Tots. • Staff should review street widths MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 PAGE 6 • Zero lot lines can work, but would get a bigger yard with twin home concept — this could become a retirement area. • Traffic issue could be solved with re- distribution studies understated, but not sure yet who will occupy this project. • Like to see bus stop. • Need recreational element included — suggest lot 13. • Pedestrian connection between Phases I and 2 should be worked out. • Carport can provide extra parking, but need parking in front of carport also. • 40 ft wide street- give more room to lots instead of parkway with detached sidewalk? Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to continue the project to the meeting of October 7, 2003. The motion was unanimously approved on a 5/0 voice vote. The Commission took a 10- minute break. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.B — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 03 -001 & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 03 -003; APPLICANT — PHIL ZEIDMAN; LOCATION —125 NELSON STREET. Mr. Foster explained that this project was continued from July 15, 2003 to allow sufficient time for revision of plans. Revised plans were submitted to the Community Development Department, but there are several unresolved building code issues with the plans. Therefore, staff is requesting that this project be continued. The applicant is submitting revised plans tonight, but because staff has not had time to review these plans staff is recommending continuance. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Phil Zeidman, applicant, said they revised the plans after last Commission meeting as requested, but had been informed a few days ago that the plans were not in conformance with building codes. He further stated that he would like the Commission to accept the concept and planning issues of the project as submitted and allow the applicant to resolve the Building Department issues with Building. Chair Guthrie said it would be difficult to approve a project with changes not seen. Mr. Strong stated that staff needs to fully evaluate plans before public comment and that the plans previously submitted were inadequate and inaccurate. He further stated that this is the first mixed -use project to be submitted during the Development Code changes and staff would like to make sure it is correct, and a desirable design, not just code compliant. Fred Bauer, 212 Short Street, stated this was never a good project and Mr. Zeidman's problem was not with the City, but unprofessional work in addition to not being an attractive project. He further stated he would like to see a model of the project. Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 PAGE 7 Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to continue the meeting to a date uncertain. The Commission unanimously agreed to the motion on a 5/0 voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.D. — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 03 -005; HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. Staff report prepared and presented by associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon. Ms. Heffernon gave her presentation stating that this is the first formal public hearing on the Draft Housing Element and staff has revised the document for. Commission discussion and review from workshops and has submitted it to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for their technical review. Ms. Heffernon then addressed some of the changes with regard to issues addressed in the staff report and Commission comments and went on to explain some of the tables included in the Housing Element Update. She introduced Ray Hetherington, consultant, to answer Commission questions. Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Keen asked for some clarification, as they were absent from some of the workshops. Ms. Heffernon clarified how the 30 -year deed restriction would be monitored. Commissioner Arnold: • Ca the City restrict waiver of in -lieu fees for the residents of the City of Arroyo Grande only? Ms. Heffernon replied that the City Attorney said this would be discriminatory, but there are some ways that priorities can be created to allow this, such as a lottery or rebates. Commissioner Keen stated that if the City of Arroyo Grande created bonding or were taxed to provide affordable housing then he would be disappointed if people from outside the area took advantage of this. Ms. Heffernon suggested that the Commission insert some creative language regarding this issue into the Draft document for the City Attorney to review specifics for legality. Jerry Bunin, Building Association, asked if there was an in -lieu fee included for residential construction if a builder does not want to build the inclusionary units? Ms. Heffernon said the in -lieu fee had not been eliminated for less than nine units. Mr. Bunin said it would not be a good idea to eliminate the in -lieu fee, as there would be some advantages for small projects. Ms. Heffernon said Program F.2 -1 in the document gives alternatives. Commissioner Arnold: Section 2.1, Goal E — E.4 -1, asked that language reflect using the 30 years having this continue to be included. Ms. Heffernon said language to reflect a rollover when sold could be included in Policy B.1. In addition, he would like to see included how commercial businesses may be paying an in -lieu fee. Ms. Heffernon said that Program F.3 -1 was amended to read that the City shall conduct a feasibility study to determine the appropriate inclusionary housing requirement for commercial development. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 For clarification Ms. Heffernon read the in - lieu fee section. PAGE 8 Lenny Grant, developer, spoke in support of Mr. Bunin's comments regarding in -lieu fees, based on the difficulty of meeting the parking and driveway requirements, stating they sometimes cannot physically build the density bonus units, but the in -lieu fee can still meet the inclusionary requirement. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, asked if there was language in the 30 -year deed restriction to enable it to be rolled over to inheritors if they planned to live in it. Staff clarified that language will be included to ensure that the 30 -year restriction would roll over any time the property changed ownership. Chair Guthrie stated that regarding the in -lieu fee, if it is reflective of the cost of producing the affordable home there should be no disadvantage to the developer in providing the affordable home. Commissioner Arnold asked if staff had found out how the City could qualify secondary dwellings as counting towards the Regional Housing Needs Allocation and whether the City would need to impose a 30 -year deed restriction? Mr. Hetherington replied that they had not received a reply from the State regarding this, but they believe to qualify it as affordable housing unit, it would have to be deed restricted. Ms. Heffernon said it would be further researched for verification. Chair Guthrie - D.1 -1: Asked for clarification on this Program. Ms. Heffernon clarified. Commissioner Arnold - D -1: Would like to see the word "may" replace "shall ". Ms. Heffernon pointed out that D.2 -1 addresses how parking is to be calculated based upon the number of bedrooms. The Commission had no further comments and agreed to meet again at a date uncertain. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM III.A. — PRE - APPLICATION CASE NO. 03 -009; APPLICANT — GRANT DORMAN; LOCATION — BARNETT STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster. Mr. Foster described the proposed project. Victor Devens, Public Works Engineer gave an update from the Staff Advisory Committee meeting: • There is a large high - pressure gas pipe across frontage of property. • The sewer is not properly funded per the capital improvement project and a portion may be required to be installed across the property and freeway. • There are issues with curb gutter and sidewalk. Mr. Foster clarified for the Commission, that this was originally proposed as a PUD with separate parcels, but because of the way the deck would work over the parking it will be airspace condominium development. 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 PAGE 9 Chair Guthrie asked about drainage issues. Mr. Deven said that Public Works are asking that the drop inlet be upgraded and extended out to the Caltrans drainage ditch; he would also check if there was adequate capacity in the Caltrans ditch for a 100 -year storm. Lenny Grant, Project Architect, gave information regarding the sewer depth, finished floor height and stated they would be keeping the oak trees, but removing some riparian and pine trees. Commissioner Brown asked what kind of retaining walls they would be having. Mr. Grant said there would be 10 -11 foot retaining wall running parallel to Barnett Street on the south side, but it would not be seen from Barnett Street because the parking will be completely underground and he went on to explain in detail the grading of the project and concluded by saying that the site lends itself to this design. Mr. Grant further explained that the idea was to provide smaller housing units and some commercial on the development also. The ownership will be airspace condominium with the feel of a townhouse. He has designed the project with an internally facing courtyard and the bedrooms and living space face the courtyard. Commissioner Arnold recommended some serious landscaping for the back of property to enhance freeway appearance of the three level structure. Mr. Grant said full sprinkling of the commercial building and parking garage will be required and the parking garage will be open, but may also include a venting system. Commissioner Keen: • They should make sure the freeway noise is addressed • He thought this would be a poor place for commercial. Mr. Grant further clarified the elevations and where the yards would be and said some approximately 5 feet of the retaining wall would be visible from Barnett. Commissioner Brown had issues with: • An all- residential project in mixed -use zone. • Retaining walls. Commissioner Fowler said she would prefer not to see anything built on this site, but if it is built thought there should be more commercial. Mixed use acceptable- may be parking issues. Commissioner Arnold: • The stucco wall is very large (stone would be preferable) and would need landscaping to break it up. • Hope they were planning to cover the ceiling of garage. • Not mind if completely residential. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Chair Guthrie: • This is a creative solution for this spot. • It is not natural residential area because of the freeway. • He was open to it all being residential which could stand -alone in a commercial area. • The major concern is the drainage issue. • The wall facing the freeway could be a big problem to make it functional. • It could be a large office building or hotel site. The Commission had no further comments. Mr. Strong said the Pre - Application would now go next to the ARC and suggested that a 3D model of the proposal would be helpful. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS - None. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP - Mr. Strong said the General Plan Amendment for the Agricultural Conservation would be returning to the Planning Commission on September 16 for a report and recommendations. Commissioner Brown asked for an update on the removal of 18 oak trees on the Gary Young project. Mr. Strong said it was approved, but they had $22,000 in in -lieu fees in addition to mitigation planting. Mr. Strong then gave an update on Philly's restaurant and on the Bed & Breakfast sound wall. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. on a motion - Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Brown. ATTE T: L N REARDON- SMITH, COMMISSION CLERK AS TO CONT_ NT: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELO " MENT DIRECTOR PAGE 10 A ES GUTHRIE, CHAIR 1 1 1