Loading...
PC Minutes 2003-04-011 1 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Guthrie presiding. Present were Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Fowler, and Keen. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director Rob Strong and Associate Planners Kelly Heffernon and Teresa McClish. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — No minutes to approve. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — Fred Baur — thought 125 Nelson street project was on tonight's agenda. Incorrect posting date at project site. Project to be heard on April 15, 2003. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — Letter from Heather Jensen re: CUP 02 -010 South County Historical Society. AGENDA REVIEW — No changes. PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM II.A. — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 02 -010; APPLICANT — SOUTH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY; LOCATION — 127 SHORT STREET. Prepared by Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner, presented by Rob Strong, Community Development Department Director. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Kirk Scott, South County Historical Society • Discussed item -by -item the components of the building that have been addressed as a result of ARC recommendations: — Roof material — corrugated metal that ages very quickly to promote historic appearance. — Metal strip on gabled ends of building have been removed. — Extended eves added to roof overhang. — Porticos were added over entrance doors. — Awnings were added over the windows, but are being reconsidered based on the City's emphasis on historic appearance. — Building color changed to historic dark brown. Douglas Sage, Miller Way, Historical Society Member • Believes the selected materials will blend in with the community. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 PAGE 2 Jan Scott, Curator of South County Historical Society • Asked how many of the attendees at this Planning Commission meeting are here to support the proposed structure. Approximately 12 citizens raised their hands and indicated that they live in the Village. Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. The Planning Commission discussed the following items related to this project: • Changes need to be made that were previously requested. • Concerns: Structure does not meet the Village Design Guidelines and Standards. — Scale too massive. Does not match or fit with surrounding buildings. — Landscaping is needed to enhance the right side of building and the area between the windows on the front elevation. — Windows may need to have awnings. Can be decided later. — Porch not attractive. • Support: — Usage supports building size, scale acceptable at the location (back against creek). — Changes are in line with what was requested. — Metal roof acceptable in this location. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, recommending the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 02 -010 with the following conditions and adopt the following resolution. Conditions of approval include: • Inclusion of Attachment A; and • Landscaping is to be added at the right side of the building and in the area between the windows on the front elevation. RESOLUTION NO. 03 -1880 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02 -010, LOCATED AT 127 SHORT STREET, APPLIED FOR BY THE SOUTH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: Commissioner Fowler ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 1 day of April 2003. PAGE 3 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.B. — LOCAL HOUSING TASK FORCE (LHTF) — CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP NO. 2 — HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES. Prepared and presented by Kelly Heffernan. The Planning Commission asked the LHTF members several questions about their recommendations and the potential impact on the City: • Minimum density (multi - family infill projects) — Example: require a minimum density in addition to maximum density for properties in "affordable housing" zones (e.g., don't allow 1 unit on a 1 acre parcel that has high density appropriate for affordable housing projects). • Increased density makes units more affordable. • Mobile homes vs. modular homes. • Land costs are driving the high prices; not construction costs. • Administrative approval of projects within 10% of development standards to speed up processing and reduce administrative effort and costs, and to reduce the impact of increasing land costs during approval processing. • Allow 30 days for pre - application projects to shorten lead times. • Development impact fees. • Density bonuses — the General Plan (H 1 -7) has a density bonus provision. There was concern about wording of the recommendation. It was suggested that the wording be changed to: "The City MAY give a density bonus..." • The LHTF report is missing a mechanism that spells out how to "plan to meet State requirements ". • People with low- income levels should not be penalized for Appeals. Appeal fees should not be raised — this could stifle a person's ability to be heard by the City. • City shall defer collection of 75% of development impact fees: o Commission asked, "What is the mechanism ?" o Commission prefers the wording, "The City may defer up to 75 %..." • How were ProForma numbers arrived at? How do they serve the Planning Commission and City Council? o Answer: they were intended to roughly show the impact of density. • Builders want to provide more workforce housing. They need the ability to determine through the process that they can still make a profit. • Deferment of fees — deferred fees should be paid before a certificate of occupancy is issued. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 PAGE 4 • Waived fees — would better serve the needs than deferral of fees. Quimby Act sets land aside for recreational usage. Building inspection fees should not be waived. • Concern: more administrative approvals may generate more appeals. • In lieu fees — still being considered by LHTF. • Definition of "affordable housing" — has not completely been resolved. o The City needs a definition of affordable that can be used as an enforcement tool. • 200% median income does not address needs of low income. • The Housing Element should spell out the enforcement mechanism by indicating "who" will enforce affordable housing and "how" it will be enforced. • Density bonus problems: setbacks and street requirements make it unfeasible. Not ready to give away density bonuses except to achieve very low, low and moderate income housing needs (to meet State mandate). • Rentals in this county are not financially feasible. • Secondary units are affordable — there is no additional land cost, the resident property owners ensure maintenance, and other benefits. • We can do something more than just satisfying the State. Adriana Olsteen — Provided affordable housing information to the Planning Commission. — Local rate of pay: $8 -12 per hour. • Commissioner Guthrie — wants a portion of every project to go to very low, low and moderate income families where density bonuses are given. • This document must define very low, low and moderate as part of the planning established in the final document LHTF prepares for the City. • Must have incentives for contractors taking a loss on their projects. • Fairly strong concerns about mobile home laws (Commissioner Guthrie indicated that Mr. London knows the laws, but was not able to attend this meeting). • Waiving fees — places burden on taxpayers and developers, there must be a mechanism for making them up. Where is the benefit if they are simply included in payments or otherwise still must be paid? • Fees — need to be reviewed for dense projects. • Bonds — did LHTF consider them? Dean Coker • Insurance companies will not insure construction projects for rental units. • Encourage builders to "combine" parcels where development projects are adjoining available and /or vacant parcels. ACTION: Staff to check with the City Attorney about whether there is a Brown Act conflict if PC members attend LHTF meetings without it being a Public Hearing. 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 PAGE 5 • The Planning Commission wants LHTF policies and bonuses to be tied to the very low, low and moderate income level_ solutions /proposals. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to continue the workshop to Thursday, April 3, 2003. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold, Fowler, Keen and Chair Guthrie. NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM II.C. — DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 02 -006 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 03 -001; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — VILLAGE OF ARROYO GRANDE. Prepared and presented by Teresa McClish. The Planning Commission discussed the following items related to this project: • In response to questions from Commissioners, Teresa and Rob explained why a General Plan Amendment is needed at this time and the reasons for zoning changes within the Village area. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing.. Nancy Underwood, 125 Short Street, resident for 30 years • Sign at 125 Nelson indicated that the project is being discussed tonight. • Against Mixed Use zoning. • Concerned about impact on character of the Village, taking the community away from older home atmosphere. • Against 0 ft. setbacks, obstruct views of neighboring homes. • Parking concerns; density of multi -use zoning. • Business hours operation is a significant concern due to the impact of noise on the Village residents. • The City needs to protect the character of Village and tourism. • Need more restrictions for properties where Mixed Use is implemented. Chuck Fellows, 507 Le Point Street • Mixed Use zoning, what are the allowed mixed uses and how will mixed use impact the Village character? For example, the proposed 125 Nelson Street project with 5 commercial and 7 residential units. • Mixed Use area seems to be getting larger. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 Susan Flores, 529 E. Branch • Concern that the City Council throws out what the Planning Commission recommends (example: East Village Plaza) or that the Council approves projects without enough consideration. • Concern that other property owners may choose not to conform to Village style if Mixed Use zoning is implemented. • City Council members do not attend ARC and Planning Commission meetings and don't seem to be aware of the amount of work, thought and consideration that is put into projects before they go to Council. Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. The Planning Commission discussed the following items related to this project: • The Commission is torn about how to handle the Mixed Use projects and the impact of Mixed Use on residents. • Lowest level definition of Mixed Use is residential and commercial uses side -by- side. Mixed Use implies more intensive use. Mixed Use will create more conflict. • The City needs strong protections and directions within the guidelines regarding adaptive reuse of existing buildings. • Strict guidelines should determine what types of Mixed Uses are allowed and how Mixed Use projects will be managed. • Scale of development is a significant part of the concern. Residents want to see residential scale in their neighborhoods. Could leave it residential until we are clear about what we mean by Mixed Use. • Parking requirements may need to be relaxed for adaptive reuse properties. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to approve General Plan Amendment 03 -001 and to continue Development Code Amendment 02- 006 to May 6, 2003. Staff is to provide the following items to the Planning Commission for the continuation meeting: 1. Map clarifications 2. VMU refinements RESOLUTION NO. 03 -1890 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 02 -006; REZONING THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND PORTIONS OF THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT TO VILLAGE CORE DOWNTOWN AND VILLAGE MIXED USE, AND REZONING A PORTION OF THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT TO VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL PAGE 6 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold, Fowler, Keen and Chair Guthrie. NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 1 day of April 2003. PAGE 7 NON - PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM III.A. — PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 03- . 004; APPLICANT — CONNIE CETTI; LOCATION — 200 NELSON STREET. Prepared . and presented by Teresa McClish. Connie Cetti • Antique stores have low automobile traffic requirements. • Hours will be short and not disruptive to the neighborhood. Fred Baur, 212 Short Street • Connie Cetti walked around the neighborhood and asked people (who were home) how they would feel about her store in the neighborhood. The response was favorable. • Phil Ziedman did not use this approach and the neighbors are not happy with the proposed project at 125 Nelson Street. • Alternative parking may be available nearby where virtually nobody parks (around Nelson Green). • Asks the Commissioners to be as flexible as possible on this project. The Planning Commission discussed the following items related to this project: • Proposed on -site parking: 1 handicapped space; 2 non - handicapped spaces. • Handicapped ramp (on site) changes the look and feel of the location. We lose spirit of adaptive reuse by paving the property. — Prefer handicapped parking on the street or some other location, if possible. — Consider handicapped parking in one of the two adjacent spaces on site. • Off -site parking on City streets (potential 4 spaces). • Good use of the site; exactly what we are looking for in this location. This is the type of commercial use we are looking for in the Village. • Adaptive reuse — In lieu fees instead of handicapped parking space on site. • Concerned about City taking on ADA space may make City vulnerable. — ADA rules are very tight. — Creative solution for the ADA site rather than it being on site, but must have a viable solution. • If the homes in this area became commercial, there would be a parking problem. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 DISCUSSION ITEMS: City Council asked the Planning Commission to come forth with a proposal to change the City's ordinance for undergrounding of utilities. Vice chair Guthrie and Commissioner Keen and Vice chair Guthrie will be a sub - committee to work with the Public Works Director, Don Spagnolo, and Community Development Director, Rob Strong. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Meeting availability: • Commissioner Keen — not available May 20 Commissioner Brown — might not available the last week of April. Commissioner Fowler — not available May 6th. Chair Guthrie — not available June 1St COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: East Village Plaza — The City Council voted 3/2 in favor of upholding the appeal. TENTATIVE ITEMS: Viewshed 03 -002, 126 Allen Street: A secondary dwelling needs to be addressed in addition to the viewshed. The Community Development Director approved the project with a referral to the Planning Commission. La Tapatia Restaurant: Research is being conducted to obtain compliance from the owner or pursue revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. An interpreter is being obtained to assist with communication with the owner. The item will be on May 6 agenda. ADJOURNMENT — There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:54 p.m. on a motion by Chair Guthrie, seconded by Commissioner Brown, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: GZ- ltG`l�ii� Jia7-� L ONNE BRADFO , COMMISSION CLERK AS TO NTE ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELO MENT DIRECTOR JAME5'GUTHRIE, CHAIR PAGE 8