Loading...
PC Minutes 2003-03-04MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chair Keen presiding. Also present were Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Fowler, and Guthrie. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon and Public Works Engineer, Mike Linn. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. AGENDA REVIEW — No changes. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02-011; APPLICANT — RON ROHR; LOCATION — 1156 EAST GRAND AVENUE. Staff report prepared and presented by Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner. The Planning Commission agreed to continue this item to the meeting of March 18, 2003 as recommended by staff. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 02-001, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 02-004, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 02-002; SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 02-001, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 02-004; APPLICANT — S&S HOMES; LOCATION — JASMINE PLACE (ASH & COURTLAND ST.). Staff report prepared and presented by Kelly Heffernon. Ms. Heffernon described the proposed project giving architectural details, layout of the site and details of the applicant requested amendments. She stated that the applicant proposes to subdivide the property into 47 residential lots ranging in size from 3,128 square feet to 7,409 square feet (average size of the units is about 1400 square feet), and provide one 23, 522 square foot open space lot for possible recreation. The applicant also proposes that all 47 of the residential units be reserved for moderate - income families. Four different types of units are proposed as either separate units or a variety of duplex combinations. A linear parkway with meandering sidewalks connecting to the park is proposed along Ash Street, (out of the public right of way). The applicant is requesting an increase in density to allow up to 9 units per acre consistent with several policies in the General Plan especially in regard to affordable housing, but one of the policies states that affordable housing should be dispersed throughout the community which could be considered inconsistent with the proposed development. In addition, at issue is the minimum number of affordable units to be set aside as there is inconsistency between the General Plan and the Development Code. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 PAGE 2 Ms. Heffernon further stated that there were some unresolved issues related to the proposed park and Jasmine Place. Specifically, the Public Works Director and the Parks and Recreation Director had concerns with accepting the offers of dedication to the City because of responsibilities of maintenance for the park and the private road. The Parks and Recreation Director's main concern is safety of children that may cross the busy street to the pocket park from the sports complex. The Director would like to see the pocket park relocated to the interior of the project and would like to see a Home Owner's Association established to avoid any City maintenance requirement. With regard to the private road, if the applicant wishes the City to accept this dedication the Public Works Director has asked that the Tentative Map be revised and resubmitted. With regard to the drainage basin staff is recommending that it not be used for retention. Finally, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff was recommending that the PUD and map items be continued to a date certain to work out some of the issues. The Commission had questions of staff regarding the drainage basin, the traffic study, lot coverage allowance modification through the SPA process, the inconsistency between the General Plan and the Development Code re the method of determining 25% affordable units bonus, and size of lots backing up to existing Berry Gardens residences. Mike Linn, Engineer, Public Works explained that Berry Gardens ponding basin does have pumps so excess capacity can be pumped out and the proposed on-site basin can be eliminated entirely. The traffic study may need some more analysis if the concern is Oak Park rather than Elm Street. In answer to a question from Commissioner Keen, Ms. Heffernon stated that the applicant had confirmed that the 25% bonus is proposed to be 100% moderate -income housing, but the long-term restriction was not included. Vice Chair Keen opened the Public Hearing. John Mack, Architect, gave a power point presentation of the Jasmine Place development and stated that the project is providing high quality "workforce housing" driven by State housing mandates. Clarence Cabreras, Midstate Bank, stated they were proposing to finance a program created to give initial buyers with moderate income a variety of different types of loans and would cut fees in half and offer zero point loans. Jack Hardy, S&S Homes, stated S&S had bought the land and are proposing to hold the $100,000 "soft" second (accruing 4Y2% interest) and after a 10 year period if not refinanced, the City would get remaining seconds until forgiven after 30 years. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 PAGE 3 Planning Commission comments: • There was concern with the soft second being held by the builder and that the proposal from S&S would mean that the City could lose all or most of the affordable housing during the initial 10 -year period. They would prefer a permanent way to keep the affordable housing in the City or receive the funds from the second if refinanced. • How does medium high density fit with Berry Gardens? • There was a concern with the open space calculation. • They would like to see some units for lower income as well as moderate, at an even lower price than $228,000 ($328,000 without the second). • Was it a good idea to have all the affordable housing in the same location allowing "credit" to other developments? • Concern about maintenance of narrow private roads, access for fire trucks, etc. • Trash collection should have central location. • The project should have an HOA. • They liked the park in the center of the project, whether public or private. • Traffic study misdirected in the original scope of work. Commissioner Brown said he did not think the density was consistent with Berry Gardens and that he would like to see a transition between Berry Gardens and the Jasmine Place development. He stated property owners expect homes next to them to be similar. Vice Chair Keen closed the Public Hearing. After further extended discussion on unresolved issues, affordable housing, density bonuses and silent seconds the Commission made the following motions: Commissioner Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council an interpretation of the General Plan and Development Code - that when a density increase is given by GPA or DCA the required affordable housing quotient will be a minimum of 25% of the entire project. The motion .was approved with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Guthrie, Arnold, Fowler, and Vice Chair Keen NOES: Commissioner Brown ABSENT: None Commissioner Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, that the Planning Commission recommends to City Council the interpretation of the General Plan, Housing Element, H2-1, that each project be reviewed on a case-by-case basis MINUTES PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 regarding the concentration of affordable units (versus a "maximum" of 25% of the total in our area. The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Guthrie, Arnold, Fowler, and Vice Chair Keen NOES: Commissioner Brown ABSENT: None Commissioner Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the General Plan and Development Code Amendment regarding density and overall design of the project including: • A Home Owner's Association be formed with enforceable CC&R's; • That 15 or more of the 47 units be affordable long-term to moderate income families; • That the Berry Gardens drainage basin be used and that no retention basin on-site conflicting with park use. • That there be more diversity in the architectural appearance of the units. A model and more renderings should be provided for City Council. The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Guthrie, Arnold, Fowler, and Vice Chair Keen NOES: Commissioner Brown ABSENT: None NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS — None DISCUSSION ITEMS — None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS — Commissioner Brown asked if the packets could be delivered earlier to give more review time, as there were a great number of projects listed for the next meeting? Mr. Strong said because of special projects during the month of April it had been necessary to schedule these projects all on one Agenda. He said staff would make every effort to prepare at least a partial agenda packet earlier. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP - None NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - None DISCUSSION ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS — None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP — None. I L -J 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2003 PAGE 5 ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Guthrie, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: LYf4 REARDON-SMITH, COMMISSION CLERK AS TO CONTE ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVEL PMENT DIRECTOR J¢ KEEN, vr6E CHAIR 1 1