Loading...
PC Minutes 2003-02-181 1 1 MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION AND LOCAL HOUSING TASK FORCE SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 2003 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Commissioner Brown presiding. Also present were commissioners Fowler and Guthrie. Vice Chair Keen and Commissioner Arnold, arrived at 6:35 P.M.. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong and Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon. Local Housing Task Force members in attendance were: Larry Anderson, Roy Berger, Jerry Bunin, Michael Byrd, Lenny Jones, Mark London, Carol Hatley and Steve Sanders and Ray Hetherington, consultant. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Minutes of January 21, 2003 and February 4, 2003 were unanimously approved as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — Andrew Williams (Pat William's son) read a letter from Otis Page regarding Smart Growth. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — Correspondence from the Local Housing Task Force (LHTF) was provided to the Planning Commission at the start of the meeting. AGENDA REVIEW — No change. PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM II.A.1. — 2003 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE — WORKSHOP NO. 2. Prepared and presented by Kelly Heffernon. Kelly Heffernon gave a PowerPoint slide presentation titled "Compact Development and Affordable Housing are not new concepts ". The presentation showed pictures of numerous affordable housing sites depicting that they can be attractively designed and landscaped, enhancing the community. LHTF Chair, Steve Sanders, provided an overview of the task force program and presented the "Synopsis of Findings" and constraints and recommendations documents. The task force and Planning Commission workshop evolved into a general discussion that provided the following information: Steve Sanders • There is not sufficient funding for affordable housing. • "Creation" of land is needed through rezoning (e.g., of commercial land), increased densities, etc. • The City needs to address housing for people with incomes between $0 to $200K; 60% of people with median and below median incomes require direct subsidies to buy a home. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 PAGE 2 • Growth cannot be controlled or prevented; it will happen and must be planned for. • Income required to qualify for a home in this area is 200% of median income (median income is $53,600). Hence, an income of $107,200 is required [200% x 53,600 = $107,200]. • Thrust of California State's goals is for people in this income range. • There must be incentives to do affordable housing; otherwise it won't happen due to cost of building (land, permits, etc.). Jerry Bunin • Median house price in Santa Barbara County is $850K. • Median price home sold in San Luis Obispo County was $375K in 2002. • Median price home sold in Arroyo Grande in 2002 was $475K. Since November 2002, it has increased to $525K. • People earning $100K are having difficulty finding homes in the area. • In mid - January there were 127 homes on the market in SLO County; only 20 were for Tess than $350K; everyone making median income that was looking for a home was bidding on those 20 homes. • SLO County is the only coastal county with a growth ratio where in- migration supersedes birth /death ratio growth. In SLO the ratio is 4/1 (4 =in- migration; 1= birth /death ratio); growth in other counties is mostly from birth /death ratio. • Coastal counties are not building enough homes to meet the natural (birth /death) ratio. There was clarification about the LHTF presentation being a "draft ". A decision was made to schedule a follow -up meeting at which time the Planning Commission will provide feedback to LHTF, then LHTF will create a more formal Housing Element submission for the City. Public Hearing Opened Otis Page, 606 Myrtle Street • Complimented the Local Housing Task Force on their progress. • Housing is where the rubber meets the road — the citizens must be involved. • There is an opportunity to almost fulfill California State's housing mandate with the Williams property (200 acres). They are on record to the City with a letter stating they can put 1,200 units at about $250K per unit. The profits would pay for a new highway interchange. The City only needs 300 acres at 4.5 units per acre to fulfill the State housing mandate. • Increasing density will be a problem for the City. That is not the right answer. We don't want the City to be filled with density, especially when we have available open space. 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 Greg McGowan, 330 Tally Ho • Because we have a small town we have the opportunity to look at various neighborhoods specifically. A one -size solution does not fit all situations in Arroyo Grande. • Focus on diversity and flexibility. • It is crucial that we have Public Works and Engineering and other departments evaluate the impacts of proposed solutions on resources. Public Hearing Closed The discussion highlighted the following issues: PAGE 3 PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM II.A.2. — SECOND RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS. Prepared and presented by Kelly Heffernon. Kelly explained that new California legislation, Assembly Bill 1866, passed in September 2002, goes into effect on July 1, 2003. AB 1866 requires a ministerial application process for approving second units, and prohibits public hearings on permit applications for second units. To comply with the new law, the City must revise its existing Second Unit ordinance, which is related to the Housing Element; however, it has a shorter timeline. Therefore it must done separately. LHTF has reviewed what other communities are doing. Pismo Beach is furthest along of all communities in the Central Coast. Kelly referred to Attachment 6, a Secondary Dwelling Unit draft regulation from Pismo Beach and put forth a schedule outlining what steps can be taken and the timeframe to meet the State's requirements. The Planning Commission discussed the intent and purpose of developing an ordinance for Secondary Dwelling Units. If the City does not develop stricter regulations, the City must use regulations established by the State. • Maximum height and square footage of secondary units: - Avoid risk of lots becoming "flag lots" by limiting size of secondary units. - Ensure size of secondary units is proportional to lot sizes. - Use of primary residential unit lot/floor area ratios to limit second unit size. - Consider using percentage ( %) of primary residence size to determine allowable size for secondary unit. • Granny Units (the City does not have an ordinance for these and staff did not have information that specified how a Granny unit differs from a Secondary unit). • Slope density — changes the lot density and lot coverage. • Impact on residential neighborhoods — perpetuation of rentals impact on zoning and ambiance of neighborhood. • Potentially many secondary units throughout the City that are not permitted due to cost of impact fees. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 • LHTF recommended NOT using deed restrictions for secondary units because they are not enforceable and are a potential problem for lending institutions. If the goal is owner occupancy — the City would need a mechanism to support that goal. • Split meters (water, electricity, gas) and tiered rates. • Secondary units are a way for new homeowners to afford a home. • Impact on setbacks. • Secondary units not to be sold separately from primary residence. • Existing illegal secondary units — cannot enforce unless a complaint is received and we investigate. • Potential for increased restriction resulting in increased number of illegal secondary units. • Impact on parking in neighborhoods — significant issue that must be addressed. • Ability to limit the number of secondary units within a neighborhood — may be inequitable. • Need to encourage alternative transportation and fewer cars — Santa Barbara has rental reduction bonus for people without cars. • Impact of secondary units on Home Owner's Associations (HOA's). • Detached unit requirements — example, a 400 s.f. unit above a detached garage. • Impact on character of neighborhood. • Potential of using Secondary Dwelling Units to meet affordable housing mandate. • Do CC &R's supersede the City's zoning? (staff to check with the City Attorney) — CC&R's are independent of state and local regulations. Public Hearing Opened PAGE 4 Steve Sanders (SESLOC), LHTF Chair • Avoid overbuilding on the properties. • Primary concern is to not allow building of secondary units that is out of character with existing neighborhoods. • Move away from concept of "Granny unit" (resident is a relative) to concept of "affordable workforce housing ". Lenny Jones (Realtor), LHTF • Cannot avoid impact of secondary units changing the make up of neighborhoods. • Parking enforcement mechanism will be necessary and is important. • Rarely sees illegal secondary units. Harry Goodnight, 170 Vista Circle • Home is on 1 /2 acre abutting open space. Doesn't want secondary units to change the original intent of the neighborhood. • Bring affordable housing to other areas of the City. Doesn't want it forced upon all neighborhoods. 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 PAGE 5 Greg McGowan, 330 Tally Ho • Is there some data that can be used to evaluate and decide on square footage for secondary units? • He is a first time homeowner, a secondary unit is an option that would help him financially to survive here. • Concerned to hear that the City cannot enforce certain policies. • His lot is 18,000 s.f., zoned RS - with a small house (1,000 s.f.) built in 1936 that is made of rocks cemented together. It's charming, but... • He may want to build a primary unit that is much larger and use the existing structure as a secondary unit. He would want an ordinance that allows him the option to do that. Mike, Branch St. • Used to live in Napa. Suggested checking to see if they have studies the City can review. Public Hearing Closed ACTIONS: 1. Staff to check with Tim Carmel on CC &R's (do they supersede or supplement state and local regulations). 2. Adjourned Meeting: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 at 6:00 PM • Secondary Units • Feedback to Local Housing Task Force PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM II.B. — CONTINUED ITEM — VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. Prepared by Teresa McClish and presented by Rob Strong. Rob displayed five (5) alternatives for revised Overlay District 2.4 and asked for Planning Commission recommendation. Public Hearing Opened Susan Flores, 529 E. Branch • Would like the Village Core Downtown extended as shown in Alternative 5. Public Hearing Closed There was discussion about pros and cons related to extending the Village Core Downtown, building heights, 2 or 3 story maximums and setbacks. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 Commissioner's preferences: Commissioner Arnold Brown Keen DISCUSSION ITEMS: Comments Agree with extending Village Core Downtown 30' max height 3 stories acceptable Agree with extending Village Core Downtown 30' max height 3 stories NOT acceptable zero setback is preferred alternative - exception process can be used for exception situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agree with extending Village Core Downtown 35' max height Agree with extending Village Core Downtown 30' max height 3 stories acceptable zero setback is OK - there are places in the VCD where it may not be appropriate 30' max height 3 stories acceptable NO zero setback PAGE 6 Commissioner Fowler made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold that the Planning Commission accepts Alternative 2, extending the Village Core Downtown to Tally Ho creek and including Nelson and Mason streets. facing Nelson Green, as shown in Alternative 5. Ayes: Commissioners Arnold, Fowler, Guthrie and Keen Noes: Brown Absent: None 1. Commissioner Brown asked to start Planning Commission meetings earlier and avoid going past 11:00 p.m. - decision to start future meetings at 6:00 p.m. 2. Commissioner Arnold: Signs noticing on parcels does not seem to be done consistently. Asked staff to check in to the situation. Example: Farroll Road 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: PAGE 7 3. Vice chair Keen — tax company on Oak Park has banners on the fence — doesn't want them to think the chain link fence is a billboard. No temporary use permit has been issued. The banners are an off premise sign, which is illegal. Staff will look into the situation. 1. The City Council has priorities that affect staff resources and have set timeframes, therefore, staff is deferring the mixed use district along Grand Avenue from going in to publicized public workshops until May /June. 2. Commissioner Guthrie — can any council member appeal a decision? Rob Strong said that as a citizen they can appeal, however, a council appeal requires a vote of the council (Municipal Code 1.12.050). ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:53 p.m. on a motion by Vice -chair Keen, seconded by Commissioner Brown, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: VONNE BRADFOI COMMISSION CLERK A OC� �N/ - - -I RO - STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR N KEEN 1 E CHAIR