Loading...
PC Minutes 2002-09-031 1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Costello presiding. Also present were Commissioners Brown, Fowler, Guthrie, and Keen. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, and Planning Intern, Ryan Foster. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The minutes of June 18 and August 6, 2002 were unanimously approved with minor changes to the June 18 minutes. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — None. AGENDA REVIEW — The Commission agreed to hear the Non - Public Hearing items first. NON - PUBLIC HEARING — TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 02 -002; APPLICANT — S & S HOMES; LOCATION — 1189 EL CAMINO REAL. Staff report presented by Ryan Foster. Mr. Foster gave the presentation and asked the Commission to consider a request for a Time Extension for Tract 2328, a 26 -unit Planned Unit Development. Nan Fowler commented that Conditions of Approval, under 'Noise', relating to the construction time does not reflect the correct times. Ryan Foster said he would add the condition with current construction times to the Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC COMMENT OPENED Jack Hardy, representative, S & S Homes, stated they would not object to the development impact fees. PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED The Commission discussed City Development Impact fees with staff and agreed that the applicant should pay the fees as stated in Exhibit 'A' Condition No. 5. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, approving Time Extension Case No. 02 -002 including amending Condition No. 5, Exhibit 'A', to be consistent with current construction times and adopting: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 RESOLUTION 02 -1847 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TIME EXTENSION 02- 002 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2328 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 99 -001, LOCATED AT 1189 EL CAMINO REAL The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Fowler, Brown, Guthrie and Chair Costello NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 3rd day of September 2002. PAGE 2 TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 02 -003; APPLICANT — BRUCE & MARGARET SUMMERS; LOCATION — 1470 NEWPORT AVENUE. Staff report prepared and presented by Ryan Hostetter. Ms. Hostetter said this is the second time extension and the applicant may apply for one additional one -year time extension for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 99- 002. Commissioner Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown approving the one -year Time Extension Case No. 02 -003, including Exhibit 'A' and adopt: RESOLUTION 02 -1848 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE -YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 99 -002, LOCATED AT 1470 NEWPORT AVE., APPLIED FOR BY BRUCE AND MARGARET SUMMERS. The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Guthrie, Brown, Fowler, Keen, and Chair Costello NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 3rd day of September 2002. 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 PAGE 3 PUBLIC HEARING — AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 02 -003 & VARIANCE CASE NO. 02 -004; APPLICANT — LARRY PERSONS; LOCATION — 1530 EAST GRAND AVENUE. Staff report prepared and presented by Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner. Ms. Heffernon introduced the project and gave the Commission an update on this previously approved project to construct a 108 -unit low and moderate income senior apartment complex and stated that the applicant resubmitted their application to the state for a 9% low income tax credit. Ms. Heffernon further stated that the proposed amendments for Commission consideration are that the six original buildings have been combined into two buildings, there will be no fill imported to the site, a subterranean third floor is to be created on the north section of the project, the 32 two - bedroom and 76 one - bedroom units have been changed to 20 two - bedroom and 88 one - bedroom units. The requested Variance is to deviate from Development Code standards for wall height, building height and front setback. The proposed amendments are intended to improve the usefulness of the courtyard, to provide better connection between the buildings for the residents, to minimize the grade difference between the commercial and residential uses and to improve the aesthetics by moving the stairs internally, decreasing the overall building coverage by 8% and increasing the landscaping by 8 %. The parking will also be increased by two additional spaces. She then described the layout of the project. Commissioner Brown: • Would approval of the amendments set a new precedence for 40 -foot high, 3 -story buildings? • Re a letter received from citizens regarding evacuation of the building, are there enough ways of getting persons out of the second floor? Rob Strong stated under certain circumstances it could be a beneficial precedent to build up under planned circumstances than to have increased coverage. Ms. Heffernon stated the buildings would be fully sprinkled. Commissioner Fowler: • The plans show heights of 33 feet, so why is the applicant asking for 40 feet? Ms. Heffernon stated the applicant wanted design flexibility based on preliminary plans and that is why they are asking for 40 feet. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 PAGE 4 Commissioner Keen: • He would prefer that the variance requests not all be lumped together as he may not agree with some individual ones. • He questioned why this project was being called an "amendment" as it had been substantially changed? Rob Strong: • Alterations have been done to the building without specific changes to the site plan and architecture. • The amended application is treated the same as a new project for a Conditional Use Permit. • The development agreement considered by Council still applies. • The objectives of the applicant are still the same. • The location and composition of the project is very similar. PUBLIC COMMENT OPENED Larry Persons, Pacific Harbor Homes, stated that the primary reasons for the redesign were that City Council conditioned the project to have elevators for 100% of the units above the first floor. The original design had garden apartments with walkways up each side of the units and there was no connection from one side to the other: it would have required 10 elevators to service the units. He then displayed a 3- dimensional model of the revised project, explaining in detail the grading and how residents would access the building using 2 elevators and internal stairs. Commissioner Brown asked for more explanation on the building height as mentioned previously by Commissioner's Fowler and Keen, with respect to the 33 feet versus 40 feet. Larry Persons replied that when they had completed the preliminary elevations they came out to 33 feet and they would like a couple of feet leeway. On the application they had originally requested 40 -feet which is not necessary, but they would like some flexibility. In reply to a questions from Commissioner Fowler regarding the distance between parking and the units, Mr. Persons explained that the units in the 3 -story building bottom floor have a raised foundation behind them and each have one door and windows on their front side. If a resident did not wish to walk up any stairs when entering the building they could use the elevators. 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 John Knight, RRM, explained the reasons for each of the requested variances. Commissioner Fowler asked for clarification on how much linear distance of the retaining wall would be the height of 8 feet. In addition she suggested that some stakes be put up to show the height of the buildings so potential Grover Beach residents and Arroyo Grande neighbors would be aware of this. She said she had no problem with the front setback because she thought it would look better than a blank wall and she had no problem with a 35 -foot building height but did not think it should be 40 -feet. Mr. Knight said the majority of the wall is 7 -feet and there is approximately 6 -8 linear feet that will be 8 -feet. Commissioner Keen • The new project design was far superior to the original. • He asked for clarification on the setbacks. Mr. Persons stated the measurements were figured from the property line. PAGE 5 Commissioner Keen said then he had no problem with this. He further stated that the explanation from Mr. Knight on the other variances had answered his concerns. Chair Costello asked for clarification on the amount of bicycle parking spaces. Staff said the spaces were assigned for both commercial and residential. PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED Commissioner Brown said he had no problem with the amendments except he would like the building height to be kept at no more than necessary (33 or 34 feet). Commissioner Fowler said she had no further comments or concerns. Commissioner Keen commented he would like to see the building height more precisely specified. He further stated that he now found all the variances acceptable, but he did not agree with the criteria for the findings as stated by the applicant. He thought the findings for the variances could stand - alone. Commissioner Guthrie said he believed the building height concern had been addressed and he had no problem with allowing 35 -feet as long as it is internal to MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 PAGE 6 the site. He commented that the amendments made the project superior to the original. The Commissioners then discussed the building height. Chair Costello reminded the Commissioners that an exception above the 30 feet or two -story building would be a precedent. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, to recommend City Council approve Amended Conditional Use permit Case No. 02- 003 including Exhibit 'A', with a condition that the building height be 34%2 -feet and that all language in the findings for the conditions for approval consistently state that 100% of the units be for affordable housing and adopt: RESOLUTION 02 -1849 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 02 -003, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND COURTLAND STREET, APPLIED FOR BY LARRY PERSONS Commission Discussion: Commissioner Keen asked the applicant if bicycle parking was normally requested for senior residential projects. Mr. Persons said it was not, but that the bicycle parking was for the commercial as well as residential part of the project. Commissioner Guthrie stated he believed a building height exception of 35 -feet should be allowed because it was internal. Commissioner Fowler agreed with Commissioner Guthrie. Commissioner Keen did not agree because allowing the 35- feet height would be setting a precedent for future projects and Commissioner Brown agreed with him. The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Keen, Fowler and Chair Costello NOES: Commissioner Guthrie ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 3rd day of September 2002. 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Variance Case No. 02 -004 to deviate from Development Code Requirements for wall height, front yard setback and building height, with amendment to Exhibit 'A' Condition 'C' that the building height be 34 -%2 feet, and that all language in the findings for the conditions for approval reflect that 100% of the units be affordable housing and adopt: RESOLUTION 02 -1850 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE VARIANCE CASE NO. 02 -004 TO DEVIATE FROM DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR WALL HEIGHT, FRONT YARD SETBACK AND BUILDING HEIGHT, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND COURTLAND STREET, APPLIED FOR BY LARRY PERSONS The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Keen, Fowler, Guthrie and Chair Costello NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 3rd day of September 2002. PAGE 7 DISCUSSION ITEMS — Rob Strong gave the Planning Commission an update on Viewshed Review 02 -013 for a 2 -story building at 135 Tally Ho. He stated that because there are inconsistencies in the Development Code that relate to the viewshed review process versus new construction he felt this case should be considered by the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS — Commissioner Keen commented on the news of the State legislature's position on Granny flats. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP — Rob Strong said there have been some applicants to participate in the Local Housing Task Force and the next step will be for the Commission to make recommendations to City Council. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 ADJOURNMENT -There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M. on a motion by Chair Costello, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: LYN REARDON- SMITH, COMMISSION CLERK AS TO Jo NTE ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR PAGE 8 JOSEPH M. COSTELLO, CHAIR 1 1