Loading...
PC Minutes 2001-02-20ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2001 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Keen called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL X Commissioner Brown X Commissioner Fowler X _ Commissioner Guthrie X Vice -Chair Keen ABSENT Chair Costello APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the February 6, 2001 Planning Commission meeting were approved as written. ITEM I. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1.13. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Comments from Commissioner Costello on Pre -Application Review Case No. 00-013. ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None ITEM III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS III.A. PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 00-011; LOCATION - 1400 EAST GRAND AVENUE; APPLICANT - E.F. MOORE & CO. Commissioner Fowler stated that she was excusing herself from the Commission at this time because her business is currently located on this property. Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report stating that the applicant had requested another pre -application review to acquaint the new Planning Commissioners with the project. She informed the Commission that the project is unchanged since the last pre - application review by the Commission and that the project meets all relevant development standards. The Planning Commission had the following concerns/comments about the project: • Questions concerning traffic and the adequacy of the existing traffic study. • Installing a recessed bus lane on East Grand in front of the project. • More screening along the back wall of the project. • Eliminate the entrance on East Grand and have two entrances on Courtland. • It is necessary to have access to the lot described as "not a part" or it will become a non -conforming lot. • Create a more substantial curb return radius. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2001 PAGE 2 • Increase the sizes of plaza areas within the project. • Moving Building B back on the lot to accommodate a bus turnout. • The cumulative effects of all upcoming projects on East Grand. • Does this project fit in with the Economic Development Strategy? • Consider compatible businesses that compliment others in the City. • The project is "over parked" and it should be more pedestrian oriented. Beautify rather than have more blacktop for parking. • Buildings should be more tightly adjoined so that shoppers can "park once and shop twice". • The driveway off of East Grand splits the project in two and is not shopper friendly. The project should be put on hold until the East Grand Avenue Master Plan is adopted. • Two of the Commissioners were not in favor of the "ranch" style architecture. Would like to see more of a "mission "style. • Lighting in the parking lot should not exceed 1.5 -foot candles. • Put decorative stanchions for lighting in the parking lot. III.B. PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 01-001; LOCATION — ASH STREET (SUBAREA 2 OF THE BERRY GARDENS SPECIFIC PLAN); APPLICANT — S & S HOMES Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report stating that since this is a pre - application, staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the project and provide direction and comments to the applicant. The proposed project is a 23 -unit residential subdivision located within Subarea 2 of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan. The site is approximately 5 acres in size and is currently zoned both Residential Rural and Single -Family residential in equal parts. The conceptual plan shows lots ranging in size from 7,200 square feet to 10,023 square feet, accessed by a 50 -foot wide internal loop road. The Courtland Street extension bisects the property. Ms. Heffernon explained to the Planning Commission that since the Berry Gardens Specific Plan requires that no driveways have direct access onto Courtland Street, an indentation has been designed where Berry View Lane intersects Courtland Street, providing some back -out room for those affected residents. In order to provide safer maneuverability for these residents, the Traffic Commission recommended that Berry View Lane extend all the way through Courtland Street and dead end at the property line. The resulting lots would be more rectangular and regularly shaped. Ms. Heffernon further explained that the Berry Gardens Specific Plan established development and design standards for Subarea 1 only, requiring that the other 3 subareas be subject to a Specific Plan amendment with any development proposal. For the formal submittal, then, this project would require applications for a General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development, and Tentative Tract Map. Vice -Chair Keen stated that Chair Costello had submitted his comments in writing and had asked that they be entered into the record. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2001 PAGE 3 Chair Costello's concerns were as follows: • Sewer and water pump enlargement/expansion - What are the effects of enlarging or expanding upon the existing approved sewer and water pump stations? Are there any environmental effects that must be re-examined, or are there any additional environmental issues involved requiring any further study? • Drainage basin enlargement - what liability issues might be involved with a deeper basin and what possible mitigation measures would be proposed to deal with any enlarged, or deeper basin. Mr. Costello stated that he would not be inclined to automatically permit a deeper basin if the ground water would not be compromised. • Traffic and Circulation - Did any traffic study for the original Berry Gardens project include traffic issues involved with this proposal? If not, what are the cumulative effects of this proposal and how do they impact the original Berry Gardens project as approved? Would approval of this plan for Subarea 2 exacerbate the new impact of Berry Gardens and require additional mitigation, not only for Subarea 2, but for Subareas 1,3, and 4? • Affordable Housing - Can this area be designated as Affordable Housing, with deed restrictions and any other needed measures to ensure that it would remain as such? • Schools - What are the cumulative effects of these additional units on our already crowded schools? Commissioner Guthrie asked, based on the underlying zoning, what would the total number of units be in the whole project? Ms. Heffernon stated that, as currently zoned with 50% SF and 50% RR, it would be 17 lots. However, if it were all Single Family residential, with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet, a total of 30 lots would be allowed. Commissioner Brown asked if the "guiding" issue to determine the allowable number of homes was the density or the minimum lot size? Ms. Heffernon explained this issue to the Commission saying that it would be a combination of the two. Acting Chair Keen opened the Public Hearing. John Mack, representing S & S Homes stated that the applicant would like to treat this project as an extension of Berry Gardens. The applicant would like to dedicate a 20 -foot wide landscape buffer between Ash Street and the homes with a meandering walkway through it. Mr. Mack stated that none of the lots would be less than 7,200 square feet. Mr. Mack stated that he was looking for feedback on the design of Ash Street, the affordable housing issue, and how to handle the retention basin. Commissioner Brown asked what the style of the homes was going to be and where would the location of the garages be? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2001 PAGE 4 Mr. Mack replied that they would be Neo -traditional. Mr. Mack stated that in the Berry Gardens Specific Plan it was required that the garages be set back at least 20 feet from the front property line, and further back than the front of the home. Mr. Mack stated that in some of the home types the garage is at the rear of the lot. Commissioner Fowler questioned the indentation off of Courtland and if there would be a danger when people backed out. Ms. Fowler stated that she liked the look of the curvature of the street. Ms. Fowler suggested that the applicant make the "indentation" deeper to make it safer to back out. She also did not like the idea that Berry View Lane would be a dead end. Mr. Mack stated that the Planning Commission could condition the project so that the homeowner would not be backing out of the driveway but coming out in a forward motion. Commissioner Guthrie was concerned about the affordable housing issue and he felt that somewhere the City was going to have to provide some affordable housing. He felt that this was an area that was well suited for this based on the layout of the land, the layout of the neighborhoods and these kinds of issues. He felt strongly that the Planning Commission should address this issue before the basic design issues were addressed. The Planning Commission and Mr. Mack discussed the issues connected with providing affordable housing. Commissioner Brown stated that he felt there should be a third party to administer the selling of any affordable housing in Arroyo Grande. He also stated that he was not comfortable with having only 25% of the project comply with the low income -housing requirement. He would like to see this increased. Mr. Brown suggested that Mr. Mack contact George Moylan of the San Luis Housing Authority concerning this issue. Commissioner Brown asked staff to please provide him with the numbers that differentiate between low income and affordable housing. Vice -Chair Keen stated that he was interested in investigating some affordable housing. He was not interested in changing the density so that the lots are below 6,000 square feet and he does not want the lot size calculated from the center of the street. Mr. Keen asked the applicant to look into what the impact would be if S & S Homes designed a house that would face Ash Street, with a front porch and the garage accessible from the back. He was also concerned about the current depth of the detention basin and was very concerned that it might be deeper. Rodger Olds, Public Works Department, stated that they were concerned about going deeper with the retention basin because of the water table. In order to allow this, the Department would require a study by a soils engineer to say that it would not effect the rate that the water seeps into the ground. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2001 PAGE 5 Vice -Chair Keen stated that he was not in agreement with the suggestion that Berry View Lane should be closed off for the safety reasons. He is concerned that the frontage of the four lots that have been "reshaped" to prevent cars backing onto Courtland is so small that it will not allow any visitor parking on the street. With regards to Mr. Mack's suggestion that there was a possibility of using some of the patio homes in the Berry Garden's approved project as the affordable housing for this project, Mr. Keen replied that the affordable housing for Berry Gardens could not be "swapped" into this project. ITEM. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS ITEM. V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT Commissioner Brown asked about the status of the Hunter Realty sign in the Village Centre. Mr. McCants stated that the applicant had not yet submitted the necessary plans for the Community Development Department to review. ITEM. VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP REPORTS Mr. McCants and the Commission discussed the on-going process of the East Grand Avenue Master Plan. The Commission stated that they would like to be involved in the development and wording of the Citizens' Survey when it was prepared. ITEM. VII. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Keen, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting on March 6, 2001. _ 'f_10L athleen Fryer, Commission CI k AS TO CONTENT: Kerry Mc C is Community Development Director ohn Keen,\86W-Chair 0 1 1