Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-12-07MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE NO. 1 CALL TO ORDER Chair Greene 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 Costello X Commissioner Keen X Commissioner London X Vice -Chair Parker X Chair Greene MINUTES Commissioner Keen asked that consideration of the minutes of November 16, 1999 be continued to a future date. The minutes of September 21, 1999 were approved as corrected as follows: • Page 1: C.A. Brown ; C.Z. Brown. ■ Page 4: Ron DiCarli stated that there was -were some questioned questions... ■ Page 12: Water transfers state water; Water transfers, State water... • Page 13: 110 gcographic reports; no geographical reports... ■ Page 8: ; any mitigation we'll let or force • Page 13: awe; agency The minutes of November 2, 1999 were approved as corrected as follows: • Page 8: developed in the future; subdivided in the future • Page 19: Resolution 99 1799; Resolution 99 -1719 Further, the Planning Commission commended Ms. Parker on the depth of her comments on the Arroyo Linda Project. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None II. II. A. PUBLIC COMMENT ON STANDARDIZATION OF CITY POLICIES REGARDING TRAFFIC STUDIES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS There was no public comment. II. B. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 9, SECTION 13 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE Nicole Davis, Student Intern, presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. She told them that in trying to keep up with a business friendly attitude of Arroyo Grande, the City Council directed staff to examine the possibility of allowing portable signs in the City. Currently Section 9 -13 of the Development Code prohibits portable MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE NO. 2 signs. Staff contacted forty (40) cities within California and found that thirteen (13) of the forty (40) allow portable signs including San Luis Obispo and Buellton. Staff has reviewed the thirteen (13) ordinances and compared ordinances with the City's Development Code general provision sign section. Staff has proposed an amendment to Section 9 -13 of the Development Code that would allow portable signs subject to certain provisions of the Development Code. This would include good design appearance, sign maintenance, and that all signs should be neat, clear and professional. The staff also updated Table 9 -13.A. to allow for portable signs. This will have some special provisions that will be different for portable signs because of their mobility and they will be located next to public right -of -ways. The Ordinance will include the following provisions: • The City shall allow only one sign per commercial business. • The signs shall not be permitted within business and commercial centers. • The maximum height shall not exceed five (5) feet, including the supporting structure. ■ The surface area shall not exceed 6 square feet per side. • The signs shall be located on private property and prohibited in public right -of -ways. • The signs shall be separated by 25 feet minimum along building frontages. • The signs shall not interfere with building ingress or egress, or traffic sight distance at intersections. • Signs shall not obstruct the onsite parking or pedestrian circulation patterns. ■ The signs shall be removed after the daily business hours of that commercial business. ■ The signs shall not be internally illuminated. Ms. Davis explained that currently Development Code Section 9 -18 (Definitions) has a "Temporary Sign" definition that is similar to other jurisdictions portable sign definition. This will have to be changed in order to clear up any confusion between the two. The proposed ordinance has been reviewed by the ARC. The ARC has reservations about allowing portable signs because of safety, liability, visual clutter and enforceability issues. The ARC stated that if the City chooses to allow portable signs, the ordinance package that has been prepared is satisfactory with the addition that the signs should have a maximum of two (2) sides. The ARC also wanted to express that the City should be aware that merchants might not abide with this ordinance and put signs within the public right -of -way. Also, if someone were injured because of a portable sign, the City could be liable. Commissioner London asked of the City Attorney had reviewed the ordinance and if he felt that the liability aspect could be an issue? Mr. McCants stated that Mr. Carmel had seen it and that he had not indicated that it would be a problem. 1 1 MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE NO. 3 Mr. London felt that the section in the staff report that dealt with the 25 -foot separation between signs was not clear and he had found some difficulty understanding it. He asked if there was some way to clarify this? Mr. McCants stated that there were diagrams with the ordinance as well, however staff would look at this and see if the language can be modified. Commissioner Keen asked, with regards to the public- right -of -way statement, if sidewalks were public right -of -way? And did this mean, in an area such as the Village, that there could be no portable signs allowed on the sidewalks? Mr. McCants answered that in most cases this was correct. This is one of the dilemmas of the sign ordinance that it is very difficult to enforce. Vice -Chair Parker asked if you have the little shops in the Village, or the mall areas, such as Andreini's or Gina's, and they have little sidewalk signs, if they are tucked up against the building would they have to take them down? She would hate to see them have to give up their signs. Mr. McCants stated that generally speaking, if there was an alcove or some type of an entryway into the building, that would not be considered a part of the public- right -of- way. Ms. Parker asked if for instance Andreini's and Gina's would be exempt from this because they have a small entryway. Mr. McCants answered that assuming that is where they placed the sign this would be true. Ms. Parker stated that in the section that talked about illumination, it talked about internal illumination, however it did not talk about external illumination. Is staff saying that external illumination would be acceptable? Mr. McCants said that assuming it could be illuminated consistent with other City standards, illuminated by some indirect source, this would be acceptable. Ms. Parker asked what the difference would be? Mr. McCants stated that it was hard to characterize the difference but this was drawn from a number of other ordinances and this was one of the things consistent throughout all of them. For one thing, there would be a real possibility of a electrical cord that would connect the sign to the building and that would be a hazard. Ms. Parker stated that the 25 -ft minimum between signs was confusing. There are many businesses in the Village that do not have 25 feet between them. Who would be allowed to have a portable sign? MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE NO. 4 Ms. Davis explained that staff had decided after looking at this, that if every business was allowed to have a portable sign, and there was no 25 -foot restriction between them, for aesthetic and liability reasons, there would be too many signs. The businesses that applied first would be the ones allowed to have a sign. Ms. Parker stated that this could be a real problem. Mr. McCants stated that this was a problem that the businesses would have to work out amongst themselves. From staff's perspective, the limitation on having signs closer than 25 feet seems to be justified. Commissioner Costello stated that his main question was one of enforceability. If signs are put less than 25 feet apart, who will police that? And who decides whose sign has prior authorization to be there if both have permits? Also, with regards to the lighting, he could picture a "clamp light" on a sign with a cord running to the building. : This is not an internal light and this would be a real safety hazard. He felt the City should be very careful about the wording on this. Mr. Costello was also concerned about the liability issue once the signs are permitted. He would like to make sure the City is protected. As far as the 25 -foot limitation, he stated that he would not want to see signs lined up but there needed to be a fair system. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Tim Allen, stated that he did not have a feeling one way or the other about this and that he did see a need for signs like this. He would like to see some language about the distance between edge of the sidewalk the edge of the sidewalk to make sure there will be enough space for the public thoroughfare. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner London said that with regards to the lighting issue, language should be included that states no electrical cords to the building. Somewhere in the ordinance it needs to indicate who will enforce this ordinance. Wording to the effect that the sign will not reduce the public access walkway past a certain reasonable distance should be included. Commissioner Keen stated that he was against portable signs originally and he is still against them. He has several problems with this issue. What has been done with all the restrictions of where portable signs can be placed has made it restrictive enough that there will not be many signs allowed. This gives an unfair advantage to the property owner that has a place to put one. There is no way of governing the sign face. If someone were to use butcher paper and magic markers, or plastic stick on letter, this would not be appropriate. The regulations will be a nightmare as to where signs would be allowed. If they are placed on the MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE NO. 5 sidewalks by the curb, people will hit them with their car doors and if they are placed where the cars parked they will block the signs anyway. He does not think they are appropriate and the regulation is a nightmare. He does not believe the Code Enforcement Officer can spend his time going up and down the street trying to govern what looks appropriate. The enforcement is so hard to do that the best enforcement is to not have portable signs at all. Commissioner Costello questioned where exactly would these signs be permitted? He agreed that there would be a tremendous job to enforce this if enacted. The language needs to be clearer before he can support this. Vice -Chair Parker had a question about some of the new language in the Development Code. There was a section that referred to a "limited period of time" for a temporary sign permit and she felt this "time period" should be clarified as to what it meant. She stated that she understood Mr. Keen's concern that portable signs could get out of hand but she looks at the small businesses such as Andrieni's and Gina's, etc. and they do not have the advantages of the large commercial centers. The larger commercial centers have bigger signs out front, they identify the center and often times identify the stores. The small businesses could use the help to boost their business and this is a way the City can help them. She did not think that it would be difficult to enforce keeping signs out of the public right -of -way. Further, she stated that there should be no electrical cords from the sign to the building. She also has a problem with the 25 -foot minimum distance between signs that would be imposed. She does not feel there would be a problem with this and feels that businesses will have their own inside area where they will be putting their signs, therefore it would not become a problem with getting to be "junky" looking. To restrict people to a first come, first served basis would be unfair. Chair Greene stated that he shared Commissioner Keen's feelings about portable signs. He is not satisfied that in order to promote a business friendly environment in the City they need to authorize the use of portable signs. Further, he shares the ARC's concerns about the aesthetic quality of the signs. As Mr. Keen pointed out there is no control over what the signs would look like. So, will the signs be a positive influence or will they turn out to be visual blight? Mr. Greene stated that to approve portable signs raises many enforcement issues. He does not feel that the City has the staff to enable it to enforce the statute. If the statute cannot be enforced then it will be disregarded. Finally, Chair Greene recommended that the City Council not enact an ordinance that allows portable signs because of the problems associated with enforcement, the problems with who gets to put a sign up and who doesn't, what the signs will look like, and will they be blight or detrimental to the visual quality of the neighborhood. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE NO. 6 Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission deny: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 13 AND CHAPTER 18 OF THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW PORTABLE SIGNS WITHIN ARROYO GRANDE Commissioner Costello seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: Roll Call Vote Aye Commissioner Costello Aye Commissioner Keen No Commissioner London No Ave Vice -Chair Parker Chair Greene RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1723 ITEM II. C. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 99 -004 AND VARIANCE NO. 99 -006; LOCATION - 1254 POPLAR STREET; APPLICANT - AMELIA J. BARTHOLOMEW Joe Prutch, Contract Planner presented the staff report and stated that the existing lot is 21,841 square feet and is located in the MF zoning district at 1254 Poplar Street. There is an existing single - family home, detached garage, and duplex on the site. The residence faces Poplar St. and the garage and duplex face the side property line. On the side property line there is a shared driveway access for the duplex and the garage and also the rear residential units on the adjacent property. The applicant wishes to divide the parcel into two lots, one of 10,001 square feet and the other of 11,840 square feet. Parcel 1 would consist of the single - family residence and detached garage and would front Poplar Street. Parcel 2 would be a flag lot behind Parcel 1 and would contain the duplex. Parcel 2 does not meet the requirements for front yard setbacks. For a flag lot, the front property line is defined in the Development Code to be "the boundary line parallel to and nearest to the street to which the stem of the flag lot abuts." Therefore, the front yard of Parcel 2 is that area adjacent to Parcel 1 and parallel to Poplar Street. The front yard setback can be no less than 15 feet. The proposed property line gives Parcel 2 a front yard setback of 11.7 feet. Therefore, A variance to the front yard setback is necessary. Commissioner Costello asked if Parcel I would qualify to have a second structure? Also, what is the percentage of the lot coverage at this time? Mr. Costello was concerned about future development with regards to water. 1 MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE NO. 7 Mr. Prutch stated that that would be allowed, however they would have to demolish some of the buildings that were there now. Mr. Prutch did not know what the lot coverage was but felt the applicant's representative could answer that later. Vice -Chair Parker asked if they didn't subdivide the lot wouldn't they be still be able to build additional units? Mr. Prutch stated that they could do that. Ms. Parker asked who owned the driveway? And, if the parcel was split would Parcel 2 still have part ownership of the driveway? Mr. Prutch stated that the driveway has a shared agreement between the two lots and the project would be conditioned to allow the driveway to be shared between the three lots. Commissioner London asked if there would be some type of deed easement that would allow Parcel 2 permanent access to the driveway ? Mr. Prutch stated that the driveway agreement that is in existence at this time allows the existing lot and the adjacent lot access to the driveway. The new driveway agreement would show that the easement was between the three (3) lots. Chair Greene asked if there were lot size minimums that establish how small Parcel 2 can be? The minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet and the proposed lot is 10,001 square feet. Chair Greene opened the . Barbara Wheeler representing her aunt Amelia Bartholomew spoke to the Commission and explained that the purpose of the lot split was so Ms. Wheeler could become the owner of the front lot. There is already a driveway maintenance agreement in existence and this would be revised to include the new lot. Karl Hogan, 1255 Poplar stated that if the Planning Commission approved this project they would make everyone very happy. He has no objection to this lot split. Chair Greene closed the . The Planning Commissioners all agreed that this would be good for the family and they did not have any objections. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission approve: MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE NO. 8 RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1714 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 99- 004 AND VARIANCE NO. 99 -006, LOCATED AT 1254 POPLAR STREET, APPLIED FOR BY AMELIA J. BARTHOLOMEW Including Exhibit A. Commissioner Costello seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: Roll Call Vote Ave Commissioner Costello Ave Commissioner Keen Ave Commissioner London Ave Vice -Chair Parker Ave Chair Greene II. D. TIME EXTENSION 99 -003 FOR TRACT 2240; LOCATION — 410 S. ELM STREET; APPLICANT — ZADDIE R. BUNKER TRUST Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and told the Commission that the City Council had approved Tentative Tract Map 2240 on November 18, 1997. This authorized the subdivision of a 40,949 square foot parcel into nine (9) single family residential lots. The site is located on South Elm St. and is surrounded on all sides by Multi - Family development. She stated that the Subdivision Map Act automatically grants a two year approval for all maps. A new map expiration date of December 7, 2000 would be established if the Planning Commission approves the 1 year time extension. To grant a time extension, the Planning Commission must make the findings that there have been no significant changes in the General Plan, Municipal Code or character of the area where the project is located that would cause the approved project to be harmful to the public health, safety or welfare. Staff finds that since the approval of the project none of these changes have occurred. Therefore staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Resolution 99 -1722. Commissioner London asked why the project was not conditioned to have fire sprinklers in the rear units? Ms. Heffernon stated that if the buildings were 150 feet from the street, the Building Code would require that they have sprinklers installed. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. There was no public comment. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she felt this project was very valid to the area and she did not see any significant changes to the area and that this project would serve this community very well. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE NO. 9 Vice -Chair Parker moved that the Planning Commission approve: Roll Call Vote Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Commissioner Costello Commissioner Keen Commissioner London Vice -Chair Parker Chair Greene II E. AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORDINANCE RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1722 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE -YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2240 FOR A NINE PARCEL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 410 SOUTH ELM STREET, APPLIED FOR BY ZADDIE R. BUNKER TRUST With Attachment A. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: Kerry McCants, Community Development Director stated that this ordinance would bring the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande in compliance with the General Plan Housing Element dealing with providing affordable housing. What this ordinance will do is to establish an in -lieu fee. One fee would be where General Plan amendments and /or changes to a zoning designation increasing residential density is 2.5% of the value of the new construction. The proposed affordable housing fee in all other residential development projects would be 1% of the value of new construction. The ordinance would exempt projects of four (4) units or Tess and would be applied to increase the inventory of affordable housing within the City. Commissioner London asked how this would increase affordable housing? How much money is this projected to generate and as a result of that, how many units could we realistically expect to see? Mr. McCants replied that the fees that were collected would be used to construct affordable housing units within the City. Further, this will not generate a large amount of money. Peoples' Self -Help Housing would like to see a higher fee and the SLO Housing Authority felt the same way. This would bring the Housing Element into compliance with the General Plan provision. However, this may not be sufficient to have a significant impact. Commissioner London asked if the money was not significant, where would it go? MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE NO. 10 Mr. McCants stated that it would be used to the extent that it is available, most likely to supplement other funds are that are available such as the City's CDBG grants. Mr. London asked if this would "do away" with the rule that a major developer supply a number of affordable housing units to insure the authorization of his project? Also, has a developer ever built affordable housing as a mitigation to a development? Mr. McCants replied that this would provide an option to the developer and that to his knowledge no developer has ever included affordable housing in a project. Commissioner Keen commented that the City in the past has helped Peoples' Self -Help Housing with a couple of their projects, so it wasn't that the City was doing nothing in this regard. The only developer that he knows of that .was going to put affordable housing in his development, the development was never built. This developer had intermingled the housing with the regular housing, but there was a lot of controversy about it. In -lieu fees are a way of trying to generate some money. It may not be much however, if there were some in -lieu and a block grant and maybe a bond underwritten by the City it may help. At least there is an effort being made to do something about it. Vice -Chair Parker stated that in the Housing Element of the General Plan that it states that at least 25% of the units developed on such properties shall be affordable to low - income households. It goes on to indicate that if an exception is allowed the City would require a payment of a fee in lieu of construction of low- income housing. Two years ago she had questioned staff concerning this issue and was told that this was not being enforced. Vice -Chair Parker asked how this ordinance would be enforced and how would it work? Mr. McCants said that this would be an ordinance that would amend the Development Code so it would become a requirement. There would be an advantage to the developer to construct units because there is a density bonus associated with this. Typically however, the preferred method is to pay a fee and build what they want to build. At least by having this ordinance in place, the City has the ability to take the money and put it with other money and possibly the City will have enough money to develop some affordable housing. Ms. Parker asked had a low -to moderate income equated to a low to moderate house price? In other words what would the price range be? She stated that she had heard that one of the problems with low to moderate income homes, and the reason it doesn't work here, is that housing prices in this area are so high that low to moderate income families can't afford them. Mr. McCants stated that this is the fundamental problem with this kind of issue. There has to be some kind of subsidy to allow people in this income range to purchase a home in this community. 1 MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE NO. 11 On page 5 of the staff report it states that "all affordable housing units should be sold or rented ...and shall remain affordable for not less than 30 years." How does the City monitor this so that the next person still gets the affordable price? Mr. McCants stated that there is an ongoing monitoring program. The City has suggested that they would use the City of San Luis Obispo Housing Authority to provide the monitoring. The City of Arroyo Grande does not have the staff necessary to do it. Ms. Parker stated that in a letter to the Commission from Peoples' Self -Help Housing they suggested that the fee be brought up to 5 %. She asked what Mr. McCant's thoughts were on this? Mr. McCants stated that this was a legitimate request. The proposed ordinance reflects what is in the General Plan Housing Element. Ms. Parker asked if now would be a good time to make a recommendation to increase the percentage? She also talked about expanding this to include commercial property as well. Mr. McCants replied that if the Planning Commission wanted to make any changes, now was the time to do so. With regards to the commercial issue, the City of San Francisco and possibly the City of Santa Monica does include commercial in their ordinance, but most cities do not. Commissioner Costello asked if the City had this in -lieu fee before? Mr. McCants stated that he was not aware of a fee being collected before. Commissioner Costello asked several questions about how the ordinance would actually work. He felt if you look at the percentages, no one would ever build houses because it was such a "cheap" buyout. He stated that if this was the way the City wanted to operate that was fine. What has to be questioned is if this is the way the City wants to proceed with this issue. Commissioner Keen asked if a developer wanted to do off site development, would he be allowed to do so? Mr. McCants replied that in his opinion the language in the ordinance is restrictive to the site that is being developed. There is the possibility that there could be some type of negotiated arrangement that could be acceptable to the City. Mr. Keen stated that the problem with this type of issue is that people tend to not want to mix their neighborhoods. This is the reason that it is difficult for a developer to put a percentage of the development alongside upscale housing. Commissioner Costello asked what the requirements of California State Law are, and if state dollars that are denied or applied to municipalities based on compliance? MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE NO. 12 Mr. McCants replied that the Housing Element requirement puts in place objectives for each community to meet its own affordable housing needs. He has heard of cases where the state has stopped the municipality from issuing building permits until it was in compliance with the housing requirements. Chair Greene asked if the City was going to ask developers of projects to make a contribution to this fund before an ordinance is enacted? Mr. McCants stated that this will be done after the ordinance is in effect. Commissioner London asked if this would apply to any approved development that had not already been issued a building permit? Would it be retroactive? Mr. McCants replied that this would be correct. There was no public comment. Commissioner London stated that this seemed like something mandatory that the City had to comply with. It seems like a small amount of money. If it is used as it is intended it will have to be supplemented with other funds. Commissioner Keen stated that he had no problem with the ordinance. He too understands that it will not generate a lot of money, but the City has to be in compliance with state law. He does not know if the percentage should be raised or not because the total cost of building is already expensive enough. Vice -Chair Parker felt that it is nice to see this being done. With regards to the in -lieu fee it is difficult to know what the percentage should really be. It would be good to put the ordinance in place and then gather more information about what is really needed. Commissioner Costello stated that he understands how in a development of $400,000 homes people might not want to have affordable housing mixed in. If the intent of this ordinance is to provide some means in the Community to provide for affordable housing he does not think this meets it. However, there is no data to say what is needed to get the job done. He stated that he was not prepared at this time to recommend and increase in the percentages. However, he poses the question of "What is the City's intent and obligation to provide for affordable housing ?" Does this meet it or simply fulfill the obligation of the Housing Element? Chair Greene stated that if the developer is given the option between building affordable housing and paying a fee, he feels the developer will most likely pay the fees. The way he will pay the fee will be to incorporate the additional fee into the cost of the housing. With this program, the City is asking the purchaser of the home to subsidize housing for those who cannot afford to buy a home. He does not feel this is a bad idea at all. This is asking those who can afford to buy a home to make a financial contribution into a fund that will enable others to either live in or purchase a home. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE NO. 13 The problem is where will these houses be built and by whom? He does not feel that a lot of money will be raised if the amount of units (4 or less) is restricted and the developer does not have to pay the fee. He feels more small projects will be built vs. larger ones and not much money will be collected. He shares the concern of the SLO Housing Authority that by adding the provision to eliminate projects that are below five (5) units, it will impair the ability to collect fees. He would recommend that this be stricken from the ordinance. The 1% fee is too low. He will not vote against the ordinance however, he recommends that the City Council consider deleting the limitation on the number of units that should be exempted from the provisions and increasing the percentage amounts. He also suggested that City staff provide alternatives to 9 -19 -050 (Calculations). He feels that the City should consider 2.5, 3 or even 5% as a fee. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND TITLE 9 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO A CHAPTER 19 ENTITLED "AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS" with the recommendation that the City Council look at the percent fees and the number of units which will be exempted. Vice -Chair Parker seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: Roll Call Vote Ave Commissioner Costello Aye Commissioner Keen Aye Commissioner London Aye Vice -Chair Parker Aye Chair Greene RESOLUTION NO. 99 III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS III. A. PRE - APPLICATION 99 -011; LOCATION - 1524 AND 1542 GRAND; APPLICANT - EPIC GROUP ETAL Joe Prutch, Contract Planner explained to the Commission that the applicant is requesting comments on construction of a Self Storage facility and future construction of two commercial /retail pads located at the northwest corner of Courtland & Grand Avenue. The site is approximately 5.0 acres in size. The applicant is proposing a 99,000 square foot Self- Storage facility on a 3.54 -acre parcel and two 30,000 square foot ( acre) commercial pads for future use as retail stores and /or fast food restaurants. There are 650 - 680 storage units of varying sizes proposed for the Self Storage facility. MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE NO. 14 The site is zoned General Commercial. There is an existing Albertson's /Rite Aid shopping center and a church to the east, vacant land zoned multi - family residential in the City of Grover Beach to the north, a Rite Aid, currently under construction, and a church to the west, and a vacant Berry Gardens parcel to the south. All parcels, with the exception of that in Grover Beach, are zoned General Commercial. There are single - family residences adjacent to the site on the northwest corner. Vice -Chair Parker asked if the City of Grover Beach had been notified concerning this project? Mr. Prutch stated that he has had some contact with Grover Beach, however, as this is only a pre - application, there was no need to notify everyone now. Bill Kendall, representative gave the Planning Commission more information about what the project would include and offered to answer any questions from the Commission. The Commission questioned Mr. Prutch and Mr. Kendall about the: • Height of the project ■ The fact that this was a large piece, and the last large piece of land zoned General Commercial in the City ■ Was this a suitable place for a self- storage facility so close to the single - family homes directly behind it • The potential "illegal uses" in a self- storage. • What color the roof would be and what they would look like. Vice -Chair Parker stated that with this being one of the only large pieces of land left in the City that can be developed, it was a shame to see this type of project being proposed for it. She would like to see the developers come up with another type of plan, something more pedestrian oriented. She encouraged them to talk to the redevelopment agency. The City of Arroyo Grande would like to see Grand Avenue develop and tie into the Village. Commissioner Costello asked what the other type of development was planned for the commercial /retail pads along Grand Avenue? He felt it was a shame this property has been lying vacant for so long however he did not think this was the type of project that should go in there. Mr. McCants stated that there would be some "nodes" developed along Grand Avenue as part of the redevelopment. Further, this area had been identified as part of the Redevelopment District. Chair Greene asked if this was all one lot and if it was within the redevelopment district? Mr. McCants stated that this was one lot and was within the redevelopment district. The overall feeling of the Commission members was that this was not the type of development they would like to see in this area. If this project came before them they could not support it. Their concerns had nothing to do with the quality of the project or 1 MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1999 PAGE NO. 15 even the need for a self- storage, rather they would like to see something "more creative" and more "pedestrian friendly" in this area.. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS IV. A. SCHEDULING FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 21, 1999 Following a brief discussion, it was determined that the meeting of December 21st would be held as there would be a quorum. Vice -Chair Parker gave a brief update on the Soar Initiative. It was decided that this would be placed on a future agenda for further discussion. V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS Commissioner Keen asked staff if they would look into the new lights that had been installed at the Rite Aid project. He did not feel they were in compliance. VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS. None VII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m. to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 21, 1999. ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commiss to Clerk Laurence Greene, Chair A TO • NTE; T: Kerry Mc ants Commb • ty Development Director law.blei atuiti