Loading...
PC Minutes 1996-02-20ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1996 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairperson Keen presiding. Present were Commissioners Soto, Beck, Deviny, and Tappan. Commissioners Lubin and Carr were absent. Community Development Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck and Associate Planner Scott Spierling were in attendance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - On motion by Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the regular meeting of February 6, 1996 were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST TO REVISE PROJECT APPROVALS TO AMEND TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE FOR AMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 92 -502, LOCATED AT 150 SOUTH HALCYON ROAD, APPLICANT PHILIP W. STRAUSS Associate Planner Scott Spierling presented the staff report. He reviewed the background of the parcel map and Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP expired on September 15, 1994 and a new application would have to be filed, reviewed and approved before the house could be converted. The original project contained 32 conditions of approval. The applicant is requesting amendment to condition 1#10 which requires the developer to pay traffic mitigation fees based on the 1989 backbone traffic fee system that assessed fees per peak hour trip, with this project paying a total fee of $26,560.00. In 1994 the City Council adopted Ordinance 461 C.S. which modified the traffic mitigation fees and allowed that developers who had not recorded their map could apply to be assessed under the new Ordinance. Since the original condition was a mitigation measure, an amended tentative map is required and the Planning Commission must determine that the new fee will adequately mitigate project impacts. The fee for the residential lot will be $538.22 and the fee for the commercial parcels cannot be determined until square footage of the project is determined. The Staff Advisory Committee reviewed the application and recommended adoption of the attached Resolution. Commissioner Soto inquired if the tentative parcel map had been recorded? Associate Planner Spierling replied it could not be recorded until all conditions of approval had been met. Chairperson Keen opened the public hearing. Bill Dyer, Project Engineer - He stated that he is available for questions. Chairperson Keen asked if the applicant intended to go ahead with the project. Mr. Dyer replied that he was unsure of the applicant's plans, but did know that he wanted to final the map. With no further comments from the audience, Chairperson Keen closed the public hearing and requested Commissioner comments. Commissioner Deviny asked for clarification regarding which fee is being approved. Associate Spierling replied that the fee would be for parcel one which fronts on Wood Place. Parcel two, has the existing residence, and parcel three fronts on Halcyon. Commissioner Deviny indicated he is concerned that the original CUP has expired and wonders if the original conditions and variances apply. Chairperson Keen replied that to his understanding the conversion of the house would need a whole new set of conditions. 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 February 20, 1996 Commissioner Soto said it is unclear whether the fees being requested are only for the residence. Associate Planner Spierling directed the attention of the Planning Commission to Condition of Approval number 4 of the proposed Resolution which would replace the original condition number 10. The first fee that is due is for the residence and then the commercial fee which is based on square footage which is undetermined at this time. There was discussion of how the original fee was determined. Commissioners Tappan and Beck expressed that their concerns had been answered. Chairperson Keen stated his agreement with this evening's action and his understanding that when the applicant applies for the CUP for the other properties the additional fees will be addressed. The following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1547 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 92 -502, LOCATED AT 150 SOUTI-I HALCYON ROAD, APPLIED FOR BY PHILIP W. STRAUSS; ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION; AND INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION On a motion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Beck, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners. Deviny, Beck, Soto, Tappan and Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Lubin and Carr The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th clay of February 1996. Staff advised the audience of the appeal period on this project. PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST TO REVISE PROJECT APPROVALS TO AMEND TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE FOR AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1834, LOCATED EAST OF JAMES WAY WITHIN THE RANCHO GRANDE SUBDIVISION, APPLICANT OTTSE, INC. Associate Planner Scott Spierling presented the staff report. He provided background information on the original project approval. He discussed how traffic impact fees were assessed on this project. He stated that an addendum to the original EIR has been prepared and it has been determined that the traffic impacts can be mitigated by paying a lesser fee than originally assessed. He discussed the fact that this will reduce the funds available to the City for major roadway reconstruction. The Staff Advisory Committee recommended approval of the attached resolutions with the findings suggested and subject to the conditions listed. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 February 20, 1996 Commissioner Beck stated that she felt the fees should be fair to all. Associate Planner Spierling agreed that was why the City Council had allowed developers to amend their maps. Commissioner Deviny asked about the percentage of build out in this subdivision. Associate Planner Spierling stated that in Rancho Grande various tracts had been approved and were in different stages : • Tract 1834 has not yet begun under construction; • Tract 1994 has recorded their map and full fee is being paid; • Tract 1997 has not had the map recorded and the developer could request an amendment to the fee; • Tract 1132 has no traffic mitigation fee yet; • Tract 1998 will be assessed when built. There was discussion regarding which interchanges were included in the traffic analysis; the impact caused by these tracts on traffic; and Planning Commission concern with waiving needed fees. Chairperson Keen opened the public hearing. Don Ritter, Shetler Construction representing Ottse, Inc. - He stated that they agree their project impacts traffic but they feel they are meeting their obligation in paying appropriate fees. With no further comments from the audience, Chairperson Keen closed the public hearing and requested Commissioner comments. Commissioner Beck agreed that this project has a great impact but in fairness the Commission should grant this amendment. Commissioner Tappan commented that the loss of these fees had been previously discussed and he had no further comments. Commissioner Soto stated his major concerns were addressed in the Initial Study dated November 17, 1995, Section VI which addressed Transportation and Circulation as "Potentially Significant Impacts ". He stated that a project of this size has more than 50% of the overall impact on the major traffic backbone problems in one specific area and he has concerns with reducing fees. Commissioner Deviny agreed that the traffic impact fees have been amended but because of the location and size of the Rancho Grande development, the impact fee should not be amended. Chairperson Keen also expressed concern due to impacts on the community; however, the City Council reduced the impact fees citywide and the Planning Commission should respect this. Community Development Director Doreen Liberto -Blank stated that she wanted to clarify that staff was asking the project's traffic fee be consistent with the updated traffic impact fee permitted under AB 1600. If the Commission feels not enough information is being provided to support the reduction in the fee, or the environmental document is flawed, specific finding must be made. Commissioner Deviny questioned where specific intersections were addressed and there was discussion with staff regarding the base and increased fees; the amount necessary in the future to fund the needed improvements; and previous project approvals in the City. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 February 20, 1996 After discussion by the Commissioners, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1548 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RANCHO GRANDE SUBDIVISION AND THE ADDENDUM FOR AN AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1834 AND SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 90 -01 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT On a motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Beck, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Soto, Beck, Tappan, Deviny and Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Lubin and Carr The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of February 1996. The following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1549 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1834 AND SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 90 -01, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED NORTII OF JAMES WAY IN THE "RANCHO GRANDE" PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, APPLIED FOR BY OTTSE, INC. On a motion by Chairperson Keen, seconded by Commissioner Beck, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Beck, Tappan, and Keen NOES: Commissioners Soto and Deviny ABSENT: Commissioners Lubin and Carr The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of February 1996. PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY, 3,280 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS; VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT OF WALL /FENCE; SIGN PLAN FOR BUILDING; AND VARIANCE FOR TENANT LISTING ON THE MONUMENT SIGN. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 February 20, 1996 CASE NUMBERS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 96-542 AND ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW; VARIANCE CASE NO. 96 -193; PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 96 -119; AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 96 -194. PROJECT APPLICANT IS JOSEPH WAIS FOR A PROPERTY AT 1164 GRAND AVENUE Associate Planner Scott Spierling presented the staff report. He provided information regarding the proposal which will contain two existing businesses and provide two offices for new business. The project site meets requirements of the Development Code (setbacks, height and parking). He presented a color board for the building. He presented an overhead to show the slope of lot which requires a fence variance. An exhibit for the planned sign program was presented; the variance, for a tenant listing on the monument sign, was necessary due, to building setback and need for visibility from Grand Avenue. The Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) and Staff Advisory Committee (SAC) have both reviewed the application and recommend approval. Commissioner Deviny asked about an existing medical building and their signage. Staff replied that they weren't sure about the number of tenants in that building. Commissioner Tappan questioned if the business was moving from an established location where they had been given credit for water usage. Staff replied that the water usage figure remained with the location. Chairperson Keen opened the public hearing. Greg Soto, Project Architect - He stated that he and the owner agree with the staff report and conditions of approval and will be happy to answer any questions. The Commission inquired about how far back the fence goes on the property; placement of the fence below the roof line; fence visibility from the street; setback of the building; and amount of traffic mitigation fee required. With no further comments from the audience, Chairperson Keen closed the public hearing and requested Commissioner comments. Commissioner Tappan was concerned with water mitigation. Commissioner Beck stated that this fits nicely with the other buildings; however, the sign colors were a little strong and could be toned down. Staff replied that the Planning Commission could add a condition regarding the color; however, AAC had no problem with colors of sign when they reviewed the project. Commissioner Soto stated that he felt it was a good project and he liked the signs. Commissioner Deviny was concerned with the sign. Chairperson Keen stated he felt projects with multiple tenants set back from the street need to have tenants listed on the sign. He suggested adding the address to the sign. Commissioner Tappan asked about the Park and Recreation condition requiring "root barriers ". There was discussion regarding uplifting of sidewalks and need to have root barriers for all trees on site. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 February 20, 1996 After discussion by the Commissioners, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1550 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING VARIANCE CASE NO. 96-193 FOR THE HEIGHT OF A FENCE /WALL APPLIED FOR BY JOSEPH WAIS, AT 1164 GRAND AVENUE On a motion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Deviny, Soto, Tappan, Beck and Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Lubin and Carr The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of February 1996. The following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1551 A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MEASURES, INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 96 -542 AND THE ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, APPLIED FOR BY JOSEPH WAIS AT 1164 GRAND AVENUE On a motion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Deviny, Soto, Tappan, Beck and Keen NOES: None ABSENT': Commissioner Lubin and Carr The foregoing Resolution was passed as corrected and adopted this 20th day of February 1996. The following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1552 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING VARIANCE CASE NO. 96-194 FOR SIGN DEVIATIONS, APPLIED FOR BY JOSEPH WAIS AT 1164 GRAND AVENUE Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 February 20, 1996 On a motion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Deviny, Soto, Tappan, Beck and Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Lubin and Carr The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of February 1996. The following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1553 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 96 -119, APPLIED FOR BY JOSEPH WAIS AT 1164 GRAND AVENUE On a motion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Deviny, Soto, Tappan, Beck and Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Lubin and Carr The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of February 1996. Staff advised the audience of the appeal period on this project. NON PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF INSTITUTIONAL USES; PER ORDINANCE 355 C.S., LOCATION LOT 182 TRACT 1390 - ROYAL OAKS, APPLICANT PACIFIC HARBOR CAPITAL INC. Associate Planner Scott Spierling presented the staff report. He explained that Tract 1390 was approved with lot number 182 designated for one, single family estate hone which could be converted to institutional use upon approval of a rezone application. The staff report analyzes this question utilizing different factors. The Planning Commission is requested to make a recommendation to the City Council, that the senior complex is or is not an institutional use within the context of Ordinance 355 C. S. The Commission was presented a packet of information this evening by the applicant. Chairperson Keen asked the applicant to address the Commission. Rick Novak, President of Wren Investments, applicant representative - He discussed the information presented to the Planning Commission; how the project would be monitored by HUD; projects he is involved with in other areas; assisted living facilities for seniors; future increase in senior population and cost to society; community based long term care; support of Council for Aging, Catholic Charities and Visiting Nurses Association and their agreement with the "institutional" title; community facilities that will be available to residents of project; fact that proposal will blend with surroundings; and typical site plans for this type of project. Joyce Ellen Lipman, Director of Area Agency on Aging for San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties- - She discussed need for low cost housing for low income housing in the County. 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8 February 20, 1996 Don MclIaney, property owner - He stated that there had been a review for a 40 unit Planned Unit Development on the site but he felt that this proposal would be an excellent use of this parcel. He had always intended it for a senior site and there were no specific projects listed for the larger sites because it was intended that they would come back to the Planning Commission for individual approvals. Commissioner Soto referred to the definition of "institution" in the staff report. He expressed concern regarding the project being two -story and lack of parking on site for seniors. He likes the project but feels that it outside the true definition of "institutional use ". Commissioner Deviny stated that his definition of "institution" would provide a complete service and though he likes the project he is also concerned with traffic. Commissioner Beck would like to see public services and public transportation closer to a senior facility and doesn't feel that this site provides necessary amenities for senior housing. She agrees that seniors would prefer to stay at home for care traditionally provided in an institution and doesn't agree that senior driving is a real concern. She asked staff about the City need for low cost housing. Community Development Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck replied that the City is in need of this type of housing but only that which meets the State definition can be counted toward the allocation required in the Housing Element. Commissioner Beck expressed concern with justifying this as constituting an "institutional use ". Commissioner Tappan stated that the project looks like apartment living which does create traffic. He said that he believes seniors drive longer now than they did in the past. He has not had the opportunity to review the information provided by the applicant, but based on the staff report he cannot find that this use is "institutional ". He could support the project on the site, but through another process not through an interpretation. Chairperson Keen asked staff when the added information was received. Associate Planner Spierling indicated the packet was delivered this afternoon. Indicated that he probably would support the project on the property, but not through the process presented this evening. He also expressed concern with project generated traffic. Mr. Novak stated that he feels assisted living is an appropriate use in the zone; discussed the type of person who would utilize the project; addressed senior driving averages and number of spaces provided in his projects; stated that the facility would provide transportation for residents; stated that institutional cost is prohibitive and not a good use of resources; stated that he prepared his packet in response to the staff report and apologized for its late arrival; discussed financing for construction and how rent is determined; and talked about some of the existing facilities in Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo. Commissioner Tappan asked staff if the Peoples' Self -Help Housing projects were considered institutional. Community Development Director replied that they were not considered institutional, and were required to be placed in Multi - family zones. After discussion by the Commissioners, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1554 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TIIAT THE CITY COUNCIL PROVIDE AN INTERPRETATION TIIAT AN AFFORDABLE S ENIOR APARTMENT COMPLEX IS NOT AN INSTITUTIONAL USE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ORDINANCE 355 C.S. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 9 February 20, 1996 On a motion by Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Beck, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Beck, Soto, Deviny and Keen NOES: None . ABSENT: Commissioners Lubin and Carr The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of February 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS A. Countywide Planning Commission Dinner, February 23, 1996 in Grover Beach (a reminder). B. Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for March 5 at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission has a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. prior to the joint meeting. C. Update of Projects WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Letter and packet of information from Mr. Novak regarding Agenda Item No. IIIA. 2. Attendance sheet for upcoming Planning Commission meetings. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. to the Countywide Planning Commission Dinner at 6:30 p.m. located at 993 Ramona Avenue, Grover Beach on February 23., 1996. ATTEST: S TO CONTENT: rto- Blanck Community Development Director