PC Minutes 2010-08-03 . .
_ _ _ . . _ .
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
' CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2010
6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER — The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair
Brown presiding: also present were Commissioners Martin and Ruth. Absent were Commissioners
Barneich and Keen. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director Teresa
McClish, Planning Manager Jim Bergman, Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon, Planning Intern Darryl
Mimick, and Assistant City Engineer Mike Linn.
ANNOUNCEMENT: None
AGENDA REVIEW: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruth, and unanimously carried to approve
the minutes of July 20, 2010.
I. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AFTER AGENDA PREPARATION:
��he Commission received an email dated August 2, 2010 from Mark Vasquez regarding AG Short
Street Project; a letter dated July 31, 2010 from Gary L. Scherquist regarding Shops at Short Street;
and a copy of Section 503.2.1 of the 2007 California Fire Code from Tim Moore; an updated
Resolution from Planning Manager Bergman based upon additional review by the applicant and staff
clarifications; and Anita Bennett provided, at the meeting, an excerpt from the San Francisco
Chronicle newspaper regarding building design.
II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM JULY 20, 2010 VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
09-001 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 09-001; 379 ALDER STREET; APPLICANT —
KORNREICH ARCHITECTS
Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report, stating that the project has not changed
since the July 20, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. Applicant proposes a 4 lot residential
subdivision in a planned unit development configuration. Item was continued in order to examine
options for satisfying the City's affordable housing requirements. Commission comments from last
meeting have been included in the resolution of approval.
The recommendation is to approve the project as presented with the low-income affordable housing
restriction; however, staff encourages the Commission to consider development code amendment
options that would enable smaller projects, such as this one, to move fonivard by paying an affordable
housing in lieu fee instead of restricting a unit. Three possible development code amendments were
presented that would essentially have the same outcome of allowing a fee in lieu of restricting a unit.
In answer to Commissioners' questions, Associate Planner Heffernon indicated the density
equivalency table is applicable for mixed-use or multi-family (attached) projects. The development
code could be amended to either change the definition of multi-family dwellings or simply allow
density equivalencies in the MF zoning district. The City would process the development code
amendment which would take some time. While this would be a disadvantage to the applicant, it
would allow the applicant to proceed with the project. As proposed right now, one of the units would
need to be restricted to low-income, which makes the project financially unfeasible. Deferred to the
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 2
AUGUST 3, 2010
applicant to answer which alternative would be their preference.
In answer to Chair Brown's questions, Community Development Director Teresa McClish stated this �
project has brought to light some obstacles to gaining easily-administered affordable housing in the
City for small infill projects. The issue was recognized during the Housing Element update work that
is currently being pursued. This project is a good case study to make some changes to remove those
potential obstacles; however, this amendment must not be contrary to anything being contemplated in
that update process. In terms of the current code language for definition of multi-family, this is not a
multi-family project, but it is a small lot single family development in a multi-family zoning district which
is an allowed use. Density equivalencies are indicated for multi-family attached projects.
Associate Planner Heffernon clarified one of the alternatives would be to allow paying an in-lieu fee
when there are less than 10 units proposed. The code is currently silent in the density bonus section
on fractional units (i.e. 10% of projects having less than 10 units is a fraction). Community
Development Director Teresa McClish stated these are directions for a code amendment. When the
code amendment comes forward, an analysis will be brought forward to make sure it is consistent with
other sections of the code and alternatives presented if needed. The anticipated timeframe to change
the development code would be a minimum of four months.
Chair Brown opened the meeting for public comment. The applicanYs representative, Garth
Kornreich, was asked to address the changes recommended or contemplated at the last meeting, and
his views on the options brought forward by staff. Mr. Kornreich indicated they did not make any
formal drawing changes in anticipation of the issues with the development code amendment. Second
floor windows could be modified to protect neighbor privacy. They looked at opportunities to modify
the second floor plans to step the structures further back from the property line. They resist the other
option pushing the units forward (south) to gain a larger setback, but stepping will help open it up and
alleviate some of the overlook issues. Pulling the units apart, especially the first two units, to get a
parking space in between would work well. The items brought up are workable and could be
incorporated into the plans when the project comes back after the development code amendment. As
far as the amendments are concerned, the rounding up for 0.51 units and greater would work as well
as the density equivalency allowance in the multi-family zone. If they completely complied with the
definition of multi-family housing, there would not be an additional unit there and no additional density,
but a matter of whether it is connected or not connected. It is a better project and more appealing
when they are separated.
In answer to Commissioners' questions, Mr. Kornreich indicated the upstairs unit #2 could be flipped,
but pushing them a little further apart, with a parking space in between would have less visibility in the
windows. They could examine pushing everything forward on the second floor over the porch to
create a 10 ft second-story setback.
Commissioner Brown expressed concern about the 5 ft rear yard setback in terms of privacy issues.
If a development code amendment is done, he wants the applicant to show the step back.
Applicant, Lloyd Kornreich commented that his concept is to provide wrap-around porches that help
bring out a community area where neighbors can see each other. By giving more room in the
backyard, more area is taken from the front yard and the nice southern exposure, and he felt the front
yard would be utilized more than the shaded back yard. They could look at this issue again.
�
�
Seeing no more public comment, Chair Brown brought it back to the Commission.
Chair Brown commented he is uncomfortable with changing the density equivalency. He prefers the
alternative that allows rounding up to the next full unit for fractions of 0.51 or greater.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION AGEIVDA PAGE 3
AUGUST 3, 2010
Commissioner Ruth indicated this is a good project, it is nice to put the living space in the front, and
the parking appears to be OK. She supports the same development code amendment as Chair
Brown. Trying to change the density equivalent for the 1 bedroom does not make sense, and it will
have a limited market. She supports rounding up with units of less than 4, if it's a fraction of .51 or
greater.
Commissioner Martin indicated this is a good project and good fit for the neighborhood. Single family
detached homes are more desirable than attached units at this point. It's a good infill project and she
would like to see it work.
It was moved by Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Ruth, and unanimously carried to continue
this item to a date uncertain.
B. VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 10-002 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE
NO. 10-002; APPLICANT — NKT COMMERCIAL C/O NICK TOMPKINS; LOCATION — CORNER
OF SHORT STREET AND EAST BRANCH STREET. Staff report prepared by Planning Manager
Jim Bergman. The Planning Commission considered making a recommendation to the City Council
regarding the final design review af the full architectural, site, floor, and landscaping plans of the
approved commercial building, the formal land division of the new develop►nent, and landscape
improvements of the locally listed resource known as the "Public Works Building or Conrad House" in
accordance with the Purchase and Sale and Improvement Agreement ent�red into by the City
Council on February 23, 2010 (Resalution 4262).
Planning ��,�r�ager Jim Bergman presented the staff report that included thP background and review
Iprocess �f the project and referenced pertinent City policy documents such as the General Plan and the
� Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic Districts. Staff also presented a revised Resolution with
approximately ten modified conditions of approval. The applicant's representative presented an
overview of the project with details related to the site plan, floor plan, tentative parcel map and exterior
colors and materials. Public Comment was taken from Tim Moore, Gary Scherquist, Patty 1/��elsh,
Shirley Gibson, Bill McCann, Gordon Bennett, Susan Flores, Minetta Bennett, Mike McConville, and
Greg Steinberger.
Issues discussed during public comment and by the Commission included:
• Fire access and adequacy of Short Street being narrowed to 16 feet curb to curb;
• Progress of the Le Point Street parking lot;
• ADA upgrades of the public restrooms;
• ADA parking spaces and access;
• f'roject conditions of approval;
• Conrad House fence design;
• Exterior materials on the corner of the proposed ruilding;
• i he differences between the Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Overlav District and
the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines and Standards for the Treatment of h'istoric Buildings;
� The coordination of the windows and doors of the propose� buildin;� and the flexible floor plan
proposed;
• i ree rernoval and placement of trees in the sidewalk;
• Adequacy of tourist parking;
• Adequacy� of the 7.5 foot setback of the proposed building nearest to the Conrad House;
' • Authenticity/reproduced history/Disneyland appearance of the proposed fa�ade and building;
� • Storage space at the rear of the proposed building;
• Scale and mass of the proposed building;
_ __ ____ _ . . _--_ . -- __ __
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 4
AUGUST 3, 2010
s Multiple fa�ade versus a single or double fa�ade; �
• The dichotomy between the ARC and HRC recommendation.
Commissioner Ruth made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Martin, to adopt a resolution
recommending that City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Vesting Tentative
Parcel Map Case No. 10-002 and Conditional Use Permit Case No. 10-002 final design review of the full
architectural site, floor, and landscaping plans of previously approved commercial building at 200 and 208
E. Branch St. appiied for by NKT Commercial, as modified with the alternate design.
RESOLUTION NO. 10-2108
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE VESTING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 10-002 AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT CASE NO. 10-002; FINAL DESIGN REVIEW OF THE FULL
ARCHITECTURAL, SITE FLOOR, AND LANDSCAPING PLANS OF A
PR�VIOUSLY APPROVED COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 200 AND 2�U8 E.
BRANCH STREET; APPLIED FOR BY NKT COMMERCIAL
The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Ruth, Martin and Chair Brown
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Barneich and Keen
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 3`d day of August 2010.
Chair Brown commented that City Council did give direction, but they also serve at the pleasure of the
community and the community input during public hearings and may modify their opinion depending on
how many people show up to the meeting for the ongoing process.
III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None
In answer to Commissioners' questions, Director, Community Development Teresa McClish indicated that
for the Grand Estate events, the temporary use permit grants permission for the balloons to be put up for a
6 month period only for specific events, and there will be about five events for the 6 month period.
IV. REFERRAL ITEM� FOR COMMISSION ACTION/NOTES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE
J U LY 20 2010:
Case Na App. ' <Address Description Action Planner
1.VSR 10-003 Bob Biack 1460 Sierra Drive Addition of a 140 square foot A. D.Mimick
bathroom and 157 square foot
second story roof deck with
total height of 15'3".
2.TUP 10-011 Michelle Muller 995 East Grand Avenue Placement of balloons and A. D.Mimick
pennants on the building for
pre-determined sales events.
3. PPR 10-010 Debbie Bailey 129 N. Halcyon Road Conversion of a medical space A. D.Mimick
to a Thera eutic Bod Center.
4.ARCH 10-001 Paul Poirier and 905 Rancho Parkway, Pad Review of proposed changes A. K. Heffernon
Associates "I"of the Five Cities to approved commercial shell �
Sho ping Center(Phase II buildin (Buiiding I-1 . '
PLANNING COMMISSION AGEiVDA PAGE 5
AUGUST 3, 2010
' 5. DR 10-002 Mangano Homes Royal Oaks Planned Design Review for approved A. K.Heffernon
Development—Grace nineteen(19)lot residential
Lane subdivision.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
A. Second utility connections for second residential dwellings
Director, Community Development Teresa McClish stated this is an item that was requested by
Commission to be placed on the agenda for discussion at the submittal of a letter by Mr. Pires who is in
the audience in attendance. The issue of separate utility meters for second residential units has come up
because of the cost-associated with the City's requirement for a single meter. For a single electrical meter
for two homes, many times it can throw the cost into higher tiered rate. The City is encouraging second
units because it provides more affordable housing, yet according to Mr. Pires can be cost prohibitive and
an obstacle to affordable housing. Staff recognizes that the City code was written this way to require one
water meter and one utility meter for a specific reason; and that is, to make it harder for both units to be
rented out. In order to protect single-family neighborhoods, we want, and we require, the owner live in
one unit and the other unit to be rented instead of both units rented. Staff has surveyed oth�r cities in the
County. Almost all of them allow for separate utilities, simply for the purpose of affordability and continued
affordability after the construction of the second unit. So the alternatives here are to c;irect Staff to prepare
a development code amendment. Again separate utility meters is not a complica�ed fix to the code, it is
not contrary to anything we have in our Housing Element or Land Use Element and so we could go
forward, but there will be some cost to the applicant because it is at his request, and it is in advance of the
Housing Element.
� In response to Commissioner's questions, Director Community Development Teresa McClish indicated the
Ordinance was revised in 2003 and the state law was modified so that a person requesting a second
residential unit can go down and get a building permit, unless they are not meeting the parking
requirement, or size of structure reyuirement, in which case, they would have to come through the
discretionary process.
Applicant, Dustin Pires commented that PG&E is the biggest issue. If you read an electrical bill, there is a
baselinP and there's a tiered-rate system on it. There's the baseline rate, then the next rate goes up, then
next rat� goes up, and so on. So there's a disadvantage when you have two units going off one meter. In
his case, he lives in smaller unit, and rents out the larger unit. Has little control over his tenant, has tried
to bill them at a flat rate but it does not compensate them truly. Also tried to apply an average cost, taken
over a two-year period, but once applied to the tenant, the bills were still considerably more than what the
tenant was billed for.
In response to Commissioner's questions, Mr. Pires indicated he has found that Arroyo Grdr��e is the only
jurisdiction that has this restriction; overall, it would be more beneficial for secondary dwelling units and
affordable housing in general to make this change. Said he saw it is easier when the majority of people
rent out smaller unit because it is easier to control, but in his case he is trying to be creative and affording
house on the central coast. Added he knows he has the option of doing this before the Housing Element.
In answer to Commissioner's questions, Director Community Development Teresa McClish discussed
status of Housing Element.
Commissioner Ruth commented they absolutely should have separate meters. It is unfair that some
� people are paying a higher rate for electricity. It should be crianged to allow them to have more than one
meter.
Commissioner Martin agreed to separate meters, and thought it was already this way.
_. __ __ .. . . �
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 6
AUGUST 3, 2010
Chair Brown agreed to separate meters, and wondered why it was done this way to begin with.
Commissioner Ruth commented, it was in case of emergency, you turn off only �ne meter, instead of I
having another still going.
Mr. Pires indicated that in cases of both water and gas, it would be as simple as ha�ring the meters at the
same location. The meter would be in the panel, and instead of one, both meters would be there. The
shutoff would be right next to each other and would be very obvious and not in separate places. This
would be a typical retrofit.
Director Community Development Teresa McClish stated as they will prepare a recommendation based
upon the Commission's direction tonight. It would up to Mr. Pires if he wanted to put in a separate
application in advance of the Housing Element coming before the Commission.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS:
Commissioner Ruth comr�ented she will be away for the first meeting in September 2010.
VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Brown moved for adjournment at 9:15 pm, seconded by Commissioner Martin and unanimously
carried.
ATTEST: -
t ' 4 � -
' r
.�,��� ��� �� �" `�_.,�,�°� ��
ROSEMARY SIMMONS TIM BROWN, C �
A('TING SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
�.. ` �,
TERE A McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
(Approved at the September 7, 2010 meeting)
�
I