The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 2014-08-12_10.a. Pre App East Grand and CourtlandTO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM CITY COUNCIL TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MATTHEW DOWNING~ISTANT PLANNER CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF PRE-APPLICATION NO. 14-002; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SUBDIVISION OF TWO (2) COMMERCIAL PARCELS INTO FORTY- TWO (42) RESIDNETIAL LOTS, ONE (1) COMMON AREA LOT, AND TWO (2) COMMERCIAL LOTS; LOCATION -SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH COURTLAND STREET; APPLICANT -MFI LIMITED & NKT COMMERCIAL AUGUST 12, 2014 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council review the conceptual plans and provide comments to the applicant. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The conversion of prime commercial land to residential use removes the revenue generation potential from the City indefinitely. Although property tax revenue would shift from commercial to residential, it is anticipated this shift would essentially be neutral. More formal sales tax projections would be developed upon formal application when the total amount of area devoted to each use is identified. Item 10.a. - Page 1 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION NO. 14-002 AUGUST 12, 2014 PAGE 2 BACKGROUND: Location City Council The City Council reviewed conceptual project plans at its regular meeting of July 8, 2014 (Attachment 1) and provided comments on the project to the applicant (Attachment 2). These comments addressed several topics, including: • Need for increased density if residential was to be included on what was once considered to be the commercial portion of a horizontal mixed-use development; • Desire for true vertical mixed-use along East Grand Avenue: • Desire for increased commercial development on the site, although there were differing opinions amongst Council Members on how to accomplish this; • An understanding that in today 's market , commercial viability is not what it once was . However, the market could change again in the future; • Issues with the hopscotch effect of transitioning from commercial development, to a moderately dense single-family detached development, before transitioning again to a higher density multi-family development ; and • An understanding that the site is a midblock location, even if it is at the corner of an intersection. Item 10.a. - Page 2 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION NO. 14-002 AUGUST 12, 2014 PAGE3 Project Description The conceptual project is similar to the concept previously reviewed by the Council. However, some notable modifications have been made (Attachment 3). The concept plan would subdivide and develop 4.47 acres located at the southwest corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street into two (2) commercial lots with 5,000-6,000 square-feet of commercial floor area each. Four (4) residential units, ranging in size from 1,000 to 1,300 square-feet, have been added above the commercial buildings, adjacent to East Grand Avenue. The architecture of these buildings has been updated to a more contemporary design to distinguish them from the western agrarian architecture of the Village. An additional row of parking has been added to the southwest corner of the commercial development. The applicants have reduced the number of single-family lots from forty-two (42) to forty-one (41 ). This was done to accommodate the added row of parking on the commercial development. The homes are identified to remain between 1,500 and 1,750 square-feet of floor area. The architecture of these units has also been updated from a contemporary agrarian style to a mid-century modern design, to aid in making the development individually defined. One (1) common area parcel will remain to include all private access drives and common areas. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Commercial Development The commercial component of the conceptual project includes the development of two commercial buildings totaling approximately 10,000 -12,000 square-feet of floor area on approximately 1.07 acres of the project site. This amount remains unchanged from the previous project concept. The lack of commercial development on the last remaining undeveloped lot of prime commercial land was previously identified as an issue by staff and it remains as such under the revised concept plan. Access and Parking The commercial component of the project would utilize three (3) access points in total. This includes two (2) from East Grand Avenue and one (1) from South Courtland Street. Staff identified the desire for a single access point on East Grand Avenue in the previous project concept in order to reduce vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. However, a second driveway remains between the two commercial buildings. The commercial component now includes sixty (60) parking spaces. Parking requirements are dependent upon the use proposed, but are generally one (1) space per 250 square-feet of gross floor area for commercial uses. A maximum of 12,000 square-feet of commercial area would result in a requirement of forty-eight (48) parking spaces. The residential units added above the commercial buildings would require eight (8) parking spaces, assuming each unit had at least two bedrooms and were individually owned. In total, 56 spaces would be required for the commercial/mixed-use portion of the project, which has conceptually been met. Item 10.a. - Page 3 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION NO. 14-002 AUGUST 12, 2014 PAGE4 Architecture The commercial development's architecture has been modified from western agrarian similar to that of the Village to a much more contemporary architectural style. This includes smooth, flat surfaces with clean lines and a mixture of materials. The buildings would be a more uniform two-story height with more urban massing. Areas of the building remaining a single-story would be approximately fourteen feet (14') in height. Residential Development The residential component of the conceptual project includes the development of forty- one (41) single-family detached homes on approximately 3.4 acres of the project site. This results in a density of approximately 12 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Each unit would be between 1,500 and 1,750 square-feet on parcels with a minimum size of 2,500 square-feet. The residential component of the project also includes one (1) common area lot, which is comprised of access drives, guest parking, and a central neighborhood green measuring approximately 14,000 square-feet. Access and Parking The residential project component has one vehicular access point from South Courtland Street. Interior private driveways would be twenty foot (20') wide and would be required to include fire lanes on both sides due to narrowness. Staff had previously identified that the fire access to the People's Self Help Housing (PSHH) site is potentially too narrow to allow proper fire apparatus access. Although this could be rectified on a formal application submittal, staff wanted to again highlight the issue. Parking for the residences would be provided in enclosed, two-car garages attached to each individual unit. A total of thirteen (13) guest parking spaces are identified within the residential portion of the project, a reduction of three (3) spaces from the previous concept plan. A mixed-use parking reduction for guest parking would be required. Parking is an important issue since there is no on-street parking available on Courtland Street. The residents above the commercial development would be eligible for a mixed- use parking reduction. Single-family residential units would normally not qualify for a mixed-use parking reduction because they are not included in the mixed-use definition. Guest parking is required at a rate of one-half space per residential unit, which would require twenty-one (21) spaces based on the number of units. The applicant has indicated that the missing guest parking could be accommodated in the parking provided on the commercial development. A three percent (3%) parking reduction would be required for the entire development, as the concept is four (4) spaces short on parking. Architecture The architecture of the residences has been modified to a mid-century modern style. The purpose of the change was to distinguish between this conceptual development and the adjacent Berry Gardens neighborhood. The applicants have indicated that the change in architecture will also be utilized to provide the appearance of a more natural Item 10.a. - Page 4 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION NO. 14-002 AUGUST 12, 2014 PAGES land use transition down South Courtland Street. Residences located adjacent to the neighborhood green would continue to include side yard patios, split in half by property lines of neighboring residences, but under private easement for the use and enjoyment of only one of the residences. General Plan The General Plan is the foundational development policy document for the City and defines the framework for how the physical, economic, and human resources are to be managed. During review of the initial development concept, staff identified several policies of the General Plan that the project was not consistent with. Although the applicants have made modifications to aspects of the project to address the inconsistency with the General Plan, including architecture and massing of the single- family residences, additional residential units on the commercial portion of the project, and contemporary massing of the commercial development, the conceptual project appears to remain inconsistent with the General Plan policies identified below. • LUS-10.1 Promote development of a high intensity, mixed-use, pedestrian activity node centered on the Courtland Street/East Grand Avenue intersection as a priority example of revitalization of this corridor segment known as Gateway. • LU11-2 Require that new development should be designed to create pleasing transitions to surrounding development. • ED3-3 Incorporate zoning regulations that promote infill development with opportunities for retaining and expanding business. • ED3-1.9 Identify, amend, and approve neighborhood enhancement plans or form- based codes, including adopting appropriate environmental documents for sections of El Camino Real, Halcyon Road, and East Grand Avenue appropriate for intensified infill expansion. This will provide certainty for allowed development and to attract and facilitate larger scale (e.g. >20,000 SF) office and manufacturing uses. • EDS-2 Continue to enhance connectivity and increase retail utilization of the East Grand Avenue corridor, the Village Core, and the Traffic Way and El Camino Real mixed-use corridors. • HE A.9 The City shall continue to enable and encourage multiple-family, rental apartments, senior, mobile home, and special needs housing in appropriate locations and densities. These multiple family residential alternative housing types tend to be more affordable than prevailing single-family residential low and medium density developments. Item 10.a. - Page 5 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION NO. 14-002 AUGUST 12, 2014 PAGES • CT4-1 Promote "transit-oriented developments" and coordinated, compatible land -use pattern by encouraging multiple family residential and special needs housing in Mixed Use Corridors, Village Core and near Office, Regional Commercial, Business Park and major Community Facility areas. Consistency with the General Plan is required for any development on the project site. Due to these inconsistencies, staff has determined that a General Plan Amendment would be required in addition to the previously identified Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and Conditional Use Permit; otherwise the inconsistency would precipitate an environmental impact report due to potentially significant impacts in the area of land use. Design Guidelines and Enhancement Plan The revised conceptual project includes additional features that address the goals of the Design Guidelines and Enhancement Plan. Even with including those modifications identified above, staff believes a formal application should include additional components to address the Design Guidelines and Enhancement Plan. More specifically, a formal project should include: • Extended commercial development on South Courtland Street to, at a minimum, match the extent of commercial development on the east side of South Courtland, provide consistency on both sides of the street, and further enclose the street; • A single driveway access from East Grand Avenue to reduce the number of driveway conflicts with pedestrians on the sidewalk; • Include a transit stop on East Grand Avenue. The applicant has indicated that through discussions with the Regional Transit Authority (RTA), who operates the South County Area Transit (SCAT), there may not be an appropriate location for a transit stop along the property frontage. However, this would be confirmed by staff upon formal application; • Patterned and color stained pedestrian crosswalks across East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street, as well as widen sidewalks and landscaping on East Grand Avenue; and • Expanded pedestrian access from the far corners of the residential development and the PSHH project to encourage pedestrian travel to both the commercial development and East Grand Avenue. Inappropriate Transitions During the previous concept review, the Council commented on the undesirable transition from commercial development along East Grand Avenue to detached single- family housing, to a denser multi-family apartment complex, before culminating in the low-density single-family Berry Gardens neighborhood. The applicants have modified the architecture of the detached townhomes in an attempt to provide a more urban environment closer to East Grand Avenue and support the feeling of a more natural transition down South Courtland Street to Berry Gardens. Staff remains concerned Item 10.a. - Page 6 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION NO. 14-002 AUGUST 12, 2014 PAGE7 regarding the hopscotch effect of the development. While the modified architectural style accomplishes the goal of creating a more urban environment on the project site, staff continues to think the density of 10.06 du/ac on the entire site resulting from the project transitioning to the 22 du/ac density of the PSHH project before transitioning back to the traditional single-family density of the Berry Gardens neighborhood results in this hopscotch effect and does not conform to general principles of orderly development and sound land use planning. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are presented for City Council consideration: 1. Provide comments to the applicant in support of the conceptual project as presented; 2. Provide comments to the applicant in opposition of the conceptual project as presented; 3. Provide comments to the applicant in support of the conceptual project with comments regarding the extent and level of expanded commercial development; 4. Provide comments to the applicant in support of the conceptual project with comments for commercial development on the entirety of the site; 5. Provide comments to the applicant in support of the conceptual project with further increased residential density; or 6. Provide other comments to the applicant. ADVANTAGES: A formal project consistent with the conceptual project would complete development of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan area. The project, as revised, includes commercial development on East Grand Avenue with a number of desirable design features. The conceptual project would construct forty-five (45) new residences, including four (4) in a true mixed-use arrangement above lower-level commercial, and would be required to comply with the City's inclusionary affordable housing requirements, in accordance with the Development Code. The project could stimulate investment in properties along East Grand Avenue. DISADVANTAGES: The conceptual project would continue to develop over three-quarters of the only significant undeveloped commercial opportunity in the City with single-family residential uses. This would not be consistent with the General Plan or with the City's position to previous owners that increased residential use on the site was disfavored. Although the architectural modifications to the single-family housing creates a more urban environment near East Grand Avenue, the development of single-family residences between commercial and higher density multi-family development does not conform to general principles of orderly development and land use planning and does not allow for appropriate zones of transition before moving to the more traditional low density single- family neighborhood to the south. The project is not consistent with the City's General Plan policies, does not address the objectives of the Mixed-Use district or East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan, or meet the intent of the Development Code, particularly Item 10.a. - Page 7 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION NO: 14-002 AUGUST 12, 2014 PAGES with regard to housing type and amount of commercial development. The project would also eliminate the tax revenue potential of the site. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item due to no formal action being taken by Council. Future project applications will require environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: No public hearing is required for this item. The agenda and staff report were posted at City Hall and on the City's website on Thursday August 7, 2014. No comments have been received by staff. Attachments: 1. July 8, 2014 City Council staff report 2. Draft minutes of the July 8, 2014 City Council meeting 3. Revised project description provided by applicant 4. Revised conceptual project plans Item 10.a. - Page 8 TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM CITY COUNCIL TERESA MCCLISH~OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MATTHEW DOWNING~,?sSISTANT PLANNER CONSIDERATION OF PRE-APPLICATION NO. 14-002; SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SUBDIVISION OF TWO (2) COMMERCIAL PARCELS INTO FORTY-TWO (42) RESIDNETIAL LOTS, ONE (1) COMMON AREA LOT, AND TWO (2) COMMERCIAL LOTS; LOCATION -SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH COURTLAND STREET; APPLICANT -MFI LIMITED & NKT COMMERCIAL . JULY 8, 2014 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council review the conceptual plans and provide comments to the applicant. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The conversion of prime commercial land to residential use removes the revenue generation potential from the City indefinitely. Although property tax revenue would shift from commercial to residential, it is anticipated this shift would essentially be neutral. More formal sales tax projections would be developed upon formal application when the total amount of area devoted to each use is identified. ~ Item 10.a. - Page 9 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION NO. 14-002 JULY 8, 2014 PAGE2 BACKGROUND: Location Berry Gardens Specific Plan The subject property is identified as Subarea 3 in the Berry Gardens Specific Plan (BGSP), is zoned Gateway Mixed-Use (GMU) with the BGSP overlay, is approximately 4.47 acres in size, and is the last remaining undeveloped, prime commercial area in the City. The BGSP has been amended several times, most recently in March 2011. That amendment (Specific Plan Amendment 10-001) and subsequent use permit approval (Conditional Use Permit 10-003) allowed for the construction of the thirty-six (36) unit Peoples' Self Help Housing (PSHH) project on adjacent Subarea 4. Although a development proposal for Subarea 3 was under consideration at that time, the application was continued several times and eventually withdrawn by the applicant. As a result, the Specific Plan Amendment designated Subarea 3 as an unplanned subarea with no use restrictions or development standards, but subject to a future specific plan amendment. Item 10.a. - Page 10 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION N0.14-002 JULY 8, 2014 PAGE3 Previous Entitlement Applications The property has been the subject of numerous proposals and pre-application reviews. In 1999, the Council considered Specific Plan Amendment 99-001 and Conditional Use Permit 99-005 for the construction of an auto parts retailer (Autozone) on previous Subarea 4, which was a rectangular parcel directly adjacent to South Courtland Street and contained portions of now Subareas 3 and 4 (Attachment 1 ). At that time, based partly upon Council consensus that an auto parts store was not the desired vision for the entryway to the City, the Council unanimously voted to deny the Specific Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit. In 2002 and 2003, the Council considered Pre-Application Review No. 02-001 and Development Code Amendment 02-003, Specific Plan Amendment 02-002, and Tentative Tract Map 02-003, respectively, for the rezoning and residential subdivision of the southern 1.6 acres of then Subarea 3. The projects amended the BGSP and rezoned a 1.6 acre portion of Subarea 3, now known as the western cul-de-sac of Strawberry Avenue, for development of nine (9) residential lots to be compatible with the existing residential portion of Berry Gardens. In 2005, the Council considered Specific Plan Amendment 03-001 to allow for mixed- use development of Subareas 3 and 4. At that time, the two Subareas were separately owned and issues regarding reciprocal access and utilities caused owner conflicts, but the two areas were being addressed concurrently to create one cohesive plan. The Council approved the amendment establishing development standards for Subareas 3 and 4 for horizontal mixed use development, with the intent of encouraging commercial uses on approximately 2/3 of the site fronting E. Grand Avenue and high-density residential on the southern 1/3 of the site. The City further helped facilitate development of the residential portion through the acquisition and sale of the rear portion of the property. In 2010 and 2011, the Council considered Specific Plan Amendment 10-001, Tentative Parcel Map 10-001, Conditional Use Permit 10-001, and Conditional Use Permit 10-003 for the development of over 58,000 square-feet of commercial space (one (1) 3,750 square-foot commercial building, one (1) 4,200 square-foot restaurant, and one (1) 51,000 square-foot commercial grocer as the anchor tenant) and a thirty-six (36) unit, multi-family apartment complex (PSHH). Based upon issues of mass and scale of the anchor building, the proximity of the anchor building to the proposed residential use (zero rear yard setback), and inconsistencies with the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan (EGAEP), the Planning Commission recommended denial to the Council. Consideration of the projects was continued several times to allow the applicants to address concerns raised by the Commission and the public before any action by the Council was taken. At the March 8, 2011 meeting, the City Council approved the Specific Plan Amendment, establishing the BGSP as it stands today, as well as approving the Conditional Use Permit for the PSHH project, which is currently under construction. The PSHH portion of the project was considered to be the residential portion of the horizontal mixed-use on Subareas 3 and 4. At the request of Item 10.a. - Page 11 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION N0.14-002 JULY 8, 2014 PAGE4 the applicant, consideration of the Conditional Use Permit for the commercial development was continued to a date uncertain. No formal action was ever taken and that application was later withdrawn. On May 31, 2011, the City Council and Planning Commission held a special joint study session to provide opportunity for discussion and input on several development options provided by the property owner (Attachment 2). The resulting comments generally centered upon the following: • The importance of maintaining as much commercial development as possible on the remaining prime commercial land; • Lack of support for uses that do not generate commercial revenue; • Potential for a single drive-thru use, but would require individual evaluation; • Acknowledgment of public improvement and traffic circulation issues being addressed in relation to a specific development proposal; • Importance of development proposals to be consistent with the EGAEP and other guidance documents; and • Hesitation to base any decisions purely on proposed tenant(s). Project Description The conceptual project is described as "mixed-use small town style" according to the applicant (Attachment 3) and would consist of a Specific Plan Amendment (Attachment 4), Tentative Tract Map, and Conditional Use Permit. The concept plan would subdivide and develop 4.47 acres located at the southwest corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street into two (2) commercial lots with 5,000-6,000 square-feet of commercial floor area each, forty-two (42) single-family residential lots with two-story, detached homes between 1,500 and 1, 750 square-feet of floor area, and one ( 1) common area parcel including all private access drives and common areas. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Legislative vs. Judicial Acts Every decision a local government makes can be placed into one of three categories - legislative, quasi-judicial or ministerial: • Legislative acts are those that create policy, such as general plan updates, zoning ordinances or specific plans. These acts establish local law -rules that apply to everybody within the jurisdiction. Under California law, legislative acts are subject to initiative and referendum. • Quasi-judicial acts are those that apply policy (created through legislative acts) to projects, such as consideration of tentative maps or use permits. These acts are discretionary, based on the decision-makers interpretation and application of policy to a particular project. Quasi-judicial acts are not subject to initiative or referendum. Item 10.a. - Page 12 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION N0.14-002 JULY 8, 2014 PAGES • Ministerial acts are those that require no discretion on the part of the local government, such as the mandatory issuance of a permit if certain conditions are met. The conceptual project would be both a legislative (Specific Plan Amendment) and quasi-judicial action (Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit) -if formal applications were submitted and approved, it would identify standards for the development of the property and grant the property owner entitlements to develop the property in substantial conformance with the approved plans, subject to any conditions of approval. Commercial Development The commercial component of the conceptual project includes the development of two commercial buildings totaling approximately 10,000 -12,000 square-feet of floor area on approximately 1.07 acres of the project site. The development includes an outdoor plaza area at the corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street. This area would be available for outdoor dining and public art. Access and Parking The commercial component of the project would utilize three (3) access points in total. This includes two (2) from East Grand Avenue and one (1) from South Courtland Street. The commercial component would include forty-eight (48) parking spaces. Parking requirements are dependent upon the use proposed, but are generally one (1) space per 250 square-feet of gross floor area. A maximum of 12,000 square-feet of commercial area would result in a requirement of forty-eight (48) parking spaces. The project would conceptually meet the off-street parking requirement without a mixed-use parking reduction. Pedestrian access between the commercial development and residential development would be provided by way of a landscaped pathway in the middle of the two commercial lots. Architecture Building architecture for the commercial component will utilize several different materials including brick, wood siding, and stucco. The buildings have been identified to be tall single-story structures, with the corner building utilizing a false second-story tower element to add additional visual interest to that portion of the project. Potential Uses The Development Code outlines potential uses in the GMU district. These potential uses include general retail, grocery and specialty food stores, restaurants, public assembly uses, and shopping centers. Although drive-through retail is conditionally permitted in the GMU district, it would not be available for the commercial component of Item 10.a. - Page 13 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION NO. 14-002 . JULY 8, 2014 PAGE6 the conceptual project as they are restricted to shopping centers with three or more major tenants (20,000 square-feet or larger). The conceptual Specific Plan Amendment does identify several uses that would be prohibited in the development due to proximity to residential uses and are typical prohibitions near sensitive receptors. These prohibited uses include: • Nail salons; • Dry-cleaners; • Coffee roasters; • Gas stations; • Furniture refurbishing/refinishing; and • Any use involving the application of spray paint. Residential Development The residential component of the conceptual project includes the development of forty- two (42) single-family detached homes on approximately 3.4 acres of the project site. This results in a density of approximately 12 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Each unit would be between 1,500 and 1, 750 square-feet on parcels with a minimum size of 2,500 square-feet. The residential component of the project also includes one (1) common area lot, which is comprised of access drives, guest parking, and a central neighborhood green measuring approximately 14,000 square-feet. Access and Parking The residential project has one vehicular access point from South Courtland Street. Interior private driveways would be twenty foot (20') wide and would be required to include fire lanes on both sides due to narrowness. Parking for the residences would be provided in enclosed, two-car garages attached to each individual unit. A total of sixteen (16) guest parking spaces are identified within the residential portion of the project. This parking meets the requirement of the Development Code for the units themselves, but would require a mixed-use parking reduction for guest parking. Guest parking is required at a rate of one-half space per residential unit, which would require twenty-one (21) spaces based on the number of units. This results in a 20% reduction in guest parking and may be allowed for common parking facilities per Development Code Section 16.56.050. The applicant indicates the commercial parking would also be available for residential guest parking when needed. The reduction is a discretionary allowance by the decision making authority and not a matter of right. Architecture The applicant indicates the architecture of the residential component is meant to be reflective of the City and compatible with the Berry Gardens neighborhood. The residences would be two stories on individual lots and would feature modern agrarian Item 10.a. - Page 14 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION N0.14-002 JULY 8, 2014 PAGE7 architecture. This typically involves pitched roofs, wood siding, and areas of stucco. A maximum height of thirty-five feet (35') has been indicated for the residential units. Units in the center of the project, adjacent to the neighborhood green would incorporate porches to increase the friendly neighborhood feel of the project. Residences located adjacent to the neighborhood green would include side yard patios, split in half by property lines of neighboring residences but under private easement for the use and enjoyment of only one of the residences. This is a variation on the traditional zero lot line development concept to allow for additional design considerations on the site. General Plan The General Plan is the foundational development policy document for the City and defines the framework for how the physical, economic, and human resources are to be managed. The General Plan underwent a comprehensive update that was adopted by the City Council in 2001, with amendments and some individual Element updates since that time. The applicant has provided an analysis of how the conceptual project complies with the General Plan (Attachment 5). A majority of the policies identified by the applicant are included in the Land Use Element in specific categories, including: • Mixed Use; • Growth Management; and • Town Character and Community Design Guidelines. In general, the applicant explains that the concept plan offers a "mixed-use small town style" project, with a horizontal mixed-use arrangement aimed at being compatible with the City's rural setting and small town character. Staff has identified several General Plan policies that the project does not appear to be consistent with. The list below highlights specific policies the concept plan is inconsistent with and provides a brief narrative on how staff believes the project is inconsistent. • LUS-10.1 Promote development of a high intensity, mixed-use, pedestrian activity node centered on the Courtland Street/East Grand Avenue intersection as a priority example of revitalization of this corridor segment known as Gateway. The proposed commercial component is 24% of the Subarea 3 project area and 17% of the total area of Subareas 3 & 4. The proposal includes a faux two-story feature near the site's corner of the Courtland Stree'f/East Grand Avenue intersection as a prominent comer feature. However, the second story is not a true second story; the remainder of the commercial development remains single-story, and does not continue commercial development down Courtland Street to mirror Item 10.a. - Page 15 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION NO. 14-002 JULY 8, 2014 PAGES the commercial development across South Courtland Street. This minimal intensity does not fully address LU5-10.1 and cannot be used as a priority example of revitalization of the East Grand Avenue corridor. Most significantly, detached single-family residential units are not included in the City's definition of mixed-use development. • LU11-2 Require that new development should be designed to create pleasing transitions to surrounding development. The proposal will locate single-family residential homes (12.35 du/ac) between an existing multiple-family housing development to the south (22 dulac), the Berry Gardens neighborhood (5 du/ac) further south, limited commercial development to the north, adjacent to East Grand Avenue, and additional existing commercial development to the east. The transition of these land uses does not result in a logical land use pattern given the varying densities immediately adjacent to one another, does not provide typical zones of transition, and would not be an appropriate use of a prime commercial real estate infill site remaining undeveloped in the City. A more logical land use pattern would include commercial development to be at least even with the commercial building on the east side of South Courtland Street and then multi-family housing adjacent to the other multi-family development. • CT4-1 Promote "transit-oriented developments" and coordinated, compatible land use pattern by encouraging multiple family residential and special needs housing in Mixed Use Corridors, Village Core and near Office, Regional Commercial, Business Park and major Community Facility areas. The proposal will place forty-two ( 42) single-family residential units on one of the only undeveloped commercial infill sites remaining in the E. Grand Avenue mixed- use corridor. Although the proposed density of 12.35 units/acre is higher than typical single-family zones (typically 4.5 dulac or less), the proposed density is less than half of the maximum density of 25 units/acre allowed for mixed-use projects in the GMU zoning district. This does not support the promotion of "transit-oriented developments" as intended by the General Plan. The property owner has previously attempted several commercial development proposals on Subarea 3 and has stated that changing market trends and realities indicate lack of commercial viability for a commercial component larger than that conceptually proposed. The proposal would eclipse the City's ability to gain significant commercial space at the project site in the future when market conditions shift. There is benefit to increasing housing opportunities in the Mixed-Use corridor as this promotes commercial viability. However, the proposed housing format does not allow the type or intensity of use that would compensate for the lack of commercial area. The importance of including higher intensity mixed-use in the Mixed-Use corridor is that the total area is extremely limited within the City and thus opportunities for increasing commerce activity are restricted. Looking at the density of the proposal in relationship to the entirety of Subarea 3 & 4 illustrates the need for increased intensity on the site. Item 10.a. - Page 16 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION NO. 14-002 JULY 8, 2014 PAGE9 Project Land Area Current 4.47 ac Proposal ( 42 du Subarea 4 1 .63 ac (PSHH -36 du Total Subarea 6.1 ac 3 &4 78 du Current Density 9.4 du/ac 22 du/ac 12.79 du/ac Additional Units Needed for 20 du/ac 47.4 du Additional Units Needed for 25 du/ac 69.75 du Essentially, the density of the proposed project would need to be doubled to reach even 20 du/ac. Therefore, it is recommended that housing intensity be increased. This could be accomplished by including attached housing formats and second-story housing over portions of the commercial development. Development Code Table 16.36.030(A) of the Development Code identifies uses permitted within mixed-use and commercial zoning districts within the City. Single-family residential development is expressly prohibited within the GMU district. Other residential uses, such as multi- family housing and residential care facilities are conditionally permitted, but not allowed in pedestrian oriented storefront locations on the ground floor facing East Grand Avenue. Although the Specific Plan Amendment would allow for deviation from this prohibition if found consistent with the General Plan, staff thought it important to highlight that the underlying intent of the GMU district is not for development of single- family housing. Staff recommends that a formal submittal include attached housing types for at least a portion of the project area in order to increase residential intensity and promote multi- family housing types that can be replicated elsewhere on the East Grand Avenue Corridor. Design Guidelines and Enhancement Plan The Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed-Use Districts (Design Guidelines) were adopted by the City Council in 2004, after the City's mixed-use zoning districts were created. The Design Guidelines reference the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan (Enhancement Plan), which was drafted and circulated (but not formally adopted) in 2002, prior to creation of the City's mixed-use zoning districts. Although not formally adopted, the Enhancement Plan provides concepts and project considerations important to creating a successful project and revitalized corridor. The Design Guidelines provide site and building design requirements and architectural concepts. The following excerpts pertain to the development of Subarea 3: Item 10.a. - Page 17 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION NO. 14-002 JULY 8, 2014 PAGE10 • Include specially treated pedestrian walkways to connect parking areas to buildings. • Buildings should enclose streets, plazas or paseos and contribute to well defined and walkable blocks. Building placement, streetscape elements and landscaping each define the public realm. Consideration should be given to connectivity between adjacent developments. • Projects should integrate porches, balconies, decks and seating areas that are located to promote pedestrian use of the street edge by providing weather protection, comfort security, and safety. Design shall incorporate handicap accessible access, considerations for walkers (e.g. lockers), bicyclists (e.g. bike racks) and transit patrons. • Parking shall be located away from East Grand Avenue and shared by multiple owners/users. • The desired configurations and locations for off-street parking-lots, in order of preference, are: o Shared double-loaded aisle to side or rear of building partially on-site and partially off-site on neighboring parcel; o Shared off-site or public parking lot within 500 feet; o Double-loaded aisle to side, rear, above or below building on-site. • Buildings shall be two to three stories, with active fronts (e.g. articulated entries, detailed facades). A three-story component may be appropriate within a project located on a large lot and when it can be appropriately integrated considering adjacent buildings and uses. The maximum height of a building should not exceed 35 feet except if additional height is needed to accommodate a design feature that contributes to both the character of the building and the surrounding area, and if upper-floors are recessed and/or massing is well articulated. For example, an additional story or tower element on a building at a key intersection may delineate a corner landmark building. • Ground floors should have clear articulation and a tall ceiling height (e.g. 10-15 feet.), and have a high percentage fenestration (arrangement of windows/doors - 40-60% of the facade). Awnings and overhangs are encouraged. • Emphasize three-dimensional detailing on fa<fades such as cornices, window moldings, and reveals to cast shadows and create visual interest on the fa<{ade. Item 10.a. - Page 18 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION NO. 14-002 JULY 8, 2014 PAGE11 The purpose of the Enhancement Plan is to "define a design framework for both future public improvements and further private developments that will enhance the functions and aesthetics of this particular area [properties adjacent to East Grand Avenue]". The following objectives of the Enhancement Plan apply to the development of Subarea 3: • Provide for a diversity of retail and service commercial, offices, residential and other compatible uses, in size and scale to fit the "rural setting and small town character'' of Arroyo Grande, without duplication of the function or character of other commercial areas. • Plan for a revitalized East Grand Avenue Mixed-Use corridor that has less of a strip commercial aspect and more consistent, coordinated mixed-use boulevard ambiance with district activity subareas: Highway, Midway and Gateway. • Include appropriate site planning and urban design amenities to encourage travel by walking, bicycling and transit as well as automotive access, along the entire corridor. • Promote development of buildings along a landscaped sidewalk frontage with rear yard and side street parking. Include substantial landscaping and streetscape improvements. • Propose functional design including specialized open space such as squares, courtyards and plazas whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design such as proximity to public transit stops. Allow density bonuses and shared or public parking reduction to increase development intensity and enable more efficient utilization. • Propose designs for attractive streetscape including street trees and other landscaping, building fa(fade improvements, better signage and more consistent and coordinated development design, including fewer driveways and enhancement of off-street parking areas. According to the applicant (Attachment 6), the conceptual project appears to address several of the goals and objectives of both the Design Guidelines and Enhancement Plan. Consistency findings would be required for any formal application. Specifically, the proposed project includes: • One (1) outdoor patio area near the intersection of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street; • A paseo between the commercial buildings; • Enhanced pavement in areas along East Grand Avenue; • Landscape buffer along South Courtland Street, between the commercial and residential components, and adjacent to the PSHH project; Item 10.a. - Page 19 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION NO. 14-002 JULY 8, 2014 PAGE12 • Enhanced pedestrian walkways for residents on the residential portion of the project, enhanced pedestrian link between the residential and commercial development, and adjacent to the commercial buildings on the site; and • Enhanced ADA access from Grand Avenue. Although the project includes those items identified above, staff believes a formal application should include additional components to address the Design Guidelines and Enhancement Plan. More specifically, a formal project should include: • Consistent development of true two-story commercial buildings adjacent to East Grand Avenue; • Further articulated tower element on the commercial building at the corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street to further distinguish the corner from the increased building massing; • Extended commercial development on South Courtland Street to, at a minimum, match the extent of commercial development on the east side of South Courtland, provide consistency on both sides of the street, and further enclose the street; • A single driveway access from East Grand Avenue to reduce the number of driveway conflicts with pedestrians on the sidewalk; • Expansion of paseos on commercial lots. This could be combined with the reduction of the second driveway access from East Grand Avenue to create more pedestrian oriented activity areas; • Include a transit stop on East Grand Avenue; • Patterned and color stained pedestrian crosswalks across East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street, as well as widen sidewalks and landscaping on East Grand Avenue; and • Expanded pedestrian access from the far corners of the residential development and the PSHH project to encourage pedestrian travel to both the commercial development and East Grand Avenue. Mixed-Use Development The primary purpose of mixed-use development is to provide for the combination of retail, office and commercial uses and multi-family residences with retail and other pedestrian-oriented uses on the ground floors of structures fronting streets, and residential units or offices allowed on upper floors. Regulations for mixed-use districts is intended to intensify both commercial development and multi-family housing opportunities in applicable areas. This has been identified as a primary intent of the City's GMU district as it is the western gateway to the City. Development should appropriately reflect this intent. Staff believes there are measures available to mitigate concerns of neighboring residents regarding potential increased traffic from commercial and multi-family residential development. Item 10.a. - Page 20 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION NO. 14-002 JULY 8, 2014 PAGE13 Fire Access The project site contains an easement for an emergency access driveway (hammerhead/turnaround) located on the southwest corner of the property between the project site· and the PSHH project. Access between the two areas will be controlled through the use of bollards or other method approved by the Fire Chief. The narrowness of the access between the residences has been identified as a pinch point for a fire apparatus and would need to be addressed in a formal proposal. Additionally, the Fire Chief has expressed concern regarding the interior yard setbacks between residences and the difficulty it creates when using ground ladders to respond to -emergencies. It should be noted that a proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable requirements of the California Fire Code. Landscaping/Open Space The conceptual project includes increased landscaping surrounding the residences and an approximately 14,000 square-foot neighborhood green. The neighborhood green would provide opportunities for congregation and recreation. A formal application would be required to provide open space in compliance with Development Code Subsection 16.48.065.C.1, which requires a minimum of 350 square-feet of open space for each residential unit. Although a Planned Unit Development (PUD) would not be required due to the property being located under a Specific Plan, staff would additionally evaluate the provisions of open space against the open space requirements for PUDs outlined in Table 16.30.050-C of the Development Code. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are presented for City Council consideration: 1. Provide comments to the applicant in support of the conceptual project as presented; 2. Provide comments to the applicant in opposition of the conceptual project as presented; 3. Provide comments to the applicant in support of the conceptual project with comments regarding the extent and level of expanded commercial development; 4. Provide comments to the applicant in support of the conceptual project with comments for commercial development on the entirety of the site; 5. Provide comments to the applicant in support of the conceptual project with increased residential density; or 6. Provide other comments to the applicant. ADVANTAGES: A formal project consistent with the conceptual project would complete development of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan area. The project includes commercial development on East Grand Avenue with a number of desirable design features. The conceptual project would construct forty-two (42) new residences and would be required to comply with the City's inclusionary affordable housing requirements, in accordance with the Development Code. The project could spur investment to properties along East Grand Avenue. Item 10.a. - Page 21 CITY COUNCIL PRE-APPLICATION N0.14-002 JULY 8, 2014 PAGE14 DISADVANTAGES: The conceptual project would develop over % of the only significant undeveloped commercial opportunity in the City with single-family residential uses. This would not be consistent with the City's position to previous owners that increased residential use on the site was not preferred. The development of single-family residences between commercial and higher density multi-family development does not conform to general principles of orderly development and land use planning and does not allow for appropriate zones of transition before moving to the more traditional density single- family neighborhood to the south. The project does not appear to be consistent with the City's General Plan policies, address the objectives of the Mixed-Use district or East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan, or meet the intent of the Development Code, particularly with regard to housing type, height and massing, and amount of commercial development. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item due to no formal action being taken by Council. Future project applications will require environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: No public hearing is required for this item. The agenda and staff report were posted at City Hall and on the City's website on Thursday July 3, 2014. No comments have been received by staff. AttacHments: 1. Original parcel layout for the Berry Gardens Specific Plan area 2. Development options from May 31, 2011 City Council/Planning Commission joint study session 3. Project description provided by applicant 4. Draft Berry Gardens Specific Plan Amendment-Subarea 3 5. General Plan Consistency Analysis provided by applicant 6. Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed-Use Districts Consistency Analysis provided by applicant 7. Conceptual project plans Item 10.a. - Page 22 Summa!}! of Ber~ Gardens S~ecific Plan Subareas Subarea Owner Acrea e Zonin 10.2 SFR-SP 21.7 SFR-SP 1 Kawaoka/Baker 5.6 PHR-SP 2 Toma 5.0 1.5 SFR-SP 3 Matsumoto 3.1 GMU-SP 4 AirVol 3.0 GMU-SP Sub-total 6.1 Total 50.1 EXHIBIT No. 2, SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREAS MAP ' ' ' ~--------, I ' "" I ct! I CD ' L.. ' ro I ..0 : ::i I C/) I ' I I -· ;----' I ---. . ,-:_ 1---f-, -. -- : --:·-: __: :ii HIJ?KLEBERRY AVE I J I I &; ' !i e Poplar eonding Basin , _______ _ ----- ;--f _ -Suoarea 1 I -. LO-~NBERR't A~ BLUEBERRY AVE I ' RASPllERRVAVE ---- I I ' ~ "' ~ ~ --, ffi ·--I ~ I Iii ' I ,aDARST ' f i I I I ' I ·--------~-·-:... I I ' t , I I Subarea 2 ' ' ' I ~ ..... _, , I Qq~•T--------------1 AStfS1 Berry Gardens Specific Plan ATTACHMENT 1 Units 51 98 31 47 9 28 28 56 283 PQPLA,R ST 4 Item 10.a. - Page 23 ATTACHMENT 2 Courtland Place City Council I Planning Commission Joint Worksh·op· 31May2011 Item 10.a. - Page 24 Public Outreach • Multiple meetings with Berry Gardens residents • Multiple meetings with John Spencet I Spencer's Market • Meeting. with Del Clegg I Cookie Crock M'arket Tenant S·ea·r.ch • Contacted 250 potential te.nants since the beginning of the process • Re-established co:ntact with 50 potential· tenants • Retained local commercial_ real estate company • Retained. third party consulting firm· to determine restaurant feasibility Item 10.a. - Page 25 Courtla,nd Pl.ace Proj·ect H·istory Oct. 2007 Purchase of property from Warren Sanders Dec. 2007 Purchase of property from Ruth Dea July 2009 Sold 1.63 acres to AG Redevel~opment Agency for Peoples' Self-Help Housing project 2008-2010 Informally "floated" 3 separate site plans and tenant mixes by City of Arroyo G.rande staff June 2010 Formally applied to City with 51,000sf +/-Fo-od4Less -''Rejected" by City Council Nov. 2010 Re-applied to City of AG with 36,000sf grocery anchor -Received 4-0 ARC and 4-0 PC recommendation for approval Mar. 2011 NKT requests continuance at City Council hearing Item 10.a. - Page 26 State o·f the Local c·ommercial .Real Estate Ma·rket • Th·e co.mmercial real estate market in Arroyo Grande is "very soft1 ' ·o.n Gran .. d Avenue with many vacancies in the· small to medium sized space. • It is im·portant not to duplicate or compete with existing space but instead, design a project th.at ere.ates synergy within the Center and the surrounding area .. • .Medium to la.rger retail spaces (20,000 sf a.nd larger) had only 2 vacancies in Ventura, Sa·nta Barba·ra, SLO and ·Monte·rey Counti·es as of May 1, 2011, Item 10.a. - Page 27 Earlier Site. Plans 50,8.81 sf Groce:ry Anchor SO. CliRJWg AYBNUIC SUMMARY ...... ... ... ·--A--. -· -... .-...... ___.... --.. ... ,.,_ -0--·--~=-.... --...--.. --------·---·-,, PRO.JECf FEA'TURES 1 IEWIS'OONOAE1ElllOGICl!QIJND~ II 'NEW ii HOUR ms WML ll'MAUB. Wini FI- i WJQaflKYlllllZ!UllK 4 EUiiCIIUCM. IUIOM II EICIBll'OF ltllll PllE llTQ!WlE..t.1.1. G1IB &l'llMUEi Iii LBll llWt l2 HEit 8 'llWH OOllWJl'OR 7 RAE~ II lllCREMm RAE __ _.., PSH srra PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 0 .. -llll:O' •!.-~ .. .,-.. __ .. ,. I"• 80'0'" -" --- Item 10.a. - Page 28 I -I Ear·lier Site Plans 36',,100 sf Grocery Anchor -· :=. .... l'lmim ... ----..., .. lllllm:Ull' ........ -.r .... ---... -............. -.. -. -· --=--="'=-=== NOT$ I -·-trlXK!Em-1111111. • IEtlltallCIBJl li!Mi I -ID~- 4 EtS:l'lllXllQCM I mOJITllll'-Pll.l!~IJllB --·--111111311 • 'l'MlflCClllWll'Qll ' ,lltl!'lllllOK~ I CCUIO 11111 lfll'llETM I -..E lll1EEI" llU 1111 0 --·-wi.-~---...,---· I"• 80'4"' -----alfjr MajlJt~:"' ... •n' ~...-.u Item 10.a. - Page 29 Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market is a chain of grocery stores in the western United States, headquartered in El Segundo, California. It is a subsidiary of Tesco, the world's 3rd largest retailer. It has plans for rapid growth -the first stores opened in November 2007 and there are now 169 stores as of September, 2010 in California, Ari_zona and Nevada. http://www.philsfoodsense.org/2010/10/09/fresh-easy-delivers-farm-to-store'"in-24/ Item 10.a. - Page 30 Michaels Stores is pretty crafty. •The nation's #1 arts and crafts retailer. •Owns and operates about 1,040 Michaels Stores canvassing the US and Canada. •Sells more than 40,000 products including art and hobby supplies, decor, frames, needlecraft kits, party supplies, seasonal products, and silk and dried flowers. Item 10.a. - Page 31 CHASEO JP Morgan Chase Bank, through its CHASE subsidiary, is one of the Big Four Banks of the United States C:HASEO CHASE branch Chinatown, Manhattan, N-Y CHASE branch Athens, Ohio CHASE Tower, Chicago, IL Item 10.a. - Page 32 In newer stores, Walgreens installs, motion sensitive lights in sections of the building. The lights only turn on when someone enters the room. Rooms that have these lights include break- rooms, restrooms, the office, the warehouse/receiving areas, and the pharmacy In 2006, in efforts to clean the environments of the communities :in which Walgreen stores operated, Wa~lgreens teamed up with lmaginlt to bring solar power systems to twc distribution centers and 100 out of 6,200 stores. This has significantly lowered the amount of electrieity supplied from outside sournes. •The di~triblition 'c;enters and' stores,'in California make 20% tc 50% ofthei'r own electricity: from the solar power sy~tem Item 10.a. - Page 33 • Flavor & Quality-"We look for the highest quality, best tasting products around, and it is not an easy task! Once we identify a product line, we often tweak flavor profiles to make them our own before they hit our shelves. " •Clean Ingredients -"We strive for our products to contain clean ingredients. We prefer products that have no artificial flavors, colors or prese·rvatives." • Small Providers -"In order to offer a unique product to our customers, we make a point to work with sma·ller providers when possible, su'Ch as family owned companies like us." The Fresh Market, Inc. operates as a specialty perishable food retailer. As of April 30, 2010, it operated 95 stores in 19 states, primarily in the southeast, midwest, and mid-atlantic United States. The company was incorporated in 1981 and is headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina. TFM stores convey the atmosphere of an old world European market, all under one roof, where you can visit an array of departments: our old-style butcher shop and fish market, bakery, produce and floral stands, and delicatessen. Grown 'Round Here local produce is grown within a hundred miles of your store. TFM has an ever increasing organic selection in the market. http://www.yelp.com/biz/the-fresh-market-miami http://www.yelp.com/biz/the-:fresh-market-greenville-3 http://www.theind.com/lead-news/958- Item 10.a. - Page 34 Size Comparisons • Wal Mart, Arroyo. Grande • Kmart, Arroyo Grande • Vons, ·Grover Beach • Albert_sons, .Arroyo Grande • O·SH, Pism,o Beach 99,626sf 80,oo·osf 74,553.sf 62,984sf 42.,000sf • Ross, Pismo Bea.ch 30·,ooosf • Spe.ncer's, .Arroyo Grande 30,00.0sf • Cookie Crock, Arro·yo Grande. 25,000sf Item 10.a. - Page 35 Comprehensive Overview of Alternative Site Plans SITE FEATURE ~~T-i;RNAr1v.e<;i.~: ·'.·,, ;> ; · ·::AbTERNATlVE13·1 :-,---~· ;_~ :~~~~r~~N~r,-yE::~:i;:-' -~lTJ:R_NA.1'1VE 5 • --' 1 •' ~ ..., • ' • ' • • • ._~, <>L '1 -. .. Building Square footages 'A' -14,000 ·'A'-5,300 'A' -4,300 'A'-4,300 'B~ -14,500 'B' -4,500 'B' -14,300 'B' -14,300 'C' -68,993 'C' -42,000 'C' -39,000 'C' -42,000 44,800 SF 'D' -5,700 57,600 SF 601600 SF 57,500 SF Parking Required (Spaces) 179 230 2_30 242 184 (20% reduction)-184 (20% reduction} 194 {020% reduction} Parki'ng Provided (Spaces) 23~ 206 214 2.04 Building Ose 'A' -Market 'A' -unknown 'A' -Bank 'A' -Bank 'B'' -Drugstore 'B' -Bank 'B' -Drugstore 'B' -Drugstore 'C' -Poliee Station 'C' -Unknown 'C' -Unknown 'C' -Unknown 'D~ -Unknown Drive-Thru 'A' -Ne>' 'A'-No 'A' -Yes 'A' -Yes 'B' -Yes 'B' -Yes 'B' -Yes 'B' -Yes 'C'-No 'C' -No 'C' -No 'C' -No 'O'-No Loading Dock Location 'A' -West of b.ldg. 'A'-N/A 'A' -N/A 'A'-NfA 'B' -East of.bldg. 'B"--N/A 'B' -South -of bldg., 'B'. -South of bldg. 'C'-N/A 'C' -NfA 'C' -South Qf bldg. 'C' -South of bldg. 'D' -South of bldg. Street Setback (Feet) 'A'-3 'A' -9.7 'A''-7.2 'A'-7.2 'B' -17.7 'B'·-3.6 'B' -17.7 'B' -17.7 'C' -10· 'C' -75 'C' -75 'C' -75 'D' -9.3 South Property Line Setback 53.2'teet 26 feet 21.feet 21 feet Em·ergency Access for PSHH Not retained Retained Retained Retained· * -Alternative 2 =Church I Assembly Item 10.a. - Page 36 <:<if .J ~ -, {11 0: Cl z ~ tJ ~ 1:1 Ul :J Q w c: ('il ~ Cl z ~ ~ VACANT PARCEL GRAND AVENUE H-!, • ------• "• \ c c '--.J !ll!CUrtED PNlkING n~---------~ I; J I I I I CVS SUMMARY ~----, .... ~vll!O.onr~fs:s.ov.u;c:s i1&D n ~ 1..U.00 V -.0 O'ACU. QG l'l'Atf.S o so• eo• 1.20' ---•I I" = 601-011 ~- MW ARCH!l'ECTS IHC Item 10.a. - Page 37 Church I Assembly 2 Item 10.a. - Page 38 - lf-"- I;;..,,.,,,, I~ - -" G!lAND AVENUE " •• ' t ---.-,..-~_.-.llfz:.__+--~-----i-~~----~ . .,.. --- -.... ------ __-_.....__ -' . 11 I i I CVS L D ::JO' 60' ~- SUMMARY TOTAL SF f ~~~ PAO A•fVTVRE' RETMl.. D,lOO U f 21..2 SPACES ~.60051' 110.0SPACCS .c>.OOO llF I totl.O SPACE!! PAD O•RJ:TIJ,., • B.700 6F' I ZZ.D UPAa:!J TDTA.L nm: TOTAUJ G7,S00<1RDSS SF. 12.30.00SPACC! RCQUlittD lo.&AaT +I· SJ:" HU.DO SPACES R£0Utrlm wmt 2""RED\.tC'r.OH !ui~F'M'~~~~"' -----------" CARICQWIAl.O« "11 IC.18.58.000 j~~Si'A~ES PRQYlOQ 120' I " = 60'-0" REF A°tl © Item 10.a. - Page 39 - VACANT PARCEL ;-,.,,----~, -"---' P.'Ak~~~' -s -•, \' -__ · _ _:-~ ~~~--~l~~~L~-~, --· ~l'\D C · .' 'I-' -l='=---=--.:i.~ . 39. (.l1!)0. BJ'.'. . , ': •" SUMMARY MW AACHrrEC'nl INC. •J11tC.~1'tC'ClD. UIC'tAU. c.. ra ... e .. 11• ....... Jt1:1't.t.1:11iAflY c::~~U'%"0 ======='=:;:::"-:L,;.,.~l ~:,:;~;;"'~"""~=='"•rtt;••:f'1:t:t!f1l:•0 • PADA•OAtU::: A,:J;oo Sf!' r 17.2 SP.A.CC& PADC•nt:r.UJ.. ;sSt,OaD fJ.F 1 ·~ f'i?ACCI 0 30' 60' '2.0' Ull -I 11 ........ r--i'••••• 111 = so1..011 Item 10.a. - Page 40 GRAND AVENOE If n~; /-. gr· r VACANT PARCEL CVS 0 30' 60' SUMMARY PADC•PErAU. TOTALBrrE TI>TAJ.5 t20' r..o,aoo cnoss GF, IU,421 t/~GF ~,-· ... "'---······· 1 II = 60 1 -0 11 A111c~1ri:c11< IJICMA.ll C.Pl.IC:l'll;'l .. A.TNl:}ll.Jltl.llU :::;;:n:u.:ion:;wi!J:ml.Q tt.H'\UU o•tsPo.cAUU:t -irt.~11:ia)H" .us• IA'i (IUJUA-llH Item 10.a. - Page 41 \ \ \ ' () June 2, 2014 Matthew Downing, Assistant Planner City of Arroyo Grande Planning Division 300 E. Branch St. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: Grand and Courtland Mixed-Use Project Dear Mr. Downing: c ATTACHMENT 3 creaung environments people enjoy~ RECEIVED JUN 0'2 2014 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN'I' On behalf of our clients, MFI Limited and NKT Commercial, RRM Design Group submits this pre- application for conceptual review for a commercial and residential project located at East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street. This letter and the attached package of materials represent the Pre-Application for the Grand and Courtland Mixed Use project. In addition to this letter, the application contains the following information: • Conceptual site plan • Conceptual residential unit layout • Perspective rendering of the commercial buildings • Perspective rendering of the residential • Draft Specific Plan Amendment 1.0 SETTING AND BACKGROUND 1.1 Existing Setting The site is located on the East Grand Avenue Corridor south of East Grand Avenue and east of Courtland Street. It can be accessed from both East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street. Surrounding land uses include a small shopping center to the west in the City of Grover Beach, commercial uses to the north across Grand Avenue, commercial uses to the east across Courtland Street, and residential development to the south. The site consists of two parcels (APN 077-131-052 and APN 077-131-054) for a combined 4.47 acres, and is identified by the Berry Gardens Specific Plan as Subarea 3. This application breaks Subarea 3 into Subareas 3a and 3b. @ 0 0 0 San Luis Obispo 3765 S. Higuera St, Ste. 102 San LUIS Obispo, CA 93401 P: (805) S43-1794 I F: (805) 543-4609 Santa Maria 1862 S Broadway, Ste. 101 Santa Maria, CA 93454 P: (805) 349-7788 I F: (805) 354-7050 Santa Barbara 10 E. Figueroa St., Ste. 1 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 P: (805) 963-8283 I F: {805) 963-8184 San Clemente 232 Avemda Fabncante, Ste. 232 San Clemente, CA 92672 P: (949) 361-7950 I F: (949) 361-7955 www .rrmdesign.com ARCHITECTS I ENGINEERS I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS A California Corporation I Victor Montgomery, Architect #Cl1090 I Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 I Jeff Ferber, LA #2844 Item 10.a. - Page 42 Matthew Downing, Assistant Planner Grand and Courtland Mixed-Use Project June 2, 2014 Page2 o/4 1.2 Application History n ''··~rmdesigngroup Iii creating environments people enjoy 0 The 1998 Berry Gardens Specific Plan has been built out except for the East Grand Avenue frontage identified as Subarea 3. In 2011 a Specific Plan amendment was approved to accommodate the Peoples' Self-Help Affordable Housing in Subarea 4. In this Specific Plan amendment stated that Subarea 3 shall be designated as an unplanned subarea, subject to a future specific plan amendment. Prior to the 2011 approval, a commercial project was proposed and denied due to a number of reasons, including traffic and neighborhood compatibility. The proposed project today address these issues with a less intense mixed-use project. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Concept The concept for the project is "mixed-use small town style" in a horizontal mixed-use arrangement. Commercial and residential are being proposed with Subarea 3a more commercially focused and Subarea 3b residentially oriented. Subarea 3a contains 10,000 -12,000 square feet of retail situated with an outdoor plaza at the corner of East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street. The outdoor plaza will be ideal setting for outdoor dining and public art. The commercial has two (2) buildings adjacent to wide sidewalks on East Grand Avenue with parking tucked behind. The massing of the building compliments the existing buildings across East Grand Avenue, and creates an inviting Gateway to Arroyo Grande. Subarea 3b will feature 42 residential units in a small lot, detached single-family house style. These desirable unit types are much needed on the central coast and will serve the local workforce and first time home buyers. In the center of the residential there is a neighborhood green. The units facing the green have wide front porches that engage the neighborhood. 2.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The project will serve as a catalyst for future improvements along East Grand Avenue Project objectives include: a. Promote high-quality retail/commercial development within the City of Arroyo Grande's Gateway Mixed-Use District; b. Increase the City of Arroyo Grande's supply of entry-level/workforce housing stock; c. Produce a functional, aesthetically pleasing project that will serve as a landmark in the City of Arroyo Grande's western gateway and complete build-out of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan; and d. Improve pedestrian and bike circulation in the Gateway Mixed-Use District. RECEIVED JUN O' 2 2-014 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Item 10.a. - Page 43 n "'--' Matthew Downing, Assistant Planner Grand and Courtland Mixed-Use Project June 2, 2014 Page3 of4 2.3 Architectural Character n , -~rmdesigngroup Ill creating environments people enjoy0 The architecture will be unified throughout the project, with the commercial area evoking an early American small town image incorporating contemporary detailing, brick, wood siding, and stucco. The residential features modern agrarian architecture with pitched roofs, wood siding, and stucco. The architectural character and massing is reflective of Arroyo Grande and compatible with the existing Berry Gardens neighborhood. 2.4 Circulation Internal vehicular circulation is provided separately for Subareas 3a and 3b. Subarea 3a will have two (2) access points from East Grand Avenue, and one (1) access point from Courtland Street. There will be 52 parking spaces located to the rear and side of the buildings. Subarea 3b will have one (1) access point from Courtland Street and will include fire access to the adjacent site to the south. The project will be pedestrian oriented, and will provide new pedestrian connections to the surrounding neighborhood. Generous sidewalks will surround the commercial development on Subarea 3a, and connect to the residential development in Subarea 3b by way of a pathway network. The project will also provide a new sidewalk and bike lanes on the west side of Courtland Street to connect East Grand Avenue on the north to the existing Berry Gardens neighborhood to the south. 2.5 Neighborhood Green One of the key features of the project is the "neighborhood green" in the center of Subarea 3b. The residences surrounding the neighborhood green will feature porches that face on to a central lawn area. The lawn will be generously landscaped and display central gazebo for picnicking and events. Outdoor furniture such as benches and picnic tables will encourage the neighborhood greens use and enjoyment. A pathway network will interweave throughout the neighborhood green, providing pedestrian access to and from the space. 3.0 CONCLUSIONS MFI Limited and NKT Commercial are seeking approval of this unique mixed-use project for the City of Arroyo Grande. The residences will offer new home buyers detached units in a higher density product. The commercial space will enhance the East Grand Avenue Corridor, by providing a gateway into the City and serve the Berry Gardens neighborhood. RECEIVED JUN o· 2 2014 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Item 10.a. - Page 44 r·) \ .• ___ _...., Matthew Downing, Assistant Planner Grand and Courtland Mixed-Use Project June2, 2014 Page4 o/4 ~rmdesigngroup Ill creating environments people enjoy 0 We appreciate your careful consideration of this request and look forward to working with you on this project. Please feel free to contact me with any questions about this application at (805) 543-1794, Ext. 222. Sincerely, RRM DESIGN GROUP Principal cc: Andrew Mangano, MFI Limited Nick Tompkins, NKT Commercial Attachments: Draft Specific Plan Amendment Conceptual Architectural plans 1mwN \2014\1014030-Courtfand-and-Grand-Ave-M1xed-Use-Feas1bJ/1ty-Studv\Plannmg\Pre-App\fetter doc RECEIVED JUN o· 2 l014 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Item 10.a. - Page 45 n ATTACHMENT 4 DRAFT 6.2.14 Berry Gardens Specific Plan Amendment -Subareas 3a and 3b Purpose and Objectives The purpose and objectives for Subareas 3a and 3b of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan include the following: a. Implement the goals, objectives and policies of the City of Arroyo Grande's General Plan; b. Promote high-quality retail/commercial development within the City of Arroyo Grande's Gateway Mixed-Use District; c. Increase the City of Arroyo Grande's supply of entry-level/workforce housing stock; and d. Produce a functional, aesthetically pleasing project that will serve as a landmark in the City of Arroyo Grand e's western gateway and complete build-out of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan. Subareas Defined Subarea 3a and 3b consists of APN 077-131-052 and APN 077-131-054. Land Use Designations and Property Development Standards Subarea 3a -Commercial Subarea 3a provides for commercial/retail development of 1.07 acres. Unless otherwise specified, allowed uses shall be consistent with those allowed within the Gateway Mixed-Use (GMU) zoning district, subject to the same level of review as required by Municipal Code Section 16.36.030. All development within Subarea 3a shall conform to the following standards: 1. Minimum Front Yard Setback (East Grand Ave): shall be 0-5', consistent with the Design Guidelines ~nd Standards for Mixed-Use Districts. Greater setbacks may be allowed through discretionary review and approval based on lot configuration. The front yard is that side which is closest to East Grand Avenue (reference Exhibit 3-4.B). 2. Minimum Street Side Yard Setback (South Courtland Street): shall be 0-5', greater setbacks may be allowed through discretionary review and approval based on lot configuration. The street yard is that side which is closest to South Courtland Street (reference Exhibit 3-4.B). 3. Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback (City Limit Line): shall be 0-5', greater setbacks may be allowed through discretionary review and approval based on lot configuration. The interior side yard is that side which is closest to the City Limit Line (reference Exhibit 3-4.B). 4. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: shall be 15', greater setbacks may be allowed through discretionary review and approval based on lot configuration. The rear yard is that side which is closest to _ .. ~ubarea 3~ (reference Exhibit 3-4.B). ' ;-~.... ~ ., ~· -" 5'. ' Maki mum Lot Coverage: shall be 50%, inclusive of all enclosed structures. 1 RECEIVED _JUN o· 2 2014 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Item 10.a. - Page 46 (' 6. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR}: shall be 1.5, inclusive of total floor area. 7. Maximum Building Height: shall be 35' ortwo (2) stories, whichever is less. Total height including any appurtenances shall not exceed 40'. 8. Parking: shall be provided at the ratio of one (1) space for every 250 square-feet of building area. 9. Prohibited Uses: the following uses shall be prohibited in Subarea 3, due to the proximity to residential uses: • Nail salons; • Dry-cleaners; • Coffee roasters; • Gasoline stations; • Furniture refurbishing I refinishing; • Any use involving the application of spray paint Subarea 3b -Residential Subarea 3b provides for entry-level/workforce housing residential development of 3.4 acres. All development within Subarea 3b shall conform to the following standards: 1. Maximum Density: shall be 12.35 units per acre. 2. Minimum Lot Size: shall be 2,500 square-feet. No subdivision resulting in lots less than this minimum size shall be allowed. 3. Minimum Front Yard Setback (South Courtland Street): shall be 10'. The front yard is that side which is closest to South Courtland Street (reference Exhibit 3-4.B}. 4. Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback: shall be 10'. The interior side yards of the property are those sides which are perpendicular to the front yard of the property (reference Exhibit 3-4.B}. 5. Minimum Rear Yard Setback (City Limit Line): shall be 15'. The rear yard of the property is that side which is closest to the City Limit Line (reference Exhibit 3-4.B}. 6. Maximum Lot Coverage: shall be 55%, inclusive of all enclosed structures. 7. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR): shall be 1.25, inclusive of total floor area. 8. Maximum Building Height: shall be 35' or two (2) stories, whichever is less. Total height including any appurtenances shall not exceed 40'. 9. Parking: 2 spaces per unit within an enclosed garage and an additional 17 spaces for guest parking. 10. Minimum Open Space for Subarea 3b: shall be 35%. 2 RECEIVED JUN 0'2 2U14 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Item 10.a. - Page 47 East Grand Avenue Frontage Development of Subarea 3 shall implement the objectives of the General Plan, Municipal Code, Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed-Use Districts and the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan relating to streetscape character and pedestrian orientation along the East Grand Avenue frontage. Green Building and Energy Efficiency All new development shall be accompanied by a summary outlining energy use calculations, design features and/or operational measures that exceed minimum standards in order to make the development more 'green' and energy efficient. Access, Circulation and Parking 1. Vehicular Access. Each Subarea shall utilize its own frontage for primary access. 2. Emergency Access. An emergency access driveway will connect Subareas 3b and 4. The design of which shall be subject to Fire Department approval. Vehicular access to the driveway may be optionally restricted to emergency vehicles only through the use of bollards, a gate, or other mechanism approved by the Fire Chief. 3. Fire Access. Shall be provided per the strict application of the California Fire Code and its appendices, as approved by the Fire Chief. 4. Pedestrian Connections. Sidewalks shall be provided along East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street with connections to interior of the site. A pedestrian path connecting the two subareas 3a and 3b shall be required to encourage interaction between the two subareas. A pedestrian path shall also be provided in Subarea 3b through the common green. 5. Courtland Street. Development of each Subarea shall include widening of South Courtland Street to its ultimate width along that Subarea's frontage. There shall be no on-street parking on South Courtland Street along the frontage of the two subareas. The southwestern curb return at East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street shall be rebuilt to safely accommodate delivery trucks turning right from East Grand Avenue to South Courtland Street. 6. Bicycle Lanes. Shall be provided on South Courtland Street along the project frontage. 7. Bus Turnout. A bus turnout shall be provided along the East Grand Avenue frontage if determined by the Regional Transit Authority (RTA). Street Trees/Parkways and Landscaping Street trees shall be provided along Courtland Street and East Grand Avenue within 10' of curb edge. Internal landscaping for each Subarea shall be subject to discretionary review and approval and should include drought-resistant plants and low impact development tools such as bioswales. Fences and Walls Interior fences an~ walls shall be limited to 6' in height and subject to discretionary review and approval. · CRefafnlng.wall~ along the western edge of the property may be up to 8' in height with discretionary approval. Perimeter fencing along the East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street frontages shall be 3 a-i,,,_, __________ ...., RECEIVED JUN o· 2 2014 cnv OF ARROYO GRANDE ""HIUI IMITV ncVCI nPMS:NT Item 10.a. - Page 48 r--: limited to 3' in height unless the portion over 3', up to 6', is 90% light emitting. All fences and walls shall be subject to discretionary review. Drainage and Storm Ponding Facilities Each Subarea shall incorporate low-impact features into development and shall direct remaining stormwater runoff east, across South Courtland Street to the Poplar Ponding Basin, which was designed and built to accommodate development of the Subareas. Development of each property within the Subareas shall be subject to payment of a reimbursement fee to the City for that property's proportionate share of capacity cost. Architectural Design Guidelines Subarea 3a 1. Buildings. No specific architectural theme is required; however all buildings within the Subarea 3a shall reflect a commercial character consistent with the Gateway Mixed-Use District objectives. 2. Site Design. Site design shall include plazas or paseos and contribute to well defined and walkable street frontage. Buildings should face onto East Grand Avenue with parking located on the side and/or rear of building. 3. Parking. Parking within Subarea 3a shall be located away from East Grand Avenue and shared by multiple owners/uses. 4. Signage. Shall comply with Municipal Code Section 16.60.040-B and be subject to discretionary review and approval. Subarea 3b 1. Buildings. No specific architectural theme is required; however all buildings within the Subarea 3b shall reflect a residential character and be compatible with the Berry Garden Neighborhood. 2. Signage. Shall comply with Municipal Code Section 16.60.040-A, Subsections A.1 (Single-family neighborhood identification) and be subject to discretionary review and approval. Phasing of Development The two Subareas and/or properties within the Subareas may be developed concurrently or separately, provided that all applicable requirements are met (emergency access, etc). 4 RECEIVED JUN 0'2 l014 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .,..r\ - Item 10.a. - Page 49 ATTACHMENT 5 Grand and Courtland Mixed-Use Project 6.24.2014 General Plan Consistency Analysis The following consistency analysis provides a detailed statement of the relationship of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan Amendment-Subarea 3 (BGSP-Subarea 3) to the city of Arroyo Grande General Plan pursuant to Section 65451(4)(b) of the California Government Code. The Arroyo Grande General Plan contains goals, objectives, and policies that are relevant to BGSP-Subarea 3 project. Each applicable goal, objective and policy from the General Plan has been included below to aid in the review of this project and to provide an outline for how this project upholds the community values of Arroyo Grande. General Plan -Urban Land Use Element Mixed Use Goal LUS -Community commercial, office, residential and other compatible land uses shall be located in Mixed Use (MU) areas and corridors, both north and south of the freeway to major arterial streets. Policies • LUS-1 -Provide for a diversity of retail and service commercial, offices, residential and other compatible uses that support multiple neighborhoods and the greater community, and reduce the need for external trips to adjacent jurisdictions, by designating Mixed Use areas along and near major arterial streets and at convenient, strategic locations in the community. • LUS-2 -The MU category shall provide areas for businesses offering the provision and sale of general merchandise, hardware/building materials, food, drugs, sundries and personal services which meet the daily needs of a multi-neighborhood area (trade area populations range from 15,000 to 20,000 people; roughly equivalent to the size of Arroyo Grande). Typical businesses in the MU category include general merchandise and/or specialty stores such as supermarkets, hardware/appliance outlets, building materials/home improvement stores, restaurants, and general services/officers, business plazas and parks. Mixed use development shall be compatible in size and scale to ensure preservation of the "rural setting and small town character" of the City. This category encompasses agriculturally-related businesses and services such as veterinary services and other farm support/supply. • LUS-3 -Ensure that all projects developed in the MU areas include appropriate site planning and urban design amenities to encourage travel by walking, bicycling and public transit. • LUS-6 -Allowable uses within the MU category shall not 1nclude uses that adversely affect surrounding commercial or residential uses, or contribute to the deterioration of existing environmental conditions in the area. 1 Item 10.a. - Page 50 • LU5-7 -Plan for a revitalized East Grand Avenue Mixed-Use corridor that has less of a strip- commercial aspect and more coordinated, mixed-use boulevard ambiance with distinct subareas including "Gateway, Midway and Highway" districts. • LU5-8 -Provide for different combinations, configurations and mixtures of commercial, office and residential uses designating the East Grand Avenue, El Camino Real and Traffic Way corridors as Mixed Use (MU). • LU5-8.1-Accommodate the continuance and development of retail commercial, professional offices, eating and drinking establishments, banks, bakeries, deli/cafes, specialty shops, outdoor dining/sidewalk cafes, household goods sales, food sales, drugstores, personal services, tourist accommodations, cultural facilities and similar uses in the Mixed Use corridors. (See ED4-2, LU5- 7 and 5-8 and LU5-10 • LU5-8.2 -Enable Mixed-Uses and development intensities to be increased in the Mixed Use corridors to promote pedestrian activity, provide better shopping opportunities and discourage incompatible commercial service uses in areas adjoining residential uses or classifications. • LU5-8.3 -Promote the development of buildings along a landscaped sidewalk frontage. Promote rear yard parking by discouraging front yard parking and encouraging private, shared or public parking facilities be located to the rear of buildings or side streets in Mixed Use corridors. • LU5-9 -All revitalization, redevelopment and new development projects in Mixed Use corridors shall include appropriate site planning and urban design amenities to encourage pedestrian travel and encourage bike and transit access as well as automotive. • LU5-10.1-Promote development of a high intensity, mixed-use, pedestrian activity node centered on the Courtland Street/East Grand Avenue intersection as a priority example of revitalization of this corridor segment known as Gateway. • LU5-10.4-Require that Mixed-Use developments be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between the commercial and residential uses (eg., noise, lighting, security, vehicular access) and provide adequate amenities for residential occupants. • LU5-11-Promote a mixture of residential and commercial uses along Mixed Use corridors including substantial landscaping and streetscape improvements. • LU5-11.3 -Provide functional design including of specialized open space, such as squares, courtyards and greens whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design, such as in proximity to public transit stops. • LU5-11.4-Promote public transit-oriented development by allowing density bonuses and Mixed Uses with shared or public parking reduction to conventional individual parking requirements. • LU5-11.6-The Mixed Use zone will address noise compatibility problems as part of Development Code revisions including design standards and Conditional use provisions • LU5-12 -Mixed Use developments in current VC, HC, GC, or I zones -Any combination of mixed uses, or any project proposing a residential component in a commercial or industrial district shall be considered pursuant to Conditional Use Permit approval (Development Code Section 9- 03.050) or Planned Unit Development Permit approval (Development Code Section 9-03.160). In addition, where affordable housing is proposed in a Mixed Use designation, density incentives exceeding 25% may be considered. 2 Item 10.a. - Page 51 Mixed Use Consistency Analysis The BGSP-Subarea 3 offers a "mixed-use small town style" project in a horizontal mixed-use arrangement that is considerate of Arroyo Grande's rural setting and small town character. Both residential and community commercial are integrated into the site to create greater compatibility between adjacent land uses. The community commercial is sited to provide a sense of development continuity along East Grand Avenue and to create an inviting landmark within Arroyo Grande's western Gateway Segment. Small lot detached townhomes are connected to the community commercial through a pedestrian pathway that traverses a heavily landscaped area. A central neighborhood green provides adequate space for outdoor activities and neighborhood engagement opportunities. Pedestrian and bike circulation are enhanced through sidewalk, landscaping, and streetscape improvements and the continuation of an on-street bike lane along Courtland Street. Growth Management Goal LU11-Promote a pattern of land use that protects the integrity of existing land uses, area resources and infrastructure and involves logical jurisdictional boundaries with adjacent communities and the County Policies • LUll-1-Require that new developments be at an appropriate density or intensity based upon compatibility with the majority of existing surrounding land uses. • LUll-1.1-As part of the development review process, treat the densities and intensities outlined in the Land Use Element as the maximum allowable; do not approve the maximum allowable density or intensity unless the proposed project is consistent with the provisions and intent of the Arroyo Grande General Plan and City ordinances. • LUll-1.2 -Require that adequate buffering and setbacks be provided between dissimilar uses. • LU11-l.3 -Where a question of compatibility exists, require the new use to conform to the lower intensity use. • LUll-1.4 -Restrict new urban single family, multiple family, and mobile home uses to infill areas adjacent to existing developments of similar density. • LUll-2 -Require that new development should be designed to create pleasing transitions to surrounding development. • LUll-2.1-As part of the development review process, new development or the alteration or enlargement of existing development should be viewed not as freestanding projects, but as part of a neighborhood, or as part of the entire community. • LUll-2.2 -Require that the new structures relate to the prevailing existing, or planned scale of adjacent development. • LUll-2.3 -Require that setbacks from streets and adjacent properties relate to the scale of the structure and the width of the street. 3 Item 10.a. - Page 52 • LUll-3 -Intensity of land use and area population shall be limited to that which can be supported by the area's resource base, as well as circulation and infrastructure systems. Growth Management Consistency Analysis The BGSP-Subarea 3 project is compatible with the sounding land uses and residential neighborhoods. The commercial and residential buildings have been sized and massed to fit with the existing neighborhood and minimize circulation and infrastructure impacts. The small lot town home style residential is compatible with both the higher density affordable housing project south of the site and the rest of the existing Berry Gardens single family residential neighborhood. Town Character and Community Design Guidelines Goal LU12 -Components of "rural setting" and "small town character" shall be protected. Policies • LU12-2 -Except for narrow, two and three-story structures within the Village Core and other designated Mixed-Use areas, limit the scale of buildings within both the urban and rural portions of Arroyo Grande to low-profile, horizontal forms; design buildings to be compatible with Arroyo Grande's historic small town character. • LU12-2.1-In general, limit the height of buildings to no more than 35 feet. • LU12-2.2 -Utilize roofs having low, long spans made of slate, concrete shingles, clay tiles or similar materials. Avoid metal and flat composition roofs. • LU12-2.3 -Provide building elevations that are well-articulated in order to break up building bulk. Incorporate one-story elements in two-story structures. • LU12-2.4 -Ensure that row-type townhouses within the urban portions of Arroyo Grande are constructed such that each unit is varied in its setback and/or architectural treatment. • LU12-2.5 -Residential units within new single family neighborhoods shall be required to provide recognizable variations in their front and side yard setbacks. • LU12-2.6 -Neo-traditional residential developments should maximize a feeling of openness. Modern single family subdivisions should utilize variable setbacks and orient road axes to open space areas and areas of visual interest. • LU12-2.7-Use appropriate and simple roof forms, including shed, gable, and hip roofs, alone or in combination, to achieve a variety of roof lines along the streetscape; avoid unarticulated flat roofs. • LU12-2.8 -Design small lot single family and multiple family residential projects in such a manner as to group dwellings around common open space and/or recreational features. • LU12-3 -Preserve scenic vistas and retain a feeling of "openness" in new developments. • LU12-3.l -Vary setbacks along roadways to avoid a monotonous street scene. 4 Item 10.a. - Page 53 • LU12-3.2 -Minimize the installation of solid walls along area roadways unless they are needed for a specific screening, safety, or noise attenuation purpose. Where feasible, provide instead a landscaped berm or wide, open area with informal clusters of trees, defined by split rail or similar fencing. • LU12-3.3 -Where construction of a solid wall that will be visible along a public street is necessary, provide landscaping such as trees, shrubs, or vines to soften the appearance of the wall, and to reduce undue glare, heat, and reflection. • LU12-3.4 -The use of any fencing or walls should be consistent with the overall design theme of the development or adjoining existing developments: o Where they are needed, fences or walls should relate to both the site being developed and surrounding developments, open spaces, streets, and pedestrian ways. o Fencing and walls should respect existing view corridors to the greatest extent possible. • LU12-3.5 -Require the provision of open space and recreation areas within the urban residential portions of the City. Within the rural residential portions of the planning area, emphasize the preservation natural landforms and vegetation. • LU12-6 -Require that residential street design be sensitive to existing landforms, and minimize traffic volumes on local residential streets. • LU12-7 -Enhance pedestrian level activity within residential and commercial areas. • LU12-7.1-Utilize "street furniture" (planters, benches, drinking fountains, newspaper racks, bike racks, trash receptacles) to create and enhance urban open spaces within commercial areas and to emphasize historical and rural architectural themes. • LU12-7.2-Commercial buildings and projects should be designed so as to have a central plaza or main visual focus or feature. • LU12-7.3 -Through the site plan review process, ensure that commercial facilities are oriented to the pedestrian by the incorporation of seating areas, courtyards, landscaping, and similar measures. o Buildings should be designed and sited so as to present a human scale environment, including identifiable pedestrian spaces. o Uses within pedestrian spaces should contribute to a varied and lively streetscape. o Buildings facing pedestrian ways and plazas should incorporate design features that provide visual interest at the street level. o Except in the Village Core and other Mixed-Use areas, where buildings should generally be located at the sidewalk, building setbacks along major streets should be varied to create plaza-like areas which attract pedestrians whenever possible. o Discourage wide expanses of parking lot between the sidewalk and the front of commercial buildings and provide safe, easily identifiable pedestrian access through the parking lot from multiple access points. o Parking facilities should be convenient, well-designed, usable, aesthetically attractive, landscaped (with large shade trees) and comply with City design standards and guidelines • LU12-7.5 -Establish a program of public art emphasizing historical, western, and rural themes in parks, public buildings, and public open spaces. 5 Item 10.a. - Page 54 Town Character and Community Design Guidelines Consistency Analysis To further enhance the town character of Arroyo Grande, numerous design components have been incorporated into BGSP-Subarea 3 to be compatible in size and scale with expressed community values of the small town character of Arroyo Grande. Outdoor plaza space has been incorporated into the project to create a focus area at the corner of East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street to allow for outdoor dining and public art viewing opportunities for local residents and visitors. The variation in building facades and inclusion of streetscape improvements along both East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street enrich the overall pedestrian experience in the area. The centrally located, neighborhood green provides for recreation related space and contributes to a sense of openness within the development. General Plan -Housing Element Affordability Goal Goal A: Provide a continuing supply of affordable housing to meet the needs of existing and future Arroyo Grande residents in all income categories. Policies • Policy A.5 -The City shall encourage housing compatible with commercial and office uses and promote "mixed use" and "village core" zoning districts to facilitate residential uses to be integrated into such areas. Affordability Consistency Analysis The residential portion of BGSP-Subarea 3 incorporates forty-two residential units in a small lot, single- family house style. These unique unit types will be marketed to the workforce population and first-time home buyers of the central coast. All housing units will be affordable by design (smaller lots and smaller units) and will be integrated into the adjacent residential and commercial land uses to allow the option for alternative modes of transit to nearby goods, services, and potential workplaces. Energy Conservation Goal Goal M: Increase the efficiency of energy use in new and existing homes, with a concurrent reduction in housing costs to Arroyo Grande residents. Policies • Policy M.1-All new dwelling units shall be required to meet current State and local requirements for energy efficiency. The retrofitting of existing units shall be encouraged. 6 Item 10.a. - Page 55 Energy Conservation Consistency Analysis All residential and commercial components of the BGSP-Subarea 3 project will exceed State and local requirements for energy efficiency. Each portion of the development will be accompanied by energy use calculations, design features and/or operational measures that outline and detail its energy efficiency. General Plan -Economic Development Element Economic Development Goals • Create a thriving economy. • Meet unmet community needs. • Promote business activity. Objectives • ED3 -Enhance business retention and expansion consistent with the General Plan Land Use policies to promote and enhance baseline job opportunities within the City for local residents. Policies • ED3-4 -Continue to balance economic goals with strong policies and programs that promote and maintain the community's environment, quality of life, and rural character. Economic Development Consistency Analysis BGSP-Subarea 3 project has designated 1.07 acres of the project site for commercial and retail development. By including and siting community commercial and retail development along East Grand Avenue, the project seeks to further enhance the Gateway Segment of the East Grand Avenue corridor and act as a catalyst for future neighborhood investments. The small lot residential targets an unmet need of smaller homes for workforce and entry level housing. A recent housing survey conducted by the Economic Vitality Corporation suggests a need tin SLO County for housing to support existing and growing business. Retail/Commercial Services Objectives • EDS -Pursue unique opportunities to promote continuity within commercial service and retail business sectors of the City. Policies • EDS-2 -Continue to enhance connectivity and increase retail utilization of the East Grand Avenue corridor, the Village Core, and the Traffic Way and El Camino Real mixed-use corridors. 7 Item 10.a. - Page 56 Economic Development Analysis The BGSP-Subarea 3 commercial component provides the foundation for a more pedestrian-friendly environment that improves overall connectivity within the Gateway Segment of East Grand Avenue. The project sites location near numerous commercial service and retail businesses of the City will provide greater opportunities for increased retail utilization in and around the Gateway Segment area. Sustainability Objective • EDS -Support and encourage a sustainable local economy. Policies • ED8-2 -The City shall conduct public education and outreach to support employment opportunities that minimize the need for automobile trips, such as live/work developments, telecommuting, satellite work centers, and home occupations, in addition to mixed-use development strategies. Sustainability Consistency Analysis Incorporating a horizontal mixed-use strategy of residential and commercial uses within the BGSP- Subarea 3 project supports greater local employment opportunities within Arroyo Grande and encourages the reduction of additional daily automobile trips. BGSP-Subarea 3 close proximity to a main RTA route along East Grand Avenue provides further opportunities for alternative mode of transit selections that have access to numerous places of employment throughout the city. 8 Item 10.a. - Page 57 ATTACHMENT 6 Grand and Courtland Mixed-Use Project 6.24.2014 Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed-Use Districts Consistency Analysis General Guidelines and Standards Streetscape: 1. In addition to these Guidelines, applicants are advised to consult the E. Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan (please refer to subsequent sections of these guidelines) and the E. Grand Avenue Improvement Plan (please refer to subsequent section of these Guidelines) and the E. Grand Avenue Improvement Plan (located at the Public Works Department) for street improvement and enhancement requirements. Sidewalk paving, lighting, street furniture, fixtures and features shall be consistent with these plans. 2. Street landscaping, underground utilities and screening as well as building form significantly impact corridor enhancement. The photos to the right depict how buildings, trees and utilities can contribute or detract from a streetscape. 3. Street trees shall be incorporated where functional circulation will not be obstructed. Street trees and sidewalk planters within the public right of way should be supplemented with private street yard planting, landscape strips or feature areas to enhance appearance and/or encourage outdoor uses in pedestrian oriented areas (GMU and FOMU districts). Site Design: 1. Direct views from buildings to the street or courtyard areas instead of toward the neighbors. 2. Streetscape improvements shall conform to the established sidewalk and paving standards. Lighting and street furniture, fixtures and feature designs shall be consistent with the E. Grand Ave. Enhancement Plan and Improvement plans approved by the City. 3. Include specially treated pedestrian walkways to connect parking areas to buildings. Screening: 1. All accessory structures or functions, including off-street parking, loading docks, and trash containers shall be designed as part of the over-all project or building with consideration given to long term maintenance. 1 Item 10.a. - Page 58 2. Screening of mechanical equipment and service areas must be achieved through architectural solutions and/or landscaping. Substantial design features (a parapet wall may not be adequate) are required for roof forms to conceal equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units. Signage and Awnings: 1. Signage shall be architecturally integrated into project design and provide for clearance necessary for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 2. Signs shall meet all requirements of the Development Code and the provision of these guidelines and standards. If a conflict exists, the most restrictive requirements shall apply. 3. Signs should be located symmetrically in relation to facades and fit in with the architectural features of the building. 4. Centers or buildings with multiple tenants should include identification of the primary building or center as primary signage and individual tenant signs coordinated and minimized to the size necessary for business identification. 5. For GMU and FOMU districts: a. Wall signs should be located above the entry to the building to better relate to pedestrian traffic. Additional signage, such as suspended signs are encouraged to reflect City character and pedestrian scale. b. Signs are encouraged on awnings or canopies and placed where they may be seen by pedestrians as well as by passing vehicle traffic. c. Directional signage for parking lots, transit, pedestrian connections or similar uses is encouraged to be located in conjunction with light poles with approval from Directors of Community Development and Public Works. Gateway Mixed-Use (GMUJ Site Design: 1. Buildings should enclose streets, plazas or paseos and contribute to well defined and walkable blocks. Building placement, streetscape elements and landscaping each define the public realm. Consideration should be given to connectivity between adjacent developments. 2. Projects should integrate porches, balconies, decks and seating areas that are located to promote pedestrian use of the street edge by providing weather protection, comfort, security, and safety. Design shall incorporate handicap accessible access, considerations for walkers (e.g. lockers), bicyclists (e.g. bike racks) and transit patrons. 3. Parking shall be located away from E. Grand Avenue and shared by multiple owners/uses. 2 Item 10.a. - Page 59 4. The desired configurations and locations for off-street parking lots, in order of preference, are: . a. Shared double loaded aisle or side or rear building partially on-site and part off- site on neighboring parcels. b. Shared off-site or public parking lot within 500 feet. c. Double loaded aisle to side, rear, above or below of building on-site. Building Design: 1. Buildings shall be two to three stories, with active fronts (e.g. articulated entries, detailed facades). A three-story component may be appropriate within a project located on a large lot and when it can be appropriately integrated considering adjacent buildings and uses. The maximum height of a building should not exceed 35 feet except if additional height is needed to accommodate a design feature that contributes to both the character of the building and the surrounding area, and if upper-floors are recessed and/or massing is well articulated. For example, an additional story or tower element on a building at a key intersection may delineate a corner landmark building. 2. Ground floors should have clear articulation and a tall ceiling height (e.g. 10-15 feet}, and have a high percentage fenestration (arrangement of window/doors -40-60% of the fa9ade). Awnings and overhangs are encouraged. 3. Emphasize three-dimensional detailing on facades such as cornices, window moldings, and reveals to cast shadows and create visual interest on the fa9ade. a. Avoid blank solid end walls or side walls visible from public view. b. Use a repetitive rhythm of windows, doors, and other wall features in relation to adjacent uses to tie together paths for pedestrian safety and continued interest. c. Incorporate corner landmarks, where feasible; or emphasize corner entrances through building design. d. Roofs should include parapets or cornice features for visual effect. Peaked roofs may be appropriate for corner landmarks. 4. The number of colors used on a building or project should be kept to a minimum, to include a base body color, trim color and accent colors. 5. Color and materials samples shall be submitted as part of the permitting process. The use of florescent, "neon" or "day-glo" colors on building facades is not encouraged. 3 Item 10.a. - Page 60 SUMMARY TOTAL51TE: 4.47ACRE5 TOTALHOME5: 42 SINGLE FAMILY 42 RETAIL: 10-12,000SF PARKING: 1525PACE5 GARAGES 84 ON51REET 16 COMM.WT 52 "RETAIL STREET" FEEL ---1-- WIDE51DEWALK5 51REETTREE5 PARALLEL PARKING CENTER MEDIAN NEIGH50RHOOD GREEN GREENWALL PLANT VINE ON TRELLIS RESIDENTIAL GUEST PARKING ---- SCALE 1" = 60' FIREACCESS FOR _ _..,....~ ADJACENT SITE o· 30' 60' 120· __........_ GRAND AND COURTLAND I MIXED USE PROJECT RETAIL 10-12,000SQFTGROUNDLEVEL CORNER PLAZA OUTDOOR PLAZA PARKING 26 DOUBLE LOADED STALLS ~4---:-SINGLE FAMILY HOME 1,500-1,7505QFT 25TORY REALPROPER1YUNE5 M05THAVEBACKYARD5 2CARGARAGE5 RESIDENTIAL ENTRY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FACING THE STREET, QUAU1YPORCHE5 LOW FENCES ~ -f )> 0 :::c :s: m z -f ...... SITE PLAN CONCEPT 29 MAY 2014 rrmcJes1gr1grouplll creating enwonments people e~ Item 10.a. - Page 61 GRAND AND COURTLAND MIXED USE PROJECT CONCEPTUAL VIEW 1 29 MAY 2014 rrmdes1gngroup Iii creating environments people enjoy- Item 10.a. - Page 62 GRAND AN.D COURTLAND MIXED USE PROJECT CONCEPTUAL VIEW 2 29 MAY 2014 rrmde~.:gngrouplll creating environments people en1oy0 Item 10.a. - Page 63 GRAND AND COURTLAND I MIXED USE PROJECT CONCEPTUAL VIEW 3 29 MAY 2014 rrmcles1gngroup Iii creatmg environments people enioy• Item 10.a. - Page 64 GRAND AND COURTLAND MIXED USE PROJECT SIDE YARD CONCEPT 29 MAY 2014 rrmd,,~ 1;;11grouplil creating en\llronment5 people enjoy" Item 10.a. - Page 65 Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 8, 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 ---..,. ~ Consideration to Appropriate Additional Funding for the Old Ranch Road Property Improvements (Tract 3018) Project, PW 2013-10. Action: Appropriated an additional $30,000 towards the Old Ranch Road Property ract 3018) Improvements Project to cover additional PG&E design and construction 9.a. of Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. Chief Annibali presente he staff report and recommended that the Council adopt a Resolution granting a Certificate of ublic Convenience and Necessity to Central Coast Taxi for the operation of a taxicab servi within the City limits, contingent upon full and total compliance with all conditions and require ents in Chapter 5.72 "Taxicabs" of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. Sammy Orr, Central Coast Taxi, intr uced himself and thanked the Council for the opportunity to operate his business in the City. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, d upon hearing no comments, he closed the public hearing. Action: Council Member Costello moved to ado ta Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO RANDE GRANTING A CERT/FICA TE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO CENTRAL COAST TAXI FOR THE OPERATION OF A TAXICAB SERVICE WITHIN Ti CITY LIMITS CONTINGENT UPON FULL AND TOTAL COMPLIANCE WITH ALL COND 10NS AND REQUIREMENTS IN CHAPTER 5.72 "TAXICABS" OF THE ARROYO GRAND MUNICIPAL CODE". Council Member Barneich seconded, and the motion passed on the follo AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Costello, Barneich, Brown, Guthrie, Ferrara None None 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS None. 11. NEW BUSINESS Mayor Ferrara declared a conflict of interest due to ownership of real property near the project, stepped down from the dais and left the room. 11.a. Consideration of Pre-Application No. 14-002; Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map and Conditional Use Permit for Subdivision of Two (2) Commercial Parcels into Forty-Two (42) Residential Lots, One (1) Common Area Lot, and Two (2) Commercial Lots; Location: Southwest Corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street; Applicant: MFI Limited & NKT Commercial. Item 10.a. - Page 66 Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 8, 2014 Page5 Associate Planner Downing presented the staff report and recommended that the Council review the conceptual plans and provide comments to the applicant. Staff responded to questions from Council. Mayor Pro Tern Guthrie invited public comment. Speaking from the public were Debbie Rudd and Scott Martin of RRM Design Group; Nick Tompkins, developer; John Mack, Loganberry Avenue; Patty Welsh, Pradera Court;; Michael Morrow, Raspberry Avenue; and Chris Richardson, Nipomo Street. Council questions and discussion ensued regarding the history of the project and the commercial and retail potential. Mayor Pro Tern Guthrie offered comments in favor of the project but stated he would like to see more ideas on the residential component with a little higher density; expressed concern about the location of the bus stop; and commented on the repositioning of the existing shopping center that may shape the future of other areas. Council Member Costello commented on whether the project is right for the location; would like to increase the commercial component; liked the condominium look; was not in favor of higher density; commented on the topography; and noted an economic study may have an impact on the project. Council Member Brown stated the project would be revenue neutral; he would like more vertical mixed use on the west side, higher density, and a larger commercial component. Council Member Barneich commented she would like to see something more modern; would like a "pocket neighborhood" and displayed examples. No formal action was taken on this item. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie called for a break at 8:00 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:10 p.m. Mayor Ferrara returned to the dais. Consideration of Pre-Application No. 14-001; Specific Plan Designation, General P Amendment, Development Code Amendment and Tentative Tract Map; Locatio . raffic Way and East Cherry Avenue; Applicant: Mangano Homes, Inc. Associate Planner Heffer presented the staff report and recommended that the Council review the conceptual plans an ovide comments to the applicant. Steven Peck, Mangano Homes, gave a pr Randy Russom, RRM questions from Council. Staff responded to questions from Council regarding the pedestrian pa and access issues. responded to Item 10.a. - Page 67 MEMORANDUM Date: 7.29.14 To: Matthew Downing Assistant Planner From: Debbie Rudd Organization: City of Arroyo Grande Planning Division 300 E. Branch St. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Title: Principal Project Name: Courtland and Grand Mixed-Use Project Project Number: 1014030 Topic: New Concepts Courtland and Grand Mixed-Use Project Introduction ATTACHMENT 3 This memorandum is a follow up to the Tuesday, July 8, 2014 pre-application meeting with the City Council regarding the proposed' Courtland and Grand project. Since our initial meeting, RRM Design Group has spent a significant amount of time reviewing and discussing comments received from both City Council members and members of the public. Moreover, given the considerable amount of discussion surrounding the Marsh Street Commons project at the previous meeting, additional site visits were conducted by the project team with Council and staff to further analyze density, built form, architectural style, and vertical mixed-use configuration. Taking both the previous meetings' comments and site visits to the Marsh Street Commons project into consideration, we are truly excited about presenting new concepts that have been integrated into the Courtland and Grand project vision. These new concepts include: • True vertical mixed-use commercial along Grand Avenue; • Added density to commercial mixed-use; • Contemporary influenced mixed-use architecture; • Mid-century contemporary detached townhomes. We have listened to both the City Council and the public's concerns with the project and believe that our new proposal is representative of both first class architecture and site planning and reflects the current market demands of not only Arroyo Grande but that of San Luis Obispo County at large. Included below is a more detailed description of the revised project components. www.rrmdesign.com ARCHITECTS I ENGINEERS I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS A Cahforma Corporation I Victor Montgomery, Architect #Cl1090 I Jerry Michael, PE #36895, L5 #6276 I Jeff Ferber, LA #2844 Item 10.a. - Page 68 Memo 07/29/13 Page 2 of 3 Mixed-Use Commercial rrmdesigngroup Ill creating environments people enjoy" At the request of City staff and City Council, our revisions to the commercial component of the Courtland and Grand project includes true vertical mixed-use buildings fronting Grand Avenue. This . inclusion of vertical mixed-use not only furthers the goals outlined within the East Grand Avenue Mixed- Use Corridor but also creates an attractive landmark desired by the City for the Western Gateway segment of Grand Avenue. As now proposed, the vertical mixed-use buildings heights have been increased to two stories and the architectural style of the buildings have been revised to reflect a more modern, contemporary style. This reinterpretation of architectural style is reflective of City Council member comments and the desire for the project, in the context of the Western Gateway, to uniquely establish itself from the predominantly western agrarian architectural style found within the Village. Although now two stories, the buildings themselves remain human scaled and pedestrian oriented in their design. This overall orientation is reflective of the projects commitment to defining an attractive rhythm and cadence of the ground level commercial along Grand Avenue in order to support the framework of an active pedestrian-friendly environment. As part of the revised project design, a total of four residential units have been incorporated within the vertical mixed-use buildings. Three of the residential units have been incorporated into the western building and one into the eastern building of the site. The units themselves will range in size from 1,000 to 1,300 square feet for a total of 4,000 to 5,200 square feet of mixed-use housing. Required parking for the residential component of the vertical mixed-use buildings will be provided within the proposed parking lot that will also supply parking for the commercial uses. To accommodate the required parking, the site plan has been adjusted slightly. Detached Townhomes Architecture In contrast to the previously proposed western agrarian architecture style, the revised project proposes a mid-century architectural style for the detached townhomes that is more representative of a mid- century modern architectural style. This change in architecture is seen as more appropriate to support the natural transitioning from the traditional single-family architecture of Berry Gardens and the massing of the new People's Self Help Housing Courtland Street Apartments up to Grand Avenue. Furthermore, the mid-century modern style will allow the East Grand Avenue area to become individually defined both visually and aesthetically from the more well-established Village area of Arroyo Grande. While some discussion occurred regarding the possibility of incorporating the Cottage Company concept into the site, after further analysis the larger scale of the site did not appropriately allow this concept resulting in some challenging design elements. Item 10.a. - Page 69 Memo 07/29/13 Page 3 of 3 Density rrmdesigngroup Iii creating environments people enjoy" The revised density for the residential portion of the Courtland and Grand project is now approximately 12.42 units/acre in addition to the four residential units located within the vertical mixed-use buildings. This density calculation includes the neighborhood common green, walkways, guest parking spaces, fire access and other public spaces. Without the inclusion of these public spaces in the total calculation, the density for the residential portion of the project is 14.85 units/acre. Conclusion As previously stated, we have listened to the City Council, staff, and the members of the public to bring forth a project that we believe is appropriate for the site in both size and scale while at the same time being responsive to current market conditions. True vertical mixed-use has been thoughtfully incorporated into the scope of the project, overall residential density has been increased, and a more contemporary style of architecture proposed to create the landmark and precedent setting project that is befitting of the Western Gateway of Arroyo Grande. In our opinion, the City's approval of the Courtland and Grand project will act as a catalyst for the East Grand Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor and stimulate additional new mixed-use development and redevelopment along Grand Avenue. Item 10.a. - Page 70 SI T E P L A N C O N C E P T SC A L E 1 ” = 6 0 ’ 0’ 3 0 ’ 6 0 ’ 1 2 0 ’ 29 JULY 2014SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOMES 1,500-1,750 SQ FT 2 STORY REAL PROPERTY LINES MOST HAVE BACK YARDS 2 CAR GARAGES 50 ’ 10 0 ’ 12 0 ’ 30 ’ 30 ’ 15 ’ 50 ’ SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOMES FACING THE STREET, QUALITY PORCHES LOW FENCESRESIDENTIAL ENTRY “R E T A I L S T R E E T ” F E E L WI D E S I D E W A L K S ST R E E T T R E E S CE N T E R M E D I A N NE I G H B O R H O O D GR E E N FI R E A C C E S S F O R AD J A C E N T S I T E GR E E N W A L L PL A N T V I N E O N T R E L L I S MI X E D - U S E R E S I D E N T I A L OV E R T H E C O M M E R C I A L CO M M E R C I A L E N T R Y RE S I D E N T I A L G U E S T PA R K I N G RETAIL 10-12,000 SQ FT GROUND LEVEL.CORNER PLAZA OUTDOOR PLAZA 1 5 3 2 4 6 PARKING 26 DOUBLE LOADED STALLS SU M M A R Y TO T A L S I T E : 4 . 4 7 A C R E S TO T A L H O M E S : 4 5 S I N G L E F A M I L Y 4 1 M I X E D - U S E R E S 4 RE T A I L : 1 0 - 1 2 , 0 0 0 S F PA R K I N G : 1 5 7 S P A C E S G A R A G E S 8 4 O N S T R E E T 1 3 C O M M . L O T 6 0 GR A N D A V E . COURTLAND STREET. CO U R T L A N D A N D G R A N D | M I X E D U S E P R O J E C T ATTACHMENT4 Item 10.a. - Page 71 29 JULY 2014 CO U R T L A N D A N D G R A N D | M I X E D U S E P R O J E C T CO N C E P T U A L V I E W 1 VI L L A G E S T Y L E Item 10.a. - Page 72 29 JULY 2014 CO U R T L A N D A N D G R A N D | M I X E D U S E P R O J E C T CO N C E P T U A L V I E W 2 VI L L A G E S T Y L E Item 10.a. - Page 73 29 JULY 2014 CO U R T L A N D A N D G R A N D | M I X E D U S E P R O J E C T CO N C E P T U A L V I E W 3 CO N T E M P O R A R Y S T Y L E Item 10.a. - Page 74 29 JULY 2014 CO U R T L A N D A N D G R A N D | M I X E D U S E P R O J E C T CO N C E P T U A L V I E W 4 CO N T E M P O R A R Y A G R A R I A N Item 10.a. - Page 75 29 JULY 2014 CO U R T L A N D A N D G R A N D | M I X E D U S E P R O J E C T CO N C E P T U A L V I E W 5 CO N T E M P O R A R Y A G R A R I A N Item 10.a. - Page 76 29 JULY 2014 CO U R T L A N D A N D G R A N D | M I X E D U S E P R O J E C T CO N C E P T U A L V I E W 6 MI D - C E N T U R Y M O D E R N Item 10.a. - Page 77 29 JULY 2014 CO U R T L A N D A N D G R A N D | M I X E D U S E P R O J E C T SI D E Y A R D C O N C E P T Ki t c h e n Ki t c h e n Ki t c h e n Dining Di n i n g Di n i n g Patio Patio Pa t i o Porch Po r c h Po r c h 2- C a r Ga r a g e 2’ - 4 ” 2- C a r Ga r a g e 2- C a r Ga r a g e Pd. Pd . Pd . Li v . Li v . Li v . E. E. E. Up Up Up 4’ 4 ’ High Window,typ.Item 10.a. - Page 78 29 JULY 2014 CO U R T L A N D A N D G R A N D | M I X E D U S E P R O J E C T SI T E C O N T E X T Item 10.a. - Page 79 Co u r t l a n d an d Gr a n d 2, 2 0 0 to 2, 4 0 0 SF lo t s Be r r y Ga r d e n s 5, 1 0 0 to 7, 1 0 0 SFlots 29 JULY 2014 CO U R T L A N D A N D G R A N D | M I X E D U S E P R O J E C T DE N S I T Y C O M P A R I S O N Item 10.a. - Page 80