Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/07/1993, 4 - CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSAL TO REZONE A 1.61 ACRE SITE, ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH HIGUERA STREET BETWEEN CHUMASH DRIVE AND MARGARITA AVENUE, FROM C-S (SERVICE-COMMERCIAL) TO C-S MU (SERVICE-COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE). MEETING DATE: '„"y haiI�I�I'f llllll� Citi/ Of san LUIS OCISPO - - 3 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: I FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director By: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Consideration of a proposal to rezone a 1.61 acre site, on the west side of South Higuera Street between Chumash Drive and Margarita Avenue, from C-S (Service- Commercial) to C-S MU (Service-Commercial Mixed-Use). CAO RECOMMENDATION Introduce an ordinance to print approving a negative declaration and rezoning the parcel from C-S to C-S MU. DISCUSSION Situation The applicants are requesting Council approval of a rezoning to allow for construction of a new mixed-use (residential and commercial) project. This is the first such project submitted for review since adoption of the City's mixed-use ordinance. The ordinance requires approval of 1) an MU (Mixed Use) zoning designation, and 2) a use permit to establish an appropriate mix of allowed uses, and any property development standards necessary to insure that the mix of uses will be compatible with each other and with adjacent development. The Planning Commission has approved a use permit (see discussion below) contingent on Council approval of the rezoning request. Data Summary Applicants: Robert Takken and Dan McBride Property Owners: Robert Takken, Dan and Michele McBride, Barbara and William Jones Representative: Charles Crotser, Insight Associates Zoning: C-S (Service-Commercial) General Plan: Service-Commercial / Light-Industrial Environmental Status: A mitigated negative declaration was granted by the Director on June 17, 1993. Project/Site Description The project site is located in a commercial zone along South Higuera Street, a major arterial developed with a variety of service-commercial and office uses. The Chumash Village Mobilehome Park is located to the north and east. To the south is a small retail/service center. Office buildings are across the street to the west. 1 city of San L,.41S OBIspo �g�ev1UNC��s a�n oTderEoni t�o�rv�Anart�me.n�co�m Rip Palm Court) that xis t e onment enc u was once a small motel, but is now occupied as 10 rental units. There are also four other buildings on site used for residential, office, shop, and warehousing space. The project involves demolition of all existing buildings and removal of one redwood tree. Ten other mature trees would remain. The applicants propose to develop the site with two, two-story buildings, each containing a mix of residential and commercial uses, including 14 apartments, professional offices, and a variety of service- and neighborhood-commercial uses. Project highlights: * To offset the loss of affordable housing on the site, two of the new units will be available to participants in the Section 8 rental assistance program for not less than 15 years. * To encourage bicycle travel, enclosed, secured bicycle storage and a shower facility will be available for users of the commercial tenant spaces. Residential storage facilities will be designed to easily accommodate bicycles. * To promote energy and resource conservation, building design will include energy- efficient lighting systems, natural daylighting and ventilation, and facilities for on-site recycling for both commercial and residential uses. The project will also incorporate a plan for recycling discarded construction materials during demolition and new construction. i ARC Review / Public Comment On May 17th, the Architectural Review Commission conceptually reviewed plans for the i project. Overall, the Commission was supportive of the project and gave direction for relatively minor revisions, as outlined on the attached letter notifying the applicants of ARC action. The project will return for final ARC review if Council approves the rezoning. At the ARC meeting, three residents of the adjacent mobilehome park voiced concerns with privacy, separation, and noise. It was generally agreed that these concerns could be addressed through minor revisions to project design and conditions of use permit approval relating to uses allowed, wall height, and hours of operation and delivery. Planning Commission Review: Rezoning and Use Permit i On August 11th, the Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning proposal together with a request for use permit approval of: 1) a mix of residential and commercial uses; 2) a mixed- use parking reduction; and 3) a fence height exception. The Planning Commission supports this project as proposed and acted to approve the use permit requests contingent .upon Council approval of the rezoning. The notice of Planning Commission action is attached. There was no public comment on this item at the meeting. �iy^`�1iv111!11U�I1° ��l�il _.s os�spo city of San L. C�?re a2L �'1�t� efo hREPORT mma Rezoning: The Commission agreed that the project meets the primary objective of the mixed use ordinance, which is to permit residential and commercial uses on a single parcel. The Commission supported mixed-use zoning in this location since the project site is already surrounded by both residential.and commercial uses. ( A copy of the section of the zoning regulations related to the Mixed-Use zone is attached.) Mix of uses: When considering a mixed-use zoning, the Planning Commission can establish a mix of uses tailored to the site and the intent of the project. In this case, it is important to establish a mix of commercial uses that will be compatible with the proposed apartments. The Commission approved a master list of allowed uses which include uses currently allowed in a Service-Commercial zone,with certain deletions, and also the addition of uses currently allowed in the Neighborhood-Commercial zone but not in the Service-Commercial zone: florists and specialty retail. To avoid conflict with City policies which favor concentrating specialty retail stores in the downtown and along Madonna Road, no more than 25 percent of the total commercial floor area should be allocated to specialty retail uses. The master list of uses to be allowed and conditionally allowed is attached as Exhibit A. Parking reduction: The Commission supported a 20% reduction in required parking because of the proposed mix of residential and commercial uses and because the project is providing extra bicycle parking and shower facilities for riders. . Wall heights: The Commission was not strongly supportive of an exception to allow maximum wall heights of 8 and 6 feet where 6 and 3 feet would normally be the maximum. However, Commissioners felt it best to allow for the exception in the event adjacent residents (who have requested the wall heights) felt the additional height was necessary to adequately provide noise insulation and privacy. Wall heights will be examined again as part of architectural review. I Environmental Initial Studv I The environmental initial study (ER 72-93) recommends the project include mitigation measures to ensure consistency with community plans and goals; compensate for loss of affordable housing; encourage alternative transportation; minimize on- and off-site noise impacts; retain mature trees; and encourage efficient use of energy and natural resources. Environmental mitigation measures have been incorporated into the use permit conditions of approval (see attached notice of Planning Commission action). ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the rezoning request. 2. Continue review with direction. I �-3 ��In���11il�illlllal�i1°aI�NUj city of San L.,s OBISPO C UNCIL AGENDA REPORT draft ordinance for approval vicinity map reduced site plans (existing and proposed) list of allowed uses (Exhibit A) wall diagram ARC minutes PC resolution and minutes mixed-use zoning regulations In the Council's packets and available at the Community Development Dept.: full-size plans environmental initial study i I i i I I _ I I I I I ORDINANCE NO. (1993 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONE MAP FROM C-S TO C- S-MU FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30539 30717 & 3085 SOUTH HIGUERA STREET (R 72-93) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held hearings to consider appropriate zoning for the subject site in accordance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the California Government Code, BE IT ORDAINED.by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the mitigation measures listed in the project's Negative Declaration (ER 72-93) adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the rezoning, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. SECTION 2. Zoning Man Designation. That the site be rezoned C-S MU(Service- Commercial Mixed Use) as shown on the attached map marked Exhibit "B" and included herein by reference. SECTION 3. Findings 1. The proposed rezoning will not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of persons living or working in the area or at the site. 2. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The proposed rezoning is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 4. The rezoning will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and the City Council hereby adopts the project's Negative Declaration (ER 72-93). "J SECTION 4. Implementation. A summary of this ordinance, together with the ayes and noes, shall be published, at least three (3) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said city, and the same shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on the day of 1992, on motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: /Alttm I 1 � I I N.� �'M . 1 n aw1" ro"a'�'�u'„n•,,,a.i.s ^'#res k � � I 2 B 27 I 2 4 A71-az 'E �, ikkrrA. r p-! 4117-a1 W 29 10 11 ' &A 37.0 rwoc 76 Ea W OA ... .... axy Y4 f 1 4-3 AAC 84.03 , ss Me • I yam',;a'c x :s>'� ae- ; (L 61 Gz 63 l ry- a-rS O W it J I W<CW C irr 05.66: �- I '7 1 •.i AS^.L 93lowrmi�c F Co-+•:6�.5 i s4Le-S84 �r31D7 ■_ `JAO7.7! M w!e��aC ES1 cs)•Pi ,Yf'� 14 LCe LS 15 94 9 a5 •Lp4 ER 76•pa 'Izo6 K L ARC Of-:L6 :./15; Cw: acs. &A 0. nP 60.6] ri.PVR l0Y1 E IEl R-3 Q4- �3�In aim � � n :vv• � � GOiR 1702 � � �-� k[ y1] ARC-7 -p-pD I E J ..�•i.�� GP�R/ S" La_ 1.3.7 :!0411 r�d vi9 -A9 I1R075- to 1677 L4C S• nL I�C71a 1" 2G'e� �Cfp4 'fie 7>"+_71 IGP ` C U 3 m VICINITY- MAP NORTH 3071 South Hi u r g e a Street EXHIBIT "B" -7 1 W w CO O _ m U ma v 2 a W y m a Au : 3 � m Cc, C& Fm=O /R �J W !•�J V P C m p m C 1 1 I 1 ~ 2 °m0 CC cow x I O ' � 1 W ZI a. itW co umDAP, _ r 11 ,1 11 1 CO LU iI'SLI M.L♦r.L%6 �� � I I 11 1 , , 1 w LU z W l ' v .- .. CD w I , x Lij 0=0 +' �: I I I � � u � e•e cr a m 40 LU • I 6 U lot S � r: �� ! •� ,A l � �� i, I.1 11 '•' J cc A LL Ir LU • • SN I m I � t , 1 ' , ' I� a 'j — I i 1 =I •� O .� 4 l • �:��:��:• .,� �` te�ll,. _ - �� �` � I Z LU � � T ° Y.�� • .t m EfIN • rl 1 I � . 1• Y•g - > . anlaa HsvwnHo e� x% 1 Z W u+ Cf) c p 2 LV m` m a m j _a C7 Al 6,C; Q S m Y mem a Y Oa CL W s ¢ m J W W N J r+ A C m O CO C Oo m p '= W.O7 ¢ V cc) F V F W Z W ¢ J UUP �7 J n Th Nf I ' J V/ I I Q -vl ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION San Luis Obispo, California Regular Meeting - May 17, 1993 PRESENT: Commrs. Woodv Combrink, Allen Cooper, Curtis Illingworth, Ron Regier, and Chairman Mike Underwood ABSENT: Commrs. Jim Homer and Bruce Sievertson OTHERS PRESENT: Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, and Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager PROJECTS: 1. ,„ARC}1.-Ci3: 3071 South Higuera Street: A request for schematic review of plans for a new mixed-use (residential and commercial) center; C-S zone; Robert Takken & Dan McBride, applicants. Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the commission continue action and provide the applicant and staff with direction regarding the preliminary design proposal. Chuck Crotser, architect, responded to the staff report and indicated that the courtyard could be gated and that the balcony area of Building B would be for the exclusive use of residents. He indicated that he could develop a shadow plan with more detailed plans that better illustrates solar access. He indicated that Unit 6 provided the greatest concern for providing natural light. He noted that it was the applicants' idea of retaining the residential component in the project. He indicated that they were looking at neighborhood-commercial uses, rather than some of the "heavier" service-commercial uses for the project's commercial component. He also indicated that he had discussed sound attenuation and privacy with the Chumash residents. He noted that compressors and other noise-generators would be enclosed in the commercial lease spaces or roofwell. He noted that the phasing plan for construction has not yet been developed. Commr. Regier was concerned with providing open spaces for the residential units and questioned how shifting the buildings would affect the overall parking. Chuck Crotser indicated that smaller open spaces were appropriate for the clientele. He indicated that they were looking at providing pedestrian access to Cypress Plaza. ARC Minutes May 17, 1993 Page 2 In response to a question from Chairman Illingworth regarding entrances to the commercial units at the rear, Chuck Crotser said that the rear area was not intended for loading or receiving, but would be used primarily for residential parking with only limited access to commercial uses only. Harold Heidler, Chumash Park resident, indicated that there was little support in the mobile home park for an easement to allow emergency/pedestrian access to the private drive in the mobile home park. He thought the new project was an improvement over the existing development. He wanted to see a 6-foot high fence installed beyond the sound wall, west of the clubhouse. Ruth Worley felt the project would be an improvement over what was there now. She supported the installation of a 7-foot wall. She felt there should be limited access to the apartments in Building B. She indicated she would complain about noise from deliveries if it becomes an issue. She felt that landscaping on the perimeter of the property should be low-maintenance and not messy. Commr. Regier supported the mixed-use project and liked the site layout. He was concerned with the provision of open spaces for units and needed to see more detail. Commr. Underwood felt this was a good site for a mixed-use. He felt that reorientation of Building B by 15 ° to 30° off the current axis would really address daylighting concerns. He felt that more landscaping was needed in the parking lot. He was surprised to hear that a pedestrian access was looked at unfavorably by the neighbors. He felt that more attention should be given to the private spaces. He thought the architectural concepts were good. Commr. Cooper wanted to see either a pedestrian or possibly a vehicular access easement between the site and Cypress Plaza. He felt that tree preservation efforts were extraordinary. He felt a phasing plan was needed for construction. He thought that daylighting for Units 1 through 4 and the north-facing yards was acceptable. He suggested continuing the block wall to the northeast corner (next to the mobile home park). He also felt there should be a secured access to the courtyards. Commr. Combrink supported the mixed-use concept. He was concerned with the provision of outdoor spaces. He also applauded the tree preservation efforts. He felt more landscaping was needed in the front parking lot. Chairman Illingworth telt there should be more control over vehicular access to the rear of the property. He agreed with previous commissioner's comments. /f-102 ARC Minutes May 17, 1993 Page 3 Commr. Cooper moved to continue consideration of the request with direction that the revised plans address the following- 0 ollowing■ proposed block wall along the eastern property line be continued to the northeast corner of the property (next to Chumash Drive); ■ lighting details showing glare directed away from adjoining residences; ■ information clarifying daylighting concerns for Units 2, 3 & 4 and Units 5 & 6; ■ private open space areas for residential units; ■ noise issues; ■ parking lot landscaping to meet City standards; ■ pedestrian access to Cypress Plaza; and ■ phasing plan. Commr. Regier seconded the motion. AYES: Cooper, Regier, Combrink, Illingworth, Regier, Underwood NOES: None ABSENT: Homer, Sievertson The motion passed. 2. ARC 67-93: 1800 Monterey Street. A request for review of color and material changes to an existing hotel; C-T zone; LCC Hotels, Inc., applicant. Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the commission grant final approval. Richard Kopecky, architect, 803 Greystone Place, responded to the staff report and explained that franchise negotiations are underway which influence the sign program design. Commr. Underwood felt the proposal would look good. He wanted the tree saved until the sign program was submitted. He suggested using 5/8-inch reglets to provide more clearly-defined control joints. Commr. Cooper felt that the balcony rails provided scale to elevations and screening of air conditioning units He was concerned with the shift in planes where new stucco 4-I3 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5123-93 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 11, 1993, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application No. U 72-93 by Robert Takken and Dan McBride, applicants. USE PERMIT REQUESTED: To allow a mixed-use (residential and commercial) center, fence height exceptions to allow 5-foot and 7-foot high fences where 3-foot and 6-foot high fences are allowed; and a 20 percent mixed-use parking reduction. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall. GENERAL LOCATION: 3053, 3071, and 3085 South Higuera Street. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT: Service-Commercial/Light Industrial. PRESENT ZONING: C-S. WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies made by itself, and in behalf and of testimonies offered at said hearing, has established existence of the following circumstances: 1. The proposed project design and mix of uses will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed project design and mix of uses is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible internally and with surrounding land uses. Resolution No. 5123-93 Use Permit U 72-93 Page 2 3. As amended by the recommended mitigations in the initial environmental study, the mixed-use project will not have any significant negative impacts on the environment. 4. Because of the mix of uses proposed, the hours of peak parking demand for each use will not coincide, and therefore a 20% reduction in required parking is justified. 5. The mixed uses provide greater public benefit than single-use development of the site because of the proximity of workplaces to housing and incentives for automobile trip reduction. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application No. U 72-93 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A use permit to allow a 20% mixed-use parking reduction is hereby approved. A minimum of 70 parking spaces shall be provided on-site at all times. 2. A use permit to allow maximum wall heights of 8 feet along the rear property line and 6 feet along the northern property line is hereby approved. 3. A use permit to allow the mix of uses outlined on Exhibit A is hereby approved. 4. Use permit approval for the parking reduction, wall height exceptions, and mix of uses is contingent upon approval of rezoning the project site from C-S to C-S MU, and effective on the same date as the approved rezoning. Affordable housing 5. The property owner(s) shall give residents of the existing units written notice of eviction at least 90 days (3 calendar months) prior to the start of any demolition activity. 6. The applicant shall submit a draft eviction notice, which clearly describes the recommended mitigation, for review and approval by the Community Development Director within 14 days of project approval. 7. Two dwellings shall be made available to participants in the Section 8 housing assistance program or its successor for not less than 15 years, with monitoring and Resolution No. 5123-93 Use Permit U 72-93 Page 3 administration assistance provided by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo. the City Airport compatibility 8. The project must incorporate design measures that will limit the interior noise level of all residential units to 45 dbA, in accordance with FAA standards, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. 9. The use of materials - especially in the roof - shall be nonreflective to reduce glare. The use of mirrored or reflective glass shall be prohibited. 10. Prior to issuance of any demolition or building permit, the developer must record an avigation easement to the satisfaction of the Airport Area Land Use Commission. Traffic, circulation, and alternative transportation 11. The property owner(s) shall dedicate a portion of property frontage adjacent to South Higuera Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to issuance of any demolition or building permit. 12. Street improvements shall be installed per City Standards (code requirement). 13. The developer shall pay a pro rata share of reimbursement for the existing traffic signal at South Higuera Street and Margarita Avenue, not to exceed $500.00. 14. To encourage bicycle travel, enclosed, secured bicycle storage and a shower facility shall be available for users of the commercial tenant spaces. Residential storage facilities shall be designed to easily accommodate bicycles. Noise 15. To minimize noise conflicts between adjoining residential and commercial uses, deliveries, trash collection, parldng lot sweeping and cleaning activities, and site maintenance, shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 16. Commercial tenant hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. y-Af Resolution No. 5123-93 Use Permit U 72-93 Page 4 17. Noise insulation shall be provided in the floors and walls separating commercial tenant spaces and proposed dwellings, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. 18. Commercial trash collection and delivery areas shall be located away from residential uses to the satisfaction of the ARC. 19. Mitigation measures recommended in the Noise Analysis prepared for this project by David Lord (February 1993) shall be incorporated into the project design. Plant life 20. All trees to be retained shall be protected with chain link fencing during grading and construction, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 21. The developer shall submit a tree preservation agreement to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and the Community Development Director. Energy and resource conservation 22. To protect solar exposure for likely locations of future collectors, any trees planted along the southern side of proposed buildings shall be deciduous. 23. The project shall incorporate energy efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use. 24. The project shall include facilities for on-site recycling, for both residential and commercial tenants. 25. Final project design shall maximize the use of natural daylighting and ventilation to the approval of the ARC. 26. The project shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling of discarded concrete, sheetrock, wood, and metals from the construction site to the approval of the City's Solid Waste Coordinator or Community Development Director. Other requiredlap nning approvals and code requirements 27. All buildings within the proposed complex shall be provided with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system per NFPA-13. �f-1 7 Resolution No. 5123-93 Use Permit U 72-93 Page 5 28. An additional fire hydrant shall be installed per City engineering standard number 6310. 29. To prevent run-off onto adjacent properties, the developer will have to grade the site and\or include drainage facilities designed to carry surface run-off to the street or another point of conveyance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 30. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a lot line adjustment or combination must be approved and recorded to avoid construction over lot lines. 31. Building demolition and final project design are subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. 32. On-site utilities shall be placed underground to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official, consistent with section 17.16.100 of the zoning regulations. The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Whittlesey, seconded by Commr. Cross, and upon the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Whittlesey, Cross, Sigurdson, Karleskint NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Senn, Williams, and Hoffman Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary Planning Commission DATED: August 11, 1993 ,�1:0 EXHIBIT A MASTER USE PERMIT LISTING FOR MIXED-USE PROJECT 3053, 3071, 3085 South Higuera Street File Number: R/U 72-93 The following uses are allowed without any requirement for use permit approval: Automatic bank teller machines (no associated office use) Barbers, hair stylists, and manicurists Bicycle sales and repair Broadcast studios Catering services Christmas tree sales Credit reporting and collection Day care homes and centers Delivery and private postal services Detective and security services Dry cleaners - pick up point only Florists Laundromat - self service laundry Offices - professional engineers, architects, interior and industrial design - advertising and related services - general and special building contractors' offices Organization (professional, religious, political, labor, fraternal, trade, youth, etc.) offices and meeting rooms Photocopy service; quick printers Photofinishing - retail Photofinishing - wholesale; and blueprinting and microfilming services Photographic studios Restaurants, sandwich shops, take-out food, etc. Retail sales - appliances, furniture and furnishings, musical instruments, computers, office and medical equipment, catalogue stores, sporting goods Retail sales - auto parts and accessories, except tires and batteries as a principle use Retail sales - groceries, liquor, and specialized foods Ticket/travel agencies Vending machines Wholesale and mail order houses 6 EXHIBIT A (Cont'd.) The following uses are allowed by Director's approval of an administrative use permit: - notes in italics describe reasons for requiring use permit approval Banks and savings and loans - only branches of banks are allowed - no headquarters - should not consume so much square footage that a good selection of other resident-serving businesses is precluded Equipment rental - no outdoor sales, storage, or display Repair services - household appliances, computers, locksmith, saw sharpening, shoe repair - must demonstrate compatibility in terms of noise and safety - no outdoor sales, storage, or display Retail sales and rental, specialties (clothing, books, recorded music, video tapes, toy, etc) -floor area limited to 25% of all commercial uses Retail sales - general merchandise (drug, hardware, discount, and variety stores) - must demonstrate compatibility with residential uses and not exclude, by virtue of square footage, a mix of other resident-serving businesses Temporary sales Temporary uses - not otherwise listed 7 EA-Mrr 4 C.Use permit annroval by the Planning Commission is required prior stabhshing any use within the NIU Chapter 17.55 zone,except that this provision doesnotapplv to changes of use within an existing building. The use permit A=D-USE (AM ZONE requirement allows the Planning Commission to determine proposed uses' compliance with the MU zone, compatibility with each other and their surroundings,and consistency with the general plan. Sections: 17.55.030 Property development standards 1755.010 Purpose 17.55.020 Application and procedure Property development standards shall be those of the 17.55.030 Property development standards underlying zone. However, use-permit approval may 17.55.040 Mandatory findings include more provisions and standards to assure compattbiliryofuses and surroundings,orless restrictive 17.55.O1OPurpose standards,to the extent allowed by use-permit approval in othersectionsof these regulations,to make particular The MU zone, in combination with any other zone, use combinations more feasible. permits combining uses on a site which otherwise would not be allowed or required. 1755.040 Mandatory findings The primary purpose of the MU zone is to permit A.In granting a use permit pursuant to this chapter,the combining residential uses and commercial uses on a Planning Commissionmustmakethe following findings: single parcel,although any combination of uses may be approved by the City. The MU zone is intended to (1)The project's mixed uses are consistent with the promote a compact city,to provide additional housing general plan and are compatible with their su rro undings, opportunities (including affordable housing with neighboring uses,and with each other. opportunities),which is the first priority,and to reduce auto travel by providing services,jobs, and housing in (2)The project's design protects the public health, proximity. The City desires the safety provided by safety,and welfare. having residential components in commercial areas. (3)The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than 17.55.020 Application and procedure single-use development of the site. This finding must enumerate those benefits, such as proximity of A.Application of the MU zone may be initiated by: workplaces and housing, automobile trip reduction, provision of affordable housing, or other benefits (1)TheCity Councilor Planning Commission,toensure consistent with the purpose of this chapter. that mixed residential and commercial uses will be included when certain parcels are developed or B.To require property development standards more redeveloped;or restrictive than those of the underlying zone, the Planning Commission must make one of the following (2)An applicant, to obtain permission for a mix of uses findings: not otherwise allowed. (1)Site-specific property development standards are B.Each ordinance adopting an MU zone shall specih,: needed to protect all proposed uses of the site, in particular residential uses. (1)The types of uses which are required or allowed to be combined; (2)Site-specific property development standards are needed to make the project consistent with the intent of (2)Any standards for the uses' locations or their these regulations. relationships to each other: (3)The preponderance of the development proposed (3)Any issues specific to the site or the intended for the site is of a type not normally permitted in the combination of uses which must be resolved by the underlying zone, so property development standards design of the project. for the zone where such development is normally found are appropriate. 67 [IUAD ]PERSDIRn MEETING, AGENDA IR ���_ R uArE C _ ffEMDraft P.C. MinutesHIEFAugust 11, 1993 Y Page 1 IG CHFm IRL' RPE: IR Item 2. Actions Relating to Property at 3071 South Higuera Street. Requests to rezone a 1.61 acre site and to approve a use permit to allow a mixed-use _ center on a 1.61 acre. site; C-S zone; Robert Takken & Dan McBride, applicants. .(Continued from July 14, 1993) A. Rezoning R 72-93. A request to rezone the property from C-S (Service-Commercial/Light Industrial) to C-S-MU (Service- Commercial/Light Industrial-Mixed Use). B. Use Permit U 72-93. A request to approve a use permit to allow a mixed-use (residential and commercial) center; fence height exceptions to allow 5 foot and 7 foot high fences where 3 foot and 6 foot high fences are allowed; and a 20 percent mixed-use parking reduction. Commr. Williams stepped down due to a conflict of interest. After Commr. Williams stepped down, there was a quorum of 4 Planning Commissioners present. Whitney Mcllvaine presented the staff report and explained the Commission was to consider the environmental study, a rezoning request to place a mixed use overlay on the site, and a use permit determining the types of uses allowed on the site. She suggested the Commission concentrate on the issues of affordable housing, project phasing, establishing a list of allowed uses, the wall height exception, and the mixed use parking reduction. Commr. Cross expressed concern about the trip projection, the level of service of South Higuera Street, and phasing. Whitney Mclivaine said if the Commission was concerned that the project would not be completed after the first phase was finished, the Commission could determine that phasing was not appropriate. Commr. Cross expressed concern that the owners of the neighboring property may not desire to maintain the landscaping that is currently there. Commr. Whittlesey noted that underground utilities were not included as a condition, but were recommended by staff. 6RECEIV ® SEP 2 1993 CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Draft P.C. Minutes August 11, 1993 Page 2 In answer to a question by Commr. Cross, Whitney Mcllvaine said the units-were now renting for around $400 per month. She explained a notice period would be established and any relocation assistance would be determined by a Planning Commission use permit. In answer to a question by Commr. Sigurdson, Whitney Mcllvaine said the 8-foot wall height exception was being requested by both the applicant and the residents in Chumash Village. Chairman Karleskint opened the public hearing. Charles Crotser, 738 Higu.era Street, applicants' representative, said he had meet with the residents of Chumash Village and Dan McBride, who owns adjoining property. He explained the current residents of Chumash Village have different views than former residents about what should be allowed, and the plans had been revised to address concerns such as the high-fence. He said the applicants would prefer the project be built as a single project, but phasing was looked at because it was recommended by staff. Regarding condition 7, he said the applicant was agreeable to some type of rent control or participation in the Section 8 housing assistance program, but the applicant objected to paying 3 months rent. He said transients are now renting on the site. He said the applicants were agreeable to putting in bicycle storage facilities and showers. Because there is an existing bus shelter on the north side of Chumash Drive, he felt another bus shelter might not be needed. Commr. Whittlesey asked Mr. Crotser, if the applicant would agree to dedicating 4 units as Section 8 housing for 15 years because the market rate would be ensured and 10 low income units would be lost. Mr. Crotser said that the number of units might be able to be negotiated but the applicants were not at the hearing to make that decision. He explained that Mr. Takken's current units were a non-conforming use and he could go ahead with a C-S project. Commr. Sigurdson felt the City should be providing incentive for mixed use projects but that the goal to supporting affordable housing was also important. She said she could support 4 Section 8 housing units. Commr. Cross said he was pleased with the project. He felt a 6-foot wall would be sufficient, with natural vegetation used for screening. He felt it was important to encourage mixed use. Mr. Crotser said if the project had to be phased, the two properties might be developed separately. In answer to a question by Commr. Whittlesey, he said the applicants would Draft P.C. Minutes August 11, 1993 Page 3 probably prefer to have condition 5 eliminated. He explained for the project to make sense, both Mr. Takken's & Mr. McBride's properties were needed. Whitney Mcllvaine suggested that condition 9 be changed to state that"A minimum of two dwellings shall be made available to participants in the Section 8 housing assistance..." She explained that 15 years is a usual requirement, and often 30 years is required. Commr. Karleskint suggested replacing condition 7 with the statement "Existing residents will be given the first right of refusal to rent in the new project." Mr. Crotser asked that a minimum of 2 units be required to be Section 8 housing, and said the developer would try to make as many units affordable as possible. Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing. Commr. Whittlesey believed Exhibit A needed to be modified to eliminate duplication regarding bicycle sales and repair. She questioned if saw sharpening would be too loud if a residential unit was above the use. Whitney Mcllvaine explained that the Commission could change the allowed uses from one category to another such a from a use being allowed by right to one being allowed with an administrative or Planning Commission use permit. Commr. Cross expressed concern about allowing equipment rental because on site service of equipment is normally performed and it could cause a noise problem. He said he was also concerned about uses that would involve chemicals. Chairman Karleskint reopened the public hearing. Mr. Crotser said the units would be apartments and they would have the same owner as the commercial portion of the project, so the owner would be sensitive to having commercial uses compatible with the residential use. Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing. The Commission indicated that equipment rental, printing and publishing, retail sales of building and landscaping materials, saw sharpening, temporary sales, and general merchandise sales should require director's approval for an administrative use permit. Draft P.C. Minutes August 11, 1993 Page 4 Whitney Mcllvaine said that laundry and dry cleaners was an allowed use, but-should be identified as only a self-service laundromat or a pick up point for a laundry and dry cleaners. Commr. Cross said he did not see the need for the 8-foot fence required in condition 2. Ron Whisenand said a Chumash Village resident requested a high wall. He said the Commission could allow the 8-foot height as a maximum, with ARC approval. Commr. Karleskint said he would like to convey to the City Council and the ARC that the Commission did not see the need for the 8-foot fence, but agreed to leave the condition as is. Commr. Whittlesey moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning and use permit with the elimination of finding 5; the deletion of condition 7; condition 9 reworded to state "A minimum of two dwellings shall be made available to participants in the Section 8 housing assistance program or its successor for not less than 15 years to be administered by the Housing Authority by the City of San Luis Obispo;" condition 26 reworded to state 'The project shall include facilities for on-site recycling for both commercial and residential tenants;"condition 33 to state"Utilities shall be undergrounded to the approval of the City Engineer;" and a condition 34 to state that 'The project shall provide a plan for recycling discarded concrete, sheetrock, wood, and metals from the demolition of the building currently on site and from materials used during the construction of the new buildings to the approval of City's Solid Waste Coordinator or the Community Development Director." Commr. Cross seconded the motion. VOTING: AYES - Commr. Whittlesey, Cross, Sigurdson, and Karleskint. NOES - None. ABSENT - Commrs. Hoffman, Senn, and Williams. The motion passed.