Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-2014 PC MinutesSAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 22, 2014 CALL TO ORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners John Fowler, Ronald Malak, Michael Multari, William Riggs, Charles Stevenson, Vice - Chairperson John Larson, and Chairperson Michael Draze Absent: None Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Brian Leveille, Natural Resources Manager Bob Hill, Assistant City Attorney Andrea Visveshwara, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: Minutes of January 8, 2014, were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 3987 Orcutt Road. SPA 95 -13: Request to initiate amendments to the Orcutt Area Specific Plan including adjustment of the Urban Reserve Line (URL) abutting the Conservation /Open Space (C -OS) zone on Righetti Hill; Ambient Communities, applicant. (Brian Leveille) Brian Leveille, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the City Council approve the request to initiate amendments to the Orcutt Area Specific Plan while maintaining existing Conservation /Open Space zoning (C /OS) and keeping the Urban Reserve Line (URL) in the current location. Commrs. Riggs and Larson expressed confusion about the school sites. Commr. Riggs stated he was concerned about impacts such as trips to schools outside the project if a school was not included. Mr. Leveille stated that none of the three school sites were being actively considered by the School District and that trips /impacts were not part of the consideration for this meeting. Commrs. Larson and Fowler stated they wanted to understand the rationale for the precise location of the URL. Natural Resources Manager Bob Hill responded that the location of the existing URL was a tradeoff to protect the steeper western side of Righetti Hill while allowing for lots on the north side. He stated the goal was to keep development off slopes of 30% or more due to the potential for pollution and geologic instability and that the URL was placed very deliberately after much study. Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2014 Page 2 David Watson, Consulting Planner, stated that the URL does vary between 260 feet and 320 feet based on a slope of 30% and that this undulation is more appropriate than having it adhere strictly to 320 feet. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Travis Fuentez, of Ambient Communities, stated that the applicant is requesting an adjustment of the Urban Reserve Line and inclusion of lots within the 20% to 30% slope that would comply with the intent of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. John Wilbanks, SLO, representing Ambient Communities, stated that the URL is meant to be flexible and that the applicant's proposed plan only works if an adjustment to the URL is made. He also stated that the present EIR is sufficient because the proposed changes do not result in unidentified significant impacts. John Evans, Cannon, stated that he has background experience with the OASP because he worked with the property owners as the plan was developed. He agreed with Natural Resources Manager Hill's statement that the URL was originally based on a deliberate tradeoff based on the information available at the time. He stated that there is more information available now and that the original intent was that the URL be flexible. He also stated that the school district abandoned a potential school site within the project area because it was too close to the railroad tracks and a high pressure natural gas line. He noted that, at that time, the School District was experiencing a reduction in enrollment and was looking at another site close to the applicant's project. Jeanne Helphenstine, SLO, representing the Righetti property owners, stated that the long and difficult process to develop the land was begun in 1978. She noted that the property was annexed by the City in 2011. She agreed that there is more detailed information available now than at the time the OASP was approved; that it was long understood the URL was flexible; that Neil Havlik, former Natural Resources Manager, had stated that elevation will determine the final URL; and that the easement line on the west side would not be where it is without that understanding of flexibility. She noted that she grew up on the property and the preservation of Righetti Hill is important to her family. Charlene Rosales, SLO Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber advocates preserving open space in balance with developing housing. She noted that developers need to have the flexibility to make development economically feasible and that the Chamber adopted a policy that urges flexibility in implementation of area specific plans. Harry Corbett, SLO, stated that he had wanted his property, next to the project being considered, to remain part of the county and that he was opposed to any adjustments to the URL abutting Orcutt Road to preserve the current view shed and density. Mike Jones, SLO, stated that this property is in his view shed and vice versa. There were no further comments made from the public. Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2014 Page 3 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Stevenson asked Staff to share "other viable alternatives" mentioned in Staff Analysis, 2.7 Subdivision Design Flexibility vs. Specific Plan Amendments on page ten of the staff report. Associate Planner Leveille responded that the plan has flexibility designed specifically to preserve Righetti Hill and that options available in the Specific Plan include special density provisions, reduced size lots, and potential for reduced setbacks and zero lot lines. He noted that Staff has not had the opportunity to explore those alternatives with the applicants. Commr. Stevenson stated that the approved layout of Street D -2 as shown in the Specific plan provides significant view opportunities for walkers through the gaps between the homes while the Proposed Layout Land Use Map, sheet 2B, Attachment 4, shows a significant loss of visual access with its continuous line of lots. He noted that this issue was discussed when the OASP was developed and it will be important when the project comes back to Staff. Commr. Draze stated that while he agrees that the roads shown in Figure 2.9 from the OASP, shown on page six of the Application Narrative, are laid out the wrong way, this figure is about preserving the view with the one road laid out horizontally and lots only on one side, not double - loaded. He encouraged the developers to take this issue seriously in the future when plans come back for review. Commr. Fowler stated that he shares concerns about the aesthetics and asked if moving the URL automatically triggers consideration of an amendment to the EIR. Community Development Deputy Director Davidson stated that Staff was unsure whether that would be likely but that is not a decision for tonight. Commr. Draze stated the Commission has received seven letters about this issue. Commr. Riggs asked Staff if parking standards are imbedded in the zoning. Associate Planner Leveille responded that some development standards are in the OASP that supercede Zoning Regulations, and that those not specifically called out go back to the City standards. Commr. Riggs stated he thinks this project is a traffic nightmare and that he can see both sides of the argument in regards to the open space but if the project is opened up for evaluation, then there should be consideration of the parking situation. Commr. Multari stated he was on the Commission when the OASP was developed and that the idea was to have the URL follow the 320 contour or 30% slope, whichever is most restrictive. Commr. Multari asked what is the difference between the slope maps shown by Staff and by the applicant. Consulting Planner Watson stated that there is a need to reconcile the two versions and that there should be further evaluation if this moves forward. Commr. Multari agreed. Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2014 Page 4 Commr. Multari stated that he understands that R -1 housing is important to the property owner and the developer as a means to provide funding for the infrastructure since those lots generate the most money. He stated that when the OASP was originally written, the Planning Commission was very clear that the flexibility cited was about the number of units, the parks and the open space, and it was not about the URL. He stated that he thinks the lots were already too high on the hill and that there was too much leniency in the development of the GASP. Commr. Draze stated that there are many ways to figure a 30% slope line so it is not surprising to see so many interpretations and that he is not sure which will be accepted but knows there will be some changes. He agreed with everything Commr. Multari said about type of housing. He noted that the views above Street D -2 are important and that the project may lose 20 lots but that will not be determined tonight. Commr. Larson stated he wanted a short summary on the open space easement that is not contiguous with the URL first. Natural Resources Manager Hill stated that there are two conservation easements already recorded and that the City does not want to amend them. He noted that there are standards and findings that need to be determined for an amendment, and those findings are difficult to make. On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Larson, to recommend that the Council explore revision of the Urban Reserve Line as part of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Amendments, review the existing parking thresholds as outlined in the zoning code, and support the relocation of the R -3 housing Discussion of Motion: Commr. Multari asked what "explore" means in the motion. Commr. Riggs stated that using that word assumes there will be an EIR and this will be studied as part of an amendment to the OASP and that the recommendation will receive further review as directed by Council. He noted he would be open to changing the wording. Commr. Malak stated he thought the motion was going to be about the URL and zoning, and not about traffic. Commr. Stevenson suggested that perhaps two motions were needed but Commr. Riggs favored just one motion. Commr. Larson asked that if this moves forward, is it limited solely to the precise items the applicants requested or does it open up other aspects for examination? He stated that Commr. Riggs is probably right to bring up traffic. He stated that the issue is the visibility of the hill outside and within the community through undeveloped areas or corridors and thus the configuration of the proposed tract map, and not the precise location of the URL. He noted that there may be advantages to moving the line as long as the preservation of views intended by the OASP are preserved. Commr. Multari asked Staff if the park land between C Street and the railroad tracks is there because of noise contours or because park land. Associate Planner Leveille stated it is there to provide distance from the tracks. Commr. Multari asked if there is flexibility to move development farther to the west. He stated that, at this stage, he cannot support the motion as it is too open- ended. He noted that the 30% slope Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2014 Page 5 mapping discrepancy between Staff and the applicant needs more discussion. Commr. Stevenson agreed and stated that the alleys were designed to reduce cars parked on streets so he does not want them eliminated but that he supports the idea of looking at narrower streets. Commr. Riggs stated he agrees with the things mentioned that need to be examined and supports making a list of items that need to be addressed. AYES: Commrs. Larson and Riggs NOES: Commrs. Draze, Fowler, Malak, Multari, and Stevenson RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion failed on a vote of 2 -5. On motion by Commr. Malak, and seconded by Commr. Stevenson, to accept the Staff recommendation to initiate amendments to the Orcutt Area Specific Plan while allowing possible adjustments to the existinq Urban Reserve Line. AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Malak, and Stevenson NOES: Commrs. Fowler, Multari, and Riggs RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a vote of 4 -3. Commr. Stevenson supported the idea that there is ambiguity about the location of the URL. He noted that other issues have been articulated but that this is the primary motion to the City Council and that other recommendations can be forwarded in separate motions. Commr. Riggs stated that he supported making a list including traffic, open space, and other issues, but that he did not support fragmenting the motion into two because it does not make sense. Commr. Multari agreed with Commissioners Stevenson and Riggs but stated his concern is that, after working on the OASP for many years, he does not want this motion to mean that it will be treated as de novo. Commr. Stevenson reiterated the need to maintain visibility along Street D -2. Commr. Draze stated that there is no need for a separate motion on this as the project will come back to the Planning Commission and the Council reads the Commission minutes so the concerns will be seen. Commr. Riggs agreed there was no point in another motion because it will all be opened up and that he just disagreed with the parliamentary procedures. He stated that he wants to clarify that his mention of parking got simplified and that it was more Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2014 Page 6 nuanced because it was about the number of cars allowed under existing zoning and allowing developers to address parking needed. He supports exploring this and incentivizing one -car households. Commr. Malak supported developing a list of exactly what the Commission's concerns are and then discussing them. On motion by Commr. Malak, and seconded by Commr. Larson, to recommend that the City Council review the following items that are of concern to the Planning Commission: the view shed, traffic management and parking standards of the development, the question of schools and alternatives to the development design regarding street layout. Stevenson stated this goes too far. AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Malak, and Riggs NOES: Commrs. Fowler, Multari, and Stevenson RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 4 -3 vote Commr. Fowler stated that he does not support this because the motion makes it more complicated than it needs to be since all of these issues, which concern him too, will be looked at when the project comes back to the Planning Commission. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2. Staff a. Agenda Forecast ✓ Next meeting is February 12, 2014. Agenda will include the Housing Element Update and the San Luis Ranch project. ✓ Meeting on February 26, 2014. Agenda will include the draft EIR for the Johnson Avenue School Project. 3. Commission On motion by Commr. Riggs, and seconded by Commr. Stevenson, to agendize the request for a presentation by Cal Poly concerning the housing project on Grand Avenue. AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Malak, Riggs, and Stevenson NOES: Commr. Draze RECUSED: Commr. Multari ABSENT: None There were no further comments made from the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2014 Page 7 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Diane Clement Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission on February 12, 2014. de� Cory Ryan Supervising Administrative Assistant