Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-2015 PC MinutesSAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2015 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler, Ronald Malak, Vice - Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson Absent: Commissioner William Riggs Staff: Community Development Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner Erik Berg- Johansen, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1108 Fletcher Avenue. USE - 0424 -2014: Establish a 602- square foot secondary dwelling unit in an existing second floor of a detached three -car garage; build new 316- square foot deck on the second floor of detached garage, including a categorical exemption from CEQA; R -1 -PD zone; Russell Swanagon, applicant. (Kyle Bell) Community Development Deputy Director Davidson presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the Draft Resolution allowing a hobby room conversion to a secondary dwelling unit that exceeds 450 square feet, subject to findings and conditions. Commr. Larson disclosed an ex parte communication from Carol Florence concerning this project. The other Commissioners present indicated that they had also received the same communication. Emily Ewer, Oasis Associates, representing the applicant, requested the removal of Conditions 8, 9, 10, and 11; and the modification of Condition 7. She noted that Condition 8 is unnecessary because the property has existing trees and landscaping; Condition 9 is not needed because the existing driveway is in excellent condition and built to the standards of the time when the lot was developed; Condition 10 is not relevant because this project is a Secondary Dwelling Unit (SDU), not a multifamily unit, and the ability of the property owner to absorb the impact fees of more than $10,000 is limited; and Condition 11 is not needed because installing separate meters would merely replace a single metering system that works for both dwellings on the property. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2015 Page 2 She requested that Condition 7 should be modified because Condition 13 makes it redundant and that the applicant would prefer a condition or finding explicitly stating that a shared utility meter would be acceptable. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Commr. Larson stated that one letter had been received in opposition to the project because approval would set an inappropriate precedent. There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Deputy Director Davidson stated that there was a typographical error on page PC1 — 7 in Condition #2 that should read "Section 17.21.010 ". He noted that the City agrees to strike Condition 8 after staff made a trip to the site and found the trees and landscaping in good health. He explained that Condition 9 is necessary because the ten percent side slope of the sidewalk portion of the driveway approach needs to be reduced to two percent for ADA compliance. He added that the City Engineer wants this Condition to remain in the Resolution and he acknowledged the necessity of a piecemeal approach to gaining compliance citywide. He stated that staff recommends that Condition 10 also remain because, although this is an SDU, the fee schedule breaks down costs by square footage, not by whether the unit is a multifamily or secondary dwelling. He added that the fees for a similar project on Augusta Street were paid by the homeowner and these fees are far less than new construction. He proposed some modifications for Conditions 7 and 11 and noted that the separate meter might be required just for the fire sprinklers. Commr. Multari asked if there would be a fee for square footage less than 450. Deputy Director Davidson stated that the fee would be lower because size, not exact use, that determines the fee. Commr. Multari stated he was confused about the need for separate meters and why having two would be a public good. Commr. Larson suggested that a separate meter might be necessary if the water is turned off for the main residence, it would still be available for the SDU. He noted it could be a safety issue. Commr. Draze stated he is concerned about the six -foot wide side deck that overlooks the deck on the adjacent property. He pointed out that access to the main deck could be from the room next to the deck, rather than via a side deck. Commr. Multari stated he was still confused about the driveway slope issue. Ms. Ewer stated that pushing back four feet into the property to correct the slope would require an unnecessary major rebuild of the driveway. She noted that there is a Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2015 Page 3 sprinkler system in the garage and all that is needed is a pipe to connect to the second story. In response to the overlook issue, she stated that the adjacent property has most of its outdoor amenities to the west, away from the proposed deck on this property. Commr. Larson stated that he likes Commr. Draze's suggestion to have access to the deck from the south side of the SDU. He noted that this is a large property so there are other ways to meet the open space requirement besides a deck. Commr. Multari stated he does not think a separate meter is needed. He supported the removal of Condition 8 and the modification of Condition 10 to state that the project will pay all fees required by ordinance. He added that he is undecided about the rebuilding of the driveway and noted it is important that the City incrementally make the community more accessible and the City is allowing the applicant an SDU but, in this case, the requirement may be excessive. He agreed that the deck on the west side is a detriment to the neighborhood and unnecessary; he suggested deleting it. He pointed out that the site is 12,000 square feet so the unit could be considered a second home, not a secondary dwelling unit. Commr. Larson supported Commr. Multari's clarification on Condition 10, Commr. Dandekar stated that the west side deck is very close to the property line. She supported having the Utility Department determine whether one or two meters are needed because it has the authority to provide the service. Commr. Malak stated he was also undecided about the ADA issue. He noted that it may be more of a benefit to the homeowner to have separate meters because they could shut off the water to one unit if necessary but he could go either way on that. He supported deleting Condition 10 and not classifying this SDU with multifamily units for fees. Commr. Fowler noted that the City has already relaxed the rules to encourage SDUs and he does not want to waive any fees. He added that the applicant is getting an additional unit. He stated that he does not like the deck on the west side, he supports grandfathering in the driveway as an existing use that would be prohibitive to alter, and he does not think a separate meter is needed. Commr. Dandekar stated that it would be very difficult to reduce the driveway slope so she supports removing Condition 9. Concerning Condition 10, she agreed that SDUs should be encouraged but she supports applying the code uniformly to avoid inconsistencies. She noted that she would have liked to see the fee structure to determine the impact. Commr. Draze stated he is uncomfortable with the Commission waiving fees and he likes Commr. Multari's "as required by ordinance" language. He suggested possibly eliminating the fire sprinklers if that would require a larger meter. Deputy Director Davidson stated that the Fire Codes require sprinklers in this situation. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2015 Page 4 Commr. Draze noted that, if ADA compliance is not going to be required, the Commission needs to include conditions stating so. Commr. Malak stated that he received a letter asking if it is correct that SDUs are not allowed in planned developments. Deputy Director Davidson explained that the intent was to prohibit SDUs in small planned unit developments or condominium developments and, while technically this property is in a PD zone, the 12,000 square -foot lot size is more like a single - family neighborhood that should not preclude an SDU. Commr. Multari made a motion, seconded by Commr. Fowler, and discussion ensued. Commr. Dandekar asked to hear staff wording for separate metering Deputy Director Davidson stated the wording was "as determined by the Utilities Director as to the necessity of a separate meter." He noted it is a standard requirement, but is not always required based on circumstances. Commr. Dandekar stated she does not want to preempt what the Utilities Department might be trying to achieve. She noted that, if in future these two units are occupied by different people, separate meters could allow the Utilities Department to act on just one. Commr. Larson stated that since one unit has to be owner - occupied, whoever is paying the water bill is there and separate metering does not provide substantive benefit. He agreed with dropping at least the west facing deck and noted there are many ways to sort out the open space requirement. He supported deleting the ADA requirement because it seems overly onerous with minimal benefit. Commr. Multari noted that if separate meters were a City requirement, it would not show up as a condition, so there is some discretion for the Commission. He agreed that, since the owner has to be on -site, separate metering is not as important. In response to a question from Commr. Dandekar, Deputy Director Davidson stated that just one meter was required for the property on Augusta similar to this property. Commr. Dandekar stated she was leery of taking this decision and would prefer to leave it open to the Utilities Director to make a similar decision. Commr. Larson stated that if there was a compelling reason to have two meters, the Commission would hear about it and he is confident that were the SDU in the same building, there would be one meter so the separate building is what is driving this. He added that he can see some logic to turning the water to one building on or off but a meter is not needed to do that. He concluded that, if two meters are not a code requirement, he is fairly comfortable eliminating that condition. There were no further comments made from the Commission Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2015 Page 5 On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Fowler, to adopt the Draft Resolution allowing a hobby room conversion to a secondary dwelling unit that exceeds 450 square feet, subject to findings and conditions, including the following changes: a. Deletion of Conditions 8, 9 and 11. b. Add Finding 8 stating "Circumstances related to topography make adjustments to the driveway apron infeasible." c. Revise Condition #2 to read "Section 17.21.010" d. A new Condition stating that the west side deck will be eliminated. e. Modify Condition 7 to not require a separate meter. f. Modify Condition 10 to state "The project shall pay all fees required by ordinance." AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, and Multari NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Riggs The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. 2. 1234 Broad Street. USE - 0406 -2014: Request to establish a brew pub with full food service, retail uses, and wine tasting, including a categorical exemption from CEQA; C -D zone; 1234 Broad Street LLC, applicant. (Erik Berg- Johansen) Assistant Planner Berg- Johansen presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the Draft Resolution which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. Eric Newton, applicant, requested some changes in the conditions: modify the opening time to 10 a.m., extend closing time to 11 p.m. weekdays with closing of the doors at 10 p.m. He noted that escrow is subject to project approval. Rodessa Newton, applicant, SLO, stated that the project will be aiming at a 30+ demographic that does not want to go to a college bar, something which is lacking in the City. She noted that the project has a website: 1234broadstreet.com. She presented the Commission with a folder of supportive comments from neighbors. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dustin Pires, Form Design Build, stated he is a part of the design team and is speaking on behalf of the applicants. He stated that as a young professional, he agrees this will be a great place to go and to take children and that it will not be loud. Neil Higgins, SLO, a Cuesta College business /economics professor, supported the project because it will be very good economically and will provide new jobs and new opportunities for small business owners. He noted that it will appeal to a different demographic and income base, and will help build tourism. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2015 Page 6 David Baldwin, Atascadero, stated he is a lifelong resident of the county and supports the project, likes the layout and fagade, and thinks this project will be a good fit with the downtown. He noted that the applicants have committed to working with locals. Tyler Clark, Grover Beach, brewer at the Libertine Pub and Brewery in Morro Bay, stated that the craft beer industry is exploding in popularity and is aimed at the 25 -45 year old demographic. He added that this type of beer is more about the nuances of the taste and less about simply drinking. Lawrence Duterte, SLO, brewer, stated he just graduated from Chico State and helped start a similar place in Chico which became a melting pot of different people. He supported the project. Louise Justice, SLO, stated she agrees with Save Our Downtown (SOD) that there are enough restaurants downtown and she doubts people will park in the parking garage, but will park in the neighborhood and infringe upon residents. She asked about containment of brewery odors and for a guarantee that this project will not turn into a college bar. She gave Black Sheep as an example of how that has happened before. Elisabeth Abrahams, SLO, a member of SOD, stated the applicants' presentation has her excited by the possibility of an artisan center containing a brew pub. She requested conditions that would result in artisan work beyond just food and alcohol, such as art work, jewelry, etc., being included. She stated she does not want another SLO Brew and is afraid this project will morph into another bar. Joseph Abrahams, SLO, stated he agrees with Mrs. Abrahams. He suggested that this be an artisan center with a section that could morph into a decent grocery store. He asked if the project leadership really means to attract the older population and artisans through exhibits, seminars, etc., by having the project be a cultural hub. David Brodie, SLO, stated that the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control says alcohol outlets are over - concentrated in the downtown core and that every time the City gets a bar, it loses a shop. He added that shop owners are confronted with increasing rents and the downtown is now one great big bar. He recommended others go downtown about ten p.m. to see what is going on and cited such things as public urination and drunken behavior. He stated that this project has a nice plan but questioned why it dwells on alcohol. He noted that young people cannot be prevented from coming to this site and this project is near Old Town residences. Mike Bianchi, SLO, representing Firestone Walker, stated he is in support of this local brewery that will be great for tourism. He added that he supports the craft beer movement and having somewhere to go to experience it. Trevor Tyler, Los Angeles, former manager of Eureka in SLO and current beverage director for California Eureka outlets, stated that the perception of beer is changing and serving alcohol to get people intoxicated is not the goal. He added that the price point will be above what the average student can afford and the demographic will be 25 -60 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2015 Page 7 year -olds. He stated he experienced similar push -back when Eureka opened and, as a competitor, he supports this project which will bring a lot of tourism. Sean Zurbriggen, Morro Bay, stated he supports the project and noted that at his business, he does not have trouble with over - serving or intoxication. Amy Kardel, SLO, Clever Ducks, stated that she supports this as a classy improvement and the demographic matches those who work in her building. She added that this does not sound like it will contribute to the alcohol problem and could help displace the homeless people who camp out along Pacific Street at night. She noted that the early closing hour is appropriate. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: In response to questions from Commrs. Larson and Fowler, Mr. Newton stated that he is aiming to have artisan food, maybe an artist, and maybe some rotation in and out of the lease spaces for different products. He noted that the roll -up doors are to allow people walking by to see what is going on inside, and the doorways between the lease spaces and the main space will be open to create a marketplace atmosphere. He stated there will be two roll -up doors back -to -back for trash and storage. Commr. Malak stated that the sidewalk on the Pacific side is very narrow with very little room for the out - swinging exterior doors. He asked how that will work with those doors. Mr. Newton stated that he understands that the sidewalk is narrow and in bad condition, so there may be some modification to the sidewalk required. Commr. Malak noted that the applicants originally wanted to do a pub but, due to licensing and City policies, were encouraged to provide food service. He asked if the menu is full service or bar food. Mr. Newton replied that they had to propose a restaurant to gain staff's support but they were always going to have artisan food such as pizzas, salads, and gourmet dishes and, hopefully, there will be artisans selling other food, too. Commr. Draze noted that Villa Auto Repair and the furniture store had little need for parking and he would love to require more parking for this use. He stated that the lease spaces concern him but not the roll -up doors and that the out - swinging exterior doors cannot open that way due to a condition. He wondered how much will be going on in the lease spaces that will affect the neighbors and if those spaces will end up becoming an expansion of the restaurant. He stated that he likes that most of the project faces Broad Street, but he is more nervous about the Pacific Street side. Commr. Larson stated this is an interesting concept and he likes the interaction between the lease spaces and the central area which he sees as drawing people in from the lease spaces rather than the opposite. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2015 Page 8 Commr. Malak expressed concern about how the noise will filter through to the outside through the swinging doors. Commr. Draze suggested changing Condition 14 to state that no hard liquor will be sold and "for onsite consumption" deleted. Commr. Dandekar stated she really likes the concept and the intent. She asked about Condition 23 which seems to require that the building will have to be elevated three feet. Mr. Newton stated that the three -foot elevation applies to service and utility hookups only and the rest of the building will be at street level. Commr. Fowler stated he is concerned about the concentration of bars downtown. He stated he will support the project because he likes the artisan center and the architecture, Libertine sounds like the right tenant, and he thinks this is the right use. He also agreed with the modification of hours. Commr. Malak stated he likes the project. He added that his concerns include the potential use of the adjacent CVS parking lot. He noted that the brew pub and CVS will have the same hours, that Wells Fargo has a security guard in its parking lot, and a person at CVS stated that at least five tow trucks come each day to the Wells Fargo lot. Mrs. Newton stated that, with the clientele coming to the artisan center for an hour or two, she does not think people will park in that lot, knowing they will get towed, but will use the parking structure instead. Commr. Malak stated he does not agree because cars are towed every day from the Wells Fargo lot. He noted that he is concerned that parking may be removed to widen the sidewalk and he did not see bicycle racks anywhere in the site plan. He stated that with an older demographic out shopping, park benches would be nice. He noted that Condition 22 says that out - swinging doors must be in alcoves but homeless transients will sleep in those alcoves. He asked if the building design will be compatible with the two attached structures, one on Broad and one on Pacific. Deputy Director Davidson stated that the Architectural Review Commission will look at the issue of architectural compatibility. Commr. Larson suggested a condition similar to Condition 19 that could apply to the Pacific Street side of the project. Assistant Planner Berg- Johansen stated that there could be an addition to Condition 19 so that the condition would address pedestrian level of service on Pacific Street. He added that people can use the parking garage and walk down Pacific Street. Commr. Multari stated that this project is very attractive but the question is whether it is in the right location and is the right use for this location. He added that he has doubts because of the zoning split in the middle of the block between Marsh and Pacific and the interface between offices and residential. He stated that the openings between the Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2015 Page 9 lease spaces and the restaurants are a problem. He noted he does not think more wine tasting is needed in an area of offices with residences nearby. He cited the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Abrahams and wondered if the project can be conditioned to close off the lease spaces so there is no free flow between those and the main space, and to not allow alcohol in those lease spaces but limit it to the brewery and restaurant. He expressed concern about the reality of what the market will dictate and that the applicants might say they cannot make it work with closing at ten and no live music, and they really need the City's help in loosening up the conditions to make a go of it. He stated that his response to that would be no because he is reluctant to have this project morph into another bar. He added that he does not want the tavern part to become the main use and, to feel comfortable approving this, he would need a condition that would not allow that free flow or the tasting or serving of alcohol in the lease spaces. He also supported enforcing the proposed hours. He repeated that, if the applicants find that, in a year from now, the model does not work, he will be reluctant to give more flexibility. He expressed disappointment in this use at this location. He noted that a taller mixed - use project incorporating some residential would have been more appropriate. Commr. Larson stated that the wine tasting businesses, as presented in the staff report, would be offsite tasting rooms, not wine bars, which Assistant Planner Berg- Johansen confirmed. He added that, if the project had four offsite wine tasting places plus the brewery and restaurant, he would agree that that is a substantial number of alcohol places. Commr. Draze stated that to get his support, the lease spaces cannot have onsite consumption and he would like to remove the connection between the lease spaces and the restaurant. Commr. Larson stated he likes the interaction between the leased spaces and the central area and the project might attract a cheese or sausage shop. Commr. Multari stated that businesses like cheese and flower shops would be fine but he is concerned it will be other types of shops that might serve alcohol, and that people in the restaurant consuming alcohol will filter out through the lease spaces to Pacific Street. Commr. Malak stated he can agree with prohibiting the wine tasting but does think the open walkways between the lease spaces and the restaurants is a good idea. Commr. Multari stated he is afraid some of that lease space could end up as restaurant seating if the owners cannot get businesses like the cheese shop. He added that he likes the idea of conditioning the project to prevent that. Commr. Malak supported the idea of this type of condition. Commr. Dandekar expressed concern about tying the hands of the applicant and did not support a restriction on the type of businesses allowed in the lease spaces. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2015 Page 10 Commr. Multari stated that he is concerned about this being close to Old Town and next to office buildings, and that it is just the idiosyncrasy of zoning that allows this use. Commr. Fowler stated he likes the open doors and the free flow but also shares the community concern about another bar and that there has to be concern about what Commr. Multari has described. He noted he would rather err on the side of the lease spaces not being alcohol places and would support coming up with a condition that would prevent another bar downtown. Commr. Malak stated, if there is a condition that there can be no offsite wineries there, then that brings up the time frame and the question of whether businesses would be required to be open the same hours as the restaurant. Commr. Multari stated that would be something the restaurant owner /tenant and the lease space tenants could figure out and it does not bother him as long as it does not turn into a drinking place. He stated he would be in favor of letting them open earlier. Commr. Dandekar stated that offsite wine tasting seems complementary to beer brewing and asked if one such space could be allowed. She noted she is trying to leave the applicants some leeway and some presence for local production. Commr. Larson stated that is how he initially read it —one offsite wine tasting establishment with the others being retail. Commr. Draze stated that the only way he can be comfortable with the project is to specify no alcohol consumption in the lease spaces. Commr. Multari asked if lease space #1 could be considered for wine tasting. Commr. Draze stated he would be less concerned about that location because it is small and facing Broad Street. Commr. Fowler stated he could be supportive of one outlet, probably on Broad Street. Commr. Draze stated he could support opening at 10 a.m. and closing an hour later on Thursday due to that being the Farmers Market night. Commr. Draze made a motion and discussion ensued. Deputy Director Davidson suggested altering Commr. Draze's wording in the new condition banning alcohol consumption in lease spaces 3, 4, 5, and 6 to read: "Lease spaces fronting Pacific Street shall not include wine tasting or other alcohol uses or expansion of the brewery into the lease spaces." Commr. Draze accepted that wording. Commr. Dandekar supported allowing the applicants to make lease space #1 somewhat larger for a wine tasting bar. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2015 Page 11 Deputy Director Davidson noted that, if it gets substantially larger, more than 300 square feet or so, it would have to be brought back to the Commission for consideration. Commr. Fowler seconded the motion at this point. Commr. Larson stated he is supporting the motion with some reservation because he does not think the restrictions on alcohol are necessary. Commr. Multari stated he supports the motion with some hesitation because he remains concerned about the potential for the project morphing into a bar. Commr. Dandekar stated she would like to offer the applicants a little more flexibility but is basically fine with the motion. She added she would like to give the applicants the possibility of growing lease space #1 fronting Broad and is suggesting this as a friendly modification to the motion. Commrs. Draze and Fowler stated they both have a problem with changing the motion Commr. Malak stated he can support the motion with some reservations because he was at the Ludwick Community Center meeting and saw that at least 90% of the people there thought there were too many bars in the downtown. Commr. Larson stated that this is not a bar, but the type of establishment that might help turn the corner on the bar issue. Commr. Multari stated that he does not consider this to be approving a bar, but rather approving a restaurant, a microbrewery, and some lease spaces. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Draze, seconded by Commr. Fowler, to adopt the Draft Resolution which approves the project based on findings, and subject to conditions with the following changes: a. no changes to findings b. change the hours of operation to 10:00 a.m. to 10 p.m., Sunday — Wednesday, and 10 a.m. to 11 p.m., Thursday — Saturday in Condition 4. c. delete "for onsite consumption" in Condition 14. d. add a new condition stating that lease spaces fronting Pacific Street shall not include wine tasting or other alcohol uses or expansion of the brewery into the lease spaces. AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, and Multari NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Riggs The motion passed on a 6:0 vote Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2015 Page 12 3. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: a. Staff Agenda Forecast — January 28, 2015, meeting canceled; February 11, 2015, appeal of a use permit for Fredericks Street. b. Commission ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Diane Clement Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission on March 11, 2015. Lauri Thomas Administrative Assistant III