Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-23-2016 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, March 23, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 6:01 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chairperson Larson. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Larson led Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: John Fowler, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Hemalata Dandekar, and Chair John Larson. Commissioners Absent: Vice-Chair Michael Multari City Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Contract Planner John Rickenbach, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni, Transportation Operations Supervisor Jake Hudson, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted with change by Chair Larson to shift Agenda Forecast forward. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Minor amendments (surname spelling correction on page 3; casting of votes correction on page 8) made to Minutes of January 27, 2016; motion to adopt as corrected made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Draze; motion passed by consensus. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No member of the Public wished to speak on non-agenda items. Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 2016 Page 2 STAFF DISCUSSION Agenda Forecast: Deputy Director Davidson provided the Agenda Forecast for the month of April: April 13: New Commissioner Oath of Office and election of Chair & Vice-Chair; large tract map of West Creek in Orcutt area; draft EIR for Water Resource Reclamation Facility April 27: Urban Water Management Plan with Water Shortage Contingency Plan; General Plan Annual Report PUBLIC HEARING 1. 2223 Monterey Street. USE-1035-2015: Review of a Planning Commission Use Permit request on a property with Special Considerations. Project includes a request to allow a hotel project with 55 rooms and a recreational vehicle park with 23 RV/Airstream trailer spaces with associated parking and site improvements. Project includes a 10% parking reduction request and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; C-T-S zone; Motel Inn, L.P., applicant. Associate Planner Carloni highlighted notable changes which include additional entrances associated with creek-facing bungalow units, shortening of RV spaces to get them outside utility easement, and a vegetative split rail fence for blocking headlight glare. Associate Planner Carloni indicated the Architectural Review Commission had suggested that Planning Commission consider whether the two suites (41 &42), whose balconies and outdoor patios are angled toward the creek, are consistent with Ordinance 1130; recommended adopting draft resolution approving project which allows issuance of use permit, 10% parking reduction, and approval of mitigated negative declaration. COMMISSION QUESTIONS In response to Commissioner Fowler’s inquiries, Associate Planner Carloni informed that the gym and laundry areas had been moved around in the main lobby such that additional units replaced them and an RV space was lost when spaces moved forward out of the easement; affirmed that there are ten (10) Airstreams clustered on site with condition of approval aimed at doorways oriented away from creek; indicated that bike parking requirement is for seven (7) spaces, six (6) of which would be interior and the other a short-term space adjacent to main building. APPLICANT COMMENT Architect Damian Davis, representing the Applicant, spoke on how Ordinance 1130 relates to project property; detailed project’s history to its current iteration of reduced and appropriate scale and massing; discussed separation of entrances at bungalows for increased guest privacy and flow; discussed the balconies in Suites 41 & 42 being at 45-degree angle to nearest Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 2016 Page 3 neighbor approximately 150 feet away through dense brush; indicated that additional planned landscaping was most likely extraneous insofar as planned refinements should mitigate any major neighborhood compatibility issue; stated that only one property on San Luis Drive is directly across the creek from RV site and that the RV spaces are designed to be back-in so as to avoid headlights shining into the riparian area. PUBLIC COMMENT Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, San Luis Obispo, voiced appreciation of the historical nature of project and its property; stated that approval of project should be delayed until availability of water. Bob Lucas, San Luis Obispo, lives on San Luis Drive; voiced concern that uniqueness of project will gain itself an approval in a fashion that may compromise the integrity and applicability of Ordinance 1130; questioned why sought-after demographic for RV area would need or want picnic tables. COMMISSION COMMENT Commissioner Draze questioned whether creekside walkway might be inconvenient for accessing bungalow entrances; endorsed shifting of entryways to other faces of each bungalow and away from facing creek; supports screening upper balconies of suites 41 & 42 from view of residents of creek area. Commissioner Fowler voiced adulation for project and commended changes made; shared his belief that the number of separate bungalow entrances pushes too far on his comfort level with Ordinance 1130 and that reverting to shared entrances would seem better solution. Commissioner Malak endorsed shifting bungalow entrances to non-creekside faces; discussed potentially adding the “decks facing creek area should be screened with walls” recommendation item to the Resolution. In response to Commissioner Malak’s inquiry, Transportation Operations Supervisor Jake Hudson detailed the evaluations made by two separate traffic studies pertaining to the Motel Inn driveway access from the Caltrans Highway 101 ramp; indicated how the more recent traffic conflict analysis led to the median refuge island facilitating vehicles turning left from out of the site and realignment of the curbline along site’s frontage for slowing down traffic accelerating onto freeway. Commissioner Malak added consideration of a Resolution Condition for installation of electric vehicle charging stations onsite; recommended the Applicant to discuss active and passive solar opportunities with City s taff. Commissioner Dandekar indicated she favors two relatively small plan changes: altering bungalow entrances away from creekside and move unit 41 & 42’s balconies to face internal courtyard. Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 2016 Page 4 Commissioner Riggs found project reasonable; stressed that 1130 is not a separate noise ordinance that diverts from existing noise policy; voiced viewpoint on seeing consensus for, specifically, creek-facing entrances and suggested formal motion for continuance should Chair deem Commission approval-ready. Chair Larson indicated that, his recommendation is toward any provision which would move creekside entrances in some fashion which would reflect collective spirit in implementing 1130 and minimize the number of openings facing the creek; commented that his viewpoint on the balconies of units 41 & 42 obliquely face the creek; agreed with Commissioner Malak’s suggestion of project benefitting from electric charging stations; agreed with Commissioner Riggs on the appropriateness of the continuance given the concerns and that Commission’s approval is final approval on Conditional Use Permit. Deputy Director Davidson suggested three (3) relatively minor changes in which to collaborate with Applicant toward offering conditions for Commission deliberation: 1.) Main unit entrances shall be accessed from central courtyard as opposed to creek location; 2.) Entrances shall be eliminated from the creek, either by going with side-by-side openings or reverting to original proposal which had minimum number of doors facing creek; and 3.) Balconies on units 41 & 42 shall be oriented away from facing creek and oriented more towards central courtyard. Commissioner Dandekar supported Staff’s conditional given their relatively small design changes and favored moving forward past continuance; Commissioner Draze voiced preference for avoiding continuance if resolution within Hearing is possible and indicated entrances from central courtyard should be a singular option for guests as opposed to a condition; Commissioner Fowler stated preference for moving forward past continuance and through conditions while further stressing the minimization of openings and noise levels. Commissioner Malak favored moving forward directly and shifting unit 41’s balcony to face the pool; Commissioner Riggs conditioned previous statement to reflect that, in his estimation, the balconies should not be part of the conditions; Commissioner Dandekar voiced support of picnic tables being in line with design principles. APPLICANT RESPONSE Chair Larson requested Applicant commentary on Commission being uniform regarding bungalow entrances and on energy conservation measures onsite including potential for vehicle charging stations. Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere commented on solar panels and electric charging stations by stating that the City does not impose standards on projects and it has no environmental evaluations that would otherwise suggest them as mitigation measures. Architect Davis concurred with Commission on side entrances being physically doable and stated preference for doing so as a Condition as opposed to extending Meeting; informed that Studio Design Group Architects is already working with Tesla on Tesla’s project of placing up to 20 charging stations in the area and, uncertain if Motel Inn project can progress quickly Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 2016 Page 5 enough to take advantage of this station-for-power exchange scenario, Applicant believes it to work on sufficient demographic levels to warrant pursuing it. In response to Commissioner Malak’s inquiry, Architect Davis indicated he doesn’t envision opportunity for roof-mounted solar panels on this project without incurring a negative aesthetic impact; shared his uneasiness to commit to solar canopies as a Condition but indicated Applicant would consider them. COMMISSION RESPONSE In response to Chair Larson’s request for precise recommendation language, Associate Planner Carloni drafted more formal conditions for consideration which could include 1.) Bungalow entrances facing the creek shall be removed and oriented east-west and/or interior to the site; and 2.) Westernmost balcony associated with suites 41 & 42 shall be oriented interior to the site; both conditions inserted into Conditions in numerical order as appropriate and both subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director. Commissioner Riggs made a motion to adopt the draft resolution as approved with the addition of Condition 1 but adding the clause “to every degree possible” to follow the word “removed”; Chair Larson concurred in spirit of consistency with Ordinance 1130; Commissioner Draze seconded. Chair Larson stated the motion: To approve Staff recommendation approving Condition Use Permit with Findings and Conditions as presented with Amendments discussed and with two additional conditions, the first one related to moving the entrances on the units adjacent to the creek. Commissioner Fowler made point of clarification that the Motion-maker had solely indicated Condition 1; Commissioner Riggs agreed and stipulated that he was not including Condition 2 as part of the Motion. Commissioner Dandekar opined that stated clause in Motion should be applied to both Conditions; Commissioner Draze, as Second to Motion, indicated he understood Motion was inclusive of balconies but while he’d prefer to see Applicant move westernmost balcony on units 41 & 42, his larger preference is for not voting against the project, hence allowing his Second to stand. Commissioner Riggs re-stated the Motion as adopting Resolution with the inclusion of Condition 1; Larson qualified that Motion excluded Condition related to shifting balconies on units 41 & 42. Commissioner Fowler voiced concurrence with re-stated Motion; Commissioner Dandekar stated that she takes issue with removal of Condition 2 from Motion; Commissioner Malak voiced opinion that including Condition 2 in Motion moves toward possibility of Applicant considering implementation of screen or walls on balconies toward minimizing noise in creek area; Commissioner Riggs stated his reasoning behind excluding Condition 2 from Motion. Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 2016 Page 6 Action: UPON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RIGGS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAZE, the Commission adopted a Resolution to approve Staff recommendation approving Condition Use Permit with Findings and Conditions as presented with Amendments discussed (Condition 1, bungalow entrances facing the creek shall be removed and oriented east-west and/or interior to the site). Motion passed 4:2:0:1 on the following roll call vote: AYES: Riggs, Draze, Fowler, Larson NOES: Malak, Dandekar RECUSED: None ABSENT: Multari Chair Larson informed that he recuses himself from Item #2 per employer involvement with project; handed Chairmanship to Commissioner Draze and called for recess. 2. 1035 Madonna Road. ANNX-1502-2015: Preliminary review of the Development Plan for the San Luis Ranch project; review of Development Plan chapters regarding Circulation and Infrastructure Framework. Acting Chair Draze resumed Hearing; Commissioner Riggs noted as being absent from dais for Item #2; Deputy Director Davidson introduced Contract Planner Rickenbach for Staff presentation of Development Plan. Contract Planner Rickenbach provided PowerPoint slides of the development’s conceptual framework which included a summary of LUCE direction and a suite of relevant General Plan policies dealing with circulation and infrastructure. APPLICANT COMMENT Project Representative Marshal Ochylski mentioned that the Applicant team is currently integrating feedback from initial Commission hearing into project refinements; invited same level of opportunistic feedback toward infrastructure & utilities issues; introduced Wallace Group CEO Brad R. Brechwald to discuss engineering aspects & RRM Design Group Architect Scott Martin to discuss circulation and infrastructure design of the project. Architect Scott Martin briefly detailed project’s former life history as Measure “J” to demonstrate contrasting its current land use plan’s traffic reductions; discussed the intended maintaining of agricultural space, lessening of commercial space than previously proposed, and a project defined by a variety of multimodal transportation options. Wallace Group Principal Brad Brechwald presented collaborative work with CannonCorp Engineering, who had prepared water assessment study, pertaining to utilities, aspects of grading and drainage. Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 2016 Page 7 PUBLIC COMMENT Wendy Brown, San Luis Obispo, representing Central Coast Grown (CCG), adjacent neighbors to south of project, read letter she sent to Commission which commented upon aspects of Plan affecting CCG’s City-leased agricultural preserve; requested the monitoring of project’s wells each September and measures provided if water table drops; requested alteration in project’s cut & fill procedures and that their agricultural land be deemed onsite. Scott Head, San Luis Obispo, spoke from perspective of resident on Oceanaire concerned with minimizing noise level impacts, suggesting both the proposed transit stop and bicycle staging areas be shifted away from where his residential street meets Froom Ranch Way and more proximal to site; spoke in favor of proposed Prefumo Creek bike path, but stressed concerns regarding where it has been designed in relation to existing resident’s privacy. Lea Brooks, San Luis Obispo, representing Bike SLO County, reiterated that if all San Luis Ranch residents drive to their destinations, traffic will certainly gridlock; requests that City partner with developer on connectivity that would be improvement on currently inaccessible Madonna Road bike path and dangerous Marsh Street route at 101 onramps; questioned why Dalidio is 4-lane expressway if intent is to maximize alternative modes of transportation. Cynde Spence, San Luis Obispo, spoke from perspective of holder of Bachelor’s degree in Architecture and Master’s in Planning; expressed support of project as fitting within parameters of most recent LUCE and adequate in its bicycling aspects. Myron Amerine, San Luis Obispo, Vice-Chair of SLO County Bicycle Advisory Committee, displayed image of project’s roadway cross section in which pertinent width dimensions deviate negatively from City standards; commended Applicant on Class 1, 2, 3 & 4 bicycle facilities, shared concerns about Dalidio being a multi-lane expressway without a protected bike lane and about insufficient phasing of circulation infrastructure on Froom Ranch Way. Kevin Houber, San Luis Obispo, resident since 1979, commented positively on reports indicating City has adequate water supply, pointing out disparity of various computer models data; stated that project addresses decent affordable housing supply issue in a manner that impacts environment in much more favorable way than a building moratorium to conserve water would. Theodora Jones, San Luis Obispo, requested that Phase 1 drainoff issue be addressed more carefully; advocated, in regards to proposed project egress, for cyclists using Oceanaire as throughway but feared for their safety crossing Madonna Road; requested developer maintain Phase 3 as scheduled to prevent over-saturation of construction trucks in neighborhood from occurring any earlier; questioned how projection for 500 homes of work force housing would compute to the 87 children penciled in there. Enrique Ivers, San Luis Obispo, shared City population statistics to demonstrate the City’s slow growth in new housing and the small percentage of population aged 25-44 as a demographic that doesn’t bode well for family development and sustainability; voiced being in Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 2016 Page 8 favor of the quoted affordable prices for project’s homes. Dan Balicki, San Luis Obispo, shared concerns in tandem with commenting favorably on project; commented unfavorably on potential expansion of Oceanaire to become a major thoroughfare, the expense of City water, the influx of students to CL Smith and Laguna Middle School. Geoffrey Chiapella, San Luis Obispo, transportation planner representing SLOCOG, endorsed project as being consistent with Land Use Development Pattern of 2014 Regional Transportation Plan in multiple capacities; recognized importance of Prado Road interchange or overpass as access to employment arenas and aid to crosstown traffic. Mila Vujovich-La Barre, San Luis Obispo, stated that project’s 131 acres of Class 1 agriculture land is one of 100 parcels in the County with this quality of soil and she would consider it a tragedy if this development builds on it; shared that she had previously voiced an alternative acreage swap arrangement with Cal Poly to place such a project on University land and allow for academia-related work farm environment; stated that 3.5 years of water remaining for current residents is drastically insufficient and calls for a temporary building moratorium. Paul Rys , San Luis Obispo, shared concern about entitlements being provided to development investors in advance in a time when local government entities are suing one another over too much water being used by the latter; shared a second concern regarding mentally ill homeless at Prado Day Center gaining easy walking distance to development if Prado overpass is constructed. COMMISSION COMMENT Commissioner Fowler commented on the sheer amount of information that still remains to be analyzed and studied even after most current commentary about water, traffic, sewer, etc. have been absorbed; posed questions for future consideration pertaining to multiple arenas such as freeway access, determination of phasing features and timing with regards to eventual infrastructure pushback, the number of units which are actually going to be affordable and at what level, etc.; shared concerns about topsoil and drainage issues; requested more specificity in key areas such as range of price point affordability and degrees of community benefit. Commissioner Malak shared concerns about 18-inches of topsoil and considered the idea of garnering fill from elsewhere. Commissioner Dandekar echoed her comment from Avila Ranch discussion in regards to Buckley Road bypass by stating that the issue of Dalidio-Prado connection is more than just a developer’s issue but rather one concerning what stance City wishes to take on the phasing; suggested collective influence on prioritization and strategic planning on how proposed elements hook up with the circulation grid of the City as opposed to attaching sole funding responsibility to Applicants of major developments. Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 2016 Page 9 Acting Chair Draze encouraged avoidance of any onsite cul-de sacs; discouraged moving Class 1 soils and recommending consulting heavily with City Resource Manager; shared concern with phasing and, in particular, the late phasing of Froom Ranch bridge; advocated for Public Works expertise in wastewater questions; responded to Public Commenter Paul Rys by indicating City is a long way from entitlements and no one wants to engage in moratoriums. Project Representative Ochylski expressed gratitude to Commission and Public for its thoughtful commentary. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Brad T. Opstad Recording Secretary APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: May 11, 2016