CITY OF PISMO BEACH Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, December 9, 2014 DRAFT MINUTES. Chair White, Vice-Chair Hamrick, Jewell, Overland, Woodhouse.

Transcription

1 CITY OF PISMO BEACH Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, December 9, 2014 DRAFT MINUTES Call to order: 6:30 p.m. 1. Roll Call: Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Staff present: Chair White, Vice-Chair Hamrick, Jewell, Overland, Woodhouse. McLaughlin. Jon Biggs, Community Development Director; Michael Gruver, Associate Planner; Chad Stoehr, Associate Engineer. 2. Acceptance of Agenda: Chair White moved, and Commissioner Jewell seconded, a motion to approve the agenda. All Commissioners voted to approve the motion. 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes: 3.A. October 28, Commissioner Jewell moved, and Commissioner Woodhouse seconded, a motion to approve the minutes. All Commissioners voted to approve the motion, with Vice-Chair Hamrick abstaining. The motion passed Public Comments: None. 5. Consent Calendar: 5.A. 331 Wadsworth Avenue; Coastal Community Builders, Applicant: Project No. P Planning Commission interpretation of Project No P , condition A.8. which states: Model Unit Designs. The model plans for Craftsman, Seaside and Modern styles shall be altered to include the following design changes: Modern: the use of stained cedar siding shall be utilized on all building sides. Intent is for cedar siding to be utilized as an accent material. Chair White noted that the application has been withdrawn. No public comment was received. 6. Public Hearings: Chair White announced his recusal and left the chambers. Vice-Chair Hamrick assumed the role of chair. Page 1 of 6

2 Tuesday, December 9, 2014 Page 2 6.A. Longview; City of Pismo Beach, Applicant: Project No. P Development Permit for the construction of a new sound enclosure for an existing portable generator at the water reservoir site. The project is located in the Single-Family Low-Density Residential (RSL) Zone of the Pismo Heights Planning Area. APN: The project is located outside the Coastal Zone and is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission. Associate Planner Michael Gruver presented Staff s report. Associate Planner Gruver and Associate City Engineer Chad Stoehr responded to questions from the Commission. Public Comment: Paul Sawko, of Merced Street, made a comment about the negative impact of the sound and aesthetics of the generator upon his neighborhood, and made suggestions to attenuate the noise, and thanked City staff for their efforts to resolve the issue. Vice-Chair Hamrick closed the public hearing. Associate Planner Gruver and Associate Engineer Stoehr responded to questions from the Commission relating to Mr. Sawko s comments. Commissioner Woodhouse moved, and Commissioner Jewell seconded, the following motion: Adopt a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Pismo Beach approving Project No. P : New generator enclosure at existing City water tank facility, approving the Development Permit with the added condition that the sound must be attenuated to 50 decibels or less at the property line, otherwise the permit will be returned to the Commission for modification. All Commissioners voted to approve the motion, with Chair White recused. The motion passed 4 0. Chair White returned to the chambers and resumed the role of chair. 6.B Spyglass; City of Pismo Beach, Applicant: Project No. P Coastal Development and Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a new sound enclosure for a new permanent generator for maintenance of the existing sewer lift station. The new enclosure will be adjacent to and south of the existing restroom facility. The project is located in the Open Space/Recreation (OS-R) Zone of the Spyglass Planning Area. APN: The project is located within the Coastal Appeal Overlay Zone and is appealable to the California Coastal Commission. Associate Planner Michael Gruver presented Staff s report. Associate Planner Gruver and Associate Engineer Stoehr responded to questions from the Commission. Public Comment: Dean Krikorian, owner of the condominium complex that overlooks the proposed location of the generator, commented on his concerns about whether the cost and the relocation are necessary. Peter Maly commented on the poor aesthetic quality of the planned structure, and asked whether it could be placed underground. Page 2 of 6

3 Tuesday, December 9, 2014 Page 3 Chair White closed the public hearing. Associate Planner Gruver and Associate Engineer Stoehr responded to questions from the Commission relating to the public s comments. Chair White moved, and Commissioner Overland seconded, the following motion: Continue the item to the date certain of January 13, 2014, to allow staff time to address the questions of and collect the data requested by the Planning Commission, in particular exploring the feasibility of combining the generator building with existing restroom building in a manner that is architecturally pleasing and in harmony with the surroundings. All Commissioners voted to approve the motion. The motion passed 5 0. Chair White called a five-minute recess at 7:42 p.m. Chair White reconvened the meeting at 7:47 p.m. 7. Business Items: 7.A. 400 Stimson; Robert & Sarah Gonzalez, Applicants: Project no. P Conceptual Review for the conversion of an existing building and additional construction of four (4) vacation rental units. The project is located in the Retail Commercial (C-1) Zone of the Downtown Core Planning Area. APN: The project is located in the Coastal Zone and is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission. Associate Planner Gruver presented Staff s report and clarified that the item was presented for conceptual review only, with particular focus on 1. The appropriateness of locating vacation rentals close to the freeway and offramps; 2. The relation of the project to the Downtown Strategic Plan and concerns about the project s proximity to one of the gateways to the City, within the Restaurant Row sub-district; 3. Project design, scale, parking requirements, and overall aesthetic. Community Development Director Biggs noted his concerns about the detachment of the project facility from other similar developments, and the noise impacts and lack of safe pedestrian paths of travel due to adjacent traffic patterns. Applicant Robert Gonzalez acknowledged the issues of adjacent traffic and pedestrian safety, and suggested that this time is an appropriate juncture for the City and CalTrans to install some of the pedestrian safety and traffic attenuation measures appropriate for the area. Applicant Sarah Gonzalez commented that the applicants have planned for adequate parking within the property boundaries, and would not be relying on street parking, and stated that neighboring property owners are not interested in selling their properties, so expansion is not an option. Associate Planner Gruver clarified that a vacation rental use would be limited to 30- day stays or less under the entitlement sought. Vice-Chair Hamrick: Page 3 of 6

4 Tuesday, December 9, 2014 Page 4 Asked whether there were other vacation rentals in the same area. Noted that there appeared to be no immediately adjacent, safe pedestrian path of travel. Asked about in-lieu fees for parking. Expressed approval of the use overall, if the architecture is further refined. Expressed remaining concerns about pedestrian safety, but felt that the applicant could not be held accountable for all aspects of it. Asked whether the residential units would be one- or two-bedroom units. Commissioner Jewell: Noted his concern about the lack of safe pedestrian access to the site due to the adjacent highway traffic. Commented that the real estate use is ideal for the site s ground floor, and that he would support a three-story building if appropriate, profitable uses could be identified for the upper floors. Commented that he was not in favor of the blue windows, but appreciated the aesthetics of the Stimson Street elevation and would like the building s front elevation to be redesigned. Expressed approval of the project overall, if the style of the proposed west elevation could be applied to the other elevations. Expressed approval of the real estate office use. Questioned why three garages are proposed for four residential units, and stated that each unit should have its own parking space. Commissioner Overland: Agreed with concerns about pedestrian safety and traffic calming in the vicinity of the project site. Noted his concerns about the lack of space for adequate parking. Asked whether the proportion of project site used for commercial space could be increased, and the residential use decreased, in order to make it more mixed. In favor of aesthetic and economic improvements as a whole, with remaining concerns about pedestrian safety. Reiterated Commissioner Overland s concerns about inconsistent evaluation of projects as they relate to the Strategic Plan. Questioned whether and why the project should be called a hotel. Expressed approval of increasing the proportion of commercial use at the site, and questioned whether it needed to be limited to the first floor. Chair White: Expressed approval of the project aesthetics, and the real estate office use. Expressed reservations about use as a vacation rental, with regard to pedestrian safety. Commented that adding pedestrian paths of travel adjacent to the site could in fact pose more of a traffic hazard. Commented that the site s size may limit it to a commercial use. Questioned whether the real estate office could be made more apparent along the Price Street elevation. Page 4 of 6

5 Tuesday, December 9, 2014 Page 5 Stated that he approved of increasing the proportion of commercial use at the site, and reducing the proportion of residential use. Expressed approval of the project for its aesthetic merits, and noted that options for utilizing the site are very limited. Commissioner Woodhouse: Expressed concern over the small size of the project site, and the limited development options resulting therefrom. Suggested that a parking garage could be feasible and appropriate for the site. Commented that one parking space per unit would probably accommodate guests. Expressed concern over the City s apparent inability to implement many aspects of its Strategic Plan, and the dilemma created by having to allow certain developers to deviate from the plan, while requiring others to comply, depending on each site s constraints. In response to Commissioner Overland s comments, Associate Planner Gruver clarified that, under an entitlement for a true mixed use on a lot of this size, only one residential unit would be allowed, and that while vacation rental is not explicitly defined under City Zoning code, the so-called residential portion of the project most closely resembles a transient lodging use, which is a technically considered a commercial use. Associate Planner Gruver stated that other mixed-use projects had been allowed to have commercial uses on the second floor, as long as accessibility requirements have been met. Robert Gonzalez commented that the 800-square-foot office and the 1,142-square-foot residential use would remain unchanged, but that the three additional units would become lodging, and that it was unknown whether he would be residing there. Gonzales stated his intent to make the existing upper story accessible. Associate Planner Gruver clarified that it would have to be determined exactly which portions of the building would be intended for commercial, long-term residential, and/or vacation rental uses, before parking and density requirements could be considered, and that the Commission would have to deem the mix of three types of uses to be desirable. Applicant Sarah Gonzales clarified that all vacation rental uses would be less than 30- day rentals. In response to Vice-Chair Hamrick s comments, Associate Planner Gruver stated that there were a few other vacation rentals in the area, and that it would have to be determined whether standard parking ratios would apply to the project as if it were a new building, and that the total parking required by statute would likely not fit on the site, and that a Variance could be another option for reducing parking requirements. Associate Planner Gruver stated that it was as-yet unknown how many bedrooms were proposed for each unit, and that that would be a determining factor in parking ratios. In response to Commissioner Jewell s comments, Associate Planner Gruver stated that tandem and handicapped-accessible parking would be provided elsewhere on the site. 8. Commissioner Comments: Page 5 of 6

6 Tuesday, December 9, 2014 Page 6 Commissioner Jewell referred to a project near the intersection of Cypress and Oceanview Streets, and stated that project fencing is partially blocking the street and encroaching into the City s right-of-way, and asked for a status update. Associate Planner Gruver stated that it may be related to street improvements being made in advance of a condominium project, and that the City would ask staff to move the fencing. Commissioner Overland stated his concerns about the safety of pedestrians at the bottom of the Five Cities Drive offramp from southbound Highway 101. Associate Engineer Stoehr stated that the City is already in the process of planning more signals at that intersection. 9. Director Comments: Community Development Director Biggs announced that there would be no Planning Commission meeting held on December 23, 2014, and that the next regular meeting would be held on January 13, Commissioner Overland asked when the Planning Commission could expect an alternate member to be appointed. Community Development Director Biggs stated that the City would receive applications in January of Adjournment: 9:00 p.m. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 2015 APPROVED: ATTEST: DJ WHITE PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR ELSA PEREZ PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY Page 6 of 6