Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-08-01CITY OF ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting on the General Plan March 8, 2001— 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Eddings called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. and Vice -Chairman Jeanes led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Blaser, Fonzi, Kelley, Norton, Vice -Chairman Jeanes and Chairman Eddings Absent: Bentz Staff: Interim Community and Economic Development Director Warren Frace, Associate Planner Jamie Kirk, Assistant Planner Phil Dunsmore, and Recording Secretary Grace Pucci. Commissioner Bentz arrived at 7:10 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None CONSENT CALENDAR None PUBLIC HEARINGS None City of Atascadero Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting March 8, 2001 Page 2 of 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS 1. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: REVIEW OF DRAFT LAND USE ALTERNATIVES. The Planning Commission will take public testimony on the draft land use alternatives that were displayed at the Open House. The Commission may advise staff regarding the alternatives, but will take no formal action. Paul Crawford (General Plan Update consulting firm) provided a review of the three Draft Land Use plans as presented at the open house. PUBLIC HEARING Carol Ball, 7070 Marchant Way, representing the Atascadero Board of Realtors Governmental Affairs Committee, read from a prepared statement. Their concerns included availability of lots for affordable housing and more areas designated for commercial and industrial zoning. Levi Barrett, 1950 Traffic Way, would like to see smaller lot sizes designated as low-density single family (1 1/2 acres in size) in the northeast area of Atascadero. Sylvia Murphy, El Verano Avenue, encourages the Commission to change the density from moderate to high for the lot designated as 5075 El Verano, Atascadero and for other lots in this area. She feels smaller lot sizes in this area will provided much needed housing without additional sprawl or detriment to the current environment. George Molina, 5555 Robles Street, stated that he prefers Draft Plan Alternative #3, and is concerned with the issue of spot zoning. Additionally, he owns 30 acres on Pine Mountain which he would like to see remain as recreational zoning. Robert Lane, 4800 El Verano Avenue, would like to request a density change from moderate to high density in his area. Sorrel Marks, 11275 Atascadero Avenue, appreciated the workshops and recommends that Draft Plan Alternative #2 be refined to concentrate commercial and higher density residential development toward the downtown core, preserving larger lots for the perimeter area. She feels that the floater parks indicated on the maps should be closer to high-density residential areas. Bonita Borgeson, 4780 Del Rio Road, suggested that the Draft Plan maps remain on display for the public. She has several questions: 1. What percentage of Atascadero's total area is now developed? 2. What percentage is residential land use? 3. How will each of the drafts presented affect residential housing density? 4. Has each draft alternative been assigned a cost benefit analysis? 5. Has a traffic consultant been hired to assist with the street plan? Ms. Borgeson feels that Draft Plan Alternative #3 is not in the best interest of those who value the goals of the present General Plan. Eric Greening, 6600 Lewis Avenue, asked several questions on process and content. He questions why the City appears to be starting with specific requests rather than a community vision. Additionally, he questions why only land use is being looked at at this time and whether City of Atascadero Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting March 8, 2001 Page 3 of 6 alternatives other than the three presented are available. Regarding content, Mr. Greening questioned what is the build out assumption behind each of the alternatives presented. Fred Frank, 3615 Ardilla Road, agrees with Mr. Greening and feels the City should have overall goals established first. He encourages the Commission to use the existing General Plan goal statements. He prefers the smart growth alternative and more emphasis on the central area with higher density nearer the downtown. John Heatherington, 7790 Yesal Avenue, Corresponding Secretary of the Atascadero Homeowners Association, read a letter from the Association. (Attachment # 1). David Gabler, 2780 Ferro Carril Road, requested that the Commission take into account the cost of change and require developers to contribute significantly to the creation of public services and schools. David Crouch, 7305 Curbaril, feels that change is necessary and important to provide a source of revenue for the City. He believes that an increase in residential zoning rather than commercial/industrial will not provide that revenue and will create additional traffic impacts. Sheri Pellett, 4255 San Benito Road, is not in favor of high-density multi family zoning and feels that once land is given for development, it cannot be taken back. She would like Atascadero to remain as it is. Alan Thomas, 9520 Marchant Way, would like to see more alternatives presented. He would like to see the numbers on build out and the cost of new infrastructure. Jim Shores, 5420 Allemonde Lane, wants Tract 2317 on Traffic Way to remain high density. He favors Draft Plan Alternative #3. He read from a letter to the Planning Commission. (Attachment # 2). Richard Shannon, 5070 San Benito Road, as a local real estate broker and developer he sees our General Plan as very specific. He would like to see: 1. Fewer designations (not land) for commercial zonings and that the designations be broader in the uses allowed within the General Plan, 2. More industrial property, 3. Affordable housing, and 4. Additional high-density multi family housing. Linda Parker, 4825 Navidad Avenue, is concerned about the high and medium -density proposals in her area and has concerns regarding roads, infrastructure, schools, water and sewer. She would like to see the rural atmosphere maintained and favors smart growth. John Goers, 5200 Dolores Avenue, feels that goals must be established first then specifics presented. People appreciate the rural character of Atascadero, which he feels would be lost with increased density. He would like to see the Draft Alternative Maps published in the local newspaper. Gerald R. Johnson, 1909 Traffic Way, would like to see the town grow. He feels that there is a lack of affordable housing either for sale or rent. City of Atascadero Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting March 8, 2001 Page 4 of 6 Robert Nimmo, 7375 Bella Vista Road, stated that the City has done a remarkable job of presenting alternatives to the community. Because people continue to come to Atascadero, the City is faced with a population growth problem that must be addressed. Eric Greening read a letter from Livia Kellerman, 5463 Honda. (Attachment # 3). Becky Pacas, 4305 San Benito Road, agrees with Mr. Johnson and wants the Planning Commission to consider the views of the community in its decisions. Chairman Eddings closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Eddings stated that he feels rewriting the General Plan is the best way to control growth and that he supports the process and the way it has been handled. He began by addressing the questions raised during the public comment session. Paul Crawford and Acting Community and Economic Development Director Warren Frace answered the questions. 1. How do Draft Alternatives 2 and 3 tie into the smart growth principles? The alternatives presented must grow from a community vision and competing objectives must be balanced especially in land use areas. Draft Alternative 2 best captures smart growth principles; the west side is not considered mixed use and increased resident density is relegated to areas closer to the downtown. Mr. Crawford reviewed each principle of smart growth and its relationship to the presented alternatives. 2. Lack of industrial space. This is one of the challenges of this community due to topographical constraints. Options to deal with this challenge are reflected in Draft Alternative #2, which has additional CPK areas along El Camino, and some commercial designations that have been changed to a mixed-use plan development overlay. 3. In the Draft Alternatives it appears that the proposed density for high-density multi family is low. The performance standard for the proposed numbers has been developed over time. Planning staff is aware that the numbers are lower than other communities, and they will be looked at as part of the review process. 4. Use of multi family property to build PUD's. The benefits and costs of not allowing PUD's to be placed in property zoned for multi family must be looked at. This type of housing product is not allowed elsewhere in the community, and if they were not permitted in multi family zones, they would not exist. The PUD process is available for some of the smaller lots that are too small to accommodate an apartment style project but can still allow some intensification of development. 5. Traffic Way property with approved project and rezoning (Tract 2317). No changes are proposed by staff that would alter the existing densities established by the planned development for the site. 6. Spot Zoning. City of Atascadero Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting March 8, 2001 Page 5 of 6 Staff attempted to avoid spot zoning however, there exist spot zones that may not have been changed or corrected as part of the update process. The goal was to avoid creating new ones with these alternatives. If any were inadvertently added or overlooked they will be addressed in the review process. 7. Broader Definitions areas for commercial land uses. Staff is looking at this issue. At this time staff did not want to make too many changes to the existing general plan designation. This is a refinement that will be looked at as the process moves along. 8. Percentage of area developed and cost benefit analysis of the three proposed alternatives. Staff is aware of these questions. All such detailed statistical analysis will be part of the next level of refinement of the alternatives. 9. Vision versus content. Public input today and the decision of the Council in adopting smart growth principles and reaffirming the goals of the existing plan do express a vision. The remaining components will continue to emerge through the process. 10. Limiting to three alternatives. The process is not limited to three alternatives. At this time the three maps were presented for discussion purposes. 11. Concentration of more high density and mixed use in the downtown area. The downtown plan does this and explicitly provides for and encourages mixed-use development downtown. Commissioner Fonzi suggested that it would be helpful if the entire downtown redevelopment district were indicated on the maps. Commissioner Kelley requested a definition of affordable housing. Mr. Crawford indicated that the State has a series of definitions that municipalities must invoke when they update and write housing development policy. These relate to income as a percentage of the median income in a community. Commissioner Kelley questioned high start up costs and their relation to affordable housing. Mr. Crawford responded that State law says that each city is to do its best to provide a supply of housing that is affordable to all income groups within the community. This covers both home ownership and rentals. Commissioner Jeanes asked about the Pine Mountain property and the recreation zoning issue. Mr. Frace indicated that this area was not included in the study area and no changes will be made to the existing general plan or zoning designations within the Pine Mountain area. Commissioner Norton requested clarification on when the other elements of the general plan will be ready for public review. Mr. Crawford stated that all seven elements of the general plan are interrelated and the draft plan will include all seven required elements. These elements are all driven by land use; therefore, it is not useful to address all elements until a determination of the community's vision has been made. City of Atascadero Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting March 8, 2001 Page 6 of 6 Commissioner Fonzi asked about the remark made which indicated that Draft Alternative #1 would not produce enough sales tax revenue. Mr. Crawford responded that though some of the smart growth principles relate to reliable sources of local revenue, revenue is not the only consideration. Commissioner Fonzi questioned why there was no urban services line indicated on the maps. Mr. Frace responded that they had decided, at the Council's direction, to step back and look at the entire area, decide where the areas are appropriate for growth and then determine how to provide services to those areas. Commissioner Fonzi asked about preservation of the historic Colony Homes in the high-density areas. Mr. Crawford reviewed the possible approaches to historic preservation such as providing for adaptive reuse of older structures. Commissioner Eddings asked what the process would be from this point forward. Mr. Frace stated that they are moving toward selecting a preferred alternative. Then a plan will be written and the environmental analysis done. There will be feedback from technical consultants on the three Draft Alternatives presented today. Once the alternatives are refined there will be similar meetings to the one today before a final selection is made. These maps will be up in the first floor hallway of City Hall and also posted on the City website. The general goal being worked toward is to get a plan and environmental document to a hearing process by this summer. The Commissioners thanked the staff and commended them on the job they have done and the success of today's meeting. Associate Planner Kirk announced that there would be a training workshop for Main Street Committees next weekend. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS & REPORTS None ADJOURNMENT Chairman Eddings adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting on March 20, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. MEETING RECORDED BY AND MINUTES PREPARED BY: Grace Pucci, Recording Secretary Network/cdvlopmnt/PC 2001/PC Minutes 03-08-01.am.doc