Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Uh, I am calling to order this regular meeting of the Itascadero Planning Commission on Tuesday, April 16th, and we are going to have um Randy do the pledge We have a roll call, please. Commissioner Anderson,

here. Commissioner Coransza, here. Commissioner Heath, here. Commissioner Hughes here. Commissioner Schmidt. Yes. Good evening. Vice Chairperson Vandenikoff here. Chairperson Keane here. All present. Okay, I'm going Oh, can we get an approval of the agenda, please? I'll make a motion to do that. I'll second. Commissioner Schmidt, yes. Commissioner Anderson, yes. Commissioner Kuransza. Commissioner Heath, yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Chairperson Vandenikov,

Vice Chair, yes. I'm sorry. Yes. person. Yes. Motion passes 70. Okay. Um this is the time for public comment. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the commission on any matter not on this agenda and over which the commission has jurisdiction. Please limit your comments to three minutes and state your name for the record. There anyone that would like to make public comment on something not currently on the agenda? Do we have anybody on Zoom? Okay, then I will close public comment. Um, can we get a vote on the consent calendar or a motion, please?

I'll move to approve this consent calendar, please. Second that. Vice Chairperson Vandenikov, yes. Commissioner Coransza, yes. Commissioner Anderson, yes. Commissioner Heath, yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Schmidt, yes. Chairperson Keane, yes. Motion passes. 70. Okay, so we are going to move on to our public hearings. Um, I need glasses. 7685 Santes Avenue. Did it do exparte?

Yeah, that's where I was going. Uh, exparte communication. Commissioner Heath, I have no experte. Commissioner Anderson, no experte. Vice Chairperson Bandon, none. Commissioner Coransza, I did drive by the site and took a picture, but that's about it. Commissioner Schmidt, no exparte. Commissioner Hughes, no exparte. And no exparte for me either.

Thank you. All righty.

Good evening, planning commissioner nurers. Um, today I am here to uh present the Condor Enterprises tentative parcel map to you all. This is case number SBDV 2415. Um, it is an application for a tentative parcel map, three lot subdivision at 7685 Sanz Avenue. We'll go ahead and start out with some basic information on the project site and location. So, as I mentioned, this is 7685 San Nez Avenue, just for reference. It's about a half mile away um from the Keril Moral Road uh intersection. That's probably your um closest major intersection to this project site. Land's designation is medium density residential. zoning district is residential multif family with a minimum of 10 units per acre. Um that is RMF10. So project acreage or project site acreage is.32 acres. Here is a nice aerial picture of the site. Um this is a little bit of an older picture from the planning system. Um but all that is currently developed on the site is a single family residence um with you know playground in the patio. Um some of the vehicle storage that is on the site uh is no longer on the property. So I do want to give you all a quick background um for this project and um how it's being permitted. Um starting with the uh starter or really mostly about the starter home revitalization act of 2021. Um so this is uh a piece of legislation that was uh passed through our legislature here in California um with the goal of streamlining permitting

uh for new housing um as well as the creation of land that allows for new housing and just overall making those new houses more accessible. So, what it does is it allows for uh projects that are known as small home lot developments. Um, and basically what it's doing is it's identifying multif family parcels and saying you can split these multif family lots and on each lot you can now build a single family residence. So, it's taking multif family parcels and allowing for single family subdivisions. There are restrictions to how big those units on those resulting parcels can be, right? Hence the Starter Home Revitalization Act. We don't want you creating super huge um units, right? But we do want those to be uh units that have some level of um value on the market. So 1,750 square ft is the maximum size um for those units on the resulting lots. Um, and they do uh provide I really listed the major uh um I guess incentive uh that you see with this uh piece of legislation. Um but they do restrict the local authorities's ability to apply regulations to it. The major one in the city of Atascadero given you know what we already apply to subdivisions is that there is no minimum parcel size for these lots. It's basically what the property owner um or applicant proposes um based on what they're looking to build on that lot. Um you still have to meet um your California building code requirements um and any existing objective standards that are in our subdivision ordinance. Um but otherwise the project um when it's being proposed under the provisions of the Starter Home Revitalization Act needs to be approved unless you all are looking at your findings for approval

and indicate that you're unable to make those findings. All right. So the proposal is a three lot subdivision under the provisions of the start of home revitalization act of 2021. Um so a total of three properties there. Um two of them will be.12 of an acre and the third one will be 007 of an acre. Um there is one flag lot um on the property. Uh and I see some of the eyes moving around. I know that doesn't add up to 32 acreage. Um, you have to remember that with flag loss, the actual like the flag pole does not count towards acreage. And so that's the number that isn't being accounted for there. I promise I'm not bad at math. That made me double take a double glance at it as well when I saw it written out. Um, so one of them is a flag lot. That's parcel 2. Um, you do have special findings for that flag lot which you'll see on your or which you might have read through on the resolution. Um, access for parcel one. That's the one that you saw with the existing residence. Um that will continue from San Nez Avenue. Um and parcel two and parcel 3 will take access from a single driveway on Navajoa off of Navajoa. Um and that will be in the location where that flag pole is located on those lots. Um and then we do have conditions on on the um project that will basically request or require I should say that the future development on these lots comply with the standards. um p or the standards listed in state law uh for small home lot developments. Uh primarily the requirement for uh restriction on the house the size of the house to 7 1 1750 ft. So here is what the uh proposed

sensitive parcel map looks like. Um so proposed parcel one as I mentioned that is where you have your existing single family residence and existing driveway off of Sanz. Um parcel two there is your flag lot. Um the flag pole of that flag lots the access ways 20 ft wide. That'll be the sole point of access for parcel uh two and three. And then parcel 3 is that small 007 uh acre parcel um fronting on Navajoa. So, the analysis for this one is really quite simple, right? Um, when you're doing these kinds of subdivisions with an interior lot, you're really just having to create a flag lot. Um, our applicant did just that. Uh, there is no minimum lot size requirement because the state law does not allow us to provide one or request one. Um, so yeah, they um they're complying with all city code standards that are applicable to this kind of subdivision. Um, they are conditioned and have been reviewed by our public works and fire department um to provide frontage improvements along Navajoa Road um at the time of development of the first parcel um between parcels two and three of course. Um and yeah, go ahead and go to the next slide here. Um yeah, like I mentioned, really simple analysis on that one. Um not too uh not too many major items of concerns with the exception of this being a relatively new law. This is um actually the only project that we have in our system um that we are, you know, that is being proposed under the small home lot development um provisions of state law. So with that being said, my recommendation to you all is that you adopt the draft resolution um conditionally approving parcel map 24 uh uh O2 to allow a small home lot

development and this three lot subdivision of a.3 acre family um parcel zones sorry of a 0032 acre uh multif family zone parcel into a total of three lots um with minor revisions. I did notice some typos. I apologize uh for that. Um minor revisions to um correct scrier's errors for the APN and and MAP number on the resolution. With that last slide, I'll open it to your questions and any discussion. Any questions for Yes, Commissioner Schwint.

Thank you. Um I was joking about the word scriber. You don't see it that often and thank you for using it. Um, does is this going to be the first subdivision within our city that complies with the revitaliz revitalization act? Correct. Yes. Um, that I'm aware of. This is the first the first map that comes in under those provisions. is similar with um SB9. Do we have a revitalization act subdivision code like SP9 or we still under the state law?

We do not. The requirement is that they comply with existing standards for subdivisions. I will say this has been they the applicant is applying under an older version of this act and it's being updated. Um, but you will see us adopt as part of the um, believe I'm allowed to talk about it. Um, as part of the objective design standards, subdivision standards. And so in the future when new projects come in and apply for it, we will actually have objective design standards that they need to meet irregardless of this law. They just, this one got in a little bit early. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. So, uh, public comment is the applicant here tonight. Come on up and state your name. You turn on mic. Turn on the mic. Sorry, Winslow. Um, I'm here on behalf of the uh the applicant on the applicant's representative. Any uh questions for the applicant's representative?

I actually No, Eric. Um, but is this similar to the other project that you did? I think it was on Kerber.

Uh, yeah, it's similar other than um those were condos. uh because there was three lots, four lots or four parcels on more would end up being a PUB. And I believe with the new cottage standards and the small lot subdivision um stuff that planning's been working on for a number of years now is going to do away with some of that and be more similar to what you know we're proposing with this parcel where you end up with essentially single family you know SFR lots uh rather than a condo or PUD. So, but it will be similar in as far as what it looks like, but those works.

Okay. Any any questions? Yes. Um, yeah. Since you're here, uh, I did get to drive by the neighborhood and just look around and it looked as though, you know, there's actually a lot of flag lot developments going on very close by on that Navajo and that Sanz. I mean, I don't know if you've worked on any over there or if the the project has been kind of an inspiration from that very, you know, same neighborhood houses.

Um, I don't know if it was inspiration, but it would be similar to what Tori mentioned over on uh on Kerberell and that whole area is MF10. So, it kind of lends itself to these, you know, these type of developments. some of the stuff that might I believe appear as flag lots over there is more on on the Sanz side where people maybe split I think on the creek side those may have been split prior to it being zoned multif family but they ended up with flag lots uh and they were zoned you know sfr at that point in time I know down the street I think there was a four lot subdivision that's four town houses two on Navajo and two on Sanes but yeah that area kind of lends itself to this type of development and and affordable by design type smaller, you know, houses, which I believe the city is looking for.

Thank you.

So, um, on the map, I was looking at it. So, you have one central access point in and out there. Um, are you planning on having like a central parking area or is that back person just got to go through the front just all the way through the property to park in the back where their property's at? um not really any centralized parking. I think that would be required more under like if it were being developed as condos or a plan development, but um one of the conditions was that access would only happen from the flag lot. So the the front lot on Navajoa would have um you know a porch or improve you know it would have I don't know the front facade would face Navajoa and the access would be from the flag and you'd be able to park in you know the garage the middle lot same thing you'd be able you'd have parking probably you know enough room for a two-car garage as well and then with the conditioned um street improvements you'll end up with curbon gutter and a paved rideway Okay, which should allow for at least two, maybe three additional parking spaces on the street, but on-site parking I would think would meet probably or exceed what the current standards are if it were condos or, you know, PD or something.

Yeah, I know that area pretty well. And that's what 90% of the people do there. That's just, you know, park on the street. Just want for if you ever have any property disputes, just want to understand like if the lot's designed a certain way, we want to make sure that we try to make it as easy for, you know, the people who are living there in the future. But it sounds like all that's already been resolved. So, thank you for your explanation. All right. Any other questions? Yes, Commissioner Schmidt.

Um, I you just spoke about the curbon gutter improvements and I see the condition for that in the uh staff report. Um, where is the nearest urban gutter to this project? Is there is it adjacent or down the street or where? Um, I guess to the north, I guess you would call it. There's that uh the four town houses that I'm talking about. Two on Navajo, two on Sanz. Those have curb and gutter um which is 200 feet.

I'm going to say four lots. So, yeah, a couple hundred feet. And then I want to say another three lots towards Kerberell. There is another one that's curbon gutter. Are you um I I don't know if it's been discussed with the city. So you're planning on building the curb and gutter versus bonding port and not doing it. I mean when you have well it's a condition distances like that. I mean you you have drainage in the curb and then it leaves the curb and then you know

Yeah. and in that area it tends to pond and um it it is um I'll jump in really quickly Eric if you don't mind. It is deferred at this point. So he's not doing it to record the map. He the owner or the developer at the time of uh development of that first vacant lot will be required to install the curb and gutter. So on parcel maps we do um a a parcel map improvement deferral until someone actually comes in to develop. So you can't bond bond for them and not improve not improve them. that you can do your improvement plans, set a bond, and choose not to build the curbon gutter because the only reason I'm saying this is it's sometimes very hard to get, you know, once people start connecting curbing gutters for it to function properly and uh especially when you have long distances as the applicants representative is suggesting and uh I guess what you do is just uh take some shots down the street And then you just draw a straight line between point A or point B or try to match uh the the asphalt as close as possible, however it would work.

Yeah, the bonding process is really reserved for the recordation of a final map and then it gives you 12 months to complete the improvements. And so the parcel map does not have to do that. They can build um upon construction of the unit rather than recordation of the final map. and there's not a way to um for the city to significantly bond for improvements that don't have a time frame associated with them. So on rare occasion the city engineer will look at a project and um defer the agreements with something recorded against the property

that states that um any homeowners in the future when the city comes through or when an adjacent property develops will be responsible for full cost of improvements. um it's generally not done because for a homeowner to get a $200,000 bill in in a year when the city says, "Okay, we're ready to go." is not um generally very feasible. Um and so in this case, the city engineer has looked at this property and does not believe that there will be any drainage concerns with the widening of the road and the curb gutter. Uh sometimes with sidewalk it gets a little bit more um uh difficult to make those improvements, but we have looked at this property and there will not be significant drainage concerns for us to um put the uh agreement on the property for future payment.

I know it's it's such a flat street that I mean you're probably designing at 1% maybe 2%. And so trying to make those grades connect and my concern would be is um as things develop that it functions that it functions versus uh having an issue somewhere where um the improvement just doesn't line up and match and that's yeah the city engineer has reviewed all of that and it's confident that they can build the rightway per standard. Okay. Right. Thank you. Thank you Eric. All right. Thanks. Any other public comment for Sand Enis?

I'm feel Can you hear me? You can move that down. Yeah, there you go. Okay. I just have I live next door. I have the other tenant as the Yavajo Street property. And I have just a couple of questions. Uh I What was your name? I'm sorry. Pardon me. hear your name. Ba wood. Okay. I'm sorry. I assume by the size are going to be twotory. Is that um So, we're not deciding that. All we're deciding is how we're going to divide up the lot and then the developer will build the houses later.

Okay. So, it hasn't been cited yet. So, you don't know when they will start or anything. Correct. Okay. I think that's all I have right now. Thank you. Okay. Any other public comment? Okay, I'm going to close public comment and bring it back to the commission for discussion. I believe Commissioner Kuransza has something to say. Well, thank you, Chair. Yeah, I was just um wanting to matchmake the two people in the room because it could be that this gentleman might give you some information on that further after the meeting. Um, so he seems like a friendly guy.

Yes, Commissioner. I have a question of staff. Um, are these lots able to are when they're created, are they able to have ADUs or they're going to be covenant restricting an ADU or because it's multif family zoning, do they have to meet the ADU density requirement for an ADU? Yeah, they'd have to be under multifamily standards. So that'll be part of the agreement that gets recorded against the property. If if they do meet the standard, then they could put ADU.

Correct. And currently we allow one new multifamily uh ADU per project. So um in theory, somebody one of the lots could come in first come first serve with an ADU on their property. Um state could change that law in the future. we hear they're going to um and allow more ADUs, but for right now it would sort of be first come, first serve, first serve, but there would be an agreement recorded against the parcels that would state that. Okay. Thank you. But for the ADUs, they would still have to do setbacks and like the lot would have to fit one and all of those things. So, it's not like they can just build ADUs all willy-nilly. Correct.

Junior junior ADUs on a multifamily property. Thank you. Any other questions for staff or discussion points or motions? Anybody?

I'd like to make a motion to approve uh and adopt the draft resolution conditionally um approving the well, I'm going to read this one because it has the scriveners here. uh approving the tenant parcel map at 24-002 to allow a small home lot development and a flag lot subdivision of a 0.32 acre multifamily zone parcel into a total of three parcels and again that lot is 24-002 SBD24-0015 I will second that

think I'm leaving anything Yeah, you vote. Commissioner Kanza, yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Anderson, yes. Commissioner Heath, yes. Commissioner Schmidt, yes. Vice Chairperson Vandenikov, yes. Chairperson Keane, yes. Motion passes 70. Good luck with your project. These are these are great projects to bring to the city, I think. Um, okay. So, onto our next item, objective design standards. I'm going to open public comment. Do we have anyone on Zoom?

We do not. Okay. So, I'm opening public comment with the comment that we are continuing this item until May 7th. um because the planning commissioners will be meeting with city staff um to go over the details of this before we have the hearing. So, I'm going to leave public comment open um anyone who's seeing this after. If you can't attend the May 7th meeting, you can write an email or drop off a letter at city uh with the city staff to get in your uh comments, but we highly recommend that if you're at all interested in objective design standards to please come to the meeting on May 7th. Um, did I cover everything?

Yes, I think so. And we will continue it to that date, which is a date certain be published in the newspaper again. Um, but it will reflect in these minutes that it was continued to a date certain. Actually, we need a motion to continue the Yes. And I believe our um city attorney might be on with a comment as well. Not only is a date certain, but also the time. So, in your motion, just indicate the date and the time um of the continuence. Thank you. Okay. I will make a motion to continue this matter to May 7th at 6 o'clock at our next regularly scheduled meeting of the Atascadero City Planning Commission. I'll second that. Thank you. Chairperson Keane, yes. Vice Chairperson Vandenikov, yes.

Commissioner Anderson, yes. Commissioner Coransza, yes. Commissioner Heath, yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Schmidt, yes. Motion passes 70. Awesome. Um are there any commissioners comments, reports, or Kelly, do you have anything that um our fearless absent leader Phil would like to pass on to us?

Um no, just that we have um a big meeting May 7th. We do have objective design standards. Um a couple meetings after that, one or two meetings, we will be seeing the Dove Creek Commercial Center come back. So I know that's been um long anticipated. So that will be before you. Um and I don't think we have anything else specifically of note. Um we do have a couple of telecom sites in the process right now that you'll see shortly. Um and I also just wanted to mention that there will be some design improvements going on at Colony Market in Delhi. They're doing some improvements to the property. Some of those are going to go before DRC. Um but do make sure you support some of their um efforts to make that property even better than it is today.

I actually do have a question and I'm not trying to delay. I'm sorry. I heard that Cle is closing because the lease was not renewed. Is that Do we know that's true? I believe that their lease was not renewed and so the owner of the property is taking back over the business. So they're not closing. They're just transferring ownership of the business back to the property owner. Okay. Again, I hang out on the Everything in Tascadero page and there was a very big to-do about Cle. So I will go clarify that. Thank you. Uh it's it was like right. It was ridiculous. Okay. Sorry. Any other comments? No. Okay. Then I'm going to adjourn this meeting and use my phone app.