Loading...
PC Minutes 2009-01-15MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2009 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Ray presiding; also present were Commissioners Barneich, Keen and Ruth. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, and Associate Planner Teresa McClish and Public Works Director, Don Spagnolo. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes were requested. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chair Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruth, to approve the minutes of December 16, 2008 as written; the motion passed by a 3/0 voice vote Commissioner Barneich being absent that meeting. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AFTER AGENDA PREPARATION: 1. Supplemental' information from Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, recommending modification of Conditions of Approval Nos. 24, 25, 60 and 61, for Item II.A. 2. Addition to Item IV. Administrative items, for Commission review per Director Strong. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 08-002, AND VARIANCE 08-001 AND; APPLICANT — WAYNE & HEATHER JENSEN; LOCATION — BETWEEN MAY STREET AND PASEO PLACE, INCLUDING APN 007-254-011 AND 052 (LOTS 4-6 AND 19-22 Teresa McClish, Associate Planner, presented the staff report to consider an application to adjust lot lines for seven (7) non-conforming lots on a 1.23-acre property in the Residential Suburban (RS) zoning district. In conclusion, Ms. McClish clarified the supplemental information regarding Conditions of Approval (COA) Nos. 24, 25, 60 and 61 proposed for modification. Staff then answered Commission questions regarding the proposed project. Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment. Mike Peachy, MW Architects, explained that the applicant's main goal is to clean up some of the property issues regarding lot lines. Other concerns were as follows: • COA #60 (Drainage), the applicants will be burdened with the whole cost of this requirement, but shouldn't the cost be shared as it will benefit the neighborhood? PLANNING COMMISSION, SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 15, 2009 PAGE 2 • Special COA #8: they would like these "new" Affordable Housing fees clarified. • The building envelopes were to show how they could fit in, but they did not want to lock them into a footprint due to oak trees - they may conflict in the future. • COA #18 for fire hydrants, would they be required? Ms. McClish explained that it had not yet been determined. • Special Condition #9 (fencing); they would like this COA not to be required until the building phase. Ms. McClish explained that some delineation of the open space should be in place prior to the final map. Ms. McClish clarified that Special Condition No. 8, regarding Affordable Housing, should state fifteen percent (15%) not twenty (20%). Kirk Dukstra, May Street, stated concerns that there is no off-street guest parking on Paseo Place; access and safety concerns with the chain placed halfinray up Paseo Place and the amount of traffic on May Street. Director Strong stated the Fire Chief would have to approve any changes; he suggested that the residents of Paseo have an informal meeting to discuss this. Chair Ray closed the hearing for public comment. Commission comments: Barneich: • She agrees with Mr. Peachey's comments regarding this being an infill project. • She has concerns regarding the steepness of the lots and proximity to the Creek and when she looked at the site it was difficult to picture four more houses. • She appreciates the fact that only one oak tree is proposed to be removed. • She agrees with the variance for the setbacks; it makes perfect sense to preserve the oak trees and minimize the grading on the steep lots. • Regarding removal of the large healthy oak tree she would like to see 15 saplings required for mitigation (rather than 6), in case some die; she is glad to see some seedlings planted now. • She was confused on the depiction of the open space and would like to go with the alternative mentioned by Ms. McClish - a straight line drawn from the back of Lot 3, over through Lots 4& 5, so the oak trees would be in the "preserved for perpetuity" open space area; she is okay with the split rail fence. • COA #10, regarding construction noise, should be corrected to state "Construction should be limited to between the hours of 7am and 5pm Monday through Friday..." (not 7am and 7pm). • She appreciates the change in the oak tree mitigation 'to "deep root" tubes and using acorns from our area. PLANNING COMMISSION, SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 15, 2009 PAGE 3 Keen: • He has a concern that the applicants are being asked to be responsible for the whole cost of the drop inlet filter and suggested bonds be required. Director Strong stated that this would have to be in place or bonded for. • If Lot 18 has a fire hydrant already which was a requirement in a previous resolution (included in the staff report), then the 300 feet may not be such a problem. Director Strong stated it will be a Fire and Building Department decision to determine this. • Regarding the open space fencing, he does not have a big desire to see this as it would fence off the rural atmosphere of the whole area; he understands Commissioner Barneich's point of expanding the open space area, but putting a fence across this area would cut off a large portion of the backyard of a house. Commissioner Barneich stated that the fence is not so important to her, but she would like this area to be part of the open space. Keen continued: • He was surprised to hear Mr. Dukstra's comment regarding the chain and that there is no access through Paseo Place for a bicycle; if this is so it should be fixed (he believes that the old condition placed by City Council did leave room for bikes and pedestrians); he suggested that the chain be moved further down Paseo where the private street starts. • The in-lieu housing fee is a problem, but if this is chosen then it should be paid by each property at time of building. • He noted that there is no on-street parking and the building envelopes do not mean much as there are no dimensions on them; he does not see why garages cannot move back under the house to get a couple of parking spots in front of the garage. • The first two pages of the Resolution were missing from the staff report. Ms. McClish stated that this was a collating error and depending on the results of tonight's meeting she would bring the complete Resolution fon�vard at the next Planning Commission meeting on February 4, 2009. Ruth: • She understands why the applicants want to do this — it makes sense. • She wished they didn't have to bear the whole cost of the drain, but it's just timing. • She agrees with Commissioner Keen that making a straight line on the open space area would infringe too much on the front three lots. • She also does not see a reason for a fence — an easement on the deed is all that is required. PLANNING COMMISSION, SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 15, 2009 PAGE 4 • The biggest problem with this project is the traffic and the way the road exists; when the houses are built perhaps they can be conditioned to require some off- street parking. Ray: • She agrees with Commissioner Barneich on requiring the extra oak tree saplings, but rather than ask for an arbitrary number such as 15 she would like to see a condition requiring a specific ratio such as 6:1. Commissioner Barneich replied that she would like the ratio to be 9:1. • She agrees with the other Commissioners that she would not like to see fencing required or put a straight line in for the open space — it would not serve anything. • Regarding the cost of the drop inlet she does not see how this can be avoided, but a look back on previous agreements may allow some change in the language of the requirement. Director Strong stafed there would be a look back on previous agreements and permif requiremenfs for consistency. • Regarding the Affordable Housing requirement, it seems to have been clarified fairly well and noted the 20% should be changed to 15% in the motion. • Regarding Commissioner Barneich's request for the change to a straight line on the properties on May Street there is a difference of opinion, but she has no preference. Chair Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, to approve Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Certificate of Compliance 08-002, and Variance 08-001 with the following changes: • Special COA No. 8, regarding Affordable Housing, the requirement should equal 15% (not 20%). • Mitigation measure regarding the oak tree saplings be changed from a ratio of 3:1 to a ratio of 9:1. • Delete Special COA No. 9 regarding the fencing. • COA #10 regarding construction hours should be changed to state from 7am to 5 pm to be consistent with COA No.31. • Modify COA No's 24, 25, 60 & 61. Discussion Commissioner Barneich stated that she would like the open space to be a little larger. Without the fence it would not take much away from the three properties and they would have the benefit of the open space forever. Commissioner Keen stated he did not want to do this now as the existing house will have to be remodeled and moved back in order to replace what is being lost with this project. Commissioner Ruth stated she was not in favor of increasing the open space as there would not be much to gain compared to what the applicants would lose; they also have fruit trees that would end up as part of the open space. PLANNING COMMISSION, SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 15, 2009 PAGE 5 After further discussion the Commission came to a compromise to dedicate some extra open space utilizing the hill in Lot 2. The motion was revised by Chair Ray, and secbnded by Commissioner Keen to add the following modification: • COA No. 7, Open Space Easement, to read "over potions of Lots 2-6" (rather than Lots 3-6). Ms. McClish stated that the staff will bring back the full resolution for adoption at the next Planning Commission. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT Chair Ray, Commissioners Keen, Barneich and Ruth None None 8:00 pm: The Commission took a 10-minute break. B. PLOT PLAN REVIEW 08-011; APPLICANT — CANDACE STRICKER ("LETS GET TOGETHER IN THE VILLAGE"); LOCATION — 522 B. EAST BRANCH STREET. Director Strong presented the staff report prepared by Planning Intern, Laura Pennebaker, to consider a Plot Plan Review to establish a seminar and training studio in an existing mixed use complex. The Plot Plan Review was approved, but was appealed by the Planning Commission on December 16, 2008 due to a complaint letter received from a resident across the street from the location, which stated concerns regarding apparent use at this site that exceeded the occupancy that was being established. Director Strong then described some proposed alternative parking solutions that would be considered at the January 28, 2009 Downtown Parking Advisory Board (DPAB) meeting, which could also involve proposed restriping of East Branch Street (Hwy 227, recently relinquished by Caltrans). Director Strong concluded by stating that the Commission could decide to approve, modify or deny the Plot Plan Review. Chair Ray stated several items addressed in the complainant's letter had been taken care of since their last meeting when this item was pulled for further review. The remaining items not yet fully addressed are regarding what happens if another tenant with similar parking requirements is approved and the concern that parking has already been compromised by allowing four garage parking spaces at 524 E. Branch Street to be converted to warehouse storage, plus the request for permit parking on the area on the north side of East Branch Street at the DPAB and Traffic Commission upcoming meetings. - PLANNING COMMISSION, SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 15, 2009 PAGE 6 The Commission discussed the proposed striping plan (with median lane) with Director Strong explaining how this would work to improve safety. In reply to questions from the Commission, Director Strong stated that Lot 8 will not be issued a building permit until on-street parking is resolved and will have to meet the mixed-use parking requirements; we will also try to achieve a mutual parking agreement among any remaining developments to allow additional parking after hours. Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment. Candy Stricker, applicant, stated her uses of the building and also that the unit next door is being used for crafting and sometimes the clients park on the public street; sometimes an 18-wheeler and a"1-800 Got Junk Truck" also park on-street (sometimes all night). She concluded by stating that she does not have a problem with parking spaces being marked for 2-hours or no parking as her clients will find parking in other spots such as Paulding Circle. Susan Flores, resident 529 East Branch, disagreed with the staff report that the use of the building for seminars and training studio is associated with the adjacent real estate office, and stated the hours of use on the permit are Mondays through Sundays 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. not 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The seven (7) parking spaces are still being shared with 524 East Branch Street (after hours parking) and are not restricted; they are not parking on our residential side any more due to past issues. With the extended hours at this site we now have many vehicles parking on-street in front of residences and there are times when people come home from work that have no place to park due to the fact that some residences have no garage or front driveway; the parking within the EVP is not being utilized after hours (only by the residents); hopefully by the time the project is built out that will be resolved. Mike McConville, 529 E. Branch Street, stated his concerns on the present parking situation due to this "transitional area" (between residential and commercial); that there will be more problems on that site with parking as more businesses come in because the street parking is being taken away by a turn lane. After talking to property owners in the neighborhood they agree there are parking problems. He expressed great concern with the volume and speed of traffic on East Branch. In conclusion, he stated that with a development like this it takes away the right to park in front of their own house and he would like to have permit parking before it's developed further. Marsha Pavich, owner of 523 East Branch and 520 Crown Hill, stated her main concern is the parking. She has nothing against having the business as a meeting room if needed, but she believes that the concerns addressed tonight should be directed to the Traffic Commission and DPAB. If red line parking is done she will have no parking in front of either of her houses and her tenanYs need the parking space as there is no garage or driveway at the front of that house. Right now her tenants are not being impacted by the parking on LePoint Terrace. She asked that in future if permits for this area are being processed by the City that the parking is taken into consideration for people who own homes in the area. PLANNING COMMISSION, SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 15, 2009 PAGE 7 In reply to questions from Commissioner Barneich, Director Strong explained how the parking spaces were delegated and where clients may park after hours and how some of the spaces were reduced due to some of the garages being used for warehouse storage. Commission comments: Barneich: • Agreed there is a parking problem and she would be okay with permit parking for the neighborhood, but stated concerns with where all the people would park who are attending this business? She suggested talking to the business and residents in Paulding Circle that are not using their parking after 5:00 p.m. and come up with an arrangement — there does not seem to be any other solution. Keen: • He did not remember the garages being closed in and is concerned that they are being used as warehouses. Director Strong agreed that this is contributing to the problem and stated it will take some level of cooperation and increased enforcement to resolve the parking problems. Resident parking permit is one method to address the parking problem for the residences, but may be fo the detriment of the businesses during the day time. The vacant properties af this site can be further reviewed, mixed-use parking allowance can be reduced; however, even the minimum parking requirement may still not solve this parking problem for the pofential occupanfs. • Considering the age of the houses in this area and the conditions of the houses when they were built he would be very upset if someone was parking in front of his house. • He recommended that Ms. Stricker should be able to go ahead with her business as it meets all the conditions set forth, but agreed that the request for residential parking permits should go forward to the Traffic Commission and DPAB to try to solve the parking problem. Director Strong stated that the request for the residential permit parking on the north side is being recommended by staff at the next DPAB meeting. It will still be up to the Traffic Commission and City Council to decide if parking restrictions are appropriate on one side of the street or the other. Ruth: • The City wants to keep the charm of the Village and the community viable, so it should be a priority to protect the parking in front of these residences. • The business is great; however, having clients walk three blocks to get to them is still preferable to having residents walk the same distance to get to their own homes. Ray: • It appears that the Commission all agree that there needs to be permitted parking on the north side of East Branch. Normally anyone can park on a public street, but in this older area some of the residences do not have garages or proper driveways. PLANNING COMMISSION, SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 15, 2009 PAGE 8 • She finds no impediment to approving this business as recommended and conditioned by the Community Development Director. Director Strong stated that a solution to the parking problem will be a combination of residential permit parking, on-street parking and a better coordination of EVP shared parking available after hours. Commissioner Barneich suggested that "after-hours" clients' park outside the antique store (maybe for a small fee) as it is a large area and after 5:00 p.m. no one parks there. Ms. Stricker stated that many of her clients are senior citizens and some disabled, they cannot walk three blocks and need parking close to her building; without this she would not be able to operate her business. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barneich, to recommend that the Traffic Commission and DPAB pursue resident permit parking for the area on the north side of East Branch Street; the motion was approved by a 4/0 voice vote. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Chair Ray, to uphold the Community Development Director's decision to approve Plot Plan Review 08-011; the motion was approved by a 4/0 voice vote. III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None. I.V. NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: SINCE DECEMBER 16, 2008: Administrative item added after Aqenda preparation: Temporary Use Permit 09-004 for a portable barbeque; Applicants — Gibson Brothers; Location — Spencer's Shopping Center. Director Strong explained that this was for a 30-day test trial period to see if it would fit with the neighboring businesses. If no complaints were received after 30 days, the applicants will apply for a Plot Plan Review for continued outdoor use. After some discussion the Planning Commission expressed some concerns, but agreed they would wait to see how this transpired after the 30-day trial period. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. V.I. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Keen stated he would like to discuss review of the Planning Commission Bylaws, specifically By-law B.1.a. Director Strong stated that this item would be placed on the February 3, 2009 Agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION, SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 15, 2009 PAGE 9 VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: Director Strong informed the Commission he would be attending the inauguration of President Elect Obama, then traveling on to Costa Rica during the next week. He would be returning Monday, January 26, 2009. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m Commissioner Keen. ATTEST: � ���G'Gfi�}i — LYN REARDON-SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION on a motion by Chair Ray, seconded by AS TO CONTENT: � ` ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of February 3, 2009) � CAREN RAY � �� V i