Loading...
PC Minutes 2007-03-20MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2007 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Interim Chair Ray presiding; also present were Commissioners Barneich, Keen, Marshall and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob S±rong, Assistant Planners, Jim Bergman and Ryan Foster. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes requested. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barneich to approve the minutes of March 6, 2007, with one correction: Page 3, first bullet, should state, "She (Commissioner Barneich) loved the smaller square footage of the units as this might make them more affordable". The motion passed on a 5/C voice vote. I . A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. C. NOMINATION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barneich, to nominate Interim Chair Ray for Chair; the motion passed on a 5/0 voice vote. Commissioner Barneich made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to nominate Commissioner Keen for Vice Chair; the motion passed on a 5/0 voice vote. Mr. Strong stated that the Chair and Vice Chair would hold office for one year. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. APPEAL CASE NO. 07-001 — MINOR USE PERMIT/LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE CASE NO. 07-001; APPLICANT — TRANSITIONS MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION; LOCATION —113 BELL STREET Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report for consideration of an appeal of the t;ommunity Development Director's approval of a large family (Adult) daycare for disabled adults at 113 Bell Street, in a Single-Family Residential zoning area. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that staff recommends the Planning . Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's approval for a large family adult day care permit at the proposed address. Staff answered questions from the Commission for clarification on the proposed new home for Transiti�ns, the Code relating to large family day care versus large family adult PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 20, 2007 PAGE 2 day care, Traiisition's former residence at Poole Street and proposed hours of operation. Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment. Barry Johnson, Transitions Division Director, gave some background history and explained the purpose of the Transitions program; addressed issues, concerns, and fears of the public, in the Bell Street area that had been brought to their attention and that history had shown that their concerns are completely unfounded. He explained how many of their clients already work in the local area and that the Transitions program does not require a license, as it is a social rehabilitation program. Mr. Johnson then answered Commission's questions regarding the type of clients they have and hours of operation. Jill Bolster-White, Transitions Executive Director, gave some history of her 17 years of experience with Transitions, describing previous locations, and why they want to be in a residential area and not institutionalized. Paul Quinlan, (Appellant) and owner of finro homes within 300-feet of 113 Bell Street, stated concerns with the legality of the procedure that had taken place for approval of the use; concern that Transitions is a business not a social rehabilitation center and therefore should be located in a business district, concern that allowing this into a residential area could change the area to commercial; concern with allowing people with mental health problems into the neighborhood. Kimberly Dohle, Cornwall Avenue, stated concerns that the proposal was approved before public hearing was heard; that the Code was not being adhered to; hours of operation and number of clients served had not been clarified; that licensing is not required; she is not satisfied with training that staff receives and with having mentally ill people in a residential area. Chair Ray claritied that prior to this evening there had been absolutely no action taken by the Planning Commission and that the resolution contained in the staff report is for Commission guidance only. Patty Quinlan, Cornwall Avenue, stated concern that she and her neighbors had not received proper notice of the proposal; that the number of clients to be served had not been clarified (how could this be monitored); information in the staff report/resolution stated that the appeal had already been denied; past experience has shown that when mental health �atients have problems the mental health department has not been responsive. Mona Scamfer, Cerro Vista Lane, has worked with people who have disabilities and also with a client of Transitions; stated concerns with potential increase in parking; concern with smoking that might occur; stealing that could take place (personal experience); clients may loiter in the area; there may be too many people occupying the building; potential drug use by patients. � PLANNING COMMISSION MIfVUTES MARCH 20, 2007 PAGE 3 Louis Brazil, (Appellant), Cornwall Avenue, stated concerns that Transitions will add to the parking problem in the area. Linda Hollingsworth, Cornwall Avenue, stated concerns for the safety of her grandchildren who sometimes .stay with her; that the history of clients is not known; increased parking will be an issue; asked how will she be protected? Beau Pryor, (Appellant) Cornwall Avenue, law enforcement with Arroyo Grande, stated he shares a property line with 113 Bell Street, has regular contact with mental health patients and his experience with them had been negative - officers have been injured by violent patients. He has finro young daughters and has fear that patients will know where he lives. He urged that "this business" be placed in a business district. Kevin McBride, (Appellant), Cornwall Avenue, law enforcement with the City, stated he has done a lot of research, has talked to all involved parties, and he has had a lot of contact with mental health patients on a weekly basis. One of his major issues is that the Bell Street property owner, who owns other properties in the area, has offered to buy his property and may have plans to purchase the whole block and turn it into a commercial area. He shares a property line with the Bell Street property and also has concerns that the property will be empty at night, which could create problems. Poole Street was a much better location — it's in an area that has a number of businesses. He stated concern that patients may wander into people's houses and if there is a problem that he would be called on to help. Gary Scherquist, Short Street (near corner Poole Street), stated his office is in his home and he is usually home all day; Transitions has been his neighbor for four years; he is sad to see them leaving; he has never had a problem with noise, smoking odors, or any other issues or bad experiences from any of the neighbors with respect to Transitions. He had heard a whole lot of fear expressed in public testimony; however, Transition's clients are good people who are trying to find their way through life, they are citizens of Arroyo Grande and we should take care of them. Bill Ward, lives across street from Beau Pryor and Kevin McBride, stated he has lived there for 30 years; this is not an appropriate use for the neighborhood as there are now a lot of small children living in the area. Travis Avila, Bell Street, stated that they are expecting their first baby soon and are concerned that mental health patients may wander around the neighborhood once they are dropped off. Chair Ray closed the public hearing for public comment. 7:25 p.m. The Commission took a 10-minute break. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 20, 2007 PAGE 4. Mr. Johnson then addressed the public comment, clarifying staffing, the number of clients, transportation, and parking issues; clients would not be wandering around the neighborhood. . Ms. Bolster-White explained that the purpose of the program is to transition people to the community and people are functioning very well. She then addressed further public concerns, describing past history and how their program works. She submitted a letter to the Commission signed by nine residences in the neighborhood of the Poole Street location, fully in support of the program. Ms. Bolster-White then answered Commission questions and concerns regarding the types of clients and their past history; transportation to the program; licensing concerns; how they monitor the number of clients per day; staff training for the amount of supervision required. Mr. Strong then addressed the public testimony regarding the role of staff and the Commission in considering and approving proposals. He described the Development Code section related to large family day care and MUP findings and the reason why these programs are better suited to residential districts. He stated this is not a business and this type of facility is allowed in both residential and business districts; permit revocation can take place if conditions are not met at all times; the history of Transitions has been excellent. Commission comments: Marshall: � • He is not in support of the appellants. This is a good program with a well- documented history of doing good work; people have a fear of what they do not know; he is comfortable with allowing this. Barneich: • Many people with mental illnesses live in our neighborhood already. • There is a fear/stigma that goes along with mental illness that is not warranted. • Transitions has a good track record so she does not have fear. • She likes the location — on the edge of the residential neighborhood. • She thought it would be a plus for the neighbors to not have someone in the residence 24 hours a day (only 20 hours a week); there will be less noise, no parties or barking dogs etc; if there are any complaints from the neighbors she would be in favor of rethinking an approval in the future. • She understands the apprehension, and had concerns until she talked to the neighbors of the previous residence and read all the information. • She is willing to deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director's approval. Ray: • She agrees with Commissioner Barneich's comments. • We have a level of control here if conditions are not met. • She was contacted by the Bell Street neighbors before the meeting and respects their concerns; however, she has to rely on Transition's track record. • We do owe our peace officers a higher level of consideration and may need to tighten the conditions such as: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 20, 2007 PAGE 5 1. Ar� onsite caretaker. 2. An 8-foot fence. 3. Motion detector lights: 4. Maximum occupancy of 12 (self-policed/monitored by the neighborhood). • With these conditions included she could uphold the CDD's decision. Tait: • He agrees with the other Commissioner's comments. • Transition's track record has been good for 20 years with few complaints. • He acknowledges the public's concern. • He agrees with Chair Ray's suggested conditions. • Transition's program mainstreams people back into the area and it is important to allow this in a residential setting. • He upholds the CDD's decision on this proposal. Keen: • He reminded the public that a resolution is submitted with all proposals and is normal procedure; it lists the findings for Commission consideration and no decision is made until after the hearing. • This is the third time, as a Planning Commissioner that he has had to make a decision on Transitions and every time the community has had the same concerns; Transitions are good neighbors and have a good track record. • He can uphold the CDD's decision. Marshall: • He agrees with Chair Ray's conditions, except for having a caretaker onsite, as this is a substantial change than what was applied for and may cause specific problems for the applicant. Ms. Bolster-White stated she would discuss expanding the hours of having staff onsite, but was not sur� they could provide a full time caretaker, as there is not enough space and insufficient funds to do this. In reply to Commissioner Barneich, Ms. Bolster-White stated they could have motion lights and a security system installed. Chair Ray agreed to change the conditions to reflect this. Commissioner Marshall made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barneich, to uphold the Community Development Director's denial of the appeal with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: 1. Require the fence to be increased to 8-feet high. 2. Installation of motion lights and a security system, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3. Establishing the maximum occupancy of 12 clients. and adopt: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 20, 2007 RESOLUTION 07-2027 A RESO�UTIOfV OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYU GRANDE DENYING APPEAL CASE NO. 07-001; APPELLANTS KEVIN MCBRIDE, BEAU PRYOR, PAUL QUINLAN, AND OTHER CONCERNED RESIDENTS AND APPROVING A LARGE FAMILY (ADULT) DAY CARE CASE NO. 07-001; APPLIED FOR BY TRANSITIONS MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION; LOCATED AT 113 BELL STREET The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Cc�mmissioners Marshall, Barneich, Keen, Tait and Chair Ray ABSENT: Nune NOES: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20 day of March 2007. B. VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 06-006; LOCATION — 190 FAIRVIEW DRIVE; APPLICANT — MIKE AND NANCY ATKISSON Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal to expand the ground floor and add a second-floor to an existing single-story, single-family re:�idence. In conclusion, Mr. Foster explained that after the Community Development Director's approval (by consent agenda) was contested by two neighbors and appealed by Planning Commission; a public hearing took place July 13, 2006. At that meeting the Planning Commission continued the matter to proposal to give the applicant time to work out the differences with the neighbors and submit revised plans. One of the neighbors has since withdrawn their opposition. Mr. Foster then described the revised plans and stated that in staff s opinion the viewshed review meets all the required findings and recommended approval of the Viewshed Review Case No. 06- 006. Chair Ray oper�ed the public hearing for public comment, and stated that this proposal had caused much contention between neighbors, the Commission has received an enormous amount of information in their packets, and asked that public testimony not include past history which they had already received. Steve Babcock, representative, described how the plans had been revised to accommodate the panoramic view of the neighbors concentrated on their primary view; they were aware that some of their view would be affected. PAGE 6 Mike Atkisson, �pplicant, gave some recent history of efforts to appease their neighbors concerns, and explained that due to ill health he and his wife wished to make the modifications to increase the size of the home (ADA requirements) to enable them to retire in their home. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 20, 2007 PAG E 7 Nancy Atkisson, applicant, stated they had taken their neighbor's concerns very seriously and r�ad done all they could to lesson the impact on their neighbor's view. However, it seemed that no matter what they proposed it was impossible to preserve all of their neighbor's views (as requested by the Commission at the last meeting). Dave Tennant, 1239 Brighton Avenue, they do have a problem with the modified plans as they like to use the view from their back deck and this will block that view; wherever the applicants put their second story they will gain a 100% view and we will still loose 70-78% of their view. The views that are in question are clearly to the south and southwest; an equitable solution would be to move the second story addition back 20 feet to preservE some of their rear deck view; he believes the proposed addition does not fit the scale and character of the neighborhood. Rolanda Tennant, 1239 Brighton Avenue, stated why she believed the findings for the viewshed review could not be made; the proposed remodel is out of scope, scale, and character and if approved will set a precedent and ultimately harm the neighborhood. Chris Macer, Brighten Avenue, stated that the Atkisson's are taking views and are therefore taking property values; she is against the proposal. Bob Stierwalt, Fairview Avenue, stated homeowners should have a right to do what they like with their �roperties (taking into consideration their neighbors). At this point he believed the Atkisson's have done everything possible to accommodate the concerns of their neighbors and they should be allowed to improve their property. Chair Ray closed the public hearing for public comment. Mr. Babcock: addressed issues raised by public comment, explaining why the proposed addition would not severely impact the Tennant's primary view. However, if they moved the addition further back on the property as suggested it would impact two other neighbor's view�. In reply to questions regarding the plans, from Commissioner Keen, Mr. Babcock noted the discrepancy on Plan A1 and stated that he would correct this; re the elevator/roof height — the architect had found an elevator that did not need so much room above it and that would still be to code. In reply to a question from Commissioner Barneich, Mr. Foster stated that the 3,150 square feet was floor area living space, but the scale and massing was not visible from the front. Chair Ray closed the public hearing for public comment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 20, 2007 PAGE 8 Commission comments: Kristen: • It is an insurmountable task to preserve everyone's view; the Commission works within the Community Development Guidelines and makes the findings. • With housing prices in Arroyo Grande being what they are and people not being able to afford bigger houses it is only a matter of time that many of the smaller houses will have additions built on. • This is a nice compromise - moving the deck back 5-feet does preserve some of Tennant's view. • The viewshed review does not guarantee that all views will be preserved. • She could make the three findings and approve the plan as submitted. Keen: • The house next to the Tennant's (1235) will be losing a lot of their view also and if the Atkisson's moved the addition back 20 feet as suggested by the Tenants they would lose a substantial amount of their view; only preserving Tennant's view is not a fair option. • The plan that is proposed now is a reasonable design to try to offset everyone's view and is the best plan for now. Tait: • He hopes the neighbors will become good neighbors in the future. • The Atkisson's cannot preserve any neighbors entire view — it is not an option to move the second story back as it will lose other neighbors views. • The appl�cants have bent over backwards to make this work. • He cann�t deny the viewshed and deny one persons reasonable use of his property. • He recommends approval and hoped they would be good neighbors. Marshall: • He concurs with other Commissioners — property value should not be assumed. • It is not fair to not allow some neighbors to add a second story when some in the neighborhood have already done this. • He appreciates that Arroyo Grande has a viewshed review. • This project is reasonable and he can support staff recommendation. Ray: s a The Con�munity Development Director did not initially make a bad decision in approving this. What the Tennants were asking for was not possible- but we came out with a better solution — we got compromise, she concurs with Commissioner Keen. This will blend in with the neighborhood and is within the limits of reasonable development. She agrees with the other Commissioners comments and recommends denial of the appeai, Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Chair Ray, to approve the Viewshed Review Case No. 06-006 with modifications as submitted, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCFI 20, 2007 and adopt: RESOLUTION 07-2028 PAGE 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 06- 006; LO�ATED AT 190 FAIR VIEW DRIVE; APPLIED FOR BY MIKE AND NANCY ATKISSON The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Keen, Chair Ray, Commissioners Barneich, Marshall, and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20 day of March 2007. III. NON-PUB�IC HEARING ITEMS: None. IV. A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE FEBRUARY 20, 2007: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. VII. COMMUNlTY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Barneich. ATTEST: h LYN REARDO�+-SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: RO STRO , � COMMUNITV DEVELO MENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved a' the PC meeting of April 3, 2007) r--, �.