Loading...
PC Minutes 2009-02-171 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2009 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chair Keen presiding; also present were Commissioners Barneich, Brown, and Ruth; Chair Ray was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong and Associate Planners, Ryan Foster and Jim Bergman and Public Works Director, Don Spagnolo. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of February 3, 2009 were approved as written on a motion by Vice Chair Keen, seconded by Commissioner Brown and by a 4/0 voice vote. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AFTER AGENDA PREPARATION: 1. Copy of Notice of Preparation for Item II.C. from Associate Planner, Jim Bergman. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 08 -003; APPLICANT — TRANSITIONS MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION — LOCATION — 203 BRIDGE STREET Jim Bergman, Associate Planner, presented the staff report for consideration of an application to 1) remove a 1960's addition to the main structure and restore the facade to the original early 20th century design, and 2) demolish the detached garage and apartment and construct a new multifamily residential structure. The proposed multifamily structure is 3,086 square feet in total space and will include five rental, restricted (low income), studio apartments, a single car garage and a single carport. Mr. Bergman addressed the parking, explaining the concessions per the Code for the proposed low- income housing units. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving Amended Conditional Use Permit 08 -003. The Commission asked questions of staff regarding their stated concerns with the relaxed standards for parking requirements for this proposal, especially for the future. Staff addressed these concerns explaining the options that the City would have to increase parking for the area if necessary in the future. Vice Chair Keen opened the public hearing for public comment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2009 PAGE 2 Liz Smith, architect, spoke on the architecture for the proposed project and stated that they felt that the parking concession is well worth the exchange for the low income units. Jill Bolster- White, Executive Director for Transitions answered Commission questions: Reply to Barneich: • Transitions manages 93 housing units in the County - 10% of the tenants own cars and usually do so to enable them to drive to work. • The garages and carports are under Transitions care and only used for cars not storage. • Tenants are usually single; having couples has not been discussed. • They were open to restricting car ownership with the units if required. Reply to Brown: • All their tenants will be clients of Transitions and their record has been good in regard to any police involvement as their tenants have a history of being very quiet. • Handicap parking has not yet been decided. Reply to Keen: • They intend to stay at this site permanently that is why they bought the building; 30% of their clients live in the South County. Reply to Ruth: • They understand that the deed restriction /parking reduction would limit the sale of the property in the future, but they do not intend to move. • The open space beside unit 2 is to be used to enhance quality of life and not for parking. Bill Hart, 207 Bridge Street, stated he disagrees with the findings on the Negative Declaration 1) Item V: Cultural Resources, in that the proposed size of the building is out of scale in relationship to an historic resource and would be a significant impact, and 2) Regarding parking he read a letter, for the record, from Gary Borda, owner of a building /office at120 Nelson Street, which stated concerns with lack of off - street parking, scale and size of the building and also that the garage on -site is being used for storage of tools; he agreed with Mr. Borda's stated concerns. Mike McConville, 529 E. Branch Street, also stated concerns with the lack of parking and suggested that the project be scaled back to accommodate parking. Ira Hughes, Owner Ira's Bike Shop and Chair of the Downtown Parking Advisory Board, stated that parking spaces are not keeping up with new developments; if the parking assessment district is going to expand to include there will be a need to supply parking spaces for these businesses. Liz Smith disagreed with Mr. Hart's comments regarding the height of the building in that the proposed building is shorter than the existing building although it will be closer 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2009 to the street; the property is deed restricted and is giving low cost housing to the City and if parking was required we would not be able to do this. Vice Chair Keen closed the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 3 Commission comments: Barneich: • She would like to approve this project as this is low income housing. • Transitions in Arroyo Grande has been good neighbors. • Removing the box on the front of the building is a plus. • The architecture of the proposed apartment building is very nice. • Her concerns are that the bathroom is close to the sidewalk; the street elevation is close (5 feet) and the newly proposed building may take away from the existing front building; she is still uncomfortable with the lack of parking, but the concessions may be worth it. Ruth: • She appreciates all that has been done to make this fit in and the program is great. • She still has concern with the lack of parking and what may happen in future and sees this as a problem for the future. Director Strong, in reply to questions from Commissioner Brown, gave an update on the present parking situation in the Village. Brown: • He loves the project and the fact that it is 100% low income for the City. • Parking could be a potential problem, but we are deed restricting for 30 years to low income so he feels okay about this. • Regarding the historical significance, by removing the front section of the building it is being restored to more of it's original state. • The building will be closer to the street so it may appear much taller than it is, but due to future development plans for this area he can live with this. Keen: • Asked if a condition for a look back could be added to require Transitions to lease parking across the street if required in the future? Director Strong replied that it could be conditioned. • He was prepared to go forward and approve this project as it is needed for the City. • He has no problem with the scale or the bathroom set close to the sidewalk as very little portion of it is; he has no problem with architecture. • It would not be economically feasible to reduce the number of units. • He would like to include a look back provision as stated. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2009 Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barneich, to approve the Amended Conditional Use Permit 08 -003 with the following modifications: • Add a COA of approval to require a look back provision in one year from the date of occupancy to determine if additional parking is required. • Delete duplicate conditions of approval nos. 32, 33 and 34, and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 09 -2078 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 08 -003, APPLIED FOR BY TRANSITIONS MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION, LOCATED AT 203 BRIDGE STREET The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Barneich and Keen NOES: Commissioner Ruth ABSENT: Chair Ray the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17th day of February 2009. 7:25 p.m. The Commission took as 5- minute break. PAGE 4 B. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 07 -002 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 08 -003; APPLICANT — GREG NESTER CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC; LOCATION — 451 HIDDEN OAK ROAD Ryan Foster, Associate Planner, presented the staff report for consideration of an application to subdivide eleven (11) acres into eleven (11) residential lots and one (1) open space lot. Mr. Foster spoke in some detail on the highlights of his report and in conclusion stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending adopting the Negative Declaration and approving the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development to the City Council based on the required findings contained within the Resolution. Staff answered Commissioner Brown's questions regarding new water mitigation measures, Meadow Creek runoff and how this would be handled; the proposed access using Hidden Oaks Road vs. Rodeo Drive. In reply to a question from Commissioner Barneich regarding the 83 trees to be planted to replace the Pine trees (most of which are diseased), Mr. Foster stated that some would be planted on the private drive, the bulk through the open space and some on individual lots. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2009 PAGE 5 Commissioner Keen stated that there was a conflict with Condition of Approval (COA) Nos. 34 and 85, in that one states that each parcel should have separate water meters with duplex service lines if feasible and the other states that all buildings will be sprinklered; COA of approval No. 87 (re opticom traffic signal device to be installed) should be deleted as this would not be required here. In reply to a question from Commissioner Ruth, Mr. Foster stated the main goal of the walking trail is to provide access to the adjacent trail system. Vice Chair Keen opened the public hearing for public comment. Greg Nester, project developer further clarified Commission questions on the street trees, sidewalk design, landscaping and described the modified grading plan, building pads and the open space. He then commented on the technical conformance (Conditions of Approval): • No. 19, they have some concerns with negotiating a water easement from a private entity; they would like to facilitate their own connections to water to meet the fire flows if necessary. • No.22, he is not sure where the sewer easement goes to. • No. 25, construction hours, he would like to work on Saturdays — maybe shorter hours from 8:00 — 3:00 p.m. • Regarding the water neutralization fees, he would like to negotiate with staff to recapture and reuse of some of the water onsite and use for irrigation in place of standard mitigations to save water. In reply to Mr. Nester's request to work Saturdays Commissioner Keen explained that there are no inspectors available on Saturdays. Commissioner Brown stated concerns with the water mitigation (MM V.III.) and that it was not specific enough. He asked Mr. Nester what he would specifically do to mitigate for water. Mr. Nester replied that this is a brand new mitigation and he agreed that he would like it to be more specific. Commissioner Brown then asked where they proposed putting the unit to satisfy the affordable housing requirement. Mr. Nester replied that they would either use 139 & 145 Branch Street (if they build a new structure) or maybe the lot at Grace Lane. Commissioner Barneich asked Mr. Spagnolo to clarify condition No. 22 for Mr. Nester. Mr. Spagnolo said this is a normal condition and if the City is going to own the trunk line they would want an easement to access it; however, the plans should read Lots 6 & 12 (not just Lot 6). The Commission further discussed the construction work on Saturdays. Mr. Foster stated language could be added to condition No. 25 to state "the only work to be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2009 PAGE 6 performed on Saturdays is work that does not require inspection" and shorten the hours of work. Commissioner Keen stated he would like to have at least a minimum gray water system outside of the house so that in the future it could be utilized. Andy Smith, Village Glen Drive, representative for Village Glen Home Owner's Association (HOA), stated he was generally in favor of this proposal; however, he has the following concerns: 1) future traffic on Hidden Oaks, particularly if the school site gets developed; 2) regarding use of the drainage basin, he would like to see the HOA be required to work with them to maintain and share costs; 3) there are a couple of houses in the proposed development that may look down into their homes. In reply to a question from Commission Brown, Mr. Smith confirmed that the majority of the audience present were from their HOA and were in agreement with these concerns. Steve Crisafi, 148 Rodeo Drive, stated that three concerns, 1) when he moved into the house in 1993 the City assured him that it would remain a cul -de -sac and he would like to see it remain so, 2) the homeowners for Village Glen knew there would be a school in the future and that the traffic would be routed through that direction, 3) his house and Mr. Goldman's house (who had to leave the meeting early) at 125 Rodeo Drive, are at the end of the cul -de -sac, they share a culvert and are responsible for the maintenance of it and any drainage changes with this development could cause a cost to them . Ira Hughes, 203 Canyon Way, gave the history of the drainage, stated that he wanted to assure the homeowners on Rodeo Drive that no water would flow down to hurt their property; the concerns that Hidden Oaks residents had with movement of dirt has been addressed by Mr. Nester; the well on the property is uncapped and is not good water. Vice Chair Keen closed the public hearing for public comment. In reply to a question from Commissioner Barneich, Mr. Foster agreed that the preliminary drainage plan does show one of the areas for the runoff as being Canyon Way and stated that there would have to be an arrangement for share of cost or the drainage plan would have to be revised. Commission comments: Ruth: • The project looks like a reasonable use of space; she had concern with the access, but after visiting the site can fully understand why staff has the access via Hidden Oaks. • She asked for clarification on the walking trail on Hidden Oaks. Mr. Strong clarified the type of street, the sidewalk and the trail system that would connect. • Asked if there is was provision to work out water neutralization with the City without conditioning now? Mr. Foster stated that there was and explained how this could be facilitated to reduce what could be done off site. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2009 PAGE 7 • She's in favor of the project; however there needs to be changes to some of the language included in the conditions (already discussed) • She was in favor of the changes to the construction hours to include Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. — 3:0 p.m. as long as inspections would not be required for the type of work done (COA #25). Brown: • Regarding access, Hidden Oaks Road was done as a collector street and should be used as such; he believes it will be a long time before the school is built. • He wants to see a unit to meet the affordable housing requirement as he is not in favor of in -lieu fees. • Given the concerns with water usage for the City, Mitigation Measure No. VIII. is too vague; as this is a new mitigation he can agree to leave it as it is for this project, but in future he would not be able to vote for it in this form; he would like to see this development made as a demonstration project to prove what could be done and he would like staff to bring forward to City Council his concern regarding the vague nature of this mitigation. Barneich: • She is willing to approve the project; she specifically appreciates the larger rear setbacks on lots 4 -9, the minimizing of the grading, the use of the natural slope of the land and the bonding added for oak trees. • She is glad that the Pine trees with pitch canker are being eradicated; whatever type of tree that Dave Regan suggests will thrive is okay with her; 83 new trees is a good deal. • Regarding the traffic, she is definitely in favor of the Hidden Oak Road. • She is concerned with water usage, but is comfortable with what staff has come up with for the water neutralization program and appreciate the ideas of the gray water system from Mr. Nester. • She agrees with the construction hours being allowed on Saturday. • She would like a COA added for not removing any trees until grading starts. Keen: • He's also in favor of the project and the use of Hidden Oaks Road; the examples of the "daily car trips" in the staff report were difficult to understand. • The drainage plan is satisfactory. • He is not sure about the walking trail - it does not appear to go anywhere, but he doesn't know what else can be done with it. • He is also in favor of the change in construction hours to allow work on Saturdays with shorter hours. • He would like to see the gray water system included (the two systems) even if it only goes outside of house. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruth, to approve Tentative Tract Map 07 -002 and Planned Unit Development 08 -003 and adopt the Resolution recommending approval to City Council with the following additions and amendments: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2009 • Construction is to be allowed on Saturdays from 8:30 to 3:30 p.m. only on work that does not require inspection. • COA # 22 to include Lot 12 and Lot 16. • Clarify language in COA # 19. • Add a condition to ensure that the drainage does not cause additional cost to the homeowners as requested by Mr. Crisafi. • Offsite affordable units to be allowed. • Strike COA #87 requiring an opticom device. • No trees are to be cut down or removed until grading begins. and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 09 -2079 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 07- 002 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 08 -003; LOCATED AT 451 HIDDEN OAK ROAD; APPLIED FOR BY GREG NESTER CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Ruth, Barneich and Vice Chair Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Chair Ray the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17th day of February 2009. 9:05 pm — The Commission took a 10- minute break. PAGE 8 C. HISTORIC RESOURCE DESIGNATION CASE NO. 08 -001; NESTER BUILDINGS; 139 AND 145 WEST BRANCH STREET Associate Planner, Jim Bergman, presented a staff report for consideration of recommendations from the Historic Resource Committee (HRC), the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and City staff, regarding an application to designate 139 and 145 West Branch Street as local historic resources per Municipal Code Section 16.16.135. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that the HRC recommends that both 139 and 145 West branch Street be designated as local historic resources; the ARC recommends that neither 139 nor 145 West Branch Street be designated as local historical resources; the Community Development Director recommends that historical designation be referred back to the Planning Commission due to concurrent applications and lack of consent by the property owner, and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required to clarify why the properties may be considered 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2009 PAGE 9 historically or culturally significant and alternatives to mitigate or avoid potential adverse impact on the Village Core Downtown environment. In reply to a request from Commissioner Barneich, Mr. Bergman clarified the staff report regarding the criteria for the Findings. Although this was not a public hearing Vice Chair Keen opened the hearing for public comment. Mike McConville, 529 E. Branch Street, stated concern with the huge cost that would be involved to restore the buildings due to the poor condition they were in; in addition, the buildings no longer fit with neighboring properties; they should be replaced with a development that contributes to the City's tax base; requiring only one criteria is not sufficient to declare these buildings historic; he recommends moving the buildings to another site. Pearl Cole, 145 E. Branch Street (owner), stated she does not consider her house of historic value and she has lived in it for 50 years. Shirley Gibson, 1546 Helena Street, Halcyon, (HRC member), stated the Committee used the Department of Interior Guidelines and Standards in helping to make their decision and spent a lot of time discussing what the meaning of "significance" is; the two double doors on the left hand side of 139 W. Branch were used by the horse -drawn hearses; she believes the building is unique and historical for the City of Arroyo Grande and urged the Planning Commission declare them historical resources. Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, stated that the building at 139 W. Branch had been remodeled without regard for Code many times in the past; he does not think that a structural engineer would say the building is sound enough to be moved; it is not suitable to be restored; the City Council recently passed an Ordinance that strongly discouraged Spanish eclectic style buildings in the Village — this style; if pieces are historic they could be saved and reused in a new structure. Susan Flores, 529 E. Branch Street, stated these buildings would need a lot of work to be restored; there is no special significant ambience about either of them; the cost for an EIR could be "out -of- site "; if we try to save everything the Village will not look like what we want to achieve. Greg Nester, owner of 139 and 145 W. Branch Street, went over the history of his purchase of the buildings, described his vision and submittal of plans to the City after seeing the Robiascotti building development in late 2006. He stated concern with the delay since submittal of their application and having to wait to establish the historical significance of the buildings. These buildings were not included in the original Historic Resource Survey for the Village, but were added at a later date and were the first out of approximately 187 buildings to be reviewed. He further stated that if these properties PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2009 Vice Chair Keen closed the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 10 are designated historical after the zoning, purchase and submittal of the project he would look to the City to participate in the devaluation of them; explained why he does not see a connection to the past with these two properties, parking is a continual issue and he had purchased 145 W. Branch Street because it touches on Traffic Way and would have allowed ingress and egress off Traffic Way for underground parking. Commissioner Barneich questioned where Mr. Nester had obtained the historical data resource list referred to. Mr. Nester stated he would have to clarify this with staff. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Nester if there were any incentives that would encourage him to come to a conclusion for a historical designation. Mr. Nester said the economics of restoration would not make it economically feasible; if these buildings are designated historical he would appeal to the highest level. 10:15 PM Commissioner Barneich made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Keen, to continue the discussion to 11:00 p.m.; the motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote. Staff and the Commission then discussed the basis for an EIR with Director Strong explaining that in order to confirm if these buildings are a significant historic resource through CEQA an EIR would be required. He suggested that the Commission continue discussion of this item to their next meeting by which time staff would know the potential cost for of an EIR - Requests for Proposals were recently sent out. Commissioner Barneich stated that no matter what the EIR costs, even if Mr. Nester does not want to restore the buildings, the money will have to be spent as it appears that the property meets the criteria for historical designation and would therefore, trigger CEQA. In reply to a question from Commissioner Brown, Director Strong explained that once a property has been designated historical, through CEQA, an EIR would be required. If Mr. Nester wants to pursue development of this property, assuming that it was of historical significance, the only way to get to a safe determination is through an EIR. In reply to a request for clarification from Commissioner Ruth, Director Strong stated that the Commission could make a motion that the facts do not support designation of historical significance and then an EIR could be avoided and it would not need to go forward to City Council for further consideration. After further discussion regarding the process for an EIR, Commissioner Barneich stated that after review of all the information submitted to the Commission it was her opinion that the properties meet the criteria on a local, federal and state level which would trigger an EIR. She could make the "findings of fact ", stated in the staff report, for 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2009 designation as a historic resource (she read excerpts from the 2001 General Plan and Design Guidelines and Standards to support the findings for the record). In conclusion, she suggested that the City look at incentives such as the Mills Act, to encourage property owners in Arroyo Grande to preserve their property and the Village. 1st Motion Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruth, to continue the discussion to the March 3, 2009 meeting by which time the City would have received and reviewed the RFP's for an EIR. The motion was a tie /no action by the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice Chair Keen and Commissioner Ruth NOES: Commissioners Barneich and Brown ABSENT: Chair Ray Due to a "no action" vote Commission Brown made another motion. 2nd Motion: Commissioner Brown made a motion, to require that an EIR be prepared to address potential historical significance. The motion failed due to no second. Further discussion ensued with Director Strong explaining to the Commission that the City had prepared a Notice of Preparation and requested proposals (RFP's) from qualified consultants, but at this time the decision had not been made as to whether an EIR is to be prepared, dependent on the applicant (Nester) depositing necessary funds. 3rd Motion Commissioner Barneich made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to designate 139 and 145 West Branch Street to be put onto the Historic Resource list for the City of Arroyo Grande, Historic Resource Designation Case No. 08 -001, and request staff to return with a Resolution for consideration at the March 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. AYES: Commissioners Barneich and Brown NOES: Vice Chair Keen and Commissioner Ruth ABSENT: Chair Ray PAGE 11 Discussion The Commission needed clarification on the procedure now that "no action" had been taken. Director Strong explained that no recommendation had been reached by the Planning Commission and this would be reported to the City Council. Case No. App ;-.. Address Description . ' Action ,Planner 1. ARC 08 -010 Susan Flores 529 E. Branch St. Alterations including a second story addition to an existing residence located in the D -2.4 Historic Overlay District. A. J. Bergman 2. PPR 09 -002 Tamera Jewell 1263 E. Grand Ave. BBQ TO GO A. J. Bergman 3. PPR 09 -001 Gibson Brothers 1436 E. Grand Ave. New BBQ Restaurant D. J. Bergman PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2009 III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. I.V. NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: SINCE FEBRUARY 3, 2009: Commissioner Barneich asked for clarification on administrative item No. 3. Director Strong explained that the Gibson Bros. application for a plot plan review to operate a BBQ in front of their business was denied, but they are re- applying to operate the BBQ behind the store with a Plot Plan Review. The Commission had no further concerns with the administrative items. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. V.I. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Brown requested that the Commission discuss the nursery at the Methodist Camp as it is does not seem to be moving forward and he would like to get it jump - started. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. on a motion by Vice Chair Keen, seconded by Commissioner Brown. LYIV REARDON- SMITH, „JO KEEN, WO HAIR SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (Approved at the 3/17/09 meeting) PAGE 12 1 1 1