Loading...
PC Minutes 2003-11-181 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION . NOVEMBER 18, 2003 CALL TO ORDER — The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Guthrie presiding; also present were Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Keen and Fowler. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner, Jim Berman, and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: Public Hearing Item 111.6 was heard first due to incorrect time posted for Item III.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of November 4, 2003 were approved with a correction on Item IV.C; the roll call vote should have stated Commissioner Arnold absent. The motion was approved with a 5/0 voice vote. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Supplemental information regarding Item III.A. ITEM II.A: NOTICE OF MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE NOVEMBER 4, 2003. The Commission approved all Minor Use Permits listed on the agenda. Commissioner Keen requested another column be added to the table to describe the Minor Exceptions. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM III.B: CONSIDERATION OF PERMIT REVOCATIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NOS. 98-572 & 98-573; APPLICANT — SHEPPEL/KENNEDY; LOCATION — OAK PARK AND JAMES WAY. Staff report prepared and presented by Community Development Director, Rob Strong. Mr. Strong explained that the reconsideration of conditions of approval and/or revocation of use permits was due to non-compliance of shared parking and driveway agreement and apparent inadequate parking for professional office complex and fitness club facilities on two separate adjoining owners' properties. Mr. Strong requested that the hearing be continued to the meeting of December 16, 2003 to give applicants more time to submit a shared parking agreement and for further noticing of the proposal. Although the item was requested to be continued seeing the applicant present, Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Russ Sheppel, owner of portions of the project, gave the history of the project and described his frustrations with trying to get an agreement with the owner of the fitness club regarding the parking and other problems and stated he believed that permit revocation may be the only way to get compliance from the other party. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Sheppel if he had an equitable solution. MINUTES PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Mr. Sheppel stated that an equitable solution would be to have regulated parking conditions addressed by the City. Sandy Pitkin, Property Manager, stated that during the last year they have had 196 stressed phone calls from doctors complaining about parking conditions, especially their handicapped patients; new clients are not interested in leasing until the parking problem has been solved. Mr. Sheppel distributed complaint letters received from tenants regarding the lack of parking since the opening of the Kennedy Fitness Club. Kim Hatch, Pultz and Assoc., distributed plans showing the parking for the project site and explained the history of how the site parking had been developed; there had been no problem until the Kennedy Fitness Club had opened; the parking for this facility encroached upon the parking intended for the other buildings; the peak hour parking study had not reflected the reality for the Kennedy Fitness Club. John Belsher, attorney for Mr. Sheppel, gave detailed information on the history of the parking for each of the properties and stated after many attempts by Mr. Sheppel to date no parking agreement had been made between the parties. He would like to see the temporary certificates of occupancy revoked by the City until the problems had been resolved. Commissioner Brown asked if the problem would continue if the rest of the site is built out? Mr. Belsher stated the development plan for the final portion of the site is to have a mixed-use residential project so parking for this should be substantially less than for commercial or fitness facility. Commissioner Keen said when this project went through the Planning Commission they did have a problem with the shared parking, but had been assured by the applicants that this would not be a problem. Mr. Sheppel agreed with Commissioner Keen, explaining that at the time it had been anticipated that the peak hour parking would not be a problem. Penfield and Smith did the parking study and both he and Mr. Kennedy had contributed to the cost for this study. Kevin Kennedy, Owner of Kennedy Fitness Club, stated he had not come to the meeting prepared to speak because before the meeting he had been informed that staff would be requesting a continuance. He then gave an overview of his frustrations and stated he was very sensitive to parking issues, he was trying to make the parking work and the fitness club was much more successful than he had anticipated. Commission Comments: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 PAGE 3 • The two parties must resolve the problems themselves and come up with an agreement and if this did not happen before the next Commission meeting they would consider revocation of the permits. • They suggested that some of the extra classes at the fitness center could be arranged outside of the peak office hours for the doctors. • If the item is continued they would make more detailed comments and they would want to see some detailed alternatives presented to them. • They recommended the parties resolve their differences and come to an agreement by December 1, 2003 Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. Staff requested that both parties apply for conditional use permit amendments, submit the fee, provide information as to their actual operations, their proposed hours of operation including peak hours of operation, identify any proposed shared parking and the areas of operation of shared parking. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to reopen the Public Hearing and continue this item to December 16, 2003. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Arnold, Brown, Fowler and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING III.A: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 03-005 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 03-005; APPLICANT — RICHARD SHARP; LOCATION — S. ELM AND THE PIKE. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster. Mr. Foster gave an overview of the project, and stated the ARC had recommended approval of the project with the condition that the applicant bring back the final landscape plan for ARC review. After Commission comments and questions Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Richard Sharp, applicant, gave an overview of his project and answered some of the Commission concerns: • The project would upgrade the neighborhood. • Asked for consideration of waiving the requirement to underground existing utilities for the project (located on the south side and west rear property lines). • Recreational space was to be provided as open space rather than interior space. • Insurance will not cover an indoor community space or elevator without substantial cost MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 PAGE 4 Commissioner Brown: • Density bonus has been clarified to require 25% of the project rather than 25% of the increase in units. Mr. Foster explained provisions of State law regarding senior projects and density bonus. • He could not approve this project without the indoor community space as elderly people cannot drive much and the units are small. • He had concern with parking, but could be flexible on this. Commissioner Keen: • If this project were deed restricted to age 55 parking would not be adequate as many of these people would still be working. • Two baths are not necessary and eliminating one would keep the cost of the project down. Answering Commissioner comments Garth Kornreich, Architect: • 1.2 off-street parking spaces per unit should be sufficient for a senior housing development, even if some people will still be working. • He had designed some of the units to step down into yards so as not to overlook neighboring patios. • The second story rooms are bedrooms and bathrooms so should be less intrusive to neighbors. The following neighbors spoke some at length, against the project: Larry Royal, 1200 Russ Court Chip Schermerhorn, 1220 Russ Court Terri Peterson, 710 Paul Place Ann McMullen, 731 S. Elm Kit & Jesse Ponce, 771 Elm Street Cheryl Woodard, 720 Paul Place Cheryl Simily, 730 Paul Place Charles Howell, 761 Paul Place Some of the main concerns stated by the neighbors were: • The sign posted at the project site incorrectly stated start time for Planning Commission as 7:00 p.m. • Parking was insufficient and would put a burden on surrounding streets as many 55 year olds are still working and would require more than one parking space; there is no handicap parking for seniors. • How would the minimum age of 55 years be enforced? • Emergency access — would emergency vehicles be able to get in the underground parking? • Height of the two story units would look right down into neighbor's yards; they would like to see one-story units. • There may be a potential for deterioration to develop if units are sublet and then property values would be reduced. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 PAGE 5 • How would drainage from the project be handled because they already have water runoff problems in the area. • Where would dumpsters be located? More frequent trash pickups would create more noise in the neighborhood.' • Underground parking for seniors not wise, parking spaces are too narrow, underground structure on sandy soil is not good. • This is not a self-contained retirement community. • There is a school close by and there was concern with increased traffic from this project. • Ingress and egress not sufficient for this project. Fred Bauer, 212 Short Street, stated he was present for another item, but wanted to state in his opinion there should be no more than 12 units per acre to make it livable and that this amount of units cannot be put on this size site unless it was three stores or more. The Commission took a 10 -minute break. Mr. Sharp in answer to neighbors: • There will be no balconies on the back of the building - they will not overlook any neighboring yards. • Every unit will be handicap accessible by ramps. • Their engineer and the City engineer have adequately addressed drainage issues. • There is a great need for more affordable housing and smaller units to accommodate this requirement. Mr. Komriech in reply to neighbors: • Sandy soil does not present problems for underground building. The Commission thanked all the neighbors for their concerns and comments and stated that the applicant could have resolved many of these concerns if some contact had been made with the neighbors before the meeting. Commission concerns: • Ingress and egress exits should be required for the parking garage. • The width of underground parking spaces should be reviewed. • Placement of dumpsters and pickup times should be carefully reviewed. • Having two story residences next to one story could cause problems because of privacy issues. • An indoor community space should be a requirement; a courtyard is not a satisfactory area for activities. • The minimum age requirement of 55 should be revisited, (this age is not usually retired); there seems to be a conflict with whether this project is directed to the working or the retired. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 PAGE 6 • Elevators should be required for this project. • Waiving the requirement for undergrounding of utilities — if the balconies were eliminated they could agree to waive this requirement. • Even a single story development could look into the neighbor's yards; two story units can be designed so as not to interfere with neighbors. • The geographic location of this project should require more parking (this site is not close to any services). • The traffic engineer should be present if this comes back for consideration, to justify the parking. • Senior housing has a lower impact than regular housing — the parking may be sufficient. • A bus shelter should be required on The Pike. • By relocating the windows to provide more privacy two stories could be acceptable. • If this were a commercial project it would create a lot more traffic. The Commission agreed that they could not approve the project as presented due to the many unresolved issues. Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown to continue the project to a date uncertain. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Fowler, Keen and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IV.A: PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 03- 013; APPLICANT — MICHAEL COHO; LOCATION — 1390 NEWPORT AVENUE. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. Mr. Bergman gave an overview of the proposed division of a Residential Suburban D- 2.6 parcel. His report explained that the 2001 General Plan designated the land use as Low -Medium Density, which is consistent with the Residential Suburban zoning Overlay district D-2.6 established in 1987 by City Ordinance and was originally applied to the underlying properties that were then zoned R-1. Staff Advisory Committee supported the project with some tentative conditions. Commission Comments: • Probably a do -able project although not a fan of flag lots. • Seems more appropriate for a granny unit. • Should the overall zoning be revised instead of dealing with these lots piecemeal? • The 20 -foot easement for a driveway would require a retaining wall for safety. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 PAGE 7 NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IV.B: PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 03- 014; APPLICANT — RAFAEL and REGINA NARVAEZ; LOCATION — 105 LE POINT STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster. Mr. Foster gave an overview of the proposal for a lot line adjustment. He stated that currently there are two existing side-by-side lots with a house on one lot. The other is vacant. The proposed adjustment would change the configuration from a side by side to a top and bottom with an access easement. After preliminary review staff is not in favor of this proposal due to excessive grading and prominent retaining walls that would be required for access to the rear lot. Rafael Narvaez, applicant, spoke explaining their proposal would provide a better view and privacy; he described the retaining walls. The Commission stated they could not support this proposal as presented: • The site was too steep and an excessive amount of grading would be required to accomplish the proposal with the retaining walls. • This proposal would not meet the required findings for a lot -line adjustment. Mr. Strong suggested the applicant design the project to fit the slope not try to change the slope to fit the house. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: Mr. Strong gave an update on the Traffic Commission meeting regarding the partial closure of Allen Street and increased parking on Cherry west of Traffic Way. The Traffic Commission will need to gather more base information before any decision can be made, but there is interest in the neighborhood for some change on Allen Street. ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. ATTEST: LYN REARDON-SMITH, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION A TO CC N>T rfT ROB STRONG COM UNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 1 1 1