Loading...
PC Minutes 2000-10-031 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER Chair Greene called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL X Commissioner Costello ABSENT Commissioner Keen X Commissioner London X Vice -Chair Parker X Chair Greene APPROVAL OF MINUTES None ITEM I. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Copy of a letter written to Dr. and Mrs. Jarren Jorgensen from Rhonda Vigil of the San Luis Obispo County Chumash Council ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS II.A. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 00 -006; LOCATION — 587 VALLEY ROAD; APPLICANT JUDITH HADDOX Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and explained that the property is located behind the Arroyo Grande High School off of Valley Road, and consists of three individual lots totaling about 18.5 acres. One of the lots is an abandoned railroad property and is non - conforming because of its small lot size. The property is developed with a single - family residence, detached garage, and storage shed. Ms. Heffernon stated that the purpose of the lot line adjustment was to increase the size of the smaller lot, thereby complying with the Residential Hillside zoning requirements and providing an opportunity for future residential development. The minimum lot size for the Residential Hillside zoning district is 1.12 acres. As adjusted, all of the proposed lots exceed the minimum Development Code requirements. The Planning Commission and Ms. Heffernon discussed the easements on the parcels and how the easements would allow the parcels to be accessed. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Leonard Lenqer, 1203 Carpenter Canyon Road, representing the applicant discussed the access issues with the Planning Commission. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000 PAGE 2 Judith Haddox, 587 Valley Road, stated that that at the time her father sold the adjacent property to Lucia Mar Unified School District, the School District dedicated a 30 foot easement for a public street and utilities to Parcel 1. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. After a brief discussion by the Planning Commission, Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission adopt RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1764 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 00 -006 FOR THREE (3) LOTS, LOCATED AT 587 VALLEY ROAD, APPLIED FOR BY JUDITH HADDOX with Attachment A. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello ABSENT Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene II. B. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 00 -005, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 00 -001; LOCATION — 131 JUNIPER STREET; APPLICANT — GENE MARKS Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and stated that the project site is 10,720 square feet and located adjacent to the Juniper Street Apartments. She further stated that the applicant proposes to create 2 lots and build two residences on the newly created parcels. Parcel 1 would be 5,542 square feet and Parcel 2 would be 5,178 square feet. Parcel 1 would have frontage on Juniper Street, and access to Parcel 2 would be provided by a 20' wide paved access driveway. Ms. McClish stated that both the existing residences on the project site would be demolished. Ms. McClish explained to the Planning Commission that the subject property was located within the Condominium /Townhouse zoning district, which is intended for development of small lot single - family and multi - family residential dwelling units with a maximum density of 9 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing a Tentative Parcel Map for 2 units on a 1/4-acre site, which meets the allowable density. 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000 PAGE 3 Ms. McClish said that the applicant was requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development to allow deviation from the minimum lot size, lot depth and setback requirements of the Development Code. The Planned Unit Development process is intended to provide flexibility in design to permit more efficient use of land than would normally be possible through strict application of Development Code requirements. Ms. McClish stated that the minimum building site in the Multi - Family District was 10,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing lots of 5,542 and 5,178 square feet. The project meets other Development Code requirements, such as maximum lot coverage, parking spaces and amount of private open space. The proposed project meets setback requirements of the Multi - Family district except for the side yard setback on the east side of Parcel 1, which abuts a driveway for the adjacent residence. Ms. McClish informed the Planning Commission that the applicant had revised project plans as necessary to meet requirements brought up by the Staff Advisory Committee for drainage and parking configuration. Staff has not received any written communication in response to noticing the proposed project. Staff has reviewed the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the proposed project is categorically exempt. The Planning Commission and staff discussed the project with regards to the set backs, retention /infiltration basins, shared driveway easement and maintenance, and landscaping. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Gene Marx, 1378 17 Street, applicant for the project, answered questions from the Planning Commission concerning landscaping and the use of gravel in the side yard for a storage area. Linda Ostapowicz, 309 E. Cherry spoke in favor of the project. After a brief discussion Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission adopt RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1766 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 00 -005, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 00 -001 WITH ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, LOCATED AT 131 JUNIPER STREET AND APPLIED FOR BY GENE MARKS with Attachment A. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000 PAGE 4 ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello ABSENT Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene II. C. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 00 -004; LOCATION - 1190 EAST GRAND AVENUE; APPLICANT - SIGRID GREEN Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and stated that the proposed project is to subdivide an existing condominium office unit into two (2) units. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Grand Avenue and Brisco Road. Ms. Heffernon explained that there is an existing 7 -unit office condominium complex on the property. Ms. Heffernon reminded the Commission that last November, they had approved a similar project to subdivide one of these office units. The applicant is proposing an airspace condominium subdivision of Unit No. 5 of this office complex, creating two units of 949 square feet each. There will be no alterations to the building as a result of the subdivision. Since the proposal meets all relevant Map Act and Development Code requirements, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached Resolution, thereby approving Tentative Parcel Map 00 -004 subject to the conditions of approval. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed project with regards to the parking requirements and the access to each of the proposed office spaces. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Sigrid Green, P.O. Box 1708, applicant for the project stated that she was available to answer any questions from the Commission. Orrin Cocks, 1457 Deer Canyon Road, asked that the City not require a Parcel Map for the application of the Mrs. Green. He stated that Mr. Campbell and his surveyor both understand that it is not possible to meet this requirement. Craig Campbell, Public Works Department, stated that Mr. Cocks was referring to Condition of Approval No. 10, which calls for a parcel map to be submitted. Mr. Campbell stated that what Mr. Cocks wanted, and what Mr. Campbell felt was appropriate to do, was to add the language "or a revised Condominium Plan ". Mr. Campbell stated that he felt it would satisfy the concern of Mr. Cocks and would make the recording process easier. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission adopt 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000 PAGE 5 RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1758 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 00 -004, LOCATED AT 1190 GRAND AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY SIGRID GREEN including Exhibit B as amended with the modification of Condition of Approval No. 10 to read "or a revised Condominium Plan ". Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello ABSENT Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS III. A PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRETATION OF ALLOWABLE USES IN THE PUBLIC /QUASI- PUBLIC (PF) ZONING DISTRICT Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner presented the staff report and stated that because the Planning Commission has the authority to clarify ambiguities found in the Development Code, staff is requesting the Planning Commission make an interpretation as to whether a single - family use is allowable in the P F zoning district for a specific situation. Ms. Heffernon explained to the Planning Commission that last July, Mr. Janai submitted a lot line adjustment application for property located at 419 Le Point Street. The site is adjacent to Corbett Canyon Creek and consists of two parcels, one of which is an abandoned railroad right -of -way property. The site is developed with a single - family residence and a detached garage, which were both constructed across the existing lot line dividing the two properties. The intent of the lot line adjustment was to place the structures on one parcel and to create a lot that could be developed with another single - family residence. Prior to submitting the lot line adjustment application, staff informed the applicant that the property was divided between two (2) zoning districts, Public Facilities and Residential Suburban (RS), and that a lot line adjustment could be processed to allow another house to be built, so long as it was within the RS district. Once the application was submitted and more research was done, it was determined that the entire property was within the Public Facilities district. Ms. Heffernon told the Planning Commission that the Development Code allows certain residential uses in the Public Facility district, such as convalescent homes, congregate care, assisted living facilities, and homeless shelters. The Code also allows "other uses similar to, and no more objectionable than the uses specifically allowed, as determined by ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000 PAGE 6 the Planning Commission". Ms. Heffernon stated that staff believes that a single - family residence, in this circumstance, is less objectionable than the other residential uses identified in the Development Code. At the request of the applicant, staff has brought this item to the Planning Commission to determine if another residence could be allowed on the property as it is currently zoned. An alternative for the applicant is to wait until after the General Plan Update process is complete. It is anticipated that the old abandoned railroad properties will be rezoned to reflect the appropriate surrounding land uses. Ms. Heffernon stated that staff was requesting that the Planning Commission make an interpretation as to whether a single - family residential use can be permitted in the Public Facility zoning district for this particular situation. Vice -Chair Parker stated that the City was going through a General Plan update process at this point and she understood that it might take a while longer to complete. She asked why this could not go through the City Council for a rezoning? Kerry McCants, Community Development Director stated that the City Council could rezone the property, however the Planning Commission would have to hold a hearing on such a request before the Council could review it. Ms. Parker asked if the purpose of this PF location is specifically for railroad that is abandoned, couldn't the PF zoning just be abandoned into the zoning that surrounds it? Mr. McCants stated that this would not be possible without going through the hearing process at the Planning Commission and City Council level. Mr. McCants stated staff had determined that the language in Chapter 9.040(E) allowed the Planning Commission to make this interpretation if they choose to do so. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she is uncomfortable making a determination on zoning. She asked if their interpretation for this case would set a precedent and create a situation where this would eventually lead to other cases where the use did not apply to the zoning. Mr. McCants stated that staff would not have brought this to the Planning Commission had they not considered it to be an unusual situation and a peculiar set of circumstances. Vice -Chair Parker stated that someone who did not want to go through the re- zoning process would find this an opportunity to rezone without going through the proper channels. Ms. Parker said that if staff believes that a single - family residence in this circumstance is less objectionable than the other residential uses identified, it would leave this wide open and that at any given time three (3) commissioners could decide that some bizarre use is less objectionable than the established zoning. Mr. McCants stated that it is staff's responsibility to come to the Planning Commission and ask for an interpretation of the ordinance. Staff would not bring this to the Planning Commission if they did not think it was something that should be considered. 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000 PAGE7 Commissioner Costello asked if the language stated in Chapter 9, Section 09.04 was found elsewhere in the Development Code? Mr. McCants stated that this language was not everywhere in the Development Code, however he said that this may exist in other sections. Mr. Costello asked if this was zoned specifically to serve the Railroad? Mr. McCants stated that staff did not have any history on this and did not know why the designation was placed on this property although he would suspect that this was the case. Commissioner Costello and Ms. Heffernon discussed the zoning surrounding this property. Commissioner London stated that he remembers that when the Creekside project came through for the Loomis property that there was a street going through it and wondered if there would be any effect on the subject property? Mr. McCants stated that it would not directly effect this property. Chair Greene asked if the word "objectionable" was defined anywhere else in the Development Code? Mr. McCants stated that he was not aware of anywhere else it was used this way. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Leonard Lenger, 1203 Carpenter Canyon Road, representing the applicant spoke briefly to the Planning Commission. Rachel Janai, 419 Le Point, owner of the property spoke to the Planning Commission. She explained that they felt it was important to be able to do a lot split and build on this property because; with the potential development of the Loomis Property, they would like to be able to build their home on the back of the property to be further removed from the commercial development. Hillel Janai, 419 Le Point, spoke briefly to the Planning Commission and reminded them that they, or their representative, had been told by the Community Development Department three (3) times before they bought the property that a lot line adjustment and building an additional residence would be allowed. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner London stated that in this type of situation the Planning Commission has to look at the individual circumstances. Based on the surrounding property, it would be logical to approve an interpretation that this was the least objectionable type of development and therefore, he was willing to go along with staff's recommendation. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000 PAGE 8 Commissioner Costello stated that he had looked through the Development Code and had found the language throughout that allowed the Planning Commission to make this type of an interpretation by looking at each case on its own merits. Mr. Costello stated that looking at this case, based on its merits, he does not find this to be a more objectionable use than what is listed as permissible. In this case he can support staff's recommendation, however, he does think that the Planning Commission should be cautious with setting precedents. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she had the following problems with this: 1. That the Planning Commission can choose a different use if it is "less objectionable ". Less objectionable is too broad a term in her mind and may be precedent setting. She felt that there was a reason for having Public Facility zoning. Single Family housing is not a better use than Public Facility, just a different use. 2. She also has a problem with the fact that this is 50,000 square feet of property and the Planning Commission does not know why it is zoned Public Facility. She felt that there may be more of a reason for this than that the property used to belong to the Railroad. However, the surrounding property was all zoned single family, which makes sense in this area. Finally, she is willing to make an interpretation on this particular property that the lot line adjustment and a second residence should be allowed but not in any precedent setting way. She does not believe that the Planning Commission has the right to change the uses of the zoning in the City. Chair Greene stated that a compelling case has been made for this project and he believes that it is appropriate and mandatory for the City to grant the relief that the applicant is seeking if for no other reason that the applicant detrimentally relied upon information that turned out to be inaccurate. Mr. Greene stated that he felt the City Attorney should review the word "objectionable" and find a more definitive term. Mr. Greene stated that he did not think the Planning Commission would set any precedent because he could not see this type of situation coming before them again. Commissioner Costello moved that the Planning Commission make the interpretation that in the instance of the property at 419 Le Point Street, a single family residential use can be permitted in the Public /Quasi Public zoning district for this particular project. Vice -Chair Parker seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. III. B. TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 00 -003 FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2260; LOCATION - SOUTH OF EAST GRAND AVENUE, EAST OF OAK PARK BOULEVARD, NORTH OF ASH STREET, AND WEST OF SPRUCE STREET; APPLICANT - BERRY GARDENS, LLC. Ms. Heffernon presented the staff report and stated that Tract 2260 for the Berry Gardens residential subdivision was approved on September 22, 1998 and was due to expire last 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000 PAGE 9 month. Prior to the expiration date, the applicant filed a one -year time extension, which automatically extended the expiration date an additional 60 days per the Subdivision Map Act. The final map and improvement plans have been submitted and reviewed by staff. The conditions remaining to be satisfied prior to map recordation include the payment of City fees, submittal of bonds, and signing of certain documents. Ms. Heffernon explained to the Planning Commission that in order to grant a time extension, the Planning Commission must make the finding that there have been no significant changes in the General Plan, Municipal Code, or character of the area within which the project is located that would cause the approved project to be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare. Since approval of the project in 1998, there have been no significant changes to either the General Plan, Municipal Code or character in the project area that could cause the project to be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare. The Planning Commission briefly discussed the project and the requested time extension. Commissioner London moved that the Planning Commission adopt RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1765 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE -YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2260, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF EAST GRAND AVENUE, EAST OF OAK PARK BLVD., NORTH OF ASH STREET, AND WEST OF SPRUCE STREET; BERRY GARDENS, LLC Commissioner Costello seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello ABSENT Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene ITEM. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS None ITEM. V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT Chair Greene stated that several years ago there was some discussions regarding a requirement that the City enact a landscape ordinance. He stated that he had provided an ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2000 PAGE 10 ordinance from Vandenberg Village to the Community Development Department and would like to request that this matter be looked into. Commissioner London asked if there was any further information about the relinquishment of Highway 227. ITEM. VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS Kerry McCants reminded the Commission about the joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the City Council, which is scheduled for Tuesday, October 10, 2000 ITEM. VII. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Commissioner London, seconded by Commissioner Costello the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting on October 17, 2000. Kat leen Fryer, Commission perk Laurence Greene, Chair AS TO CONTENT: Community Development Director /0,0Amet ct) 6 1