Loading...
PC Minutes 2000-02-151 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 15, 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 X Commissioner Keen X Commissioner London X Vice -Chair Parker X Chair Greene APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Commissioner London, seconded by Commissioner Keen and by a unanimous voice vote the minutes of December 21, 1999 were approved as amended. On motion of Commissioner Costello, seconded by Commissioner London and by a unanimous voice vote, the minutes of January 18, 2000 were approved as amended. ITEM I. I. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE I. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Letter dated October 28, 1999 from Celso C. Martinez, McDonalds's Corporation concerning Pre - Application Review 99 -006. 2. Letter dated February 13, 2000 from David Loomis concerning Tentative Parcel map Case No. 00 -001. 3. Letter to the Planning Commission from Nanci Parker concerning the removal of trees at St. Patrick's Church - ACUP 00-01. ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS II. A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 00 -001; LOCATION — 615 & 617 MYRTLE; APPLICANT JAMES A. HARRIS Joe Prutch, Contract Planner explained to the Planning Commission that the applicant was requesting a Tentative Parcel Map to divide a 24,279 square foot parcel into two Tots. Parcel One would be 11,038 and Parcel Two would be 13,241 square feet. Parcel Two would contain the existing single - family home while Parcel One would include the existing second residential unit. No new construction is proposed. Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -556 approved an existing residence as a second residential unit and construction of a 1,700 square foot primary residence. Each of the two lots created by the proposed tentative parcel map would contain one of the existing residences. Each existing residence complies with Development Code requirements. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 15, 2000 PAGE 2 Mr. Prutch further explained to the Commission that Condition #7 of the Conditions of Approval for CUP 97 -556 required that the applicant record a deed restriction, and an agreement affecting real property, regarding use of the second dwelling unit. The Agreement Affecting Real Property (Agreement), recorded with the San Luis Obispo County Recorder on June 24, 1997, contains the following restrictions on the property: 1. If either the primary residence or the second residential unit located on the property is rented, the other shall be owner occupied. 2. The second residential unit located on the property shall not be offered for sale. 3. The occupant of the second residential unit located on the property shall have the use of one garaged parking space and one open parking space. If the Tentative Parcel Map were approved, these restrictions would need to be rescinded. Finally, Mr. Prutch stated that Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 00 -1735 and that the Commission directs staff to prepare the appropriate document, or documents, to rescind the Agreement Affecting Real Property. Vice -Chair Parker stated that it appears that the driveway to the second parcel goes over the driveway on parcel one. She did not believe that there was enough room to have cars parked in the driveway in front of the garage on parcel one. James Harris, applicant for the project, stated that this was not a flag lot and that there would be an easement for access. The way this easement is angled, the residents on the front parcel would be able to park two (2) cars in the driveway in front of the garage and there would still be plenty of room to get by. Ms. Parker had the following questions: • Was there any code that would not allow this project to be approved? • If lot one were to rebuild would they have to meet the Development Code setbacks? • She had some questions about the creek easement and what the setback would be? Mr. Prutch stated that this project is being built to Development Code standards; any rebuilding would then have to meet the setback standards; there is a creek bank maintenance easement of 10 feet that was created in 1971 and the current Development Code requires a 25 foot easement. There was a brief discussion about the density that can be allowed with secondary dwellings. Commissioner Costello asked why Condition #7 was put in the original Conditional Use Permit, when the secondary dwelling was approved and what is the reason this should be 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 15, 2000 PAGE 3 changed at this time? He was particularly concerned with the Condition that did not allow the secondary unit to be sold. Mr. Prutch stated that this was a standard condition used in all secondary residential unit projects. Mr. McCants stated that this condition was intended to ensure that the owner of the property occupied at least one dwelling and it was not sold independently. Chair Greene was concerned about the letter the Planning Commission had received from David Loomis concerning the fence and asked Mr. Prutch if he would please address the issue it raised. Mr. Greene stated that he was on the Planning Commission when the original Conditional Use Permit was approved and he does not remember the fence being an issue. Does Mr. Harris have any responsibility relative to the installation of a fence? Mr. Prutch stated that he had reviewed the Conditions of Approval from the original Conditional Use Permit and he did not see any thing concerning a fence. He had also talked to the Building Department about this and he was told that when the final inspection is done prior to occupancy, fences are not something they look at. The Development Code does not require a fence at a single - family residence. Mr. Greene stated that it seemed that the City was powerless to rectify the issue raised by the Loomis family. In view of this, would staff recommend adding a condition to have the applicant install the fence? Mr. McCants stated that staff did not have the information to demonstrate to the Planning Commission if it was appropriate or not appropriate to require a fence. If the Commission could find a logical reason to impose such a condition then it could be added, however staff did not have any information to support this. Mr. Keen stated that he would hate to see the Planning Commission start requiring fences in these cases. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Harris spoke briefly to the Commission and thanked them for considering this project. He briefly discussed the fence issue and stated that he has had a couple of conversations with Mr. Loomis about this. Mr. Harris asked about Conditions No. 9 and 10 and asked if they were applicable for this project? He also asked if they needed an encroachment permit? Also, was Condition No. 26 required? Kim Romano stated that Conditions No. 9 and 10 did not apply to this project. An encroachment permit was only needed if the applicant was going to go onto City right -of- ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 15, 2000 PAGE 4 ways to do any work. With regards to Condition No. 26, this is only applicable if the applicant has utility improvements that he wanted to delay until after the map is recorded. Mr. Keen asked if the electric meter was on the old or the new house? He wanted the applicant to be aware that this had to be split off and both would have to have separate meters. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission approve: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1735 with Exhibit "A" and direct staff to prepare documents to rescind Conditional Use Permit 97 -556 Condition No. 7 dealing with the recorded deed restriction and the agreement affecting real property. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE YES Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None IV. DISCUSSION None A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 00 -001, LOCATED AT 615 & 617 MYRTLE STREET, APPLIED FOR BY JAMES A. HARRIS V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT The Commissioners discussed Vice -Chair Parker's letter and what had happened with the tree removal at St. Patrick's Church. Mr. McCants told the Commission that staff would look into this and report back to them. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 15, 2000 PAGE 5 Vice -Chair Parker asked what was happening with Berry Gardens, if anyone was going to the Planners Institute in Monterey, and what was happening with the Levine lawsuit? Mr. Keen stated that he would like staff to contact Mr. Loomis and explain the outcome with regards to his letter concerning the fence. The Commission discussed the letter from McDonald's and were in agreement that if they wanted to change the pole sign they would require the sign to meet all current Development Code sign requirements. VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS Mr. McCants discussed the joint meeting with the City Council and told the Commission that it was scheduled for April 6, 2000 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council chambers. If the Planning Commission had any thing they wanted to discuss at this meeting, please let him know so it could be placed on the agenda. VII. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner London the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting on March 7, 2000. ATTEST: \SULN\ //"N - 11.0uJ G'n� Kathleen Fryer, Comm' k ion Clerk Laurence Greene, Chair AS 0 C'1 TENT: Ker Cants Community Development Director