PC Minutes 1996-09-03ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 3, 1996
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Tappan presiding.
Present were Commissioners Deviny, Keen, and Titus; Commissioner Lubin was absent.
Community Development Director Doreen Liberto -Blanck and Associate Planner Lori Rosenstein
were in attendance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - On motion of Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner
Titus, and unanimously carried, the minutes of June 20, 1996; July 2, 1996; and July 16, 1996
were approved as presented.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARING - OTTSE, INC., APPLICANT; SHETLER CONSTRUCTION, INC,
REPRESENTATIVE; VARIANCE CASE NO. 96-198 FROM THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
NUMBER OF SIGNS, MAXIMUM SIGN AREA, SIGN HEIGHT, AREAS OF A SINGLE
SIGN FACE AND THE USE OF FLAGS; PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 96-121
FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR THREE
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS; LOCATION - RANCHO GRANDE SUBDIVISION
(TRACTS 1834, 1994, AND 1997)
Associate Planner Lori Rosenstein presented the staff report. She explained the background of
the existing sign program which was established for Tracts 1994, 1997 and 1834; presented
exhibits of the proposed locations for the new signs; stated that the standard sign regulations do
not accommodate a development the size of Rancho Grande; explained the reasons presented in
1995 that allowed a variance to the sign regulations; and, stated that those factors still existed
plus the additional factor that there are tract homes being proposed in addition to the custom
lots. The Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) and Staff Advisory Committee (SAC) have
both reviewed the proposal and recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the Variance and the Planned Sign Program by the City Council.
Commissioner Keen asked if the proposed flags were only on the three (3) new signs or on all
of the signs, staff replied that the applicant would address that issue in their presentation.
Chairman Tappan asked about the locations of the monument signs, staff replied they were
approved when the fencing /landscaping was approved.
Chair Tappan opened the public hearing.
Kelli Sheller of Shetler Construction Inc. the applicant representative - stated that the
applicant agrees with the AAC recommendations and stated that the flags were only proposed
to be added to the new signs.
With no further comments from the audience, Chair Tappan closed the public hearing.
There was discussion regarding the fact that the signs were already up prior to Planning
Commission review; the rider on the billboard; the length of time originally allowed to install
the signs; the use of flags; the fact that some signs appear to be in the public right -of -way; and,
a separate motion to express concern to the City Council regarding the number of project
reviews being done by the Planning Commission after the fact.
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2
September 3, 1996
The following action was taken, to adopt the Resolution with attachment A and the following
correction:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VARIANCE
CASE NO. 96 -198, APPLIED FOR BY OTTSE, INC. TO THE CITY
COUNCIL
Attachment A -- correct General Condition #3:
3. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the City
C-euneil Pith 'tg> o son at the meeting of September 3, 1996 and marked "Exhibit
A ".
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1582
On a motion by Commissioner Titus, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and by the following
roll call, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Titus, Deviny, and Chair Tappan
NOES: Commissioner Keen
ABSENT: Commissioner Lubin
The following action was taken, to adopt the Resolution with attachment A:
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1583
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNED SIGN
PROGRAM CASE NO. 96 -121, APPLIED FOR BY OTTSE INC. TO THE
CITY COUNCIL
Attachment A - correct General Condition #3:
3. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the City
Getmeil t.:o��n1SS :4
. : , s at the meeting of September 3, 1996 and marked "Exhibit
:..
n
A "
On a motion by Commissioner Titus, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and by the following
roll call, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Titus, Deviny, and Tappan
NOES: Commissioner Keen
ABSENT: Commissioner Lubin
the foregoing resolution fai to receive the four affirmative votes required by the Planning
Commission Rules and Procedures to send a recommendation of approval to the City Council
this 3rd day of September, 1996.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3
September 3, 1996
The Planning Commission discussed making a separate motion expressing concern with the
number of "after fact reviews" being done; Community Development Director Liberto - Blanck
suggested that the issue be a topic of discussion at the special joint meeting of September 19;
and, there was concurrence by the Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING - ANTHONY TOSTE, APPLICANT; VARIANCE CASE NO. 96-199
TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF PROPOSED PARCEL 2 FROM 20
FEET TO 18.5 FEET; TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 96-532 TO SUBDIVIDE
AN EXISTING .60 ACRE RESIDENTIAL PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS CONSISTING OF
10,270 SQUARE FEET AND 16,000 SQUARE FEET; LOCATION - 540 EAST BRANCH
STREET
Associate Planner Lori Rosenstein presented the staff report; She presented an overhead of the
tentative parcel map indicating the location of the single family home under construction and the
location of the existing masonry wall; discussed how the project meets the development code
guidelines; discussed the various approvals necessary and how they were obtained concurrently
which allowed some confusion during the approval process; explained the request for variance;
explained the alternatives to granting the variance; discussed the major issues as outlined in the
staff report; explained grading on the creek was beyond the original permit; talked about the
creek dedication which was a condition of approval; stated that the maximum allowable height
for the masonry wall/fence is 6'; stated that in response to the notices sent to the adjoining
property owners, a reply was received which was included in the PC packet; reviewed
environmental issues which are impacted by the project; and, reported that the Staff Advisory
Committee (SAC) had reviewed the project and recommends approval.
Commissioner Deviny asked about the masonry wall, staff replied that it was recently
constructed. Chair Tappan stated that he remembered an older residence on this lot at one time,
staff replied that an older home and some walls were removed when the lot was graded.
Chair Tappan opened the public hearing.
Jeff Emrick of EDA, applicant representative - he discussed the process followed for permit
approval; stated that the tentative map application was deemed incomplete when submitted but
during that time the contractor had pulled permits for the retaining walls and submitted for a
building permit; explained why the house had been moved forward 1 -1/2 feet; explained why
sandbags were placed; and, requested approval of variance.
Chair Tappan asked if the Department of Fish and Game was contacted prior to grading on the
project. Mr. Emrick stated that EDA had a permit and their contractor felt he was working in
coordination with the Fish and Game Warden. Mr. Emrick asked for clarification regarding the
height of the 6' wall, staff replied that they were not recommending reduction in the height of
the wall.
Della Hovanec, 108 Garden St. - her property is to the east of this development, she expressed
her support of the project and said that the walls look wonderful and that it would be an asset
to the neighborhood to split the property.
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4
September 3, 1996
John Dearinger, 117 Garden St. - he lives to the east of the development and stated that the
previous vacant lot had attracted transients and junk dumped by various people. He stated that
the neighbors were in favor of the development and felt that the property values are being
increased.
Jeff Emrick of EDA, applicant representative - he stated that Mr. Toste had endeavored to
build a quality residence which was now in escrow. There was discussion regarding the
proposed development on the front lot. Mr. Emrick stated that he was preparing plans for a
single story residence to be submitted in the near future. He also inquired if the masonry wall
was considered a front or rear yard wall. Associate Planner Rosenstein stated that the
Development code was not clear regarding the front yard setback in cases such as this, usually
front yard setbacks are measured from the public right -of -way.
With no further comments from the audience, Chair Tappan closed the public hearing.
There was discussion regarding the issue of granting an easement versus establishing a flag lot;
restricting the front house to a single story to conform with the neighborhood; the requirement
for a walkway along the creek; moving the house without proper direction; and then the PC
requested additional information.
Craig Campbell, Public Works Department addressed the Commission regarding the sequencing
of the project and the lack of permits; discussed the placement of sandbags; and, addressed the
streamlining process.
The Planning Commission further discussed concern with the sequencing of the project and the
streamlining process followed by the City; expressed concern with the process; discussed open
space easement and public utilization of the area; discussed former use of property and any
credit that would be allowed for this development regarding fees; and discussed corrections to
COA's.
The following action was taken, to adopt the Resolution with attachment A as corrected:
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1584
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING VARIANCE CASE NO. 96-199 TO
REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO 18.5 FEET
APPLIED FOR BY ANTHONY TOSTE, AT 540 EAST BRANCH STREET
Resolution -- modify Finding #5:
5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity providing
rtia The structure . .
•
Attachment A -- modify Development Code Condition #6:
6. All walls (including retaining walls), fences or combination thereof, within the front
setback area et Paieen , shall be no more than 3 feet in height.. .
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5
September 3, 1996
On a motion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Titus, and by the following
roll call, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Deviny, Titus, Keen and Chair Tappan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Lubin
The following action was taken, to adopt the Resolution with attachment A:
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1585
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH
MITIGATION MEASURES, INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE
A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 96 -532, LOCATED AT 540 EAST BRANCH
STREET, APPLIED FOR BY ANTHONY TOSTE
Attachment A - modify Development Code Condition #11:
11. All walls (including retaining walls), fences or combination thereof, within the front
setback area Narcl, shall be no more than 3 feet in height.. .
Attachment A - modify Public Utilities Condition #32:
32. At time of Public Improvement Plan review, plans shall be submitted to all applicable
public utility companies including but not limited to Pacific Gas and Electric (P.G.& E.),
General Telephone (G.T.E.) Pacific , Cable TV and Southern California Gas
• Company for review.. .
add Special Condition #57:
nstru ction on rce »1: reat y thi : �rvis m halt be tirated to sin le sto
istructioi
Staff advised the audience of the appeal period for this project.
AYES: Commissioners Deviny, Titus, Keen and Chair Tappan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Lubin
On a motion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Titus, and by the following
roll call, to wit:.
PUBLIC HEARING - PETER KEITH AND LARRY GIN, APPLICANTS; LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 96 -531 TO REDUCE 54 EXISTING LOTS (SOME
FRAGMENTS) TO 33 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 2,189 SQUARE FEET TO 5,337
SQUARE FEET; LOCATION -- 543 SOUTH ELM STREET
The applicant has requested that the item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
October 1, 1996.
On a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Deviny and unanimously
agreed to the item was continued to the October 1, 1996 Planning Commission meeting.
1
1
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6
September 3, 1996
NON-PUBLIC HEARING - ED DORFMAN, APPLICANT; REQUEST FOR
INTERPRETATION REGARDING LOCATIONS OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL
GENERAL PLAN LINE AND HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONING LINE ON MAPS AT
CHERRY AVENUE /TRAFFIC WAY
Associate Planner Lori Rosenstein presented the staff report. She stated that the applicants are
requesting an interpretation on the location of the district boundary bisecting property located
in the southeast corner of Fast Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way. The applicants have submitted
a letter stating that the placement of the line is a result of a clerical error. The City Attorney
has directed staff that the PC may make a determination if enough evidence is provided. Staff
has reviewed letters and minutes of the public hearings and recommends adoption of Resolution
#1 which finds that the line is located further east than shown on the zoning and general plan
maps.
Although this was not a public hearing, Chair Tappan invited the applicant or his representative
to address the Commission.
Lee Webb, applicant - discussed the request and stated that the general plan map was not
dimensioned and it would be more reasonable to assume the line was lined up with the other
district boundaries in the area.
Ed Dorfman, applicant - commended staff on their explanation and report and stated that he
felt the line as it exists was an oversight and not in a logical location.
Craig Campbell, Public Works Department - discussed the public improvements for Cherry
Avenue, the new sewer, water, pavement requirements and the concept of "gross" versus "net"
acreage
The Planning Commission discussed the current zoning on the property in question; the concept
of "gross" versus "net" map and a right -of -way extending to the centerpoint of the street; the
price of ag land and development; the land use designations; and, the best use of the land.
Commissioner Deviny stated that the 1972 Exhibit C and the current maps appear to be the same
and he could not support the concept of clerical error.
The following action was taken, to adopt Resolution #1:
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1586
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE PROVIDING AN INTERPRETATION AS TO THE
LOCATION OF A DISTRICT BOUNDARY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE AND
TRAFFIC WAY
modify finding # 1:
1. During the adoption of the General Plan, all correspondence referencing the subject
property referred to the existence of ikirbitini ately three (3) acres of commercially zoned
property; and .. .
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7
September 3, 1996
On a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Titus, the Planning
Commission, by the following roll call, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Keen, Titus and Chair Tappan
NOES: Commissioner Deviny
ABSENT: Commissioner Lubin
Staff advised the audience of their right to appeal this decision to the City Council.
PLANNING COMMISSION /COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEMS AND
COMMENTS
A. Update of Projects - Director Liberto -Blanck reported that the City Council has continued
the Short Range Traffic Study until the Long Range Traffic Study can be reviewed; staff
reported that over 600 letters were sent out in the southeast and south west portions of
the city announcing the review by the City Council next Tuesday. Commissioner Keen
expressed concern that the Short Range Traffic Study was intended to enhance the Village
area and a small number of people might affect the results. Chair Tappan agreed that
if the City Council had the same information as the Planning Commission they would
have made the same decisions.
B. Update on Traffic Commission review of the proposal to install an additional Stop Sign
at Mason and Le Point Streets - Associate Planner Rosenstein reported that at their
August 19 meeting, the Traffic Commission had denied the request for installation of a
third traffic sign because traffic counts did not warrant the installation.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1. Letter to Pat Devaney from Doreen Liberto -Blanck
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner Keen,
seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40
p.m. to a special meeting on September 17, 1996 at 7:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
Luci
e
AS TO CONTENT:
, Commission Clerk
Doreen Liberto-Blanck, Community Development Director
1