PC Minutes 1991-05-212 8
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
May 21, 1991
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman
Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Moore, Brandy, Boggess, Soto and Souza.
Commissioner Gallagher is absent. Also in attendance are Current Planner Scott Spierling
and Long Range Planner Sandra Bierdzinski.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90 -1 AND
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONE /DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 90 -220
(WILMA PACIFIC. INC.)
Chairman Carr referred to a letter dated May 21, 1991, from RRM Design Group,
representing the applicants, requesting continuance of the public hearing on the Vista Del
Mar project for one month. He stated, however, since this is an advertised public
hearing, he would reopen the public hearing to give the audience an opportunity to speak
on this item.
Chairman Carr reopened the public hearing. There were no comments from the
audience regarding this project. Chairman Carr closed the public hearing and, on motion
by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and unanimously carried,
public hearing on the Vista Del Mar project was continued to the regular Planning
Commission meeting of June 18, 1991.
PUBLIC HEARING - REGULATIONS FOR ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ORDINANCE
(CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE).
Long Range Planner Sandra Bierdzinski reviewed the staff report pertaining to
regulating adult entertainment businesses in the City of Arroyo Grande.
Ms. Bierdzinski reviewed the background regarding the proposed ordinance,
stating that on August 8, 1989 and September 12, 1989, the City Council adopted Interim
Urgency Ordinances 413 C.S. and 414 C.S. to prohibit the application or approval of any
"adult entertainment" use in the City. Ordinance 414 C.S. extended the provisions of
Ordinance 413 C.S. for a period of 10 months and 15 days, which would have expired on
July 27, 1990. On July 10, 1990, the City Council adopted Interim Urgency Ordinance
425 C.S., extending the prohibition of "adult entertainment businesses" for an additional
one year period. This will expire on August 8, 1991, and cannot be renewed for any
additional period of time.
Ms. Bierdzinski explained that the purpose of the urgency ordinances was to grant
staff sufficient time to draft a legally adequate and defensible ordinance that will regulate
the impacts this type of use can have on the surrounding community. The regulation of
adult entertainment businesses is of concern to cities due to the possible impact that
these uses may have on the surrounding community. The experience of other cities has
shown that the location of adult entertainment uses can degrade the quality of the areas
in which they are located, causing a "blighting" effect on that area of the City. Although
the City of Arroyo Grande currently has no such uses, regulations can prevent
degradation of the community and commercial areas before the problem exists, rather
than in response to an existing problem.
Ms. Bierdzinski advised that the proposed regulations are similar to ordinances
adopted by other cities, including Delano, Indio, and Moreno Valley, California and
Renton, Washington. She stated that the Renton ordinance was challenged in the courts
and eventually reached the U. S. Supreme Court where the ordinance was upheld.
Subsequent challenges to adult entertainment ordinances have not been successful when
it can be shown that the ordinance passes the three part test established by the Court
in Renton. This test requires that the ordinance:
1. Is a "time, place, and manner" regulation,
2. Is content - neutral or based on the secondary effects of the land use rather
than the content of the adult entertainment, and
3. Serves a substantial government interest and allows for reasonable
alternative avenues of communication.
The proposed regulations for the City of Arroyo Grande meet these three criteria.
Basically, this test allows cities to establish regulations for certain types of land uses if it
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 5 -21 -91
can be shown that the restrictions are in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of
the residents. Ms. Bierdzinski pointed out that a city may not legally ban an adult
entertainment use, but may place restrictions on the time, location, and manner in which
the use operates, when the business could have adverse impacts on its surroundings.
The setbacks required in the proposed ordinance would allow adult entertainment
businesses on approximately 20 parcels in the GC or HC zoning districts at this time.
This represents about 3% of the total number of parcels within these districts. Because
of the required setbacks, however, the location of the adult entertainment business on a
particular parcel may be limited to a portion of the parcel.
Notices of the public hearing were mailed to every property owner within 300 feet
of any parcel which could conceivably contain an adult entertainment business at this
time. A legal notice was also published in the newspaper. Letters received in response
to the public hearing are included as Attachment B to the staff report. Staff responses
to issues raised in these letters can be found at the bottom of each letter. After review,
the Planning Department and Staff Advisory Committee recommend the Planning
Commission adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt the Negative
Declaration and adopt the Ordinance amending Title 9 of the Municipal Code to establish
regulations for Adult Entertainment Businesses.
Ms. Bierdzinski listed three options available to the Commission which have been
identified by the City Attorney. The first option is that the Planning Commission can
recommend that no ordinance be adopted at all.,, , Ms. Bierdzinski pointed out that the
problem with this option is that if someone applied for a business license for a book store
in an existing building, all that would be needed from the Planning Department is a simple
review and approval, and with no regulations on adult book stores, then that book store
could sell adult material and over time they could increase the amount of adult material
being sold. She also pointed that there are some adult uses such as adult arcades or
tatoo parlors that do not come under any of the existing use categories, and in those
cases staff would explain to an applicant that the use appears to be prohibited, but the
Planning Commission would be obligated to do an interpretation on whether or not that
use is similar to other uses within that zone. She noted that option does not seem to be
very viable in terms of regulating adult uses, because basically that would allow adult uses
anywhere in the City. Another option is that the ordinance could be written so it prohibits
adult entertainment uses anywhere in the City, but by doing that, the City could possibly
be violating 1st amendment rights and could result is litigation costs for the City. The City
Attorney's opinion is that it would be doubtful the City would win if an ordinance is
adopted prohibiting adult entertainment uses. The third option, of course, is to
recommend adoption of the ordinance before the Commission tonight, which regulates
the type of review that adult uses would receive, would require a Conditional Use Permit
for any adult use, where they can be located, and establish setback requirements.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for
the proposed ordinance for regulation of adult entertainment uses had been duly
published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open.
Anna Ralph stated she owns property at 1214 and 1216 Grand Avenue in Arroyo
Grande, and she is opposed to the types of businesses described in the ordinance
because she feels they would be detrimental to the City. She further stated if they have
to be allowed, then they should be regulated.
Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed ordinance, Chairman
Carr declared the hearing closed.
Commissioner Brandy asked if the City does not adopt an ordinance, and if
someone applies in the future, could the City adopt another urgency ordinance in order
to put some regulations together. Ms. Bierdzinski pointed out that the urgency
2
287
288
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 5 -21 -91
ordinances allowed two years to develop an ordinance, and the City may be
circumventing State laws regarding urgency ordinances if it did what Commissioner
Brandy suggested. Chairman Carr questioned the wording in the proposed ordinance,
#14, "...within walking distance... ", and suggested using alternate language such as "...in
close proximity..." Also, under Section I, Adult Newsstands, Chairman Carr suggested
amending the wording from "outdoor newsstands" to "outdoor adult newsstands ".
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1337
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR
ADULT ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESSES, AND INSTRUCT
THE CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION.
On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Moore, Soto and Chairman Carr
NOES: Commissioners Souza, Brandy and Boggess
ABSENT: Commissioner Gallagher
the foregoing resolution was defeated this 21st day of May due to lack of a majority vote.
Current Planner Spierling advised that because of a split vote, this matter will go
on to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Ms. Bierdzinski advised that other options for the Commission to recommend are
that the Council direct staff to change the ordinance to prohibit adult uses, or to
recommend adoption of no ordinance at all. After further discussion, on motion by
Commissioner Boggess, seconded by Commissioner Brandy, motion carried by a 4 -2
vote, that a recommendation be made to the City Council to direct staff to prepare an
adult entertainment ordinance that would prohibit adult entertainment businesses
throughout the City of Arroyo Grande. Commissioner Soto and Chairman Carr expressed
their concerns relative to an ordinance prohibiting adult entertainment businesses rather
than an ordinance regulating those types of businesses because of the legal ramifications
and possible lawsuits.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 90-155 AND SIGN PERMIT CASE NO. 90-
101, 303 E. BRANCH STREET, SCOLARI'S OF CALIF., INC. (J.J.'S FOOD MARKET).
Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated May 21, 1991. He
advised that the applications have been reviewed by the Architectural Advisory Committee
and the Staff Advisory Committee, and they recommend that the Planning Commission
adopt the resolutions attached to the staff report approving the variance and sign permit
with the findings and subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report.
Mr. Spierling noted that two conditions of approval which were recommended by the
Architectural Advisory Committee were inadvertently omitted from that report and should
be included in the approval. Those conditions are: 5) The signs are to be maintained in
a neat and orderly fashion, and 6) Within 90 days of adoption of this resolution, the
applicant shall install a frame around, and plexiglass over the signs on the redwood
portion of the building above the shopping carts.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for
Variance Case No. 90 -155 and Sign Permit Case No. 90 -101 had been duly published
3
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 5 -21 -91
and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open.
Gordie Foy, representing J.J.'s Food Market, spoke in favor of the variance and
sign permit, stating he agrees with the proposed conditions of approval.
Hearing no further comments for or against the applications, Chairman Carr
declared the hearing closed.
Commissioner Brandy pointed out that the small wooden "Liquor- Deli" sign was
omitted from the plan. Mr. Foy stated the sign is probably about 3' x 3', and he would
like to have it included in the approval. It was agreed by the Commission that the sign
be included. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1338
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE
NO. 90 -155, APPLIED FOR BY SCOLARI'S OF CALIFORNIA,
INC. (DBA J.J.'S FOOD MARKET), LOCATED AT 303 E.
BRANCH STREET, EXCEEDING THE AGGREGATE SIGN AREA
AND THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED, AND TO ALLOW FOR
A TWO -SIDED ROOF SIGN, AND ALLOW EACH FACE OF THE
ROOF SIGN TO HAVE AN AREA WHICH EXCEEDS THE 70
SQUARE FOOT LIMIT.
On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Moore, Brandy Souza, Boggess, Soto and Chairman
Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Gallagher
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 21 day of May 1991.
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1339
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING SIGN PERMIT CASE NO. 90 -101
APPLIED FOR BY SCOLARI'S OF CALIFORNIA, INC. (DBA
J.J.'S FOOD COMPANY) AT 303 E. BRANCH STREET FOR A
PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM
On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Moore, Brandy, Souza, Boggess, Soto and
Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Gallagher
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 21st day of May 1991.
PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRETATION OF LIVING SPACE IN RELATION TO
A PROPOSED GARDEN ROOM, 311 SHORT STREET (EDWIN J. THALMAN).
Chairman Carr advised that the request before the Commission is for a definition
of living space in relationship to a proposed garden room in conjunction with Architectural
Review Case No. 91 -469. Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated May
21, 1991. He reviewed that since the last Planning Commission, staff has re- evaluated
4
289
290
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 5 -21 -91
the floor area requirement in the new development code and the old zoning ordinance,
and, in both cases, the gross floor area of a second unit is limited to 640 square feet.
Living area is not discussed in the development code or the zoning ordinance. Since
living area is not used nor referenced, staff feels that this architectural review and
interpretation should be reviewed under existing terms as much as possible. Therefore,
staff feels that the interpretation should be made using the term "gross floor area ". The
development code defines floor area (gross) as follows:
"Total enclosed area of all floors of a building measured to the inside face
of the exterior walls including halls, stairways, elevator shafts at each floor
level, service and mechanical equipment rooms, and basement or attic
areas having a height of more than 7 feet."
He stated that the development code does not define enclosed area. Developing
a definition of enclosed area may provide a way of determining whether the garden room
is part of the second unit. There are at least two possible ways of defining enclosed area.
1. Uniform Building Code Based Definition.
A definition for enclosed area can be derived from the UBC definition of a patio
cover as follows:
Enclosed area is any area within a structure or portion of a structure with
a roof and walls in any configuration, where the open area of the longer wall
and one additional wall is less than 65 percent of the area below a minimum
of 6 feet 8 inches of each wall, measured from the floor.
This definition is illustrated in a diagram passed out to the Planning Commission prior to
the meeting. Using this definition, the applicant would be able to completely close one
wall of the proposed garden room and have stub walls no more than 4.5 feet high on the
other two walls.
2. California Civil Code Based Definition.
Mr. Spierling pointed out that on the basis of the California Civil Code, enclosed
area could be defined as:
"the area of a structure provided with effective waterproofing and weather
protection."
Using this definition, the Planning Commission would have to review individual proposals
to determine if they had "effective waterproofing and weather protection."
With the development code's definition of gross floor area, a garage attached to
the second unit would be considered a part of the allowable square footage of the second
unit. This was obviously not the intent of the ordinance and this is one of the clean -up
items for the new development code which staff expects to be bringing before the
Commission for consideration in the future. It is expected that staff will recommend that
the Section 9- 11.140C.6. be modified to exclude shops and garages. With this change
in place, and a definition of enclosed area, most questions about what is included win the
maximum 640 square feet should be resolved.
Mr. Spierling outlined options to the Commission: 1) adopt a definition of enclosed
area by minute motion; 2) review the proposed garden room and determine it constitutes
enclosed area under the previously adopted definition; 3) if the proposed garden room
does not constitute enclosed area, the Architectural Advisory Committee and the Staff
Advisory Committee recommend that the Planning Commission approve Architectural
5
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 5 -21 -91
Review Case No. 91 -469 by minute motion with the findings and subject to the attached
conditions of approval, and 4) If the proposed garden room does constitute enclosed
area, the Planning Commission may suggest that the applicant redesign the garden room
to conform to the definition. If the applicant is unwilling to redesign, the Planning
Commission should deny Architectural Review Case No. 91 -469.
Mr. Spierling commented, with regard to the options, that the definition based on
the Uniform Building Code would be easier to handle at an administrative level, but the
definition in the Civil Code would provide more flexibility.
Chairman Carr clarified that staff is asking for a definition of what constitutes an
enclosed area and, after that determination is made, then that definition can be applied
to the case in question to make a determination as to whether it qualifies or does not
qualify as an enclosed area.
After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner
Boggess, motion carried with one "no" vote, that the UBC definition for enclosed area be
used. Mr. Spierling advised that the UBC falls within the definition of open rather than
enclosed and, therefore, would not be considered the living area. He further advised that
the application has been reviewed by the Architectural Advisory Committee, and it is their
feeling that the structure ties in with the house and the surroundings.
Chairman Carr stated that a determination is needed now based on the definition
as to whether or not Mr. Thalman's garden room is to be considered as enclosed or not
enclosed. Mr. Spierling pointed out that the applicant has proposed three open walls,
and the maximum height for the open walls is 2 feet 4 inches. Also, he is proposing one
wall with a 36 inch high stub wall and the other two walls only 18 inches high, so it looks
like the proposal falls well within the open area definition and, therefore, would not be
considered as part of the living area.
After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by
Commissioner Souza, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No. 91 -469
was approved subject to the attachments provided in the staff report, marked "Exhibit A ",
and with the findings and subject to the proposed conditions of approval.
UPDATE ON KENNEDY & SHEPPEL HEALTH CENTER AND MEDICAL OFFICE
COMPLEX (OAK PARK BOULEVARD AND JAMES WAY
Current Planner Spierling reviewed that the City Council approved a conditional use
permit and architectural review on April 26, 1988 to construct a 23,566 square foot health
center and medical office complex on the corner of Oak Park Boulevard and James Way.
Also, on January 24, 1989, the Building Department issued two conditional building
permits; one for the health center and one for the medical office complex. Dr. Sheppel,
one of the applicants, would like to proceed with the medical office complex, and it is
uncertain at this time whether the health center will be constructed.
He stated that Dr. Sheppel has requested that the City review the file and
determine whether he can proceed separately without the health center and, if so, what
conditions will need to be mdt. He referred to Condition No. 10 which was attached as
a condition of approval as follows:
"A construction phasing map showing the limits of the initial phase of construction,
shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to
issuance of building permits."
Mr. Spierling advised that, since this project is in the PD District, the matter will be
referred to the City Council and, if the Planning Commission and City Council agree with
the recommendation, Dr. Sheppel will be required to submit a phasing plan for approval
6
291
2 9
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 5 -21 -91
by the Planning Director. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council interpret the above condition to allow the medical office
complex to proceed without the health club.
After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by
Commissioner Moore, and unanimously carried, that a recommendation be made to the
City Council to interpret the above condition to allow the medical office to be built
separate of the health club.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further discussion before the Commission, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:00 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Souza, seconded by Commissioner
Soto, and unanimously carried.
ATTEST:
tos(As W z/
Pearl L. Phinney, Secretary Robert W. Carr, Chairman
Arroyo Grande Planning Corr mission Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
7