PC Minutes 1991-01-15Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
January 15, 1991
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chairman Soto
presiding. Present are Commissioners Moore, Gallagher, Souza and Boggess. Absent are
Chairman Carr and Commissioner Brandy. Also in attendance are Planning Director Doreen
Liberto- Blanck and Current Planner Scott Spierling.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 90 -480, MONTESSORI
SCHOOL, 216 OAK STREET (MICHAEL AND JOYCE MILLER).
Current Planner Scott Spierling reviewed the staff report dated January 15, 1991. He
stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow them to operate a montessori
preschool for 22 to 26 children between two and six years of age. The proposal has been
reviewed by the appropriate State agencies and has been licensed for 22 students. The State
requires that one teacher be provided for each 12 students or one teacher plus one teacher's
aide for each 15 students. With 22 students, two teachers will be required.
Mr. Spierling reviewed the proposed parking and play area for the children. He also
reviewed the environmental concerns such as water usage, traffic and noise impacts. He stated
that the project was reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and staff has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment
provided that the mitigation measures included in the conditions of approval are implemented.
Mr. Spierling advised that some concerns were expressed by citizens regarding the noise
generated by the preschool. Staff reviewed the noise element of the general plan and the
performance standards which are located in the zoning ordinance, and determined that it may
be possible that the noise of the children would exceed the levels allowed by the zoning
ordinance at the property line. Staff recommended that a noise study be conducted to assess
the impact and recommend mitigation measures. The applicant did not feel that a noise study
was necessary and they submitted some mitigation measures. They suggested that the children
be kept in the building or in the rear or side property yard until 9:00 a.m. This would keep the
children more distant from the adjacent properties until later in the morning when a higher noise
level may be more acceptable. He commented that staff feels this mitigation measure may be
sufficient, but has also attached a mitigation measure requiring an additional public hearing in
six months to review the noise concerns that were raised during environmental review.
He stated that, after reviewing the environmental concerns, staff feels that mitigation
measures have been added to the conditions of approval which will reduce the level of
significance of all of these impacts to the level of insignificance, providing the mitigation
measures are implemented.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Clerk that public hearing for Conditional
Use Permit Case No. 90 -480 had been duly published and property owners notified, Vice
Chairman Soto declared the hearing open.
Mike Miller, applicant, spoke in favor of the use permit. Mr. Miller reviewed the parking
requirements and pointed out the growing need for child care facilities.
Mr. Miller referred to the 33 recommended conditions of approval, stating that they can
live with most of the conditions; however they are going to ask relief from 9 of those conditions.
He requested that Condition #14 be modified from a limit of 15 students to 22 children
to comply with State limitations.
With regard to Condition #9 regarding limiting hours of operation to mitigate traffic
impacts, Mr. Miller requested that this condition be deleted. He referred to Conditions #5 and
7 requiring review by the Planning Commission in one year, stating these conditions essentially
places the school on probation. With regard to Condition #6 requiring that the property be
retrofitted with low flow plumbing devices, Mr. Miller noted that the school will have no shower
or bathing facilities, no laundry, almost no dish washing, and just one small 5 gallon water heater.
He commented that they will be using less water than the previous resident. He stated that water
usage will be minimized on the landscaping and outdoor water delivery system. Condition #23
requires fencing along the east and south sides of the property. He stated that the south side
is already fenced, and most of the east side is fenced except the portion where the 10 foot wall
of the building next door stands, and it doesn't seem reasonable to put the fence along an
existing building that is 10 feet tall. Condition #27 requires them to remove or prune an existing
tree on an adjacent lot. He commented this is probably illegal and asked that the owner of the
property be contacted rather than expose the applicant to that liability. Regarding Condition #12,
2V3
76.fazfr4
1
1
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -15 -91
requiring that a landscape architect be hired to design the landscaping at the north end of the
property, which is a narrow strip of Tess than 1,000 square feet that will require just the planting
of a few plants, Mr. Miller requested that the Commission allow a licensed contractor do the work
instead of a landscape architect. With regard to Condition #3, the requirement to hold the City
harmless in any legal action that might ensue, Mr. Miller stated that his counsel has advised that
this requirement is full of legal problems and probably won't stand up in court anyway, so he
requested that this condition be removed.
Cathy Silva, 350 Butterfly Lane, Nipomo; Collin Murray, 777 Manuella Way; Laura Battles,
Arroyo Grande; Steve Vanerian, 668 Vetter Lane; Kim Mitchell, Nipomo; Jackie Leonard, 229
LaCresta Drive; Tom Murray, 777 Manuella Way; Sateen Bhat, 1021 Acorn; Ruth Truesdale, 201
Oak Street; Laurie Woodward, 430 Maula,. Nipomo, and Sherry Nelson, 1475 Trouville, Grover
City, expressed their support for the Montessori School and spoke in favor of the conditional use
permit.
Judy Cechetti, 211 Oak Street, stated she does work nights and is very concerned about
the noise and the increase in traffic. She noted that when the school was first opened on the
4th and 5th of September they had no license, and on October 19 received a license to operate
with six children, and they operated about 5 or 6 days with more than six children and only one
teacher.
Dave Watson, Planning Consultant, spoke in favor of granting the conditional use permit.
He spoke regarding the technical issues involved, such as water, noise and other concerns, and
asked that the Commission find some flexibility to work with the City's codes and to apply them
to the project. He pointed out that the State only approved 22 students attending the school.
Rosalee Hill, 3747 Zion Place, Santa Maria; Dennis Kunkel, 441 Woodland Drive; Roy
Buell, 304 Mason Street; John Hodges, 671 Verde Place; Tina Greetes, 767 Atlantic City Avenue,
Grover City; Maureen Riley, 333 Miller Way; Robert Klam, 67 Linda Lane, San Luis Obispo; Diedra
Lackey, and Annette Carlen, Atascadero, also spoke in favor of the conditional use permit.
There being no further public comments, Vice Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed.
Current Planner Scott Spierling briefly reviewed the recommended conditions of approval
that the applicant requested either be modified or deleted as requirements.
Condition No. 3. This is a standard condition and is recommended by the City Attorney.
Mr. Spierling advised that the Commission may be able to add a sentence saying that this
condition may be deleted if approved by the City Attorney.
Conditions 5 and 7, requiring a review period - Mr. Spierling stated that these conditions
were placed on the project because of the complaints received by the neighbors about the
operation of the school. Beginning in September, the City received on the average of two to
three complaints a month about the operation of the school; the noise and the number of
students attending the school. He advised that similar conditions were placed on the Carpenters'
school on Bridge Street for review. Staff feels that these conditions should be left on the project.
After a detailed discussion by staff and the Planning Commission, the following action was
taken on the applicant's request for modification and /or deletion of the recommended conditions
of approval:
Condition #7 was amended as follows:
'This conditional use permit shall be reviewed at a public hearing
at the Planning Commission meeting of July 16, 1991 to determine
if further noise or traffic studies are required. Prior to more than six
(6) students attending school at this site, the applicants shall
deposit $40.00 maximum with the City to pay for the cost of the
public hearing. Should additional noise or traffic studies be
required, the applicants shall pay for such studies plus a 15%
administrative charge. If the noise or traffic studies find that the
project impacts cannot be mitigated, the Conditional Use Permit
may be revoked. As an alternative to conducting a traffic study,
the Planning Commission may restrict the hours of operation of the
preschool to avoid impacting the peak traffic hours."
2
245
4 royo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -15 -91
Condition #8 was amended as follows:
If traffic impacts are mitigated and earlier morning hours approved,
children shall be kept in the building or in the rear or side play
areas until 10:30 A.M. to mitigate early morning noise concerns.
Condition #9 - Delete.
Condition #12 - Change requirement for licensed landscape architect to
"licensed contractor."
Condition #14 - Amended to read as follows:
'The number of students attending the facility at one time shall not
exceed 15. The number of students can be increased to 22 if
additional parking is provided to the approval of the Planning
Department."
Condition #23 - Amended to read as follows:
Prior to more than six (6) students attending preschool at this site,
the applicants shall verify or install fences on the east and south
sides of the school building along property line, in conformance
with City regulations.
Condition #27 - Amended to read as follows:
"Prior to more than six (6) students attending preschool at this site, the applicants
shall prune the existing elm, and work with the adjacent property owner to
cut out dead wood and tree on adjacent property."
For the record, Vice Chairman Soto read the letters of support for the Montessori School
which were received tonight from Shannan Johnson and Ellen Beck
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1320
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO.
90 -480, TO USE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR
A MONTESSORI PRE - SCHOOL FOR CHILDREN FROM 2 -6 YEARS OF
AGE, APPLIED FOR BY MICHAEL P. AND JOYCE J. MILLER AT
216 OAK STREET, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH
MITIGATION MEASURES AND INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO
FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION.
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners, Gallagher, Moore, Boggess, Souza and
Vice Chairman Soto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairman Carr and Commissioner Brandy
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of January 1991.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 90- 154 /SIGN PERMIT CASE NO. 90 -100,
VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW THREE SIGNS,
840 OAK PARK BOULEVARD (LYONS RESTAURANT, INC. /CREATIVE SIGNS INC.)
Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated January 15, 1991. Mr. Spierling
stated that last spring when the restaurant was purchased by the current owners, the applicant
and City staff reviewed the existing sign permits and the sign ordinance in relation to the signage
proposed by the applicant. It was determined that the applicant would have to apply for a
variance to exceed the allowed number of signs and a revised planned sign program to change
the wall signs. The applicant was able to change the sign face of the freestanding sign without
permits because the sign ordinance does not require permits for a simple face change when no
changes occur in the shape, size, or construction of the sign.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -15 -91
The applicant has applied to revise the sign plan approved in 1986 for the two wall signs
for Marie Callender's Restaurant. The two signs approved. for Marie Callender's were each 6 feet
by 12 feet in size. The total area of the signs was 144 square feet. The applicant is proposing
construction of three signs, two of which will be placed in the location of the approved Marie
Callender's signs. The third sign will be placed on the building facing the parking lot, adjacent
to the main building entrance where the illegal Marie Callender's sign was installed.
The two signs replacing the approved Marie Callender's signs will be 5 feet by 10 feet in
size, while the third sign will be 2.5 by 5 feet in size. The total area of all wall signs will be
reduced to 112.5 square feet. This is within the 115.5 square feet allowed by the sign ordinance.
The sign ordinance only allows two signs per street frontage. Since the applicant has only one
street frontage (Oak Park Blvd.) and is proposing three signs, a variance is required.
Mr. Spierling advised that the two signs which were approved for Marie Callender's
Restaurant face to the south and to the east. The sign facing the east can be seen from the K-
Mart shopping Center and by traffic travelling west on West Branch Street. The sign facing south
can be seen from the Oak Park Blvd /Highway 101 interchange. The freestanding sign which was
separately approved in 1984 is visible from Highway 101. The combination of these signs
provide adequate visibility to allow the public to exit the freeway and find the restaurant.
However, the restaurant and the motel have a common driveway and parking area. The
applicant feels that a third sign is necessary to delineate the entrance to the restaurant once
someone has parked their vehicle.
Mr. Spierling stated that the subject applications were reviewed by the Architectural
Advisory Committee and the Staff Advisory Committee, and they recommend that the Planning
Commission adopt the draft resolutions included in the agenda packets.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Clerk that public hearing for Variance
Case No. 90 -154 and Sign Permit Case . No. 90 -100, had been duly published and property
owners notified, Vice Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. There being no comments from
the audience, Vice Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1321
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE RECOMMENDING GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 90 -154, APPLIED
FOR BY LYONS RESTAURANTS, INC. LOCATED AT 840 OAK PARK BOULEVARD,
EXCEEDING THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED FOR A SINGLE USE.
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Gallagher, Boggess, Souza, Moore and Vice Chairman Soto
NOES: None
ABSENT:Chairman Carr and Commissioner Brandy
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 15th day of January 1991.
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1322
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PLANNED
SIGN PROGRAM, CASE NO. 90 -100, APPLIED FOR BY LYONS RESTAURANTS,
INC., AT 840 OAK PARK BOULEVARD.
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Gallagher, Boggess, Souza, Moore and Vice
Chairman Soto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairman Carr and Commissioner Brandy
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 15th day of January 15, 1991.
4
247
2'4 8 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -15 -91
SIX MONTH REVIEW - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 90 -447, 221 E.
BRANCH STREET (MARK GODFREY).
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck reviewed that on June 5, 1990, the Planning Commission
approved Architectural Review Case No. 90 -447 which is Murphy's Law Office located at 221 E.
Branch Street. An agreement was entered into between the City of Arroyo Grande and the owner
which required access from Branch Street to the rear portion of 221 E. Branch Street. However,
the applicant had to return to the Planning Commission within six months to determine whether
any health and safety conditions have been created due to use of access from Branch Street.
She stated that, at this time, staff is not aware of any problems, however, it is staff's
understanding that most of the access is being taken from behind the City Council Chambers
and, if this is true, it is difficult to determine whether the access from Branch Street would create
problems. She advised that the Public Works Department has obtained bids to construct fencing
behind the Council Chambers and once this is accomplished, and access cannot be taken from
behind the Council Chambers, the Planning Commission should review this item for health and
safety reasons again.
She further stated that staff is concerned that the parking lot has not been paved, as
required. The applicant has posted a bond which can be used by the Public Works Department
to pave the parking area. The Public Works Director has requested that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council cash the bond and order the improvements.
Ms. Liberto - Blanck stated that the two recommendations to be considered by the Planning
Commission tonight are: 1) The Planning Commission recommend that the Council cash the
bond and instruct the Public Works Department to make the parking lot improvements; and 2)
the item return six months after the new fencing has been installed.
Ms. Liberto - Blanck commented that the applicant did receive a copy of the staff report and
is aware of staff's recommendations.
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by
Commissioner Boggess, and unanimously carried, a recommendation was made to the City
Council to cash the bond and order the parking lot improvements, and that this item be reviewed
in six months subsequent to installation of the fence.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 90 -461, 1229 GRAND AVENUE, MINOR
ARCHITECTURAL REVISION TO EXISTING BUILDING (KINNEY SHOE
CORPORATION).
Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated January 15, 1991, and briefly
described the minor revisions proposed for the building. He advised that the Architectural
Advisory Committee and the Staff Advisory Committee have reviewed the project, and approval
of the project was recommended with the findings, and subject to the conditions of approval
listed in the staff report.
Glen Martin, 958 Grand Avenue, Commercial Property Management for Williams Brothers
Market, spoke regarding the landscaping requirements listed in the conditions of approval. He
advised that plans are on the drawing board for remodeling that entire shopping center, possibly
within two to three years, and they would have no problem incorporating necessary landscaping
into the plans at that time. The Commission agreed that the landscaping conditions listed in the
staff report be excluded from the conditions of approval at this time.
After a brief discussion, Architectural Review Case No. 90 -461 was approved on motion
by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and unanimously carried,
deleting Conditions of Approval No. 6, 10.c, 11 and 12 listed in the staff report dated January 15,
1991.
5
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -15 -91
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commision, on motion by Vice Chairman
Soto, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned
at 10:40 P. M. to a special Planning Commission meeting on January 29, 1991.
ATTEST:
Pearl L. Phinney, Secretary
6
Soto, Vice Chairman
249