HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 1990-09-18Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
September 18, 1990
The Arroyoi Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman
Carr presiding., Present are Commissioners Gallagher, Souza and Soto.
Commissioners Moore and Brandy are absent. One vacancy exists on the Commission.
Planning Director Liberto -Blanck and Current Planner Spierling are also in
attendance.
APPROVAL OF MINU'T'ES
On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Gallagher, and
unanimously carried, the minutes of the regular meeting of August 21, 1990 were
approved as prepared.'
TAT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 90 -492, 130, 136, 202 ALLEN STREET AND 137 -1/2 E.
(MERRY AVENUE (DICK KELSEY)
Current Planner Spierling advised that staff's recommendation is for
continuance of this item. He explained that time is needed to advertise a
variance that was recently submitted on this project. On motion by Commissioner
Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and unanimously carried, Lot Line
Adjustment Case No. 90 -492 was continued to the meeting of October 16, 1990.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE 90 -477, 227 LE POINT STREET, 2ND
RESIDENTIAL' UNIT OVER EXISTING 3 CAR GARAGE (BURNET M. POOLE)
Current Planner Spierling reviewed the background of the project. He
advised that the applicant has constructed a 640 square foot second residential
unit above an existing three car garage. The structure is detached from the
primary residential unit and consists of a living roam, dining room, kitchen, one
bedroom and a bathroom. Access to the second unit is provided by an exterior
deck and stairway on the south side of the structure. The deck goes on to meet
with and access the primary residence. He advised that all setbacks and building
coverage comply with the R -1 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Spierling
stated that staff does not anticipate any significant adverse impact to the
environment due to the development of this project. The Staff Advisory Committee
recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving
the project subject to the findings and conditions of approval listed in the
staff report dated September 18, 1990.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that the public
hearing for Conditional Use Permit Case No. 90 -477 had been duly published and
property owners notified; Chairman Carr declared the hearing open.
Burnet Poole, applicant, spoke regarding the Fire Department's
recommendation that an automatic fire sprinkler system be installed in the second
residential unit. He stated he had the insurance company inspect the property
and they were satisfied with the structure and, in fact, there is a fire hydrant
right outside the driveway. He also cited the problem that all of the new houses
are on the 8" pipe and his is on 4" pipe and would not have the required water
pressure. Mr. Poole stated his feelings that the conditions of approval are
reasonable as long as the fire sprinkler system is not mandatory.
Hearing no further comments from the audience for or against the project,
Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed.
COMMISSIONER MOORE ENTERED THE MEETING DURING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION
Commissioner Soto stated he feels the Fire Department recommendation is
good but he doesn't feel it should be a requirement. Commissioner Souza agreed
that the fire sprinkler system should not be a requirement.
After a brief discussion, the following revisions were made to the
recommended Conditions of Approval:
#4. The applicant shall record a deed restriction and an Agreement
Affecting Real Property regarding the second dwelling unit in
accordance with the provisions of Article 40 of the zoning ordinance
and to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Planning
Director, within six (6) months of Planning Commission approval or
at close of escrow whichever is more restrictive.
#7. Certification of existing construction by a private inspector (to be
approved by, the City) must be undertaken, reviewed and approved by
the City before issuance of a permit of occupancy.
#8. Within 6 months of Planning Commission approval or at close of
escrow, whichever is more restrictive, the applicant shall raise the
existing low point in the curb, gutter and sidewalk and pave to
conform to City standards.
205
206
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 9 -18 -90 Page 2
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 1308
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE rITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT C$SE NO.
90 -477, APPLIED FOR BY BURNET M. POOLE, 227 Lk POINT
STREET, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INS 'RUCTING
THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF DE:TENMINATIQN.
On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and by the
following roll vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Souza, Moore, Soto and C) ;airman Carr
NOES: Commissioner Gallagher
ABSENT: Commissioner Brandy
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of September 1990.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -456, 150 W. BRANCH,
TO AMEND A MITIGATION MEASURE REGARDING TRAFFIC (DOLORES .DANA AND PAUL J. RALPH)
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck reviewed the staf[ report dated September
18, 1990 regarding the subject amended Conditional Use F'rmit. She stated that,
basically, the amendment evolves around a traffic mitigation fee.
As background information, Ms. Liberto - Blanck athised that on November 7,
1989 the Planning Commission approved CUP Case No. 89 -456, permitting a 3,862
square foot commercial center located at 150 W. Branch street. : 28 conditions of
approval (including 4 mitigation measures) were attacrcd to the project, and on
April 16, 1990, the applicant filed an amended CUP application to modify
condition of approval (mitigation measure) #3 on tY.e above project. This
mitigation measure states:
"Prior to issuance of building permits, the devr:.oper shall enter into an
agreement with the City, in a form approved by :pie City Attorney, whereby
the developer agrees on behalf of himself and h' successors in interest,
to pay the City a fee of Eighteen Thousand, Fie Hundred and Ninety Two
dollars ($18,592) for traffic mitigation. This :i:ee shall be paid prior to
issuance of building permits. In the vent th<. . the City should adopt a
method of funding traffic mitigation which sl: X11 include assessment of
this development, the fees provided for herein shall be credited against
the principal amount of the assessment. FurthEmore the applicants shall
enter into a recorded agreement, with the City, a form approved by the
City Attorney wherein the applicants shall pay :'.ncreased mitigation fees,
prior to issuance of business licenses, for :::ny use which generates a
higher peak hour traffic impact than specialty 'retail uses."
Mitigation measure #3 was developed from a 1;:affic report prepared by
Mohle, Grover & Associates, a traffic engineering f., m, working under contract
to the City. The traffic report, after taking into :'count the previous use on
the site, indicated that the proposed specialty re14i1 center would generate
seven (7) new peak hour trips on the backbone trafftb system. Based on this,
mitigation measure #3 was developed.
The applicant requested that the traffic mitiO.tion fee be significantly
reduced without any documentation to support the reduion. Based on this, city
staff reviewed the applicant's proposed revision., in accordance with the
California Environmental quality Act (CEQA), and de ermined that the revised
measure would not mitigate the traffic impacts due ':o the development of the
project. The applicant was informed that a focused e.::ironmental impact report
on traffic must' be prepared. The applicant appea.ed this decision to the
Planning Commission.
On August 7, 1990, the Planning Commission dermined that there was a
potential for a significant adverse impact on tr,>: ;fic without the original
mitigation measure, and that a focused environmenthl impact report must be
prepared. The applicant did not appeal this determi.tion to the City Council.
Since that time, the applicant's representativ has modified the original
request to change mitigation measure #3 as follow:
"Prior to issuance of building permits, the dg-eloper shall enter into an
agreement with the City, in a form approved b; the City Attorney, whereby
the developer agrees on behalf of himself and `.is successors in interest,
to pay the City a fee of Eighteen Thousand, ' .ve Hundred and Ninety Two
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 9 -18 -90 Page 3
dollars ($18,592) for traffic.mitigation. This fee shall be paid prior to
issuance of building permits. In the vent that the City should adopt a
method of funding traffic mitigation which shall include assessment of
this development, the fees provided for herein shall be credited against
the principal amount of the assessment. Furthermore the- appl-i- eartts -shatl
enter -trite -a wed agreement- ,-with - the -Eity; -in-a -f-oi r- approved - }fir -the-
City Pttterrtey wherei cants sham-- ,ay- irtcreaseehrt&tigatieri -fees
prier- -to- 47frammee at business 4i --for- arty - use --whi r- cmnera1es -a
higher - peak- hear - traffic - impact than- speeialty- retail- uses -"
She pointed out that the only deletion is the last sentence. After
reviewing the request, staff feels that the above modified mitigation measure
would not create an adverse impact. She stated that the revised mitigation
measure is identical to the mitigation measures placed on other similar projects.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission amend mitigation measure
#3 as outlined above. Ms. Liberto -Blanck further noted that all other original
conditions still apply.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing
for'Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 89 -456 had been duly published and
property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open.
Kem Weber, P. 0. Box 127, Nipomo, spoke representing the applicant. He
stated he concurred with staff and their recommendation for approval and, in his
opinion, it accomplishes the objectives they have set out for, and requested that
the Planning Commission follow staff's recommendation and approve the amendment.
Planning Director Liberto -Blanck reiterated that the original intent staff
was looking at was specialty /retail uses and the trips generated from that use.
The question arises what happens if a restaurant comes in - that would generate
more traffic. The applicant did not want to enter into a recorded agreement.
She also noted that this has not been required of any other similar development.
Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chairman Carr declared the
hearing closed.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 1309
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -456, APPLIED FOR BY DOLORES DANA AND
PAUL J. RALPH, 150 WEST BRANCH STREET.
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Gallagher, Souza, Moore, Soto and Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Brandy
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 18th day of September 1990.
PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE CASE NO. 90- 222 /SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT
PLAN NO. 90 - 03 /ARCHITECTURAL REVIFW CASE NO. 89 -427, CONSTRUCTION OF A 28,233 SQ.
FT. SANCTUARY, CHRISTIAN EDUCATION BUILDING AND A 13,814 SQ. FT. FELLOJSHIP HALL,
RODEO DRIVE AND JAMES WAY (GRACE BIBLE CHURCH).
Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated September 18,
1990. He stated that in order to construct the church on the proposed site,
three applications are required;
1) Planned Development Rezone application. The site is currently
designated for a single family estate home, and to allow
construction of the church, a PD amendment must be approved.
2) Specific Development Plan. A Specific Development Plan is
required for any Planned Development Rezone pursuant to
Section 9- 4.1012 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Specific
Development Plan is similar to a conditional use permit and is
used to determine the suitability of a specific use on a site.
In this case,'the specific development plan will also be used
to review the height of the cross on the top of the
sanctuary /christian education building.
207
2'0'8
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 9 -18 -90 Page 4
3) Architectural Review Application. The architectural design of the
interior and exterior of the buildings is being reviewed.
Mr. Spierling discussed the proposed site design including proposed parking
spaces for the project, access to the site, landscaping, grading, drainage and
setbacks.
He stated there were four major issues that came up with regard to this
project; 1) Height of the Structure and Roof Mass; 2) Water Consumption; 3)
Elimination of the Road Easement and Grace Lane Stub. and 4) traffic. He further
stated that several letters have been received regarding concerns about the
height of the structure. Additionally, and informal survey was received today
which was conducted by Lynn Johnson outlining the neighborhood's concern:; about
the church.
Mr. Spierling pointed out that the Staff Advisory Committee recommends the
following action:
1) The Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending
that the City Council certify the EIR for the Halcyon �liills
Subdivision with previous addenda, and the Addendum for Grace Bible
Church;
2) Adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council
approve Rezone Case No. 90 -222 and Specific Development Plan 9003;
and
3) Recommend that the City Council approve Architectural Review Case
89 -427 by minute motion.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing
for Planned Development Rezone Case No. 90 -222 and Specific Development Plan YVo.
90 -03 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman C.11
declared the hearing open.
Greg Wilhelm, 979 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, architect for the project:...
showed a number of slides taken at various locations in the Royal Oa4:
Subdivision to demonstrate the visual effects of the church to the neighborhooe..
Greg Albright, 1831 Portola St., San Luis Obispo, stated he is a member of tL€
Church Building Committee. He spoke regarding the visual aesthetic issues a3'
outlined in the environmental analysis. Dale Burke, Pastor of Grace Bible
Church, spoke in favor of the project, commenting on the traffic issue and the
water issue.
Tom Caruso, 122 Rodeo Drive, read a letter he had addressed to the
Commission. He commented on his concerns regarding the height and expanse of the
building, and stated he supports the recommendations of the EIR. Also, he stated
he is concerned about the increase in traffic.
Ron Glaza, 485 Spanish Moss Lane, stated he is opposed because of the
increased traffic, and also his view of the ocean and the dunes would be blocked.
He further stated he opposes the development as it stands now, and his major
objection is the size of the building, the height of the cross, and also the
impact on traffic.
Bill Heath, Traffic Consultant, spoke regarding the traffic study that was
done for this project. He stated that two factors were considered as to which
intersections were most likely to be impacted and, in looking at that, it was
realized that the bulk of the parishiners will be approaching the church via
Brisco Road and W. Branch Street, and the bulk of the traffic will be routed
through Rodeo Drive. He commented that churches usually don't have substantial
adverse impacts because very few churches have activity at the peak hours of the
day.
Anita Munson, 432 Emerald Bay, stated she objects to the height and
expansiveness of the project. She asked about proposed uses of the buildings and
if fences were going to be installed along the perimeter. Lynn Johnson, 405
Mesquite Lane, objected to the proposed height, and briefly demonstrated the
average height of the homes vs. the height of the church.
Richard DeBlauw, 747 Alta Vista, stated he owns the property on Alta Vista
Way and he has no objections to the church being built on this site.
Chairman Carr asked for a show of hands of those present who are in support
of the project. Roughly, 50% to 60% of the audience was in favor of the project.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 9 -18 -90 Page 5
Harold Johnson, 1567 Bea Canyon Road, stated he was formerly on the Church
Board, and is in favor of the project. He commented that the developer has tried
to mitigate the effects on the surrounding neighborhood. He stated he doesn't
believe.you can take the roof structure and attempt to break it up without
destroying the architectural appeal of the structure.
Mary Ann Feller, 221 Tally Ho Road, stated she doesn't think the huge cross
is aethestically pleasing. Margie Dane, 111 Orchid Lane, stated she is opposed
to the height.
CHAIRMAN CARR DECLARED A RECESS AT 9:50 P.M. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 10:05
P.M. WITH ALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT AS REPORTtll ON ROLL CALL.
Chairman Carr stated that the reports he has read alluded to future
additional development, and inquired as to what future development is being
considered?
Pastor Burke responded by stating an additional ell shaped building is
planned into the master site for additional office spaces, which would have to
come before the Commission for approval, and a young christian education building
if and when the church enlarges and continues to grow. He pointed out that the
subject property was set aside for some type of institutional use. The church
bought an 11 acre site to build their church on with the intent to keep the
building away from surrounding neighbors. The present program involves the usual
church activities throughout the week. The church has 6 or 7 full time employees
that come and go every day. The present program involves the usual church
activities, and the church has no plans for a school at this site. He stated
that the only large group functions are on Sunday and other than that, it is the
small group type functions that will be meeting there. Mr. Wilhelm advised that
there are no fences prsently proposed for the site. Also, there are no plans for
a second story; the church is designed as a single story only.
Hearing no further comments from the audience for or against the proposal,
Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed.
In answer to a question regarding C.C. &R's, Mr. Spierling advised that the
City does not review or enforce C.C.& R's., however, the developer of Tract 1390
has been involved in this development to some extent. It is possible that this
lot may be exempt from the C.C.& R.'s.
Commissioner Gallagher stated that in looking over the photographs and
looking at the proposal, he gets a sense' of the massivness of the total
structure, and he has concerns about the size and the overall height of the
structure. He indicated he also has some reservations about the metal roof
proposed for the building, and would like to see some modification or redesign
of the primary building. Commissioner Soto stated that after looking at all of
the pictures, one of the objections he has is the height of the cross and he is
also concerned with the massiveness of the building, however, he is less
concerned now about the height of the church than he was before, but he is still
concerned about the 81 ft. height of the spire. He also commented that it is
hard to visualize what impact a natural landscape is going to have. Also, it is
his feeling that the addendum EIR itself did a good job mitigating the traffic
concerns that he had. Commissioner Souza stated he agrees with Commissioner Soto
on the size of the building and the height of the spire. Also, in terms of
traffic, he feels that the church use is probably better than a school, and even
better than 30 homes on that site. Commissioner Moore spoke regarding drainage
and suggested that Rancho Grande, the Parks Department and Grace Bible Church all
get together and coordinate the drainage.
Chairman Carr stated he is not totally convinced of the value and the small
impact of the size of the cross. He stated that before he came here tonight he
was concerned about the massiveness of the project and the height of the spire,
and he still has a problem with the height of the spire. Also, he has a problem
with the size of the parking lot; it seems like a huge area of parking, and he
would like to see some of that front parking put into landscaping for the time
being. He stated the general design doesn't seem to be in keeping with the goals
and policies of the General Plan, and the concept of this design doesn't seem to
be in keeping with the surrounding area. He also stated he would like to see
something negotiated and maybe put into the conditions that would allow some
special lot coverage and setbacks for this project so that the Commission would
have some confidence that the project is not going to expand out to its ultimate
boundaries. He believes the street trees need to be looked at relative to the
spacing and the type of trees. Regarding the question of drainage vs. the park
site, he commented that he doesn't feel the City should impose additional costs
on the church for drainage.
209
210
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 9 -18 -90 Page 6
After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by
Commissioner Gallagher, Planned Development Rezone Case 90 -222, Specific
Development Plan 90 -03 and Architectural Review Case 89 -427 were continued to the
next regular Planning Commission meeting of October 2, 1990.
PLANNING DIREC'T'OR /PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS
Architectural Review Case 89 -432, Determination of conformance with
approved plans (Village Creek Plaza, Phase 4). Current Planner Spierling
stated that Village Creek Plaza, Phase 4, was approved by the Planning Commission
witha specific design. The applicant has replaced the roll -up type door and has
modified the roof design somewhat in addition to popping it out about 5 feet.
They want a building permit and are asking the Commission to find that this is
in substantial conformance with what was approved.
After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by
Commissioner Souza, and unanimously carried, the proposed modifications were
found to be in substantial conformance with prior approved plans.
Architectural Advisory Committee. Planning Director Liberto -Blanck advised
that three members for the Architectural Advisory Committee have been selected
by the City Council, and the first meeting is scheduled for the first week of
October.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:45 P.M. to a special meeting Wednesday, September 26th at 7:00
P.M. to talk about the Preliminary Draft Development Code.
a/1 C7Y
Pearl L. Phinney, Secretary
Robert W. Carr, Chairman