Loading...
PC Minutes 1988-01-19400 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1988 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Acting Chairman Soto presiding. Present are Commissioners Boggess, Moore and Olsen. Commissioners Flores and Gerrish, and Chairman Carr are absent. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck and Current Planner Lanning are also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL Upon hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meetings of December 1 and December 15, 1987, were approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) - VARIANCE CASE NO 87 -113, VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE LIMITING RESIDENCE BUILDING HEIGHT, 1585 HILLCRFSTT DRIVE. (L BERRY /V. BENNETT.) Planning Director Lberto- Blanck opened discussion by stating that this item had been continued from the Planning Commission meeting of 1/5/88 to allow the Commission time to look at the viewshed from the adjacent neighbors' house (Mr. & Mrs. Fred Steele). Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 87 -113 had been duly published and property owners notified, Acting Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. Mr. Leonard Berry, 226 Castaic, Shell Beach, one of the applicants, stated that the concerns and rights of the neighbors had always been a major consideration in the designing of the proposed project, and the immediate neighbors were pleased with the proposed project. He presented the Commission with a signed petition from these neighbors. He stated that the final design was arrived at due to the unusual size and shape of the lot. Without a variance, Mr. Berry felt that building on the lot would not be viable and, therefore, his property rights would be violated. Mr. Fred Steele, 1598 Hlllcrest, spoke against the proposed project due to the obstruction of the Steele's view. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed variance, Acting Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion regarding the garage size and location, the roof pitch, City specifications to driveways and approaches, tree removal, driveway safety, and obstruction of the Steele's viewshed, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 87 -1144 A RESOLUTION OF THE CTTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 87 -113, APPLIED FOR BY LEONARD BERRY AND VALERIE BENNETT AT.1585 HILLCREST DRIVE. On motion by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Acting Chairman Soto NOES: Commissioners Olsen and Moore ABSTAIN: Commissioner Boggess ABSENT: Commissioners Flores and Gerrish, and Chairman Carr the foregoing Resolution was defeated this 19th day of January, 1988 due to the lack of a majority vote. PUBLIC HEARING ( CONTINUED) - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 87-449, SUBDIVIDE ONE (1) PARCEL INTO FOUR (4) LOTS, 136 PINE STREET. SAN LUIS ENGINEERING. (J. GREEN/M. DEE.) Current Planner Lansing stated that this item had been continued from the last Planning Commission meeting to allow presentation of an archaeological report on the site. That report has been prepared and has found there are no cultural or ethnocentric artifacts on the site. The applicants are proposing to divide the 40,730 square foot parcel into four separate parcels, ranging in size from approximately 6,000 to 12,000 square feet. The proposed subdivision will result in a flag lot situation for the two rear lots. All of the proposed lots meet or exceed the requirements for the minimum lot width and depth in the R -1 zone, and they also meet the minimum parcel size of 6,000 square feet for lots in this zone. Mr. Lansing continued by stating that the proposed development is in conformance with the General Plan density, which allows up to 4.5 du /acre, provided that the General Plan's density is calculated on the gross acreage; in other words, the acreage prior to dedication for streets, water lines and so forth. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1988 Page 2 Mr. Lanning stated that another concern of staff regarding the proposed lot split is the preservation of the oak trees, as there are a number of oak trees on the parcel, and one of the conditions of approval is requiring the applicants to preserve the oak trees as part of the parcel map. Mr. Lanning said that staff is not anticipating any significant environmental impacts from the proposed lot split, and a Negative Declaration was prepared to address the environmental aspects of the lot split. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, approving the lot split subject to the findings of staff and the listed conditions. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 87 -449 had been duly published and property owners notified, Acting Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. Jim McGillis, surveyor for San Luis Engineering and representative of the applicants, informed the Commission that most of the lots in the Fair Oaks tract where the proposed project is located have been split into condominiums or apartments. Mr. McGillis stated that the applicants have no objections to the conditions requested by staff. He also pointed out to the Commission where the turn- around access for fire equipment would be located. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed lot split, Acting Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion regarding overflow and off - street parking, Acting Chairman Soto reopened the hearing to allow Ines del Campo, 154 Pine St., to speak. Mrs. del Campo stated that the sale of both of the lots was to insure that one home would be built on each lot. Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed, and the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1145 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT SPLIT NO. 87 -449, 136 PINE STREET. (J. GREEN/M. DEE.) On motion by Commissioner Boggess, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Olsen and Boggess NOES: Acting Chairman Soto ABSTAIN: Commissioner Moore ABSENT: Commissioners Flores and Gerrish, and Chairman Carr the foregoing Resolution was defeated for lack of a majority vote this 19th day of January, 1988. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUATION) - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 87 -451, SUBDIVIDE EXLSI1NG PARCEL INTO THREE (3) LOTS, W. BRANCH ST., SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY REGIONAL (ENTER. ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES. (COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.) Current Planner Lanning opened the discussion by stating that this item had been before the Planning Commission at the 1/2/88 meeting and was continued to provide the Planning Commission with additional information regarding the South County Regional Center and the donation of property. Staff has included several enclosures, including the Master Plan for the site, roadway expansions, and so forth. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve the proposed lot split by resolution. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 87 -451 had been duly published and property owners notified, Acting Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. Mike Zimmerman, 227 E. Branch St., stated that the General Plan cannot remain the way it is without amending it to provide for municipal office space on the Regional Center property. He commented that if the General Plan is amended to allow for municipal office space, it will also allow use for a City Hall and, for those opposed to the move of City Hall from the downtown area, this amendment would be another "nail in the coffin." Mr. Zimmerman suggested that instead of a General Plan amendment, the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to ask the County to provide Council with a list of specific uses for the property that would be acceptable to the County. He said the Planning Commission could then review those uses and make a determination as to whether or not a particular use is in conformance with the General Plan. Another question Mr. Zimmerman had was the conflicting dates on the contract filed with the County Clerk's office. He was of the belief that there was plenty of time to review all the issues. 401 402 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 January 19, 1988 Keith Crowe of EDA, representative for San Luis Obispo County, stated that the summary of this action the Commission was contemplating was a lot split to create a 5 -acre parcel to be donated to the City, with the remaining parcel to be divided into two parcels for the County's property management purposes. Mr. Crowe stated that it was the County's desire to have the lot split approved without attached conditions. Mark Clark, 225 E. Branch St., spoke against moving City Hall to the donated 5 -acre parcel that is proposed in this lot split, and he urged the Commission to take its time in considering this lot split, and not be forced into any hasty decision. Bill McCann, 575 Crown Hill, stated that he believes the County has not sufficiently responded to questions posed by the Commission or by concerned residents of the City. Mr. McCann wanted the County to disclose exactly what plans they have for the additional parcels, and he wanted no stipulations placed on the lot being donated. Gordon Bennett, 415 Allen St., agreed that the decision should be held up until there are more answers. Jack Hill, 1120 Flora Road, also agreed that the Commission should go slowly on this item until there are more answers. Jim Scravani, 201 Whiteley St., stated that he opts for denial of the lot split, since there is not enough information. He wished to know more as to what City Council had planned for the donated parcel. Bill Tappan, 1525 Chilton, stated that he was opposed to the lot split. Mr. Crowe stated that the action before the Commission was for a lot split only. There were to be no decisions on use of the site. Mr. Scravani stated that he believed the general public should be involved in the General Plan update. Upon hearing no further comments for or against the proposed lot split, Acting Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Boggess asked that since the 5 -acre parcel was to be used for municipal space, what exactly constituted municipal space use, and is the earmark of municipal space use in violation of the General Plan. He felt that a delay would mean automatic approval. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck informed the Commission that any delay would result in automatic approval, unless the applicant agrees to continue the item. She stated that denial by the Commission would automatically put this item before City Council. After a brief discussion which included the dollar value of the 5 -acre parcel to be donated and problems involved with drainage of the property, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1146 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING C)MMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT SPLIT NO. 87 -451. (SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY.) • On motion by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: None NOES: Commissioners Olsen, Boggess, and Moore, and Acting Chairman Soto ABSENT: Commissioners Flores and Gerrish, and Chairman Carr the foregoing Resolution was denied this 19th day of January, 1988, on the basis that the lot split does not conform to the Arroyo Grande General Plan, that insufficient material has been provided by the County, and that it is too controversial. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 19, 1988 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 87 -111, VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE LIMITING RESIDENCE BUILDING HEIGHT, 1054 SUNSET DRIVE. (FRANK LANDINI.) Current Planner Lanning opened discussion by stating that the applicant is proposing to develop the subject property with a single - family residence. The home is approximately 17' high at its highest single point as measured from adjacent grade. The proposed home contains approximately 1600 square feet of living area and conforms with required setbacks, side yard setbacks and rear yard setbacks and rear yard area as required by the zoning code. The proposed home is located in an area which is currently developed with existing single - family homes. The terrain in this area is uniformly flat. The property is flanked by existing single - family homes of one and two stories, respectively. The property across Sunset Drive is also a one - story, single - family home. The property to the rear of the subject property is zoned commercial and is developed with the Fair Oaks Pharmacy building. Mr. Lanning continued that, during staff's inspection of the site, no significant viewsheds were noted in the area, mainly due to the flat terrain and the presence of existing development. The location and situation of this lot are somewhat unique, as it is within an existing residential neighborhood between a single -story and a two -story home, with a commercial area to the rear, and there are no apparent viewsheds to preserve. As there are no apparent viewsheds in the area, and the location and situation of the lot is so unique, and that the applicant has shown some sensitivity in the design of the home in order to maintain the continuity and character of existing homes, staff is recommending that the Commission approve the attached resolution approving the request for variance subject to the findings and listed conditions. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 87 -111 had been duly published and property owners notified, Acting Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. I Frank Landini, 530 San Luis Avenue, Pismo Beach, the applicant, commented that the project was designed to tie together the one -story structure located on one side of the project and the two -story structure located on the other side. He stated that since there was no one on the street who had a view, his proposed project will not block any viewshed. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed variance, Acting Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1147 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 87 -111, APPLIED FOR BY FRANK LANDINI AT 1054 SUNSET DRIVE. On motion by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Olsen, Boggess, Moore and Acting Chairman Soto NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Flores and Gerrish, and Chairman Carr the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of January, 1988. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 87-112, VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE LIMITING RESIDENCE BUILDING HEIGHT, 317 ZOGATA WAY. (R. & L JONES.) Current Planner Lanning opened discu by stating that the applicants are proposing to develop the subject property with a single - family !residence with an average height of approximately 22 -1/2' as measured by the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The home will be approximately 30' high at its highest single point as measured from adjacent grade. The maximum height permitted in this zone prior to the urgency ordinance was 30' The proposed home is approximately 2,670 square feet in size. The home meets requirements of the zning ordinance in regards to front yard, side yard, rear yard and rear yard area setbacks. The proposed residence will have a height of approximately 19' when viewed from the street, due to the slope of the lot and the configuration of the house on it. Mr. Lanning continued that the proposed home is located in a tract where most of the lots are currently vacant. The few lots which have be developed are southwest of the site at a significantly lower elevation. The viewsheds of these existing homes will not be significantly altered by the proposed development. All of the lots within the tract immediately adjacent to the proposed development are currently vacant, with no development proposals pending at this time. This tract is one of the few undeveloped tracts affected by the urgency ordinance. Other residential areas currently under development are under the P -D Planned Development zone and are not subject to the reuqirements of 403 404 Arroyo Grande Planning Commision Page 5 January 19, 1988 the ordinance because architectural review of each lot is already provided. Mr. Lanning stated that the impact of the current proposal on the viewsheds of the adjacent properties is somewhat difficult to assess as there is no development at this time and projections on future development is theoretical at best. He said the applicants have provided information regarding the surrounding area and the potential impact of the proposed development on the surrounding properties. The properties to the east on Pearwood are at a lower elevation and are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed home. The properties to the north and south have a viewshed that runs parallel to the proposed development and thus should not be impacted by the proposed residence. The properties to the west across Zogata Way are the ones most likely to be affected by the proposed development due to the direction of the viewshed in the area. These properties are at a higher elevation than the subject property; however, the land does slope away toward the east. Mr. Lanning concluded by saying the applicants have provided information to show that development of this property will not significantly impact the views of the adjacent lots. Given the fact that the applicants have demonstrated a sensitivity to the preservation of views on the adjacent parcels, that the proposed structure has been designed as much as possible in keeping within the intent of the ordinance while maintaining continuity and character with the surrounding homes, that the applicants have indicated alternatives are not as viable as the proposed development, and that the intent of the ordinance is to preserve existing viewsheds, staff recommends that the Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending to the City Council approval of the variance request subject to the listed findings and conditions of approval. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 87 -112 had been duly published and property owners notified, Acting Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. Leslie and Richard Jones, 422 N. 4th Street, Grover City, the applicants, stated that, in their opinion, the proposed project would not be blocking any viewsheds. James Flegge, 217 Pearwood, stated that he is a neighbor of the proposed project and his home sits in a valley behind the project, and if the project is approved, he would be looking up at the rear of a 30' house, thereby his view would be affected. Acting Chairman Soto stated that it was his understanding of the emergency ordinance that it only addressed views the other way, downhill. Mr. Flegge responded by saying that it was his understanding that the purpose of the ordinance was to protect everyone's view. Madeline Steel, 1598 Hillcrest, stated that Mr. Flegge had brought up a valid concept: views can be either uphill, downhill or sideways. Judy Tappan, 1525 Chilton, stated that it was her understanding that the original intent of the emergency ordinance was to limit existing structure additions. She stated that a person knows that when he or she buys next to a vacant lot, that lot can be built upon and that any views may be disturbed. Joe Zogata, 718 Grand Avenue, said that he supports the proposed variance. Mrs. Leslie Jones said that the City had approved the Zogata tract. Hearing no further discussion for or against Variance Case No. 87 -112, Acting Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Moore stated that the emergency ordinance needed to be written specifically for different zones. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1148 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COiiMQISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 87 -112, APPLIED FOR BY RICHARD AND LESLIE JONES AT 317 ZOGATA WAY. On motion by Commissioner Boggess, seconded by Acting Chairman Soto, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 January 19, 1988 AYES: Commissioner Boggess and Acting Chairman Soto NOES: Commissioners Olsen and Moore ABSENT: Commissioners Flores and Gerrish, and Chairman Carr the foregoing Resolution was defeated this 19th day of January, 1988, due to the lack of a majority vote. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 87-398 - REVIEW OF PROPOSED CLASSROOM ADDITION AND PROPOSED MASTER PLAN, 497 FAIR OAKS AVENUE. GOSPEL LIGHTHOUSE PENTACOSTAL CHURCH. REPRESENTATIVE - JOHN PRYOR, ARCHITECT. Current Planner Lannirg opened discussion by stating that this item originally came before the Planning Commission as part of a variance request to grant a conditional use permit on the steeple structure. On appeal, the City Council granted the variance and put in a condition to require architectural reivew of the proposed classrooms and to have review of a master site plan. The proposed classrooms wil be located on the south side of the property attached to the existing church building. The classrooms will be approximately 2,000 sq. ft. floor area and will be about 240' from the front property line, 5' from the south side property line adjacent to the Catholic church property, and 45' from the rear property line. The addition will be approximately 110' long and will range from 12' to 20' in width. The addition will be approximately 12' in height. The proposed building materials consist of stucco textured to match the existing sanctuary building. The stucco will be colored to match the existing building on site. The building facade will be broken up by the use of windows and pilasters spaced at regular intervals along the side of the building. These features should provide some visual relief through variation of wall planes and use of shadow lines. The design utilizes a shed -type roof with composition roofing materials. The proposed master site plan indicates that the proposed classrooms and lighthouse feature will conclude the construction program for this site for the foreseeable future. Provision for a new church building site has been included in the plan, but there are no current plans to construct this building, according to the latest declaration from the applicant. The area indicated as future parking for 45 cars in the northwest corner of the site has already been paved and is in the process of being striped. The master plan indicates that even at maximum build-out, sufficient parking and landscape will be provided and the setback and lot coverage requirements of the zone will be met. It should be noted that the master plan is conceptual in nature and does not represent City approval of any future expansion program. The applicant will need to go through the normal application procedure for any future construction projects. No action on the master plan is required by the Commission; it is intended as merely an informational item. Staff is recommending that the proposed classrooms be approved by the Planning Commission by minute motion. Reverend Larry Booker, Pastor of the Gospel Lighthouse Church, stated that he was available to answer any questions of the Commission. Current Planner Laming informed the Commission that this item would go before City Council as a Planning Director item, since Council originally requested the master plan. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Boggess, seconded by Commissioner Olsen and unanimously carried that Architectural Review Case No. 87 -398 be approved. CONFORMITY OF "MUNICIPAL USE" WITH GENERAL PLAN: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL GOVERNMENT (ENTER. Planning Director Liberto- Blanck opened discussion by stating that City Council's adoption of Resolution No. 2189 requires the City to refer to the Planning Commission for review and report within 40 days as to the consistency of "Municipal Office Uses" with the General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 65402(a). Planning Director Liberto- Blanck continued that the General Plan shows the area for South County Regional Center. The "Public Buildings" element has been attached to the Commissioners' report. This report is an optional element to the General Plan. Within this element, there was some wording about South County Regional Center. She stated that the above request is for the Planning Commission to determine whether "Municipal Office Uses" are consistent with the General Plan. Staff's recommendation is that the Commission look at the wording contained within the Public Building Element to determine whether "Municipal Office Uses" are consistent with the General Plan. Acting Chairman Soto stated that this was the first time he had seen the Public Buildings element. He said that this element tells exactly what the plans were for the downtown area and for the Regional Center, thereby providing more information to the Planning Commission about the intended lot split and the uses permitted. Mr. Soto continued by stating that nowhere in the report does it say municipal 405 406 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 January 19, 1988 court; therefore, by the law, the parcel cannot be accepted for municipal buildings. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1149 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE FINDING THAT MUNICIPAL OFFICE USES ON SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL CENTER PROPERTY ARE NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65402 On motion by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Boggess, Olsen and Moore, and Acting Chairman Soto NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Flores and Gerrish, and Chairman Carr the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of January, 1988. PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION DELEGATING TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR THE DISCRETION TO APPROVE MINOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TEEMS. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck stated that in the Resolution, staff has outlined criteria to provide a parameter for the Planning Commission to determine whether or not the Planning Director could approve minor Architectural Review items, instead of going through the Planning Commission review process. She stated that this would not apply to any Variance cases or the architectural review associated with these cases that would be presented to the Planning Department. After a brief discussion regarding architectural review of the Royal Oaks and Oak Park Acres developments, this item was continued to the February 2, 1988 meeting, due to the absence of other Commission members and what their input might be regarding this item. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Acting Chairman at 9:35 P.M.