Loading...
PC Minutes 1987-12-15388 Arroyo Grande Plannug Corniission December 15, 1987 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Moore, Olsen, Soto and Gerrish. Commissioners Flores and Boggess are absent. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck and Current Planner Lanning are also in attendance. SPECIAL RESOLUTION NO. 1140 COMMENDING NANCY IVERSEN FOR HER OU'lbFANDING SERVICE TO THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. Chairman Carr read the special Resolution and presented it to Nancy Iversen, Associate Planner, who is leaving the City's employment December 18, 1987. Ms. Iversen thanked the Commission. PLANNING DIRE TORS REPORT AND ASSESSMENT. After introducing the new Current Planner, Paul Lanning, to the Cammission, Planning Director Liberto- Blanck advised the Commission that the City Council had approved changing the R -3 zoning at 201 Brisco Road, property of Richard and Nadine Ray, to P-M, Planned Industrial zoning. Ms. Liberto- Blanck also addressed City Council's extension of the emergency 15 -foot height restriction ordinance affecting the R -1 and R -1 Combining zones for another ten months. She stated that this extension would cause an influx of variance cases for review by the Planning Commission. The Commission would be provided with copies of the extension ordinance. Ms. Liberto - Blanck discussed a mono to the City Manager and (ity Council from City Attorney, Art Shaw, regarding selected enforcenents of ordinances. Staff will be going out into the community and identifying items which could be in violation of zoning codes and ordinances. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck also mentioned the 1988 Planning C,armissions' Institute Conference to be scheduled in March, 1988. Parties interested in attending were directed to contact Ms. Liberto- Blanck. LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 87-448, PROPOSED DIVISION OF.A.3.17 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 955 BRANCH MILL ROAD INTO 2 PARCELS IN THE A -D ZONE. (VIRGIL MAGNUSON, APPLICANT:: THOMAS E. BAUMBERGER, REPRESENTATIVE). Planning Director Liberto- Blanck opened aiscussion by stating the proposed 3.17 acre lot split would create two 1.58 acre parcels (one flag lot), located adjacent to Branch Mill Road. The General Plan designation is Agriculture (Prime AG), with a 10 -acre minimum, and the zoning is Agriculture. The Zoning Code indicates that the minimum lot size for parcels not within Class I and II Soils (prime farmland is defined as Class I and Class II soils according to the U.S. Soil Conservation Service) should be 1 -1/2 acres. The Soil Conservation Survey indicates that approximately 2/3 of this property is within the Class II, or non -prime farmland, classification, and the remaining 1/3 is within the prime farmland classification. However, the General Plan designation, in staff's interpretation, does not distinguish between prime AG and non -prime AG. The applicant contends that the General Plan can be interpreted to mean that only parcels designated as prime agriculture mist meet the 10 -acre minimum lot size. Planning Director Liberto- Blanck stated that there appear to be two questions which Staff tried to identify in their report. Number one is the interpretation of the General Plan, and number two is the hierarchy of land use regulations. Staff feels that the General Plan clearly designates the subject area for 10 -acre parcels. It does not distinguish betwen prime and non -prime agriculture. If the interpretation was made that those acres which were not prime AG could go down to less than 10 acres, there would be a number of land divisions that would be possible in this area. Staff feels that if that were to occur, there would be incremental increases in traffic, public service demands, and so forth. Without reviewing the entire area as part of a comprehensive plan, it is difficult to determine whether this area is ready to subdivide. The Planning Department will begin updating the Land Use Element of the General Plan next year. At that time, General Plan designations will be reviewed to determine whether they are adequate. This may include the designations for the east end. Additionally, since the applicant only has a 3 -acre parcel, and 1/3 of the parcel is classified as Prime AG, the lot still does not appear to be large enough to subdivide. The second issue that Staff - addressed is the hierarchy of land use regulations; that is, which do you interpret, the General Plan or the zoning code? Fran the court case mentioned in the Staff report, it would appear that the General Plan is on the top of the hierarchy in land use regulation. Under the environmental determinations, Staff did not recommend approval of this project. One of the things under the state law is that a project needs to be compatible with the General Plan. If it is not, then an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared. Additionally, CEQA indicates that if prime agriculture land is converted to non -prime agriculture use, or if a conversion impairs the agriculture production of prime agriculture land, then an EIR would have to be provided. Also, according to UCSB in a phone conversation Staff had with them, this area also appears to have a high probability of archaeological research. That would mean that at the time the Planning Commission was going to get an EIR on this area, they would have to require an archaeological report of the site, also. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 12 -15-87 Page 2 The Staff Advisory C.onmittee could not recommend approval of this project due to its inconsistency with the General Plan. Thus, staff did not prepare conditions for the project or provide environmental review, Chairman Carr asked if any of the Commissioners had any questions of Staff, to which Commissioner Gerrish responded by asking if the zoning for that area was "A." Ms. Liberto-Blanck replied affirmatively. Chairman Carr then stated that in March, 1986, the Commission initiated some type of zoning to change the zoning from A to A -1 and A -2. He asked if there was any indication that any action had ever taken place, to which Planning Director Liberto- Blanck replied that there was no evidence of any action; the Zoning Code offers no distinction, only Zone A. Commissioner Gerrish said that that incident pertained to a particular property at Cherry and Branch Mill Road and, because of some legal problems that he couldn't recall, the matter was dropped. Planning Director Liberto-Blanck stated that the zoning guidance in the Zoning Ordinance shows the property to be in an A zone. The map does not distinguish between an A zone and an A -1/A -2 zone. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for the proposed Lot Split Case No. 87 -448 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. The applicant's representative, Tom Baumberger, presented a packet to the Commission and quoted page 354 of the Zoning Ordinance 9.406a... "A minimum parcel size in an agriculture district shall be 1- 1/2 acres." He also quoted 9.406b... "The maximum shall be 5 acres when the Soils Classification is I or II." Mr. Baumberger stated that the soils maps of the US Department of Soil Conservation, which the Qty of Arroyo Grande and other agencies accept as a guideline for soild classifications, designates the subject property as Class III Soil. Under this designation, 1 -1/2 acre parcels are appropriate. Mr. Baumberger presented copies of the City's General Plan map updated in 1987, the zoning map updated in September 1987, and the assessor's map showing the subject and adjoining properties. These maps, according to Mr. Baumberger, indicate these properties are far below the prime agricultural size. The intent of the designation of prime agriculture by the addition of the parenthetical "10 acre minimum" is for interpretation as to what prime farmland is and where it is, according to Mr. Baumberger. The zoning maps indicate a 1 -1/2 acre minimum for Agricutlure areas, which includes the subject property. It is Mr. Baumberger's opinion that the General Plan map and the Zoning map are not in conflict, but merely subject to interpretation. Mr. Baumberger noted that there is only one other parcel within the same area which would qualify for division, and other parcels in the area are under 6,000 square feet in area, below the size allowed; therefore, staff's concern that the approval of this proposal would open the door to many other requests appears to be unfounded. Hearing no further comrrnents from the audience or the Commissioners, Chairman Carr closed the public hearing portion of this cAge. Commissioner Gerrish was of the opinion that since the General Plan map clearly indicates the area to be prime agriculture of 10 -acre minimum, no split should be allowed without changing the General Plan map first. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No. 87 -448 was denied due to inconsistency with the General Plan Land Use Map. Chairman Carr declared the denial of the lot split and advised the applicant's representative that the decision could be appealed before City Council within ten days. LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 87 -450, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN 215 AND 217 PEARWOOD. (JAMES FLEGGE, APPLICANT.) Current Planner Lanning stated that the original properties were subdivided in 1976 as part of Parcel Map AG -76 -7. Both lots are occupied by single- family homes constructed in 1976 and 1985, respectively. The applicant is requesting a lot line adjustment in order to provide the proper alignment of the property lines between the existing homes, bringing the lots into conformance with City codes and ordinances. Current Planner Lanning further stated that the applicant is proposing to adjust the lot line between the existing single- family homes, resulting in two rectilinear lots. The lot at the end of Pearwood Avenue would be reduced in size to approximately 8,627 square feet in size. This exceeds the minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet for corner lots in the R -1 zone. The adjacent lot would increase in size from 10,400 square feet to 11,654 square feet. The proposed adjustment would result on one parcel of 130' by 66' in size, with the remaining parcel being 90' by 130'. Mr. Lanning added that both parcels are legal lots of record; however, the larger of the two parcels is not in conformance with the current subdivision ordinance. However, as these parcels are legal lots of record and the proposed lot line adjustment will decrease the nonconformity of the parcel by 389 390 Arroyo Grande Planning Caomii ion, 12 -15-87 Page 3 increasing its size and adjusting the lot line so the home is properly situated on the lot, staff believes the proposed lot line adjustment constitutes a reasonable request. Mr. Lanning said that as far as the environmental determination was concerned, the proposed lot line adjustment is categorically exempt from the requirements of the CEQA, as no new parcels are being created. Current Planner Lanning stated that staff recormmends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution approving the proposed lot line adjustment, with the findings subject to the listed conditions. Chainnan Carr asked whether the Commission had questions of the Staff. Commissioner . Soto questioned how a house was built in 1985 on the nonconforming lot in the first place. Mr. Lanning responded by stating that the Building Department at that time went on the word of the contractor that proper setbacks were being observed. After being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 87 -450 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr opened the item for public hearing. Applicant James Flegge, of 217 Pearwood, the subject property, introduced the co- applicant, Mr. Hughes, of 215 Pearwood. Mr. Flegge proceeded to inform the Commission, in detail, of the description and location of the present lot lines and the proposed adjustment. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed lot line adjustment, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 87 -1141 n A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 87 -450, 215 /217 PEARWOOD. (JAMES FLEGGE.) On motion by Corrmissione r Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Gerrish, Soto, Moore and Olsen, and Chairman Carr NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Boggess and Flores the foregoing Resolution was passed this 15th day of December, 1987. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 87 -109, VARIANCE FROM REQUIREMENT FOR DRIVEWAY IMPROVEMENT, 1189 FLORA ROAD. (ALTON & LINDA JONES) Current Planner Paul Lanning commented that the applicants are requesting a variance from Article 26, Section 9- 4.2606(1) of the City Code, which stipulates, "All improvements for driveways and parking shall be surfaced in concrete or A.C. paving to City requirements." The applicants are requesting a final inspection on their home without improving a 600' -long driveway which would connect to the nearest paved road, Flora Road, due to the cost of the improvement. According to the Building Department, the applicants were informed of this condition, the paving of the road, from the onset. Current Planner Lanning continued that the purpose of paving the roadway is to provide fire equipment access, fire protection, -minimize dust and improve drainage patterns. Two .adjacent property owners were required to - pave their driveways; one equal to this requirement. According to Mr. Lanning, the Staff Advisory C.onTnittee feels that the findings for a variance cannot be made, and a paved road should be provided. In particular, the Fire Chief has concerns that adequate fire protection cannot be provided to the parcel if the driveway is not paved. Mr. Lanning stated that bonding for the pavement is not considered to be a viable alternative because previous experience illustrates that it is difficult to get a driveway constructed. Additionally, collection of the bonds is a complex and lengthy process. Mr. Lanning summarized by stating that as the findings for variance cannot be made, Staff recormmends the Planning Commission deny the variance. If the Commission wishes to approve the variance, the project should be referred back to Staff to determine whether there are conditions which would reduce the health and safety issues. Commissioner Moore questioned whether putting gravel on the driveway would meet the requirement and whether the fire equipment could maneuver equipment on gravel in wet weather. Arroyo Grande Planning Q ainimic n, 12 -15-87 Page 4 Planning Director Liberto- Blanck stated that the Fire Chief felt that the driveway needed to be paved to City standards which did not include • gravel. The Fire Chief's concern was actually getting fire equipment to the site, along with the 600' length. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 87 -109 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Linda Jones, 1189 Flora Road, one of the applicants, indicated that the applicants were not aware at any point in construction that they would have to pay for the cost of paving the driveway. She stated that the present location of the driveway was temporary, that it cuts across the neighboring property of Mr. Bean as a deeded legal easement, and there is no dust, since it has a 3" base and the wind blows through the canyon, away from any neighbors. Since heavy trucks have been traveling the driveway throughout construction, Mrs. Jones did not think any fire equipment would have problems with traveling the road. Cbnmissioner Gerrish advised the applicant that if the Planning Commission denied the variance, the problem could be addressed by the City Council through the appeal process. Chairman Carr reminded the applicant that, regardless of the arguments for or against the issue, the City ordinance calls for a driveway. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLTUION NO. 87 -1142 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VARIANCE CASE NO. 87 -109, 1189 FLORA ROAD. On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: None NOES: Commissioners Gerrish, Moore, Olsen and Soto, and Chairman Carr ABSENT: Commissioners Flores and Boggess the foregoing Resolution was defeated this 15th day of December, 1987. A motion was made by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Moore and unanimously carried that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the applicants' appeal fees be waived. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed variance, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 87-110, PROPOSED VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE LIMITING RESIDENCE BUILDING HEIGHT, 360 GULARTE ROAD (PAUL REINHARDT). Planning Director Liberto- Blanck advised that the applicant has requested a continuance of the case to the January 5, 1988 meeting to provide staff with additional information. Chairman Carr granted continuance. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 87-397,1570 WEST BRANCH STREET, SATELILITE ROOF ANTENNA (A MART). Planning Director Liberto- Blanck advised that the applicant has requested a continuance of the case. Chairman Carr granted continuance to the January 5, 1988 meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Gerrish inquired as to the Conservation and Open Space Elements not being included in his notebook. Planning Director Liberto- Blanck pointed out that those Elements were still being worked on. Chairman Carr expressed the wish to have the agenda for the January 5,1988 meeting by December 31, 1987, since the City offices would be closed for the New Year holiday Friday, January 1. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Cammission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 9:05 P.M. AlTL'S I': .�2 Gt h ipfifC% Secretary 7„Y 39!: