Loading...
PC Minutes 1987-01-06316 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 6, 1987 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Moore, Olsen, Boggess and Gerrish. Commissioners Flores and Soto are absent. Planning Director Eisner and Rob, Strong, Acting Planning Staff on the Royal Oaks Estates project, are also in attendance. Muntte Approval Commissioner Moore noted that the minutes of the meeting of December 16, 1986 do not reflect his question regarding density and what was going to happen to a piece of land fronting on Halcyon. Road, and also a section below the school and park land in Rancho Grande. He stated Mr. Strong assured him that .233 units is a set figure for the development. Mr. Strong commented that the matter came up but no specific decision was reached, and there is a point in review of the conditions tonight where there could be a specific discussion. Commissioner Moore stated -he wanted this issue reflected in the minutes to get the Council's attention. On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the regular meeting of December 16, 1986 were approved with the amendment to reflect Commissioner Moore's comments as noted above. ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA Chairman Carr advised there has been a request from the Planning Director to adjust the agenda slightly and bring Item 5 and one additional item up regarding requests for determination. The Commission indicated, their concurrence with the request. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 86 -381, LOADING DOCK, STORAGE AREA AND OFFICE SPACE, 143 BRISOO ROAD IN THE "P-W PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. (B & J RENTALS AND RV STORAGE, INC.). Planning Director Eisner advised the request is for an addition of a loading dock and an 8' x 10' office. The building in question is located in the "P -M" zone, and is there by Use Permit approved by the Commission in 1978. The addition will not materially change the appearance of the building, nor will it change the intensity of the use. He pointed out that all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance have been met, including the off - street parking requirements. The request was briefly discussed by the Staff Advisory Committee and is recommended for approval. There being no discussion, Architectural Review Case No. 86 -381 was approved on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Chairman Carr, and unanimously carried. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION - CONSTRUCTION OF A "HOME FURNISHING/IMPROVEMENT CENTER ", PARCEL A, LOT 2 OF OAK PARK ACRES (WEST BRANCH STREET NORTHERLY OF CAMINO MERCADO). (BONITA HOMES, INC.). Planning Director Eisner stated that the request before the Commission is not unlike others we have received in the past for an interpretation for uses in the Oak Park Acres development. He noted that the Oak Park Acres development is covered by Ordinance 140 C.S. and in that ordinance the development of the parcels of land are identified according to map attached to the Ordinance. Parcel 2 was originally identified in the ordinance and on the map for uses catering to highway traffic. He referred to Ordinance 291 C.S. adopted in March of 1983, stating at that time Parcel 2 was re- identified with permitted uses including those in the then "H -S" Zone. He pointed out that there was a reference to a specific zone, "P -D ", and a reference to the "H -S" zone, and then a modification of the "H -S" zone. Mr. Eisner referred to the letter, dated December 19, 1986 from Jack Ghormley of Bonita Homes, Inc., asking for an interpretation as to whether or not a furniture outlet would be consistent with the wording of Ordinance 140 C.S. and Ordinance 291 C.S. He stated that the uses mentioned, by way of an example, are places that do business and are dependent on highway traffic. Commissioner Gerrish commented that the requested use is a permitted use under the old Highway Service District. Mr. Eisner pointed out that it is a "P -D" zone, however the framers of the ordinance used the reference to Highway Service, but then they went on to make up their own list of uses. Chairman Carr advised that the question before the Commission is whether or not the requested use can be found to be within the planning spectrum of the development ordinance for Oak Park Acres. If the requested use is found to be an appropriate use by the Commission, it would come back as a Use Permit application and then on to the City CounciL Joe Guella, 1030 Sycamore, representing the applicant, stated they are basically here to gather whatever information they can to learn what steps to take within the Commission's guidelines to establish a home improvement center on the site. He stated it is their feeling that the parcel as it exists is proper for this type of use because of the freeway visibility and the access to and from the site. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1-6-87 Page 2 After further discussion, on motion by Con issioner Gerrish, seconded by Chairman Carr, and carried with one "no" vote and one abstention, that the use appears to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the specific plans associated with Oak Park Acres, and consistent with Ordinance 140 C. S. and 291 C. S., subject to Use Permit and architectural review by both the Planning Commission and City Council. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION - FAMILY BILLIARD CENTER, 116 W. BRANCH STREET IN THE "C -B-D" CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. Planning Director Eisner referred to a letter of request from Jeff and Toni Burkhanmer, dated January 5, 1987, requesting a determination that would find that a family billiards center would be an acceptable use in the Central Business District. He pointed out that the present Zoning Ordinance for the Central Business District states, under Uses Permitted Subject to a Use Permit, are "...The placement and operation of three (3) or more amusement machines in any commercial or . retail establishment. For the purposes of this subsection, "amusement machine" shall mean any device operated by or for patrons for amusement, diversion or sport for which a fee is charged and shall include such devices as pinball machines, video or . electronic games, pool tables, jukeboxes, and mini- motion picture devices... ". Mr. Eisner stated the applicant is proposing to take over the building that was formerly the Ace Hardware Store and use it as a family style billiard center. He stated staff is not sure that a Commission interpretation is necessary since pool tables are already mentioned, however, it may be referred to as more of an ancillary use. Commissioner Olsen noted that the other uses listed in the letter would be permitted individual uses in the "C-B- D". Commissioner Gerrish stated he would prefer that the applicants file a Use Permit application for further discussion by the Commission. Mr. Eisner noted that an effort is being made to encourage activities to bring families into the Village, which works to the advantage of the Village as a whole. PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 86 -416, REQUEST FOR SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT, 160 SPRUCE STREET IN THE "R -1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. (MYRNA DUNHAM). Chairman Carr announced that this matter is still being continued. Planning Director Eisner advised that staff is still waiting to hear from the applicant regarding their resubmission. SI'UDY SESSION - OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. Mr. Eisner stated that, not knowing how long the Royal Oaks discussion is going to take, he suggested that the study session on the Open Space Element be continued until the Royal Oaks project has been completed. The Commission concurred with this suggestion. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 85 -2, AND GPA 86 -2 CHANGING CLASSIFICATION FROM HEAVY COMVIERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, EAST BRANCH STREET. (CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE/PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF INTENTION). Planning Director Eisner advised that the City has just received the final documents from Holguin & Associates, who have been doing the toxic waste analysis on the Loomis site. The results have been reviewed by staff and we find the report to be complete. It has been indicated by independent consultants that the mitigations necessary to clean up the site is within their ability to do so. He stated that the General Plan Amendment will be before the Commission probably in four weeks. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - ROYAL OAKS ESTATES DEVELOPMENT (FORMERLY OAK KNOLLS). (ROYAL OAKS ASSOCIATES). Chairman Carr announced that this is a continuation of a public hearing concerning the Royal Oaks Estates. The Commission has previously certified the EIR and Addendum and are in the process of acting on revisions to the ordinance establishing this property in the "P -D" zone and on the tract map. It was agreed by the Commission that discussion of this item would be limited to 11:00 P.M. Mr. Rob Strong, Acting Planning staff on the Royal Oaks Estates development, briefly reviewed the progress on this item up to the present time. He stated that the public hearing was started on December 2nd, a field trip was conducted on December 9th and the public hearing was continued on December 16th where we began the discussion of the staff's recommended conditions of approval. The application is an amendment to the "P -D" District which is already established on the 150 acre property which lies between the subdivision that fronts on Miller Way and Via La Barranca, and the construction that is currently under way on the Rancho Grande Planned Development. Mr. Strong referred to the staff report distributed on the 16th of December which was an extension of, and a revision to, the December 2nd staff report. The discussion progressed from Page 7 of Exhibit "D" through Pages 18 and 19. He noted that each condition was reviewed with the developer generally agreeing with the conditions listed or changed during the discussion. He pointed out that Condition #3 on Page 17 was deleted due to a Commission 317 318 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1-6 -87 Page 3 consensus towards allowing for terraced lots as proposed by the developer. Conditions 9a and 9b were deleted as recommended conditions, and 9c would become Condition #9 dealing with the school site. Condition #lla was deleted and Condition 11b would become Condition #11. Condition #12 was deleted for the same basic reason that the Planning Commission concensus was that the terraced lot proposal by the developer was appropriate to the site and preferred over solutions which would leave the lots with cross lot drainage problems. Mr. Strong stated that Condition #13 discusses lots 182 through 185, which are single family estate lots. The concern with regard .to the estate lots, as identified in the question by Commissioner Moore, is what happens in the event the estate lots are not developed with an individual single family home. He noted that the developer has acknowledged that there is interest for an institutional use, a church. He stated that staff had previously indicated that Lot 185 fronting on Halcyon Road might be an appropriate site for some alternative use. The uses which the staff feels are appropriate would be those uses which would be conditionally permitted in the "R -1" District, or even in the "R -S" District. The church use, as an example, would be a conditionally permitted use in the "R -1" District. As a specific response to Commissioner Moore's question - "what happens if a proposal is submitted to develop these lots with more than 'a single family residence increasing the density ", Mr. Strong stated that, in his opinion, that would constitute an amendment to the "P -D" zone and it would go through the same process as what we are currently going through. He further stated it wouldn't be precluded because any property owner or the City itself has the ability to initiate a request for consideration of a change of land use, but it is not provided for in this proposal. He pointed that the proposed amendment to the "P -D" has a cap of 233 units, and the developer has made no provision to change that. Mr. Strong commented that this would be the time to resolve the appropriate subdivision pattern as the tentative map is being -reviewed. He stated that staff's primary concern with regard to the proposal as submitted by the developer is that they lack clear indication of access to utility improvements; specifically no provision is made for extension of water other than the utility easement; sewer, other than a provision for potential easements; or public streets other than the access easements. The alternatives to that would be allowing smaller, but still estate size lots over here, and increasing the number of units in another area and thereby justifying improvements to a greater degree. An alternative that is available is to simply treat all of these lots as one lot, and if someone wants to own an extremely large home site, they would end up with approximately a 23 acre site and it could be stipulated that it not be further subdivided. Chairman Carr recalled the discussion of a stipulation that would leave the three lots in their current configuration, but would require improvements to be made at the time the first lot is developed. Mr. Strong stated that would be staff's recommendation if the subdivision, as proposed, is approved. He stated, as an alternative, some response from the developer could be included relative to the idea of developing that area into a single lot. - Chairman Carr reopened the public hearing. William Lackey, 577 Easy Street, one of the developers, stated they have been approached by two other churches looking for land. He commented it is their feeling that the way it is planned now is the best way because it leaves it open for churches to come in there. He stated they- have no intention of building single family homes on these large lots; the site is for a church or a school site. Mr. Lackey stated since they can't foresee the use, it doesn't make sense to run the utilities in at some point, and then find they wouldn't be where they are needed. He commented it would be more appropriate to let the people who develop those sites choose where they are to go. Dan Lloyd, engineer for .the project, stated that they are providing services from the streets to the private accessways; they are providing sewer laterals and also water services to those locations. He commented that what they are trying to do is avoid putting in a facility that may end up being abandoned in favor of some other use or some other development. For example, if a church were to go in, we may not be anticipating the right location for that facility. He further stated he does anticipate the City wanting to abandon the lift station in Rancho Grande and putting the sewer line through that property which would serve those three parcels. With regard to Condition #13a, Mr. Strong stated it was his recollection that the Commission's consensus was not particularly favorable to increasing the number of rural estate lots in that area, and 13a was deleted. The other alternative of consolidating lots was not particularly acceptable either and, therefore, 13b was deleted. He commented that, in staff's opinion, it was the consensus of the Commission to go with Item 13, but to go with public improvements. Arroyo Grande Planni:g Camissian, 1-6 -87 Page 4 Condition No. 14 was where the potential for alternative uses was discussed and, specifically allowing for consideration of institutional uses, by use permit, on the two lots that have frontage on Halcyon Road. Condition 14b discussed the idea of adjusting the boundary between Lots 183 and 184 to increase the size of the lot that has frontage on Halcyon Road, and decreasing the size of the internal one. . Mr. Strong stated he felt the Commission should make a determination as to which way they would like to go. Chairman Carr commented he recalled there was some discussion about the utilities with the development of those properties, but it wasn't clear in his mind that development would fall on the purchasers. He stated he felt comfortable with institutional uses on Lots 184 and 185, and estate lots on 182 and 183. Commissioner Gerrish stated he concurred with the _developer, in that he wouldn't want to put in water, sewer and access without knowing what the use is going to be, however, he also would not be interested in approving a subdivision map with lots that do not have water, sewer and access to a public street. Commissioner Gerrish stated his preference would be 13b where 182 and 184 are consolidated into a 24 acre lot, with the provision that the lot is going to come back for further resubdivision for some sort of institutional use. Mr. Strong stated his feeling is that Coninissioner Gerrish's suggestion would be quite acceptable and appropriate and, in his opinion, the way it was stated, the intent is that area would remain, essentially, consolidated and undeveloped until somebody submits a "P -D" amendment for institutional use, and the Commission would not be considering a "P -D" amendment for any other use such as a residential subdivision. In answer to Commissioner Moore's question regarding the utilities, Commissioner Gerrish stated that if the lots are consolidated, then there are utilities and access to every lot here. Mr. Strong commented that Commissioner Gerrish's recommendation as stated, is that if the lots are consolidated into one, it would eliminate the necessity for the easements, other than the drainage easements; the public utilities would not have to be extended into the site because they exist on Halcyon and would serve that consolidated lot. Mr. Strong noted that an option for the Commission is to show the sewer easement. He noted it is going to go cross country without reference to the lot line. Mr. Lackey stated they have no objection to granting the sewer easement. After considerable discussion, it was the consensus that Condition No. 13 be changed to consolidate a portion of Lot C, Lots 182, 183 and a portion of Lot 184 into a single parcel, with a further provision for resubdivision for institutional uses only. Mr. Strong continued to review the recommended conditions items 14 through 37, with the Commission and applicants commenting on individual conditions. Upon completion of the review, Mr. Strong referred to Exhibit E, stating it is a draft ordinance which is more abbreviated over the previous Ordinances 221 and 317, in that the previous ordinances were more extensive with detailed conditions which were standard requirements. He pointed out that the standard requirements were deleted and focus was strictly on the improvement plans. Mr. Strong encouraged that the Commission take action on Exhibits D and C tonight, and the revised conditions would be available and distributed along with the minutes of this meeting. He stated he would also ask the developer to submit a revised map showing the changes as discussed. He noted that these materials would be available to the Commission prior to the City Council's public hearing on the matter. He pointed out that the Exhibits and revised map would be unofficial until the Commission endorses the materials and the documents related to them. Commissioner Olsen stated she would like to see a revised map before malting a decision. Chairman Carr reviewed the concerns he had and spoke about at the beginning of this project. Those concerns included density, tree preservation, and the protection of wildlife. With regard to trees, Commissioner Carr suggested that consideration be given to tree replacement for Oak trees that have to be removed. COMMISSIONER MOORE LEFT THE MEETING AT 11:15 P.M. AND IS NOW ABSENT. After further discussion, Commissioner Gerrish moved to approve the "P -D" Amendment with the conditions specified and amended as shown on Exhibit B. Motion seconded by Chairman Carr. Motion failed by a 3 to 1 vote. COMMISSIONER OLSEN LEFT THE MEETING AT 11:20 P.M. AND IS NOW ABSENT. 319 320 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1-6 -87 A 6 Secretary Chairman Page 5 Chairman Carr announced that since the Commission cannot take any further action due to the lack of a quorum, the matter would be continued to the next regular Planning Commission meeting of January 20, 1987. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 11:30 P.M.