Loading...
PC Minutes 1986-08-05284 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION August 5, 1986 The Arroyo Grande Planning Cormission met in regular session with Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Flores, Moore; Boggess, and Soto. Commissioners Olsen and Gerrish are absent. Planning Director Eisner is also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL Chairman CErr corrected the minutes of Jane 17, 1986, fourth paragraph, fifth line, to read "Vice Chairman Carr inquired if the contaminants could be removed or aerated?" There being no further corrections or additions, the minutes of the regular meetings of June 17, 1986 and July 1, 1986 were approved as corrected on notion by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and unanimously carried. ARC HITECIURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 86 -374, MONUMENT SIGN, 1057 GRAND AVENUE. (THE DOCTOR'S OFFIC:FICN SIGNS & GRAPHICS). Planning Director Eisner advised the request is for 'a pedestal sign for a previously approved use of a building for an emergency medical care - facility. He stated that the site plan indicates that the sign will go in the planter area. The request has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee and is recommended for approval. After a brief discussion, Architectural Review Case No. 86 -374 was approved on notion by honer Soto, seconded by. CComrissioner Flores, and • unanimously carried. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 86 -372, ADDITION OF MULTI - PURPOSE BUILDING, 207 PILGRIM WAY. (ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH). Planning Director Eisner referred to the site plan and architectural drawings for the proposed 14,000 sq. ft. addition, noting that the proposed addition will .bring the total floor area to 28,700 sq. ft. .Mr. Eisner advised that the proposal has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee, and in terms of its lot coverage and proposed parking, the proposal meets all of the requirements of the ordinance. The proposal is recommended for positive consideration subject to the 6 conditions listed in the staff report, dated August 5, 1986. Commissioner Boggess inquired about the problems he read about regarding the lights on the playing field. Planning Director Eisner advised that the Pastor of the church has met with the Cfity Council and there has been an agreement as to how that situation will be resolved. The reason the condition is included in the recommendations is to memoralize the fact that this agreement has been made. Mr. Eisner advised that the proposed addition is a metal building and will meet the building code requirements of the City. Commissioner Moore 'stated he is concerned about the drainage, pointing out that the present building is sitting on a low island. If we crowd the channel, their playing field is in _ the right spot and, in his opinion, a study should be made to perhaps use the playing field as a drainage field. Chairman Carr stated that Commissioner Moore's comments have been heard by the staff and the applicants, and he trusts they will be dealt with adequately. Mr. Eisner noted that if there is a question regarding drainage in the work submitted, resubmission will be requested. After further discussion, on notion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and unanimously carried, -Architectural Review Case No. 86 -372 was approved subject to the 6 conditions listed in the staff report, dated August 5, 1986. ARCIIITECIURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 86 -362, 13 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX, 410 SO. ELM STREET IN THE "R -3" MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. (GARY WHITB). Planning Director Eisner advised that this request is for architectural approval of a 13 unit apartment complex. The zoning on the property is "R -3 ". The project site is 40,600 sq. ft.; the maximum allowable coverage is 75% in the "R -3" zone. The applicant is proposing a project that will cover 25,850 sq. ft., or approximately 74 %. The actual building coverage will be 14,950 sq. ft., with an additional 10,900 sq. ft. in paving. He noted that the landscaped area represents approximately 36% of the project area. Parking has been provided on the basis of a 2-car garage for each unit, which exceeds the required one covered enclosed space and one additional open space. Mr. Eisner stated that, in reviewing this project, the Staff Advisory Committee submitted 9 recommended conditions, and there was a letter included in the packets from the Police Department regarding their concern relative to limited access. Mr. Eisner noted that the staff report was given to the applicant, and they had submitted a revised drawing this afternoon. Mr. Eisner reviewed the materials as resubmitted, noting that most, if not all of the problems have been resolved. Mr. Eisner stated he had received a call this morning from the Fire Chief stating he was in agreement to change Condition No. 8 to read "Either automatic sprinklers be installed (said system to be on local alarm), or additional fire hydrants installed at the designation of the Fire Chief". Cbnmmissioner Soto noted that the play area has been removed from the back of the house, and also the landscaped area from the existing house has been eliminated. Arroyo Grande Planing C arnissian, 8 -5-86 - Page 2 Gary White, applicant, stated that the landscaped area that they had offered was well above the minimum required and, after taking those areas away, it is still above the minimum requirements. He noted that the yard area for the existing house was not calculated in the landscaped area for the rest of the project. Commissioner Boggess stated there is ample parking for the people living in the project, but he is concerned about where their visitors are going to park. Planning Director Eisner pointed out that about 1 -1/2 years . ago the CJomnission reviewed the parking ordinance and, at that time, nothing was added to the ordinance. This application meets the standards that are on the books' today. Ctominimioner Soto stated he likes the looks of the building, but in his opinion, guest parking should be provided. Also, he stated his concern that there is no play area for smaller children. Mr. White stated they could move the fence closer to the existing house to add more open area. Chairman Carr reviewed the Commissioners' concerns. He stated they are valid concerns and, if approved, we will end up with a complex that doesn't provide parking for visitors and no play area for children other than . on pavement. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and carried with one "no" vote, Architectural Review Case No. 86 -362 was denied on the grounds of insufficient off - street parking and insufficient play area for children. Planning Director Eisner advised that this matter is subject to appeal to the City Council within 10 days. If it is not ,appealed, it can be resubmitted at any time. - CONTINUATION (PUBLIC HEARING • CLOSED) - USE PERMIT CASE . NO. 86 -411, CONSTRUCTION OF A 180 BED SKILLED NURSING FACILITY ON CAMINO MERCADO IN OAK PARK ACES, IN' THE fire-D" PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.. (MANOR HEALTHCARE CORP.). Planning Director Eisner reviewed that this matter was heard and continued from the last meeting, noting that there were several concerns directed back to the applicants. During the interim period the applicant and their representatives have met with staff and there has been substantial redesign of the project. The resubmission has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee and most, if not all, of the conderns of the initial hearing have been resolved in the resubmission. Mr. Eisner advised that the overall design in terms of the architecture Is fundamentally the same and is generally consistent with other buildings in the area. The amount of parking has been incensed by the use of the under floor area parking. A parking study was conducted by staff and the determination made that a standard of 1 parking space for every 2 -1/2 beds is within what most cities are using and feel comfortable with. Staff recommends that the parking as submitted be approved as being substantially beyond what the industry standard is. Mr. Eisner reviewed the definition of a skilled nursing care facility as defined in Ordinance 140 C.S. He stated this submission is a traditional approach to what the City hoped to find when that care facility was added to Ordinance 140 C.S. Staff feels that this request fits that definition clearly and without question. Commissioner Soto questioned the reason for Requirement No. 3. Planning Director Eisner advised that the original Oak Park Plan included a stub street, and staff is recommending deletion of that street. Chairman Carr stated he had some .difficulty determining if the revised plans replaced the large expansive wall, and if the garage is actually subterranian with no exterior walls showing. Mr; Eisner advised that there will be some exterior walls showing. He noted that the Staff Advisory Committee was very concerned about the visual image, and the fact of the matter is that there will be walls but the expansive look will be broken up and will be softened with landscaping. In answer to Chairman Carr's questions regarding landscaping of the 3 slope and if the driveways are going to be concrete or asphalt, the applicant advised that they intend to maintain all of the existing oak trees and plant new ones, and with the type of irrigation' and native planting, there will be no increased erosion. He noted that the driveways are planned to be asphalt. Planning Director Eisner advised that one of the requirements will be not only a complete landscaping and irrigation plan, but requires review and approval by the Parks and Recreation Director. He further advised that a time schedule with a phasing plan will be required so we don't have the situation where the grading is done and then walk away from it for a couple of years. Mr. Eisner called attention to Item No.. 5 of the supplemental staff report, dated August 5, 1986, noting that the underground parking height clearance should be amended to 9 feet instead of 10 feet. 285 286 Arroyo Grande Plannhg Cbanission, 8:5-86 Page 3 Commissioner Soto stated, in his opinion, this project will be a nice addition to the City of Arroyo Grande. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO.. 86 -1093 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE .RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT CASE NO. 86 -411, APPLIED FOR ,BY MANOR HEALTHCARE CORP. On motion by Con nissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Cbnmd.5sioners Flores; Moore, Boggess, Soto and Chairman Carr NOES: None ABSENT: C omni sioners Gerrish and Olsen the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5th day of. August 1986. Architectural ' Review Case NO. • 86 -369. There being no further . discussion, Architectural Review Case No. 86 -369 was recommended for approval on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and unanimously carried. PUBLIC BEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 85=2 AND 86-2 CHANGING CLASSIFICATION FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT, INDUSTRIAL 10 -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 this matter. has been continued for approximately another month.. REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION - ,TENTATIVE . PARCEL MAP • FOR OAK .. KNOT LS DEVELOPMENT, LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 84-404. . (WM. LACY). APPEAL OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR EIR ADDENDUM - ROYAL OAKS DEVELOPMENT. (ORDINANCE 221 C.S. -• FORMERLY OAK KNOLLS). Planning Director Eisner excused. himself because of a . possible conflict of 'interest on this project and tinned the meeting over to Mr. Rob Strong, Planning Consultant, to make the staff psentation. Mr.. Strong referred to the staff reports on .the above -two items. He stated that the subject property involves approximately 150 acres located between the South County Citizens' Center on West Branch and the alignment of James Way, east of the -Rancho Grande project now under site preparation. Mr. Strong briefly sunmarized the history of the subject property, pointing out that the property has been subject to several previous proposals; Halcyon Hills, Knollwood, and Oak Knoll, which has evolved to the current approved planned development, and the current new proposal is known as "Royal Oaks ". • Mr. Strong advised that the first item of consideration is the time extension for the parcel map. He pointed out that the City Council approved said tentative parcel map, subject to four conditions, on December 11, 1984. That map extends to December of 1986. State law provides a 24 month expiration, unless a time extension request is filed prior to. expiration. The City Subdivision Ordinance, . Section 9- 3.608(d) provides for two one year time extensions which may be granted by the Council after - review and recommendation of the Corm fission.. He stated that the approved tentative map is consistent with the City's general plan, and conforms to the Oak Knoll Planned Development zoning approved in 1984. Mr. Strong advised that the staff is not aware of any changes which would affect the findings and conditions of approval of the approved map or warrant denial of a one year time extension and, therefore, staff recommends that the one year time extension be granted, subject to the .. same four. conditions outlined in Resolution No. 1817. He noted that the extension would be from December 1986 to December 1987. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Cbnnassioner Moore, and unanimously carried, the Planning- Commission recommends to the City Council that a one year time extension be. granted for tentative parcel map , for. the Oak Knolls .Development, subject to the four conditions listed in Resolution, No. 1817. Mr. Strong advised that the second issue on this project involves a staff requirement that a new Environmental Impact Report addendum be prepared. He referred to his memo to the Commission, dated July 29, 1986, reviewing some , of the background . information and identifying the issues which staff felt were enough of a concern to require an EIR addendum. He stated the applicants are requesting to set this matter for hearing without producing the EIR addendum. He commented that staff feels the proposed project is an enhancement over the previous project, however, staff also feels that there are some substantial concerns which are not addressed in any of the previous environmental documents._ Arroyo Grande Pkmning won, 8-5-86 Page 4 In comparison, Mr. Strong commented that from an internal standpoint, there is little difference to the impacts that might be anticipated between the two proposals. He felt that one of the problems is the previous EIR dealt with school issues and covered less than 1/2 a page on grading issues. He stated his feelings that the addendum to the EIR is appropriate to evaluate possible grading plan alternatives, drainage and traffic mitigation measures, and to update school, park, and traffic conditions since the 1978 and 1984 reports were prepared. Mr. Dan Lloyd, Engineering Development Associates, representing the applicants, stated that in light of the previous EIR and subsequent addendum, it is their feeling • that another EIR addendum is unnecessary. He pointed out that the previous EIR and addendum were similar in analysis relative to drainage areas, disposal of the drainage; both of those drainage areas are proposed for retention. Also a similar analysis was conducted with respect to schools and park sites. The proposed project is providing a school site directly within the project boundaries. The approach is to reduce the overall site grading by concentrating the development in areas that are more appropriate. The site has been left in a more natural condition and we are providing a tree preservation program. In conclusion, Mr. Lloyd stated their feelings that there was ample information previously generated, as well as information submitted by the applicants to the staff, regarding the proposed reduced impact and that the applicants., have introduced appropriate mitigation measures, and it is their feeling that Mr. Strong and the Planning Commission can make a decision based on the present environmental documents rather than going through the time and expense of preparing an addendum. He feels they have taken appropriate steps in the four major areas of traffic, grading, drainage, schools and parks issues. Commissioner Flores stated that without benefit of the original proposal, he feels that the changes are so substantial that it is bound to have a different impact than the one reviewed in the original EIR. , Chairman Carr stated that the process that Mr. Strong outlined in his letter seems _ to be rather straight forward and not much of a time consuming process and, in his opinion, we are not looking at some kind of a major issue in preparing the addendum. Bill Lackey, 575 Easy Street, one of the owners of the project, stated that most of the project is designed as first homes for young couples, and to add 6 months to a project also adds $100,000 or more. He commented he wants to make these affordable homes. He stated that the last subdivision he did, about 40% of the homes went to young couples buying their first homes, and the other 60% went to retired people. He stated, in his opinion, there is no way an addendum is going to be completed in three weeks. He noted they are spending about $750,000 on West Branch Street; they are canpleting James Way on the other side; they are donating about 13 acres to the YMCA, and they have agreed to a school site. He stated he would rather put the money into additional landscaping, etc. rather than spend it on an EIR addendum. In his opinion, this project has been studied to death, and whether the EIR addendum is done or not is not going to make the project. any better. Commissioner Soto stated he regrets it takes so long to get the EIR approved but, in his opinion, an addendum is necessary because of the changes. Chairman Carr commented that the Comriasion has heard very good presentations on both sides of the issue, and the alternative is to either uphold the appeal and make a finding for a negative declaration, or uphold the staff recommendation to deny the appeal and require an addendum to the EIR. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Boggess, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and unanimously carried, that the appeal be denied and an EIR Addendum required. Mr. Strong commented that the action of the Commission is a recommendation and will go to the City Council unless the appeal is withdrawn. DISCUSSION - PROPOSED AMENDMENT ID THE SIGN ORDINANCE Planning Director Eisner reviewed that about a year ago an amendment to the existing sign regulations was drafted and, at that time, it was pointed out to both the Commission and City Council that the proposed amendment was on an experimental basis to be analyzed after a period of time. There were some difficulties with the amended ordinance, and it became obvious that the answer was not going to be simply amending the amended sign ordinance. Staff has developed, for the Cxxmrission's review, a complete new sign ordinance and, in some ways it simplifies the procedure and clarifies the requirements. Mr. Eisner stated that the draft ordinance is for the Comrnssion's review and perhaps, if the Commission wishes, a study session could be held to review the proposed ordinance. Chairman Carr stated that when he read through the draft, he found some difficulty in understanding everything and, in his opinion, there are some areas that could be simplified, however, he feels it is a major step forward. After discussion, Mr. Eisner requested that the Commissioners mark up their copy of the ordinance with questions and /or changes, and set the matter for a study session. 287 288 Arroyo Grande Planning Cbamissian, 8-5-86 Page 5 The Cbrmrission also breifly discussed the current Parking Ordinance and current standards for the R -3 zone. Chairman Carr requested that these items be set for study session along with the Sign Ordinance. COMMUNICATIONS (1) Mr. Eisner reviewed a letter from Century 21 Filer Realtors, Inc., requesting a determination that a Doctor's, Dentist's and /or Chiropractor's office is similar to other uses in the C-1 Zoning 'District. He noted that there are only two places in the Qty where we have property zoned "C-1 ", one of which is Sunrise Terrace. What the people of Sunrise Terrace are asking for is that the Planning Conmission interpret that a Doctor's office can, in fact, be a neighborhood activity. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously carried, finding that medical offices are appropriate uses in the C-1 District. (2) Mr. Eisner referred to a letter from Lee O. Webb, dated July 31, 1986, requesting an interpretation that a lighting fixture store on a portion of Parcel 5 in the Oak Park Acres project is consistent with Ordinance 140 C.S. After discussion, on motion by Chairman Carr, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and unanimously carried, staff was directed to ask the applicant to file a use pern it and architectural review application for Planning Comni lion review. (3) Chairman Carr inquired about the rnotorhome at St. Patrick's School. Mr. Eisner advised that the motorhane was put there by the Lucia - Mar School District. He stated he would have a report on this matter for . the fission at the next meeting (4) Chairman Carr. requested 8 -1/2 x 11 maps that show the General Plan and Zoning be prepared for all areas in the city and included in Cbrmassioner's binders. ADJOURNMENT 'There • being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 10:15 P.M. ATTEST Ca4/4--> Secretary 1