Loading...
PC Minutes 1986-06-17ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION June 17, 1986 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Olsen, .Moore, Soto and Flores. Cormrissioner Boggess and Chairman Gerrish are absent.' 'Planning Director Eisner and Special Projects Engineer Dwayne Chisam are also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL Hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meeting of May 6, 1986 were approved as prepared on motion by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously carried. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 86 -370, SUN PORCH ADDITION, "THE ALDER HOUSE ", 295 ALDER STREET IN THE "R -3" DISTRICT. (RON STOB). Planning Director Eisner advised this is a request for architectural review of a minor addition of a sun porch. He noted that normally this kind of review would not come before the Planning Comnisssion, but because the facility is used for institutional purposes, it does require review of the Cbrmission. After a brief discussion, Architectural Review Case No. 86 -370 was approved on notion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Cormuissioner Olsen, and unanimously carried, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report dated June 17, 1986. COMMISSIONER BOGGESS ENTERED THE MEETING DURING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION. ARCTIITECIURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 86- 365, SIGN PLAN, VILLAGE CREEK PLAZA ON STATION WAY IN THE "0-2" GENERAL OOMMERCTAL DISTRICT. (MID OAST LAND CO./CN SIGNS & GRAPHICS). Planning Director Eisner advised the request is for a comprehensive sign program for the shopping center at Village Creek Plaza. The request is for an architecturally integrated sign enclosure to be installed to the face of the building above the entrance to each individual premises. The maximum size of sign will be 15" by 14 ", with the exact size to be determined by the number of square feet of floor area. The plan also includes a specific signing request for Miler's Hardware, which includes a 2' x 12' lettered name, and two 4' x 6' signs on either side of the entry identifying the premises as an "Ace Hardware" outlet. The third part of the application is for a pair of pedestal entry signs to the shopping center itself at Traffic Way and Fair Oaks Avenue, and are consistent with the overall design and materials of the shopping center. Mr. Eisner asked, with regard to the third portion of the application, that should the Planning Commission approve the plan, it be conditioned to read "subject to the 'motional approval of the Public Works Department ". He explained that in their submission, the applicants did not submit a site plan with the dimensions, and staff is concerned about the visual aspect of traffic into Station Way. Planning Director Eisner advised that the request has been reviewed by. the Staff Advisory Committee and is forwarded to the Connrnssion with the two conditions listed in the staff report dated June 17, 1986. In answer to Vice Chairman Carr's question regarding typical signs being a maximum of 15" by 14', Planning Director Eisner advised that the restuarant sign is 40 sq. ft. and asked that this be taken into account. Mr. Moerman, CN Signs & Graphics, commented that Condition No. 2 is not germain because that information has now been provided. Mr. Eisner suggested that the approval be conditioned that the maxim urn ° height will be no more than 4' 6 ", and that the location of the monument sign be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. After further discussion, Architectural Review Case No. 86 -365 was approved on notion by Commissioner Boggess, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously carried, subject to conditions listed in the staff report, dated June 17, 1986, deleting Condition No. 2, and replacing that condition with the following: 2. Monument signs shall be no more than 4'6" in overall height. Location of monument signs subject to approval of the Public Works Director. 275 276 Arroyo Grande Planning Q an, 6 -17 -86 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 86 -429, (TAT LINE ADJUSTMENT), AND LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 86-430," 345 SUNRISE DRIVE IN THE "R -3-D" MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. ' (SUNRISE TERRACE HOMES, LID.). Planning Director Eisner advised that the first request is for a minor lot line adjustment. He stated in preparing the staff report, the conditions recommended by the Staff Advisory Committee were listed for both the lot line adjustment and the .lot split. Staff is recommending that . the conditions be deleted from the lot line adjustment, and the only condition would the the requirement that a final map be prepared for recordation. The second lot split application is a request to divide what is now a single parcel with a mobilehome park, a neighborhood shopping center and a paved piece . of property, into three separate parcels: He ,noted that .there was an error made on the map showing the property, in that the Rase Victorian Inn is not included in the proposed split. He pointed' out that, if the Lot Split is approved, only the land is being divided on the map; no changes are contemplated or will be approved, nor are we approving any use for the vacant parcel adjacent to. the Rose Victorian Inn. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Lot Split Cases No. 86 -429 and' 86 -430 had been duly published and property owners notified, Vice Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Mr. Dan Lloyd, Engineering Development Associates in . San . Luis _ Obispo, stated the action on the lot line adjustment is being taken in response to a surveying error made back in 1958. He stated that the existing property line runs through a parking area where there is currently some curbing, planting, etc., so actually the lot line will now exist where everybody thought it existed for the past 20 years. Mr. Eisner noted that.. the lot line . adjustment is agreed upon by both property owners in question. Regarding Lot Split Case No. 86 -430, Mr. Eisner stated there were some questions regarding the conditions of approval. He introduced Dwayne Chisam, Special Projects Engineer with the 'Public Works Department, to discuss those conditions. Mr. Chisam advised that north of Parcel 1 where the block wall was constructed for the commercial facility that is there now, and with the adjacent farm land being as flat as it is, the wall acts as a dam causing the water to pond on the farmland. ° He stated by mitigating this, you can get the .water into the channel and get it along the way. Commissioner Moore commented that in 1978 and 1981 . was got a lot of water behind that wall and John Taylor almost lost his house. Mr. Chisam stated that, as part of the mitigating measures, the applicant will have to do a drainage study including' an analysis of the block wall between Parcel 1 and the farmland. Regarding the drainage channel for dedication, the channel lies directly east of Parcels 1 and 2 and is bridged . by the access road to the mobilehome park. The reason for the dedication is to assure that the City will maintain that channel; the channel eventually runs southerly into the creek. Mr. Lloyd stated the applicants have no problem with Condition No. 1, but would like to modify Condition No. 4 regarding access from Valley Road. He stated there is a service access there now and it is their feeling it . poses no problem to cross traffic. With regard to a question regarding the trees that appear to be almost on the property line, Planning Director Eisner noted that Condition No. 7 requires that no trees be removed without prior approval of the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Lloyd noted that the trees are . on private . property and he believes they will be . maintained as they have been in the past. . Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed lot splits, Vice Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. After further discussion, the following action was taken. Lot Split Case No. 86 -429 was approved on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and unanimously carried, deleting the • 7 conditions recommended in the staff report, and adding the following condition: . 1. Final map to be prepared for recordation. Lot Split Case No. 86 -430 was approved on motion by Camission Soto, seconded by Conmissioner Moore, and unanimously carried, subject to the 7 conditions listed, modifying Condition No. 4 to read: "Parcels 1 and 2 shall have no new access from Valley Road ". PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 85-2, CHANGING CLASSIFICATION FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, MID FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 'PO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, EAST BRANCH STREET. (CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE /PLANNING C]OMMLSSION RESOLUTION OF INTENTION). Arroyo Grande Planning Air, 6 -17 -86 Page 3 Planning Director Eisner recommended that, because of the lack of an environmental assessment, that the public hearing' on this matter be opened and then continued to allow staff time to complete the environmental assessment. He advised that the request is for a general plan amendment that was discussed by the applicants, E. C. Loomis & Son, and the City approximately a year ago and, at that time; the applicants themselves applied for a General Plan Amendment. Subsequent to that, the Planning Commission ission passed a Resolution of Intention to examine the General Plan for this area. The Planning Commission also passed a Resolution of Intention to examine uses on the west side of the City across from Williams Bros. Market. As a part of the preliminary review of our Land Use Element, State law requires that the General Plan be amended no more than 4 times a year, and ; the Planning Commission has established February, June and October as the three periods for processing any collection of General Plan Amendments. The fourth period was left as a floater in case of some special circumstance or direction from the City Council. Mr. Eisner pointed out that, under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, a preliminary environmental assessment must be prepared. This assessment has been completed on this property and there are two areas to �be examined; the first was traffic generation. A preliminary traffic review has been prepared by Omni- Means, using a preliminary site plan as a basis. The traffic generation materials were based on floor area proposed and took into account the circumstances on East Branch Street. That material will be reviewed and will be a part of the continued public hearing presentation. The second item that came out of 'the preliminary review had to do with a chemical,/organic contamination of the site. A report prepared by Holguin and Associates indicated that there were problems to be mitigated on the north side. Once that information was made available to the City, it was fairly clear that no environmental assessment could be completed until the mitigation measures could be determined and those mitigations .carried out. A third study was conducted in detail, and the mitigations have been carried out. There has been a subsequent review of the site and we now have received from Holguin & Associates, a memo indicating that it would be acceptable for the Planning Commission to . find that a negative declaration on this site is in order. He stated it is anticipated that a final report leading to a mitigated negative declaration can be completed by August 5th. Mr. Eisner noted that both sides of the street are included in this application and, as a part of opening this for discussion, staff requests that the Commission separate the two sides of the street into two separate cases. The reason for that is because the detailed environmental review has not been completed on the south side of the street. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for General Plan Amendment No. GPA 85 -2 had been duly published, Vice Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Mr. Rob Strong, representing the applicants, stated he doesn't have anything to add at this time, and that the staff report explains the situation. The environmental conditions on the north side have been corrected. On the south side we have a more complex situation that will probably take 4 to 6 months to resolve. He noted that it is the Loomis' intent to remove the industrial uses from both sides of the street within the next 6 months. Vice Chairman Carr inquired if the contaminants could be removed and evaluated. Mr. Strong stated that on the north side the materials were not the type that could be neu alined; the solution was to remove them entirely; and the exact mitigation program is what they have been unable to resolve. He stated there is a third round of testing which is scheduled to commence in July or August. Mr. Eisner stated that the recommendation in the General Plan is an extension of the Central Business District. The suggestion for the Commission's consideration is to change all or part of the south side from "P-M" to a medium high density residential designation. Staff's consideration of that as a possibility had to do with adding some density close to the Village for people to live who work there. Louis Dyke, stated he owns property at 408 and 410 East Branch Street. He pointed out that there are at least three additional parcels on the north side that do not come under the Loomis ownership. All three of those parcels are on the flat area between the creek and where the Crown Hill area terrain starts to rise. He stated he objects to the change in the General Plan for the property that he owns. Mr. Eisner commented that, as a part of a General Plan Amendment, the applicant is not necessarily the property owner. He stated that all of the properties that were planned for Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial were taken. If, after the public hearing, the Planning Commssion feels certain properties should be deleted, it is their decision to drop any portion out and change the line as they see fit. What staff is asking is that the Commission consider what the best possible future use is for this area, deal with the General Plan, and then deal with the zoning when the time is appropriate. Dr. Manfred Shower stated he owns a piece of the property that is included in the General Plan Amendment, and he objects to the change. He stated he bought the property because it is Light Industrial and because of the flexibility under the Light Industrial uses in the City of Arroyo Grande. He further stated that his long range plans are to use that property for light industrial use. 277 1 278 Arroyo Grande Planrdrg Cbamissian, 6 -17 -86 Page - 4 After discussion, on motion by C anrissioner Moore, seconded by Corm issioner Flores, and unanimously carried, the north side of East ]ranch Street was designated as Case No. GPA 85-2 and the south side of the street was designated as Case No. 'GPA 86 -2, and the public hearing was continued to the first meeting in - -August. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 'NO. GPA 86-1, CHANGING CLASSIFICATION FROM MEDIUM HIGH .DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND "OPEN SPACE TO PROFESSIONAL O »IMER.CIAL AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, PROPERTY LOCATED ON SO. HALCYON ROAD NORTH ; OF THE ARROYO. GRANDE COMMUNITY 'HOSPITAL (GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS "THE : GRIEB PROPERTY"). . (Jr E. AND S. H. JpRGENSEN). • Planning Director Eisner reviewed that the Planning Cbnn fission,' and subsequently the City Council, reviewed and approved a General Plan Amendment that changed the designation. on this property. Since that time the property has been sold, and the new owners have applied, again for a General Plan Amendment. The request, before the Conn»ssion now is to modify the General Plan to 'extend the Office and Professional uses to the entire :property, . with the exception of that portion that was originally identified as a 100 ft. strip of Open Space. The current° recommendation is that the strip be General Planned low • density residential, which is consistent with the property to the north and on Alpine Street. The Planning Department is, at the present time, also holding the subsequent zone change and tentative tract map on • the lots. This is not part of the consideration at this time. - Mr. E isner stated that, in reviewing this application, staff feels comfortable with the environmental assessment that has been done, with one exception; the reason for holding that one strip out as open space was' that there had been an archaeological survey done as a part of the consideration for low density single family. residential. It is felt that the applicant has . addressed that • concern in a detailed assessment of that strip of 'property. As a mitigation, staff asks that a condition requiring that a qualified anthropologist be present on the site when any digging and trenching takes place. He stated staff feels that, considering the expansion of the hospital and the connntment to Office and Professional, there is some justification for consideration of this General ,Plan Amendment. Upon being assured by the Planning "won Secretary that public hearing for General Plan Amendment 86 -1 had been duly published and property owners notified, Vice Chairman Carr declared the hearing open.. Jerren Jorgensen, applicant, spoke regarding the archaeological findings on the property. He stated that the hospital is having some problems right now and, as a physican, he sees this area growing and he sees the need, for a viable hospital. He asked that the Cannission take action on the request .tonight, stating he is willing to go along with any recommendations the C onmvssion makes' regarding the project. Vice Chairman Carr stated that without the environmental assessment, which is necessary for the General Plan Amendment, the Corrmussion can't move ahead at this time. . Mr. Eisner stated that staff would ask for continuance at least to the July 1st , meeting to look at the traffic impacts and, at that time, the zone. change request and tentative map could also be reviewed. Commissioner Olsen ce mented that the indian . remains were found closer to the creek many years ago. In answer to Vice Chairman Carr's question, Mr. Eisner advised that a preliminary archaeological review has been done, and the Commission could .re-affirm the acceptability of that preliminary review. 0 Gh 4 After further discussion, on motion • by Commissioner .Olsen, seconded by Oaranissioner Soto, and unanimously carried, the matter was continued to the meeting of July 1, 1986, with directions to staff to prepare the necessary document for °environmental review, particularly addressing the traffic and archaeological concerns, for completion of a mitigating negative declaration • DISCUSSION - GREENBELT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION After discussion, the Planning Commission directed staff . to schedule a date for late July for a walking tour of the Arroyo Grande and Tally Ho Clreeks, and discuss the matter again after they have a working knowledge from the tour. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by Vice Chairman Carr at 9:30 P.M.