Loading...
PC Minutes 1985-03-05ARROYO GRANDETPLANNING CCNMISSIcx March 5,`1985; The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular Chairman Gerrish presiding. Present are Commissioners Fischer, Carr, Moore, Soto, Boggess and Olsen. Planning Director Eisner and Associate Planner Stonier are also in attendance. session with MINUTE APPROVAL Hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meeting of February 5, 1985 were approved as prepared on motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously carried. REVIEW - COMMUNITY TREE ORDINANCE Planning Director Eisner referred to a draft ordinance that was prepared by the City Manager's office as a response and follow up that was discussed by this Commission and the City Council about 4 months ago. He noted that the ordinance reflects on the concerns and comments expressed at the time of the original review. He pointed out that, if and when the ordinance is adopted, it will be an ordinance that will primarily be administered by .the Parks and Recreation Commission and then .sent_ on -to the -. . City Council. Commissioner Olsen stated she has read the ordinance and, in her . opinion, it is too restrictive and leaves too much power to the staff and does not leave the citizen with _recourse to the City Council. Mr. Eisner commented that while the .ordinance ;itself .. is staff intensive, this ordinance and all other ordinances_of the City are appealable at any time to the Commission responsible for its administration, .and thereafter any decision can be ,, appealed to the City Council. ; After further discussion, on motion by. Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and unanimously carried, the matter of the Community Tree Ordinance was set for public hearing for April 2, 1985. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE 1101. 85 -100, 407 TRAFFIC WAY IN THE "H -S" HIGHWAY SERVICE DIS!RICT, REQUEST FCR ZERO FRONT YARD SETBACK. (JERRY BOWSER). Planning Director Eisner advised the request is for a variance for property along Traffic Way to extend the front yard to within 3 ft. of the street. The plan submitted by Mr. Bowser proposes construction to commence at the property line adjacent to the right of way previously established for " Traffic Way when it was the state_highway. Mr. Eisner pointed out that same portions of Traffic Way right of way have previously been abandoned. At the present time the City is in the planning process for undergrounding utilities and improving the visual. quality of Traffic Way and, at this time, no final plan line has been established.. He commented that the plan line that normally is associated with right of way is in a state of transition at the moment relative to the underground improvement and, because of that planning that is going on, we, don't have a firm plan line. _ Commissioner Olsen stated that within the last 10 years the City Council ordered all of that property to be dedicated back to the property owners. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 85 -100 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open, t erry Bowser, 510 Woodland Drive, owner of the property, spoke in favor of the Variance. He advised that down toward Cherry Street, the original State highway was 100 ft. and had been reverted back to an 80 ft. right of way, and 10 ft. of that right of way had been deeded back to the original owners; also, property owners on Allen Street were given back 16 ft. of the original right of way. Marie Cattoir, 195 Orchid Lane, stated they recommend the development, but question the placement because of its affect upon their property, and they are asking that Traffic Way be held to the 80 ft. established line. Upon hearing no further comments for or against the proposed Variance, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed. 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Couudssion, 3 -5 -85 Page 2 Commissioner Olsen stated she is disturbed that the property was not reverted back and, since it was not done, she feels that W. Bowser should be allowed to have the zero setback. Commissioner Moore stated he does not want to vote for this without legal advice and suggested that this matter be continued for two weeks pending a legal opinion from the city attorney. Chairman Gerrish commented that in order to grant the Variance, the Commission must make the four findings listed in the staff report of March 5, 1985. He noted that there are at least two other properties whose property lines run another 20 ft. out, and it seems unlikely that the City will use that right of way and, in his opinion, the question should be addressed to the City Council. Commissioner Carr recommended splitting the issues and acting on the Variance request. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 85 -1031 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING cThMISSICN CF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VAR IAIN'CE, CASE W. 85 -100. On motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioner Boggess, Soto, Olsen, Moore, Carr, Fischer and Chairman Gerrish NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5th day of March 1985. On motion by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and., unanimously carried, a recommendation was made to the'City Council that they carry through as was originally planned by reverting right of way on Traffic Wray back to the adjacent property owners. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 85 -409, 513 MAY STREET IN THE "RA -B3" RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. (JEFFREY CARRITHERS). Planning Director Eisner advised the request is for a lot line adjustment to a create lot of 6,000 sq. ft. on May Street using an existing legal non - conforming parcel and adding to it from a parcel formerly used as railroad right of way. Mr. Eisner stated staff is recommending that, as a part of the Commission's action, the applicant be required to remove the lot line running along the'south side of the former railroad property in order to eliminate another non - conforming triangular parcel adjacent to the subject property. Staff also recommends that a survey be submitted to the City prior to recordation of the map to verify that the remainder of the railroad property is one continuous lot, and that no legal encumbrances divide the property in a manner other than that illustrated on the tentative map. Mr. Eisner advised that the matter has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee and the Subdivision Review Committee and is recommended for approval subject to the conditions noted in the staff report datedMarch 5, 1985. He further advised that this is an RA -B3 zone, but because these are lots of record, 6,000 sq. ft. would be a legal non - conforming lot. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 85 -409 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Jeffrey Carrithers, applicant, commented that this is an attempt to configure a lot that would be appropriate to build on; the present configuration presents enormous problems to build on. C. J. Macy, 525 May Street, inquired as to what would be built on the lot. Planning Director Eisner advised the lot could only be used for. a single family resident. He further advised that because of the slope and other physical issues related to the site, it will require a grading and drainage plan. Steve Holton, 520 May Street, inquired as to the right of way. CC V Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -5 -85 Planning Director Eisner advised that the right of way was purchased by Mr. Ca.rrithers. and is developable.. Mr. Sanders, 526 May Street, stated he is concerned about the property that is left, and inquired if another house could be built in there? Mr. Eisner advised this is a subdivision that was approved a long time ago and these are lots of record. If someone were to exercise their options on a legal non - conforming lot, they could go in and make use of that lot. He further advised, as a matter of information, that the subject lots, including the right of way parcel, are lots of record and, if the lot line adjustment is not approved, in his opinion, there is a question that the properties could be used in their present form, and they are substantially smaller in size. Chairman Gerrish summarized that what we have are three lots, and if the proposed map is approved, then end result is two lots. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed lot split, Chairman Gerrish declared the :hearing closed. - Commissioner Moore inquired if this matter has anything to do with the proposed drainage.project.that has been under study for the Tally Ho Road area. He asked _if the City.has abandoned the Tally Ho Creek as a drainage - project? Mr stated that the map has been reviewed by the Public Works. - Director and is, -being submitted to the Commission without comment. Commissioner Carr stated he is concerned about.leaving that 6 ft. gap back there, and he that the lot line adjustment be altered to leave more - usable space to-the-rear-of-the 6,000 sq.-- ft:. .lot.. Mr.. Eisner stated that the problem the applicant is facing is he is trying to leave the existing parallel lot lines alone. Comnissioner Boggess stated . he -supports adding on to the triangular section without going into the easement because, in his opinion, it . doesn't look like a suitable lot to build on, especially with the drainage casement in there. . After considerable discussion relative to the drainage and slope conditions, on motion by Commissioner Boggess, seconded by Cc„m:issioner Moore, and unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No.._85 -409 was continued pending resubmittal of the lot line adjustment. Chairman Gerrish advised the audience that this matter is being continued to the first meeting in April. • PUBLIC HEARING - DOT SPLIT CASE ID. 85 -410, (LOT LINE ADTT ThENT) , 1190 EL CAI REAL; IN 'MT; "R -2" ADD "P -M" DISTRICTS. • • (I-DVA.RD MANK INS /LBO BR1SCD) . Panning Director Eisner advised the request is for a minor lot line adjustment for the purpose of equalizing parcels for personal family reasons. He noted that both the existing parcels and those to be created by the lot line adjustment are deemed consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Eisner further advised that this proposal has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee and Lot Split Committee, and is recommended for approval with the condition noted in the staff report dated March 5, 1985. Upon being assured by the. Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Lot. Split Case No. 85 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Cerrish declared the hearing open. Howard Niankins, applicant for the lot line adjustment, spoke in favor of the request, stating it is all vacant property and the reason for the submittal is an estate planning problem. Hearing no further discussion for or against the proposed lot split, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion, Lot Split Case No. 85-410 was approved on motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously ,.arried, subject to the condition listed in the staff report dated larch 5, 1985. PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE ID. 85 -38 ELDERLY •PROTECT INCLUDING REST I-UJv E , GIMP I-EVE , (X '-TVALESCENT FU4E AN) NIL) ]CAL OFF ICES , LOT 3 . PARCELS ' F . C AI1) D, OAK PARK ACRES, IN "P -D" PL AIW'd1D DEVEWPt•'ENT DISTRICT. • (DR. AND t•.TS. RI BR C4-1T) Planning Director Eisner briefly reviewed the staff report dated March 5, 1985, noting that it is staff's feeling that the application is a 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -5 -85 Page 4 consistent request with what the City Council had in mind at the time Ordinance 140 C.S. was adopted. He commented that the.applicants have previously been before the Commission with conceptual drawings andohave taken some direction from the Commission. They are returning now With 'a specific request under Ordinance 140 C.S. • Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, stated she had sat through hours of hearings on the Environmental Impact Report for Oak Park Acres, and the EIR comments show a zero density on that parcel and, at the time cf those hearings, Mr. Kvidt agreed to 800 people in the Planned Development, and now with this plan we are talking about something like The Huntington in Morro Bay, and those people are permanent residents. She commented if they intend to change that then, in her opinion, the EIR should bP re- written. She stated that the main concern at that time was the density. Upon being assured by the Planning Ccuiuission Secretary that.public hearing for Use Permit Case No. 85 -387 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Anita Fulbright, one of the applicants; gave a slide presentation and briefly described the proposed project, commenting on the services and facilities being offered. Tony Orefice, architect for the project, reviewed the site plan and how it relates to the land area. Reuben Kvidt, Oak Park Acres, spoke in favor of the project, stating that we. have a lack of facilities of this type here and, in his opinion, we have a need for this type of facility very badly. He stated he feels this would be an appropriate use for the site, and he had never heard of a density being given to a convalescent home, etc. He further stated this is a good location and it will be close to the new proposed hospital. He stated the project would generate considerably less traffic than other permitted uses. Sue Felt, Los Osos, stated she is in charge of Discharge Planning for discharged patients at the hospital, and she feels there is great need for a facility of this type in this area, and she urged the Commission to approve this kind of project. In answer to Marie Cattoir's questions regarding the number of people at the facility and how much traffic would be generated, Ms. Fulbright stated there would be 200 people, and the traffic generated would be mostly staff traffic. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed Use Permit, Chairman Ge'rrish declared the hearing closed. Chairman Cerrish stated he agreed with Mrs. Honeycutt that we went through a long EIR process and, after long deliberations, it was decided there would be so many units and that was the way it was going to be. He further stated he doesn't remember any discussion about nursing homes, convalescent homes, etc. Commissioner Olsen stated her basic objection is the overall • traffic generation in the area. She stated she agrees it was to be zero density, and also that rest homes were never discussed and, in her opinion, it just sort of slipped into the ordinance. Commissioner Boggess stated he feels we need the facility and he ha's no objections to it being in that area. However, the biggest problem we have is the Oak Park and Highway 101 intersection. He pointed out we have no commitment from the State regarding the interchange, and he feels the timing is not right at this time. Fr, Orefice stated the water is net available in that area, and is a year to a year'and a half_ down the road. Basically, what they are after'at this time is the land use approval so that they can go ahead with the planning of the project. He further stated they feel they are'within the Ordinance and would like to hear a "yes" vote of the Commission. Commissioner Fischer stated she thinks the project is needed, however, she feels it should be placed somewhere else in Arroyo Grande because of the traffic problems. Cuin'issioner Carr suggested going back and looking at the ordinance and the density. He stated he would like to see some kind of analysis done that would indicate whether or not this proposed use is Arroyo Grande Planning Commission,.3 -5 -85 -Page significantly greater than the original use and, if it is, then the Commission should direct their efforts toward reviewing those issues that were hot addressed in the EIR. Pe stated he also has a problem with the grading and with the conditions rectaun,ended in the staff report. He stated his main concern would be whether the EIR adequately covered this use. If it did, then we still have to address the concerns about the traffic at Oak Park Boulevard and, if not, then he feels there has to be some additional EIR work done that was not covered in the original EIR; and water, traffic and sewer would be three areas that should be reviewed. Cvz,utissioner Soto stated he feels all applicants should be addressing the problems such as water, sewer and traffic. Regarding the proposed hospital, he inquired if they are going to be allowed to go in there. He stated his feelings are that anybody wanting to develop anything on that side of the freeway are just spinning their wheels. Commissioner Boggess stated he would be in favor of any projects on that side of the road if we only had something to alleviate the traffic..- Commissioner Carr stated he feels that the City Council has more or less indicated their position that they have provided direction that it is O.K. to continue to develop in that area while they work to solve the traffic problem. He suggested that maybe the Commission should take a stand that they will not approve any more projects over there until the traffic problems are taken care of. After dis- cussion, Commissioner Olsen moved to deny the Use Permit because of the traffic, water and other problems on the subject site. Motion seconded by Camzmi- ssioner Moore. Under discussion,. Commissioner Soto suggested the project be approved in concept, pending resolution of the traffic problems. Commissioner Carr commented it is his feeling that the Commission needs to provide some kind of firm direction on how they are going to deal with projects in this area, and he feels it is premature to deny the project without any further information on it. He further stated he would like to see a review of the environmental information come back before_ the project is reviewed again. The foregoing motion failed on a 3 to 4 vote. Commissioner Fischer moved to continue Use Permit Case No. 85 -387 pending review of Ordinance 140 C.S. relative to increase in the density from 800 dwelling units, and also to update the original EIR to address the issues of water usage, sewer capacity and traffic generated by the project. Motion lost for lack of a second. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Carr, and carried, that Use Permit Case No. 85 -387 be continued pending a public hearing for possible revision to Ordinance 140 C.S. Also, staff was directed to provide additional data dealing with the original EIR to address traffic, water and sewage capacity. PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE IUD. 85 -389, SI-DPPING PLAZA INCLUDING A HA ;TARE STORE,'STATICN WAY AT TRAFFIC WAY, IN THE HIGHWAY SERVICE DISTRICT, (MIDCDAST " LAI`D COMPANY) , • Planning Director Eisner advised that the request is to allow a hardware store in the Highway Service zone on property identified as Village Creek Plaza, a shopping center to be constructed on Station Way in the vicinity of the Arroyo Grande Fire Station and Freeway 101. He stated that the use for a hardware store was added by Resolution to the uses permitted subject to a Use Permit by the Planning Crrmission earlier this year. The shopping center has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee and the Architectural Review Committee and has been found to be consistent with all development requirements and standards of the Zoning Ordinance, including required off- street parking. He noted that the hardware store will occupy 10,000 sq, ft. of Building B in the Village Creek Plaza. • Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that Use Permit Case No. 85 -389 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Gayle McConnell, Forrest Glen, stated the owners of the adjacent property would like to request a two weeks continuance of this matter because the development will create a landlocked parcel. They are requesting more time so that their attorney can lock into the matter. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -5 -85: Page 6 Keith Gurnee, Richmond, Rossi and Montgomery, planners and designers of the project, stated'they concur with the staff reconmendations on this proposal, and requested the Commission's concurrence of the proposal. With regard to the "landlocked" parcel, Mr.•Gurnee stated they are familiar with that particular piece of property and it is landlocked only in a legal sense. He indicated that access could. be negotiated. He further stated that they have worked a long time on this project and they now have same tenants and, in his opinion, nothing could be served by a two weeks delay. John Kuden, applicant for the project, stated he has tried many times to talk with the owners of the property regarding the problem and they were not interested in cooperating. He stated as little as about 2 -1/2 to 3 months ago they were contacted and at that time they were not willing to cooperate. Eugene Saruwatari, 1054- Pike, stated they were contacted about three months ago. They attended a meeting with an official of Mid State Bank and, at that time, alternatives were discussed. The question came up about easement, however, that was not•an alternative open to them. He advised they are conducting a study and would like some extra time to find out how this development will affect them. . Mr. Kuden stated he maintains there is no legal obligation on his part to give an easement. He advised he has talked to LeRoy Saruwatari no less than four times regarding this, and not once have the Saruwatari's said they would be willing to talk about it. Planning Director Eisner stated the question before the Commission is approval of a hardware store in Building B of Village Creek Plaza, and the other issues are going to have to be dealt with in some other way. He reiterated that the Planning Commission recently added that a hardware store is a permitted use, subject to Use Permit procedure, in the Highway Service District, and this is a request for a Use Permit for a hardware store in the Highway Service District. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed Use Permit, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed. Chairman Gerrish noted that there have been at least a couple of other projects that have been proposed on this parcel, and this is the first time he has heard anything about a landlocked parcel. Commissioner Moore commented he attended the Architectural Review Committee meeting and the matter of the landlocked parcel did not come up. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and carried, Use Permit Case No. 85 -389 was continued for two weeks. Cr motion by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and carried,'Architectural Review Case No. 85 -325 was continued for two weeks. PROPOSED ORDINANCE - SATELLITE DISC: ANTENNAS. Planning Director Eisner referred to a draft of a proposed ordinance' regulating satellite dish antennas. He advised the information has been included for review and discussion, and to set the matter for public hearing. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously carried, the public hearing for proposed ordinance on satellite dish antennas was set for public hearing April 16, 1985. ARCHITECTURAL REVYPW CC VII11! E Planning Director Eisner referred to a draft resolution that was included in the Commissioners' agenda packets. He noted that recently an attorney brought to the City Council's attention the fact that we are not operating in accordance with the ordinance relative to the Architectural Review Committee. The present ordinance states that actions are final on the part of the Architectural Review Committee unless specifically referred to the Planning Conrissien as a whole. The alternative is that the Architectural Review Committee takes no action at all and, after review, the. projects are forwarded to the Planning Commission as a whole for their action.. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -5 -85 Page 7 Another matter is that the present ordinance states the Architectural Review Committee may be 3 members of the Commission, or 2 Commissioners and the Planning Director. The present Committee is made up of two Commissioners. Chairman Gerrish moved that the Planning Director be appointed to the Architectural Review Committee. Motion seconded by Commissioner Moore, and unanimously carried. After a brief discussion, staff was directed to set for public hearing amendment to Section 9- 4.2702 of the Municipal Code Relating to the Architectural Review Committee. REVIEW OF THE HICFWAY SERVICE DEL DISTRICT. Planning Director advised that a'request is forwarded to the Planning Ccmission from the City Council asking that the Commission direct the staff to review and bring back a review of the Highway Service Zone. After discussion, on motion by Ccammissioner Soto, seconded by Coumissioner Fischer, and unanimously carried, staff was directed to prepare a draft of proposed ordinance changes and bring it back for review in a month or six weeks. G:113+rLN I CATIONS . Jim McGillis, Surveyor with San Luis Engineers, representing E. C. Loomis and Son, spoke regarding the proposed location of the fertilizer plant on East Branch Street. He also mentioned that apparently there has been same question as to whether the Commission understood all of the materials stored cn the site. Mr. McGillis read a list of the items that are going to be used in the process of making the liquid fertilizer. He stated he wanted to bring. the Commission up to date on the use, stating they want to know whether they have an accepted use, or whether they have to go back to the drawing board.. He further stated that the fertilizer tanks themselves are not low profile tanks; they are 27 ft. high, and the applicants are coming to the Commission to ask for some guidance and suggestions on how they want to proceed. Planning Eisner pointed out that at the time they -came to the Commission, they were still in the process of gathering materials and, in his opinion, the issue has now been clarified. After a brief discussion, staff was directed to review the proposal and report back to the Planning Commission in two weeks. E1JJCL W SENT ' There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 11:45 P.M. ArIIST: -calt y Secretary airman