Loading...
PC Minutes 1982-06-151 - , 28 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION June 15, 1982 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice - Chairperson Cole presiding. Present are Commissioners Benhardt, Carr, Moots, Pilkington and Sebastian. Chairman Gerrish is absent. Planning Director Hays is also in attendance. Vice Chairperson Cole welcomed Robert Carr as a new member of the Planning Commission. She also pointed out that this is Commissioner Sebastian's last meeting on the Commission and thanked him for his service, stating it has been a pleasure working with him. COMMUNICATIONS Planning Director Hays advised that he has received a request for a time extension on Parcel Map AG- 81 -52, Lot Split Case No. 81 -353, which was approved by the Commission in June 1981, and time is running out on the map itself. The property is located between El Camino Real and Chilton Street, and it is a 4 lot parcel map. The applicants have indicated in the letter that, due to financial times, they have not been able to get the final map filed. After discussion, a one year time extension was granted for filing the final map on Parcel Map AG -81 -52 on motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, and unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 82 -337, MINI- STORAGE FACILITY .IN THE "H -S" HIGHWAY SERVICE DISTRICT, 1190 GRAND AVENUE. (COCKS /MINTZ /HARRIS). Planning Director Hays reviewed that at the last meeting he presented a request for determination for a self service mini - storage facility in the "H -S" District. The Commission requested that a Use Permit application be filed along with the request for determination. The applicants are requesting that they be allowed to use the -rear portion of their property to construct a self- service mini - storage facility, and they would like to combine their property with the adjacent property owner. He stated that the two applicants will have to come back to the Commission for_ architectural approval and a circulation scheme. Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that Use Permit Case No. 82 -337 had been duly published and property owners notified, Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing open. Mr. Gene Mintz, one of the applicants, spoke in favor of the Use Permit being granted. He stated that the lots are long and narrow and they feel that a mini storage use would be a better use with :less. noise to. the sur.rdunding._ development. Upon hearing no further discussion for or against the proposed Use Permit, Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing closed. She advised that two actions are necessary by the Commission; (1) The finding that the requested use is a compatible use in the "H -S" District; and (2) Granting of the Use Permit. After discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 82 -905 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DETERMINING THAT A MINI- STORAGE FACILITY IS SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO USES PERMITTED IN THE "H -S" HIGHWAY SERVICE DISTRICT SUBJECT TO USE PERMIT PROCEDURES. On motion by Commissioner Benhardt, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Benhardt, Carr, Moots, Pilkington, Sebastian and Vice Chairperson Cole NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Gerrish The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of June 1982. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -906 U RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO. 82 -337. On motion by Commissioner Benhardt, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -15 -82 Page AYES: Commissioners Benhardt, Carr, Moots, Pilkington, Sebastian and Vice Chairperson Cole NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Gerrish the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of June 1982. PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 82 -338, VETERINARY CLINIC, 121 NEVADA STREET IN THE "C -B -D" CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. (HARLEY A. BOOS, JR., DVM). Planning Director Hays advised that the request is to locate a veterinary clinic in the Central Business District in an existing residence immediately behind the Bank of America building. He stated his main concern with the use would be possible disruption of the adjacent residential area from noise and all operations should be conducted indoors to minimize potential problems. Mr. Hays read a letter from Allan R. Ochs, dated June 7, 1982, stating his objections to the proposed use. Mr. Hays noted that Mr. Ochs is owner of the nearest property .on Le Point Street. to 121 Nevada Street. Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for Use Permit Case No. 82 -338 had been duly published and posted, Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing open. Ted Masters, 106 Le Point Street, adjacent to the proposed clinic, stated he is opposed to the request because of odor, noise and increased traffic. Jim Stewart, 10451 Collett Street, Granada Hills, stated he owns property adjacent to 121 Nevada Street and, in his opinion, the use would be a deterent to existing residences and businesses. Dr. Harley Boos, applicant, stated relative to noise pollution, that all animals would be kept indoors and there would be acoustics designed to keep the noise down to a minimum. •11e further stated that the kennel would have its own sewage system and there would be no odor, and as far as traffic flow patterns, he didn't feel there would be a problem. Dr. Boos commented that he has seen the real estate values go up so high here that small businesses are being forced out and it is his feeling that a business of this nature will bring a lot of people to the Village area. Also, he feels that this business can potentially bring in close to a half million dollars a year, which is revenue that the Central Business District_can greatly benefit by. He further commented that he will be running a veterinary clinic designed specifically for small animals. Ivan Shaw,.Arroyo Grande; Dorothy Trulock, 2535 Calender Road; Irene Orr, Arroyo Grande; Albert Baron, Nipomo; Shirley O'Rourke, Nipomo and Jerry Vailem, Arroyo Grande, spoke in favor of the Use Permit being granted. There being no further comments for or against the proposed Use Permit, Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Sebastian commented that as far as he is concerned as a Commissioner, he knows what Dr. Boos can do to control the potential nuisances, he meets the requirements, he has 12 off - street parking spaces, and he would support the veterinary clinic use in this particular instance because of its side street location. In answer to Commissioner Carr's question as to how many animal beds he will have, Dr. Boos advised that the clinic will have approxi- mately 12 cages. He further stated that animals are generally booked over approximately a 4 to 6 hour day; they normally book one patient every 15 or 20 minutes, so that would be approximately 16 a day. In answer to Vice Chairperson Cole's question if the 12 cages would be occupied every night, Dr. Boos commented that he does not want to operate a boarding kennel, and the cages would be for use by surgery patients and animals in for observation, etc. Planning Director Hays commented that the soundproofing requirements, etc. will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 82 -907 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DETERMINING THAT A VETERINARY CLINIC IS SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO USES PERMITTED IN THE "C -B -D" CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SUBJECT TO USE PERMIT PROCEDURES. 4. 2g L 3 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -15 -82 Page 3 On motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Benhardt, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Benhardt, Cole, Moots Pilkington and Sebastian NOES: Commissioner Carr ABSENT: Chairman Gerrish the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of June 1982. After a brief discussion regarding the Use Permit itself, the matter was continued to the next meeting of July 6, 1982 so that the Planning Director can recommend appropriate conditions for the Use Permit. Continuation of Use Permit Case No. 82 -338 was approved on motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Benhardt, and carried with one "no" vote. PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 82 -336, FREE STANDING SIGN, WEST BRANCH STREET. (CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT). Planning Director Hays advised that at the Commission's last meeting they approved the Architectural Review Committee's action for a restaurant to be located on one of the pads in front of the K -Mart site. At that time approval was given for the design of the building and certain signs that were being re- quested, and the applicant was advised that a free standing sign would require a Use Permit in the Highway Service District. He pointed out that at the time of approval of the K -Mart project, the question of a pole sign for the entire center was discussed, and it was the general feeling of the Commission at that time that free standing pole signs would not be appropriate for this commercial center and signs should be limited to those attached to the building. He stated he is having some concerns now that we are getting requests for pole signs and, in his opinion, . we would be setting a precedent in this area if we keep getting requests for pole signs. Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for Use Permit Case No. 82 -336 had been duly published and property owners notified, Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing open. Marian McClelland, representing Carl's Jr. Restaurants, stated that they do have smaller monument signs, however, they are not highway oriented. She pointed out that they normally have a much larger - sign for highway oriented conditions than the one being proposed tonight. She stated that, in this case, what they are asking for is a 96 sq. ft. sign at a 30 ft.height, which is within the code. She commented that the site is presented to southbound traffic as they come down the grade,and they have plenty of time to get off on Oak Park Boulevard. However, coming from the north coming around the hill, you do see the motel sign on the right prior to coming to Oak Park, but there is nothing to let you know that there is any kind of business on the northerly side of the highway, and since the lack of a free standing sign which would advertise their being there, they feel they would loose 1/2 of their business from north bound traffic. Upon hearing no further comments for or against the proposed Use Permit Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Sebastian commented that one of the concepts in the approval of this particular piece of property was to try to retain a country setting through some creative design of the parking lot to include landscaping and many trees being planted and, from what he has seen, it looks like it is going to be radiator to radiator type design. He pointed out that this whole project has really changed character and he, personally, does not feel that the Commission, if they want to retain some sort of natural beauty on this site should be approving a 30 ft. sign. Commissioner Moots referred to Kettleman City on Interstate 5 where there is a sea of 100 ft. signs. He commented that if the applicants are concerned about having exposure for food, the Highway Department puts up signs indicating "gas, food and Lodging ". He stated he is opposed to starting off with one sign because then there would be no end to it. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: ,w, Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -15 -82 RESOLUTION NO. 82 -908 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO. 82 -336. On motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Benhardt, Carr, Cole, Moots and Sebastian NOES: Commissioner Pilkington ABSENT: Chairman Gerrish the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of June 1982. PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, DURATION AND EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE TRACT AND MINOR SUBDIVISION ?.APS. Planning Director Hays pointed out that the proposed Ordinance would bring our Subdivision Ordinance into conformance with the new State law relative to time of approval of tentative and minor subdivision maps. He explained that, basically, this would provide that all maps would have an approval period of two years and if they have not filed their final map within the two year period, they could apply for a time extension up to two additional years, which would make provisions that all maps would have up to four years in which to file their final maps. Upon being _assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for Subdivision Ordinance Amendment had been duly published, Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing open. Upon hearing no comments for or against the proposed amendment, Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 82 -909 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE,, SECTIONS 9- 3.608(d) AND 9- 3.712 RELATING TO DURATION AND EXTENSIONS OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION AND MINOR SUBDIVISION MAPS. Page 4 On motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Benhardt, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Benhardt, Carr, Moots, Pilkington, Sebastian and Vice Chairperson Cole NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Gerrish the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of June 1982. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - "R -G" (GARDEN APARTMENT DISTRICT), "MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENT ". Planning Director Hays advised that the proposed ordinance to amend the Municipal Code is to eliminate the situation where we have a confusion as to which side of a structure is to be considered the side and rear yard. With the proposed amendment, no matter which way a structure is placed on the lot, there will still be 10 ft. between the back of the building and the property line. Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for the Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment had been duly published, Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing open. Upon hearing no comments for or against the proposed amendment, Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing closed. After review of the proposed amendment, there was some discussion relative to the clarity and the wording and, after a brief discussion, the matter was continued to the next meeting of July 6, 1982. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1043 "EQUESTRIAN ESTATES ". (BUSICK- GEARING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY). Planning Director Hays advised that the proposal is to divide approxi- mately 63.88 acres into a single family residential development consisting of L.31 32 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -15 -82 Page 5 40 lots. The site is zoned "A" Agricultural District, and on the General Plan Land Use Element it is shown for low density residential use, which calls for a density of 1 -1/2 acres per unit and their plans indicate they are at their allow- able density. However, they are applying for Optional Design Standards because of the nature of the terrain. He noted that the applicants are proposing a large amount of open space and they are basically clustering the proposed lots anywhere from 20,000 square ft. to 15,000 to 16,000 sq. ft. lots. The basic proposal is to have two routes .of- :access. Mr. Hays pointed out that earlier this year the Commission required a supplement to the original EIR be prepared and a copy of the supplement was included in the Agenda packet. The report discusses the major areas of concern as determined by the Planning Commission, which are drainage, water, sewer and traffic problems associated with the development. He advised that the Subdivision Review Board met last week and reviewed the proposed development, and their recommended conditions of approval have taken into consideration the major impacts of this project and are to be considered mitigation measures as proposed in the report. Planning Director Hays read a letter he had received from Mr. and Mrs. Cook, 527 Orchard Avenue, stating their objections to the proposed subdivision. Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for Subdivision Tract No. 1043 "Equestrian Estates" had been duly published and property owners notified, Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing open. Mr.. Stan Abbott, representing the applicant, advised there are two actions the Commission has to take tonight; one is to consider the supplement to the EIR and make the determination that the supplement is complete as required by SEQA,and, second, =you have to consider the Subdivision Review Board's approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval they have proposed. He noted that at the Subdivision Committee meeting, each and every one of those conditions were reviewed with City staff and they are generally acceptable with the appli- cant with the exception of the collector road shown on the bottom portion of the map. He pointed out that when the applicant originally presented his map, that collector street was not shown. The : reason was that they were build roads ".that.were sufficient.to_handle traffic generated.by..this subdivision °.and nothing else; they thought it - was desirable to deadend it in this subdivision to preclude through traffic and making it a speedway. That is not the wisdom of the General Plan. The General Plan states that you shall make provision for a collector street in that area; it doesn't say you have to construct it. What the applicant proposed was to dedicate the area for the construction of the street, but not to construct it now and, obviously, the reason for that is economics. He stated that the City Engineer didn't feel he could be a party to any map that did not show the collector being constructed on the map, and that what you would have would be a free circulation of traffic through that subdivision. Mr.. Abbott stated he could not argue the logic of Mr. Karp's position; it is a perfectly reasonable one, however, the applicant doesn't really want to construct it at this point in time because it is a very massive road and it is vastly in excess of the traffic that will be generated by this particular subdivision. He commented it is their hope that the Commission will take a little more realistic view in terms of current economic reality and realize there isn't a whole lot being built right now, and that this may be one of the last tracts that we see for a good long time. Mr. Abbott pointed out that one of the major problems with the road is its intersection with Valley Road, and how the traffic is going to be handled at that point. Jim McGillis, San Luis Engineers, 132 Bridge Street, presented a map showing a way of bringing in the right angle intersection with a left turn in conjunction with the driveways across the street. He stated it does handle the traffic engineering problems of not having a right intersection and not having a left turn lane; and the lanes are designed for 35 miles an hour on the outside and it will answer the traffic consultant's concerns for not having a right angle intersection. He further stated that this is more than adequate to handle the traffic engineering needs and could be carried out within the existing right of way. Mr. McGillis made some comments with regard to drainage. He noted that the Army Corps of Engineers says that there are 1700 cubic feet per second coming out of that property, and the applicant's proposal is to retain all on site improvement water, including all water generated by the paving of the road and all water generated by the houses. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -15 -82 Page 6 Tom Runnels, 586 Valley Road, stated he is concerned about the drainage water and he is concerned about the traffic. He pointed out that all of that water that comes off of that hill is quick water, and he requested the Commission take a real hard look at putting the majority of the traffic on Valley Road because it cannot accommodate it. Mr. Clark Moore, 1180 Ash Avenue, read a letter from Mr. Paul Haddox, dated June 10, 1982, John Taylor, 680 Valley Road, stated he feels there is a serious problem as far as traffic and drainage are concerned. Planning Director Hays commented that the applicant has indicated he does not want to construct the collector road and, if that is the situation, he didn't feel the map should be considered tonight because the recommendations are based on what they submitted on their tentative map. Mr. Abbott replied that they have been saying from the very beginning that they do not want to construct that road and it was not in their original concept, and it was agreed to put it to the Commission to decide that question. Roger Fuller, 222 McKinley Street, inquired if all of the people on Orchard Street had been notified of the public hearing. Planning Director Hays advised that the notice was published in the local paper and all property owners within 300 ft. of the property were notified. After a brief discussion, it was concluded to leave the public hearing open for possible additional input from the public. Commissioner Sebastian noted that Mr. Haddox had made a specific request to leave the historical flow alone; the map says that it will be reduced to less than historic flow, and it is assumption that that is going to take place because the proposed collector beyond the entrance to the subdivision from the south would intercept it, but if that is not built then we would not have any problems. He questioned how the open space is going to be maintained. He further stated, regarding the supplement on the water, in his opinion, it is not factual enough and there are a lot of assumptions, and the very basic assumption is that no adverse impacts are anticipated on the City water supply itself and no mitigation is required. Commissioner Sebastian stated one of the conflicts he has with this particular project is that he doesn't see how these lots above 200 ft. are going to be served at this time because of pressure and he personally doesn't think they can meet the water conditions as required in the conditions of approval . because the elevation is not going to be sufficient to take care of a gravity flow. He further commented that, in his opinion, the engineering report is incomplete and the EIR report is incomplete. Vice Chairperson Cole inquired, because of the foregoing discussion, if the Commission wishes to continue this matter. It was the consensus of the Commission that in view of the issues raised tonight, they would like to continue the matter so that some of these concerns can be addressed. Commissioner Sebastian stated, in his opinion, Mr. Karp should be present to answer these pertinent questions, including (1) the water ratio be looked at, and the developer has come up with a better condition; to state the elevation not to have residences above to insure they get proper water pressure in the home;. (2) a resolution from the Lucia Mar School District that the property exchange has been affected; (3) whether or not the water is going to be retained, or whether they are going to meet the legal requirements of not increasing the historic flow. There was some discussion relative to continuing the matter to the next meeting of July 6th. Mr. Gearing, applicant for the development, stated he would not be here and requested the matter be continued to the second meeting in September. It was also specified that the public hearing be readvertised and that all property owners on Orchard Avenue be notified. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by Vice Chairperson Cole at 11:00 P.M. ATTEST: Secretary Vice Chairperson 433