Loading...
PC Minutes 1978-12-19ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION December 19, 1978 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Harris presiding. Present are Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Gorsline, Moots, Simmons and Vandeveer. Also in attendance are Planning Director Castro and Planner Sullivan. MINUTE APPROVAL There being no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meeting of December 5, 1978 were approved by the Chairman as submitted. REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 78 -298, SUNRISE TERRACE MOBILEHOME PARK, VALLEY ROAD (GLENVIEW CONSTR. CO.). Planning Director Castro advised that the proposal is to split the current development known as the Sunrise Terrace Mobilehome Park; the property lines right now basically bisect the property, and are in conflict from a Tax Assessor's point of view with the current development and the commercial area that is de- veloped along Valley Road. He further advised that the Minor Subdivision Review Committee met on December 13th but did not have a quorum, so the full Commission will be required to take action on the matter this evening. He stated staff didn't see any real issues with the proposed split. He pointed out that Parcels A and B. are both in accordance with the boundaries of the Commercial area that has been granted for that development. Parcel A is currently developed with the Sunrise Terrace Neighborhood Shopping Center and all improvements have been com- pleted and accepted by the City. Parcel B is currently undeveloped, and Parcel C contains the Sunrise Terrace Mobilehome Park. He stated that staff is recom- mending that: (1) the developer dedicate 15 ft. of right of way for the future widening of Valley Road. The widening and improvements have taken place, but the dedication hasn't been made to the City. (2) That all Valley Road frontage im- provements, although they are there, be subject to the review and approval of the Department of Public Works. (3) That the 70 ft. driveway from Valley Road to the edge of the right of way to the drainage easement be dedicated to the City. The reason for this requirement is that the City has some utility lines within that right of way. (4) Prior to the acceptance of the driveway, all road improvements shall meet the requirements and specifications of the Department of Public Works. (5) That the developer shall improve the drainage concerns abutting Parcel A prior to recordation of the map, and subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No. 78 -298 was approved with the conditions as noted by Planning Director Castro. REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 78-298, SUNRISE TERRACE MOBILEHOME PARK, VALLEY ROAD (GLENVIEW CONSTRUCTION CO.). Planning Director Castro reviewed the staff's Assessment of Negative Declaration Request, dated December 14, 1978, and advised that acceptance of the Request for Negative Declaration is recommended. There being no further discussion by the Commission, the following action was taken: NOES: ABSENT: RESOLUTION NO. 78 -648 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DECLARATION. On motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Gorsline, Moots, Simmons, Vandeveer and Chairman Harris None None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of December 1978. REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 78 -183, MEDICAL OFFICES, 205 SO. HALCYON ROAD - RESUBMITTAL (DR. JENKINS). Planning Director Castro referred to the staff report on the proposal, dated December 13, 1978, and recommended approval of the project subject to the 8 con- 044 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 12 -19 -78 Page 2 ditions as listed in the report. After a brief discussion, on motion by Com- missioner Simmons, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No. 78 -183 was approved subject to the eight con- ditions as listed in the staff report dated December 13, 1978. ............ .. ........ PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 78 -278, BUILDING MATERIAL PIPE STORAGE YARD IN A "P -M" PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, 1166 GRAND AVENUE (HARRIS AND COCKS). Chairman Harris advised that unless there are some objections, this item would be carried over to the last item on the Agenda. REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE - STEPHEN COOL REPRESENTING MR. RICHARD LEMON. Planning Director Castro referred to Mr. Cool's letter dated November 28th regarding Mr. Lemon's property and issuance of final occupancy for his new resi- dence. He pointed out that in his report, dated December 13th, he stated that, in his opinion, the Zoning Ordinance is clear which controls to some degree the issuance of a building permit requiring that a 12 ft. paved area from the resi- dence to a public dedicated street is required. He further advised that he has not yet heard from City Attorney Shipsey regarding the letter from Mr. Cool. Mr. Dick Lemon, 570 Lemon Lane, advised that on August 3, 1976 he tried to get a minor subdivision on his property and the request was refused at that time without prejudice, however, he was granted two of the four parcels request- ed in order to build his own house. He pointed out on the map that the roadway and the remainder of the property was never re -zoned and is still zoned "RA -B3 ". He stated he built a house on Parcel 3, which was built on the corner of the private road in question in September of 1976, and he was required at that time to pave a section of Pearwood Avenue and around the corner to the end of the City property. He was not required at that time to pave any of the private road. Mr. Lemon further pointed out there was a house completed after his was started, and it was not required to pave this road up to it. He stated it took a lot of time to build his house and he was never required in that time, and had no knowledge, that he would have to pave the road and did not budget for it. Part of the road is on another person's property and there are two families that use the road; and now all of a sudden the City is requiring him to pave the whole thing for everybody, which he didn't think was right. Mr. Steve Cool asked Mr. Lemon to clarify that when he got the lot split on the property, if there were any conditions imposed at that time that the road would have to be paved. Mr. Lemon stated "no ". Mr. Cool asked if when he took out the building permit for the house on top of the hill if anyone at the staff level told him that the road would have to be paved. Mr. Lemon answered "no ". Mr. Cool asked if when he took out the original building permit, if the building inspector told him anything about the paving requirement. Mr. Lemon answered "no he did not ". Planning Director Castro clarified that there were conditions applied to the lot split, and that both the Peck and the Honeycutt properties were not a part of those conditions of approval, and that what staff is saying is that the conditions of approval granted to Mr. Lemon specify that there shall be a 20 ft. easement maintained from that parcel to the street. Also, the Zoning Ordinance, Section 94 -2609, in his opinion, stated that any garage area shall be subject to a 12 ft. paved area from the garage area to a public dedicated street, and staff is saying that is a requirement and, having not yet heard from the City Attorney, are relying on that as saying that it is tied with the Zoning Ordi- nance and with the building permit. Mr. Castro read the wording of the previous Ordinance as opposed to the wording in the current Ordinance. Mr. Cool reviewed his letter dated November 28th and the 4 questions listed in the letter. He stated they are asking the Commission to tell them what the Ordinance says. With regard to Question #4 Mr. Cool stated, in his opinion, he really feels that Mr. Lemon has a vested right here and he didn't feel Mr. Lemon fell within the old Ordinance which went into effect in July of 1977. He further stated he feels there is a real question as to whether this paved access requirement even applies to "RA property. Section 9 -4.510 states "Access in the RA district shall be as follows: When a lot abuts upon an alley, entrance to garages or off - street parking spaces having access from the alley shall be located not less than 30 ft. from the opposite side of the abutting alley ". Mr. Cool stated that going down two sections to .512 to "Off- Street Parking Required ", it states the provisions of Article 26 shall apply in de- termining the amount of parking spaces required for each use. He further stated that Article 26 is the article that has the paving requirement, but the section Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 12 -19 -78 Page 3 he just read says it applies in determining the amount of parking space, but it doesn't say it applies in determining the type of access, and he doesn't think it was the intent of whoever wrote that section to require paved access and, in his opinion, it isn't required in the "RA" District. He further noted that once the Commission requires Mr. Lemon to do this, they will be setting an absolute binding precedent and will have to require every future "RA" development within the City to put in exactly those same driveway requirements. Planning Director Castro stated that Article 26 does refer to parking spaces and to the improvement of parking spaces and /or access to a residence and, in his opinion, he didn't believe that the interpretation of 2601 is not applicable. Planner Sullivan advised, as a point of information to the Commission, that Mr. Cool referred to the parallel access that Mr. Lemon has put in running adjacent to Oak Hill Road, stating that was actually put in after the letter from Mr. Cool was received by the City, and it was in violation of the lot split and the environmental determination of that lot split, and was done without a grading plan or a permit. Mr. Lemon has since obtained a grading permit to correct the violation. Mr. Cool apologized for that, stating it was a mistake on Mr. Lemon's part, but he didn't see where it had anything to do with this. Mrs. Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, pointed out that the road has been paved in the past, and that it has not been a dirt road all these years. Also, the other point is that Mr. Lemon would not have to be paving this road himself except for the fact that they are now in court since Mr. Lemon is suing them; Pecks and the Honeycutts would be willing to pave their share of the street, but the matter is in litigation and, therefore, there is nothing they can do. Christine Phillips, 216 Pearwood Avenue, stated that the road has been paved in the past, and that if you walk up the road, there are still pieces of asphalt that have been torn up by heavy equipment. She further stated that she lives directly at the base of the hill and has gone to the City Council about the problem that her family has been having with the dust that comes off of that hill during the summer, and the water, gravel and mud that comes off of it during the winter. The Council recognized that they clearly had a problem and a nuisance, but felt there was nothing they could about it. The County Air Pollution Board was notified regarding the matter. They made a report and recognized that this road was indeed a nuisance and is polluting, but because there is one person that lives at the bottom of the hill instead of the whole City, all they could do was recommend to the City that the problem be cleared up. She further stated she doesn't care who paves the road; the thing is it is a nuisance and the law is there to protect people who have to live next to some- thing like this. Mr. Lemon stated, with regard to the road being paved at one time, that he had talked to Joe Zogata, and Mr. Zogata told him that the road had been oiled but that it had never been paved. Mr. Castro clarified that there are many times when a lot split or subdivision will contain conditions that have to be met, but in some instances those are not included as part of the approval. However, under the building permit, there are various sections of the code that do apply to the Building Code, whether it be an encroachment, a projection, defining the size of a' parking stall, etc., and the type of improvements that have to be made to make it accessible to that development is part of this re- quirement, so we rely not only on what you may condition the project, but also what is written in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff is saying that we believe Mr. Lemon is subject to that, although it was not mentioned on the lot split require- ment. Commissioner Vandeveer stated at this point, he would refuse to state any opinion on the matter until the City Attorney renders some sort of decision. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Gorsline, and unanimously carried, that the matter be carried over to the next regular meeting pending advice from the City Attorney. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION FOR COMPLETION OF OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS, TRACT 667, "AUTUMN GARDENS ",1169 MAPLE STREET (PAUL CURTIS). Planning Director Castro stated that a request has been received from Mr. Paul Curtis requesting a one year extension for completion of off -site improve- ments, and in discussing the matter with City Engineer Paul Karp, staff found no objections to the request. Mr. Curtis has had numerous problems getting the project off the ground and getting all of the engineering details required for improvements. He further stated he would like to have the Commission condition the extension with the requirement that the City Engineer review and update the curb and gutter bond that was required of Mr. Curtis. 051 C52 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 12 -19 -78 Page 4 After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, Mr. Curtis' request for a one year extension for completion of off -site improvements for Tract #667 was approved with the condition that the City Engineer review and update the curb and gutter bond required on the project. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Planning Director Castro advised that on the Land Use /Zoning action taken by the City Council there were four items that were not approved which will be referred back to the Commission at the January 2nd meeting. Also, in view of the fact that some of the Commissioners attended the Planning Conference last week and there was some reference made to the Rules and Procedures of the Planning Commission, copies of those procedures have been made and given to the Commissioners for discussion at the next regular meeting. Commissioner Vandeveer stated that just this past week he has had two complaints from people driving into Arroyo Grande regarding the horrible stench south of town, and he assumed this is from the feed lot. He suggested someone take a look at it and see if it is really as clean as it should be. Planning Director Castro stated he would contact the County Planning Department in this regard and report back on January 2nd, 1979. Commissioner Harris requested that the Planning Director find out from the City Engineer what is considered to be a permanent dust free road /drive- way. PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 78 -278, BUILDING MATERIAL PIPE STORAGE YARD IN A "P -M" PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, 1166 GRAND AVENUE (HARRIS AND COCKS). Due to a conflict of interest, Chairman Harris excused himself from the meeting and is now absent. Vice Chairman Gorsline assumed the chair. Upon being assured by Planning Director Castro that public hearing for Use Permit Case No. 78 -278 had been duly posted, published and property owners notified, Vice Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing open. Planning Director Castro advised that some plans were submitted by the applicant, however, there is an existing condition of grades for the area. Staff is requesting that the matter be continued to the next regular meeting. Vice Chairman Gorsline inquired if there is anyone present who would like to make a comment tonight who will be unable to attend the meeting in two weeks. Hearing no comments, Vice Chairman advised that the public hearing would be continued to the next regular Planning Commission meeting of January 2, 1979. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P.M. ATTEST: Secretary Chairman 1 1