The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 2018-06-12_10a Appeal CUP_1212 Flora Road MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: MATTHEW DOWNING, PLANNING MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL CASE NO. 18-001; APPEAL OF DETERMINATION RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-001; CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,784 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN THE GENERAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT; LOCATION – 1212 FLORA ROAD; APPLICANT – MURAT & NANCY AKALIN; ARCHITECT – BILL ISAMAN, ISAMAN DESIGN DATE: JUNE 12, 2018 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Denial of the Appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s denial of the Conditional Use Permit will not permit the construction of a new 1,784 square foot accessory dwelling unit on a 5.08-acre parcel in the General Agricultural zoning district. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: None. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 18-001 and upholding its denial of Conditional Use Permit 18-001. BACKGROUND: The subject property is a 5.08-acre parcel located at 1212 Flora Road (Attachment 1). The property is zoned General Agricultural (AG), is currently developed with an approximately 1,860 sq. ft. single family home, and is currently being used for pastureland but not active farming. The subject property is Lot 2 of Tract No. 600 (Attachment 2) and the existing residence was constructed in approximately 1983, according to building records. The property is surrounded by other Agricultural properties to the north, west and east and shares a property line with two Single-Family zoned properties to the south. The site is generally flat and is accessed from a private driveway at the terminus of Flora Road, which is shared with two (2) adjacent properties. The proposed project consists of the construction of a new, custom built, 1,784 sq. ft. accessory dwelling unit (ADU). A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for any ADU Item 10.a. - Page 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL CASE NO. 18-001 JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 2 on an AG zoned property. This is to provide an opportunity to review structure siting for impacts to agriculture land, ensure that the location of the proposed structure is located so as to maximize the availability of land for agricultural purposes, and to allow an opportunity to address any other potential impacts that may be caused by the project. On residential parcels, ADUs that meet all of the development standards are approved on a ministerial basis via building permits. Architectural Review Committee The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) reviewed the proposed project at their meeting of May 7, 2018 (Attachment 3). Members of the ARC were primarily reviewing the architecture of the proposed ADU, but also specifically considered structure siting during their review. The ARC was in support of the structure being located where proposed due to the intersection of driveways on the private driveway, utilities located further south adjacent to the existing Flora Road residences creating potential construction conflicts, and ensuring the ability for light agriculture and grazing uses to continue on the remaining portions of the site. The ARC was in support of including board and batten or horizontal shiplap siding instead of the proposed stucco or, at a minimum, mixed with stucco. The ARC recommended approval of the project. Planning Commission The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project at their meeting of May 15, 2018 (Attachment 4). The Planning Commission discussed residential densities for AG land, the nonconforming distinction of the project site, current regulations for ADUs, potential for future development in the neighborhood and the project’s impact on that potential, the potential precedent set by approving the Conditional Use Permit, and the concept of cumulative loss of AG land as a result of the precedent. The Commission was unable to approve the proposed project and the Conditional Use Permit was denied. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: General Plan The General Plan designates the subject property for Agricultural land uses. Development of an ADU on AG zoned property presents the potential to impact long- term agricultural operations supported by the General Plan Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space (A/C/OS) Element. The policies of the A/C/OS call for the preservation of agriculturally-viable land and low maximum densities. However, the property is smaller than the standard lot size of the AG zoning district, the proposed ADU provides an additional housing opportunity in the City for aging relatives and other families in the future, and the applicant indicates the ADU is designed and located in such a fashion to avoid negatively impacting the agricultural potential of the property to the greatest extent feasible. The 2012 Bicycle and Trails Master Plan, which is incorporated into the General Plan Circulation Element and Parks and Recreation Element, identifies the subject area at the end of Flora Road for a proposed Class I bike path (Attachment 5). As such, for Item 10.a. - Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL CASE NO. 18-001 JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 3 General Plan consistency the proposed project has been conditioned to require a fifteen foot (15’) pedestrian trail easement. Use of the easement for a bike path requires future action by the City Council in the event a bicycle/pedestrian bridge is proposed across Arroyo Grande Creek. Development Standards As discussed previously, the subject property is zoned AG. The intent of the AG Zoning District is to “provide for and protect lands for agricultural crop production, grazing, limited sales of agricultural products, and limited agricultural support industries and services. This district is intended primarily as an area for the production of food and fiber, but also permits single-family detached residential dwellings at a maximum density of 1.0 dwelling unit per 10.0 gross acres, as well as temporary housing for farm workers.” The applicant asserts that the proposed project does not negatively impact the property’s ability to be a viable agricultural resource due to the proposed location of the ADU along the perimeter of the parcel, adjacent to the roadway. The project site is a legally nonconforming lot, due to the size of the lot (5.04 acres) being less than the minimum parcel size required of the AG district (10 acres). Section 16.04.070 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) defines a nonconforming lot as a: “lot which when lawfully created or established, complied with the width and area requirements of the district where located, but that does not conform to the presently existing area or width regulations of the district where located, or that does not conform to the presently existing requirements of the subdivision ordinance governing lot standards. The lot shall be shown on a duly approved and recorded tract or parcel map or has been issued or is eligible for a certificate of compliance or conditional certificate of compliance.” The project site’s identification on Tract No. 600 validates its status as a nonconforming lot, and is therefore subject to the regulations set forth in AGMC Subsection 16.48.110.D. Municipal Code Subsection 16.48.110.D.1. states that “a nonconforming lot may be used for any use identified as an allowable or conditional use by this title, provided the minimum development standards established in this title for particular uses are satisfied.” The proposed ADU meets all development standards of the AG zoning district. Note that some typical development standards or residential zoning districts, including lot coverage and floor-area-ratio, are not required standards of the AG zoning district. Table 1: Site Development Standards for the AG Zoning District Development Standards AG District Proposed Notes Front Yard Setback 50 ft. ~138 ft. Code Met Rear Yard Setback 50 ft. ~310 ft. Code Met Item 10.a. - Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL CASE NO. 18-001 JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 4 Development Standards AG District Proposed Notes Side Yard Setback 30 ft. 30 ft. Code Met Street Side Yard Setback 30 ft. N/A Not Applicable due to private drive Max Height 30 ft. ~ 21 ft. Code Met Agricultural Conversion The Planning Commission discussed the issue of agricultural land conversion as it related to both the proposed project and the cumulative result of future ADUs should conditional use permits be approved on other AG zoned properties. Pursuant to AGMC Subsection 16.12.170.F.1., agricultural land is converted and mitigation is required by applicants for discretionary entitlements which will subdivide or change the use of land zoned agriculture or agriculture preserve to any non-agricultural use. Due to the underlying land use designation remaining the same and no subdivision or additional residential density being allowable, the construction of an ADU on the site does not constitute conversion of agricultural land conversion policies included in the A/C/OS Element are not applicable to the proposed project. Maximum Size The Municipal Code does not have limitations on maximum size of an ADU for the AG district. The proposed ADU is 1,784 sq. ft., which is larger than the typical 1,200 sq. ft. maximum applied in residential zoning districts, where smaller lot sizes are located. Additionally, the ADU is larger than 50% of the main structure, another standard for ADUs in typical residential properties. In light of the scale of the property and as recommended by the ARC, standards that are typically applied to properties ranging between 5,000 and 50,000 sq. ft. are not necessarily appropriate for a property totaling over 220,000 sq. ft. At the Planning Commission meeting and in public comments received, the idea was expressed that the State limits ADUs to a maximum of 1,200 square feet. Section 65852.2 et. seq. of the Government Code outlines standards for the ministerial approval of ADUs in residential zones. However, these regulations are not applicable for ADUs outside residential zoning districts and are additionally not applicable when a discretionary entitlement is required. The Planning Commission discussed the size of the proposed ADU but no consensus was expressed that the proposal was too large. Architecture The structure is designed in a farmhouse style, with high pitched roofs and standing seam metal porches and dormers. The proposed structure is designed with all four elevations in mind by including detailing on all four planes. The ARC discussed a preference for board and batten or horizontal shiplap siding instead of a primarily stucco design. The garage door is front facing, albeit only visible from the shared driveway, Item 10.a. - Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL CASE NO. 18-001 JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 5 and emulates traditional carriage doors. A 439 sq. ft. covered deck is accessed through the rear of the structure, wrapping around the north and east facades. The roofing, when not constructed with the standing seam metal, will be a composition shingle roof. The applicant indicates that the structure will be painted white with charcoal roof, windows and trim, which the ARC supported. Trees and Landscaping Landscaping is shown on the proposed plans but is not identified. However, the landscaping depicted appears to include densely planted shrubbery and four (4) new trees. The ARC commented that keeping the landscaping close to the structure was appropriate to refrain from infringing upon the remainder of the parcel; however, the ARC also commented that maintaining defensible space or utilizing landscaping that does not act as a fire ladder is important for protection of the structure in a rural setting. The project has been conditioned for the final landscape and lighting plans to return to the ARC for a recommendation to the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are identified for the Council’s consideration: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 18-001 and upholding the Planning Commission’s denial of Conditional Use Permit 18-001 with prejudice; 2. Modify and adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 18-001 and denying Conditional Use Permit 18-001 without prejudice; 3. Adopt an alternate Resolution (Attachment 6) approving Appeal Case No. 18- 001, overturning the Planning Commission’s action, and approving Conditional Use Permit 18-001; 4. Modify and adopt an alternate Resolution approving Appeal Case No. 18-001, overturning the Planning Commission’s action, and approving Conditional Use Permit 18-001; or 5. Provide direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Denial of the appeal will maintain the Planning Commission’s denial of the Conditional Use Permit and will protect agricultural land. DISADVANTAGES: Denial of the appeal will not allow an additional housing unit in the City that will provide an opportunity for the ability for a family member to live on-site with the applicant while maintaining the ability for light agriculture and pasture uses to continue on the site. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined to be categorically exempt per Section 15303(a) of the Guidelines regarding new construction of an accessory dwelling unit. Item 10.a. - Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL CASE NO. 18-001 JUNE 12, 2018 PAGE 6 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT: A notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300’ of the project site, was published in The Tribune, and posted at City Hall, on the City’s website, and at the project site on Friday, May 4, 2018. The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Three (3) comments received on the project are included in Attachment 7. Attachments: 1. Vicinity map 2. Tract No. 600 3. DRAFT Minutes of the May 7, 2018 Architectural Review Committee Meeting 4. Minutes of the May 15, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting 5. Bicycle and Trails Network Plan 6. Alternate City Council Resolution for approval of Conditional Use Permit 18-001 7. Public comments 8. Project plans Item 10.a. - Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPEAL CASE NO. 18-001 AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-001 WITH PREJUDICE; LOCATED AT 1212 FLORA ROAD; APPEALED BY MURAT & NANCY AKALIN WHEREAS, the project site is an approximately 5.08-acre site located in the General Agricultural (AG) zoning district and currently developed with a single-family structure; and WHEREAS, the construction of an accessory dwelling unit is permitted in the AG zoning district following approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Conditional Use Permit 18-001 for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit totaling 1,784 square feet; and WHEREAS, the size limitations for accessory dwelling units in the AG district are determined through the discretionary review process; and WHEREAS, protection for continued agricultural operations and production is very paramount on land zoned AG; and WHEREAS, the proposed accessory dwelling unit is located adjacent to the undeveloped portion of the site, which has the potential to impact current and future agricultural operations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing on May 15, 2018, and considered all written evidence and oral testimony; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was unable to make all the required findings in the affirmative and denied the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the project applicants appealed the Planning Commission’s determination to the City Council on May 18, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and determined that the project is exempt per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines regarding new construction of an accessory dwelling unit; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing on June 12, 2018, and considered all written evidence and oral testimony; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: Item 10.a. - Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 Conditional Use Permit Findings: 1. The proposed use is permitted within the subject district pursuant to the provisions of this section and complies with all the applicable provisions of this title, the goals, and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City. The proposed use is permitted within the Agricultural district pursuant to Chapter 16.28 of the Development Code and the project complies with all applicable provisions of the Development Code, the goals and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan including Policy Ag 1-4.1 of the Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element and the Bicycle and Trails Master Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City. 2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located. The proposed use on the project site will impair the integrity and character of the AG zoning district, which is primarily to provide for and protect lands for agricultural crop production, grazing, limited sales of agricultural support industries and services. The impact to agricultural land resulting from the construction of the proposed 1,784 square foot accessory dwelling unit and the location of the structure near to the middle of the productive portion of the agricultural property will further constrain the site from fulfilling the primary purpose of the AG zoning district. 3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is proposed. The site is 5.08 acres, which is smaller than the minimum lot size required in the General Agricultural district. Construction of the accessory dwelling unit will further constrain the site to be viable for agricultural purposes, and therefore, the site is not suitable for the accessory dwelling unit. 4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure public health and safety. The accessory dwelling unit will utilize City supplied water, sanitation, and public utilizes and services that ensure public health and safety. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor will it be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity as it will comply with all applicable codes and standards of the Municipal Code and in accordance with conditions of approval specifically developed for the project. Item 10.a. - Page 8 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the foregoing findings, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies Appeal Case No. 18-001 and denies with prejudice Conditional Use Permit 18-001. On motion by Council Member _______, seconded by Council Member _______, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 12th day of June, 2018. Item 10.a. - Page 9 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 ________________________________________ JIM HILL, MAYOR ATTEST: ________________________________________ KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ________________________________________ JAMES A. BERGMAN, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________________ HEATHER K. WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY Item 10.a. - Page 10 ATTACHMENT 1 Subject Property Item 10.a. - Page 11 Existing Residence Item 10.a. - Page 12 ATTACHMENT 2Item 10.a. - Page 13~ L ;u,:,,. ---< & , rtl,o a., J· Mr,,._,, It«, «4 t!t11::, A,,_,.. Grontl• A~,..,,, • liin/ltrfll p.,ln•,sl,/p Th~~,,, 1;,,,,_,"',.,,. .,,,..,e i><ttn ""'IIIH' under Ii" pn:,i,,;,,;,,,1 or .rec. &ffJl S"'--$«. I./ o, fM s.tlHltVi,lo,, A-b.p Ad. f"lt,lr ,;,-fwH,t ii ''-It lltJ /f c..11nof r(J#,,. ml• • ,~tt 1v·1111 •n~ su~ ,~no..fu,•s a~ not r'ity111,~ol b~ n,~ .,..,~,_,.,;,,,g .°"'.!I· A&ll--. 6. Whoc',eo.,~m~,,fJ,.,JJ,,. ~,. ••t·r«o,wf"d,h l,t,HH, ~3H•f"-I. P4.A NNING COMM 1 • 11041# C&11r1,1cArl \;,_"·, .......... ;:~~ ~ ···".Y'•t·•'· C,r,, ENtUN1t•1r'I c.,,r,,,..Arlt I, DAUL [ flMP CJ/y EHV_mur oF M, Cif11 of Arroyo (i,yu,d, ::':Jt,!i:.11,~~ JH,J,:;:o,,M:m;:i;:;,oo/i;'t.': ,";'::;~ ::~"I llr# oppror~II.., IJt• Nfflol,i,,, "!"'t° •mi o,,y o,/¥1,rotf•d a/l,rolion1 !;,niL 0J:tt~1~::11~'::',,°:: t>/,,n.;11-:Utf;,.,':tA~P a'!'.. IJow ...,, c:o,np/Hd ..... "!~ ont:JI ~I f4M'I' sofi1FiHI Jl,ol 11,n mop n" hic.l,ni~Otlly cOl"f",cf. Dof,tl, 11 T"f-Y l'J.D. Cd~O A s-,"/ ,..,..,.1 ._,"'• pr•po,,..ol • .,, F•itr11ory ,, "'' 611 C•Hl,4141 Coo:sl i,oborolorl•$,, ,,,, 6ucJrl,~ Rood, Son J..u,.s Olnspo,, t:"al,r, fd/,ci .-'liVAUIArJOJJ OF 50/1.S l/JJDEli'I.YIMi Pli'l()P0S£0 Sl//J• OIVISIDN ON IJHANCH MII.L nl:>AO, Ali'li'OYO tili'A>JDE,CAI.IF.: S/g"Ni Dfl li'oJurf Ii. Wll/io,ws, li'C-.£. 10777. Couwr>' R1tcoR01t1r's C1tli'r1'1CAr~ .KJ'I/Jqm £ ZHf't«dk Cou11l1:1 N,co,der ~: ~~ TRACT :--.i,-,l~J1;;:f..1:£L_ ..aM. a ~ al r,qu.-,Jf=, o:£',.~ . No. 600 B,ing a po,1/on or Lois tA, B, C, ID of A. lv#wsom's Lands ,p,r BooKA, A>91 77. of" Mops. CITY OF' ARHOYO GRAND£ COl.lNTY OF' .5AN Lt/IS OBISPO CAI..IF'ORNIA MAY , /~17 GARING TAYLOR & ASSOC.,INC. Civil Eng;nc•r• Ar"r-OIJO Grand•, Colifor-rtia 5hfft I .r z. Item 10.a. - Page 1432 ---------;-:;-;-;~'rn77AA7.VA"",7ri.:7<:?ii7-------:-----~-----:-:::-:-:-:;;::;:::::::::::::~-=,o.. L.4N0.5 o;:. o.;:; .f.At,IN4 N£.W;¥./2M L-&t;;&-NtUS(IRY~'r"P4r,4. } r•"'. .STROTHER CJTY PARK NVl.(E-e..oQwBu::µsr ,. -.sz#'s,«J"w~,1..a·~ ~,...,,,.~,.. ~-·S~7"S1ot/l,/111,· /!. 119~*µ !=J~:~~61~~1~7;.,. '#, .. ,-: ..... .' ·-···· •*' E /119 ,o' ~-z lwl*"ll!(t10-,I) The iJdsis o/ 6e11r,,,9 hr·l->,is 3u,vcy .,,",. ~ i~ .. <14~-r //19.~2 AA-/ ArroyD Cr,111Ade. Cdy ~J,::~.!;-~ ,,,,.,. fdl"~n lr0,,1 l1,~ 1/o,rlteaJf,rlf 1,;,., •I Ti-wd NA 3,u,U'!t,sif //&,..,.,,., J.11,,,;-!~ J,,,,e. ZS<. o,shown ,,,, m,p l/leo'HP 6H4C Toi Atfc. 9 "••.u• u....i,.,. 1. t1lt--(dp.s,,,,o'the Jou./-11wul1rlyl/'11eo/ i.o-1-1 as.,,,..,."" ~I !hL J.an(lsDI o., f Anno Akw.10.rnc 11s ,z,, __ ,, .... -~ CJTY OF : ( ... · © •'\OZ Aorc:I GRJ-\N.DF' .... ··;····!• ................ _ .. __ . ., : I • ···, .... /1··· ' .•·: ' ,,---✓ ·..... I ...... -~ : o,, mop h/•; in 6ooK 1, di 1¾19c U ,J t.icensetl I. .$41,-.,1,.y.s, fhe ou,i,,,h,'n,,,oho'"s >l-'J/$i,,/. -. -8t1v"'l,ur 01.,,1,rc ~rc..e,I ---Lo-I Luu: . .-!. -·•-C1"11'.L1n1,f luu. """'. ----+-H,,,,v,,,enh /fov11/t,1:SA~-le✓ --0----1· 1e .sel .,,;t'l,""~" ec£. IZ1..fd 0 @ Loi Ooi9not,ons . -tw--Jrrtqa/J4'n Waler /inc t:JIM. p/p<,; {&: ol tlJ' ,,.,.,1"/Ji,n F11sr..men,/, C1:1nucle,Sf1u,d-p,peJ 11re on '-ontl "'1fl4JNinJ.s ,,, so:-1 Jrr,9o·hiln ,ose.,rtenf. I!·/ R~cord ~r P/S I&;'~ e·Z • •• lkto' ~55 tli! Z41 I!·• • R)S e1,11 1!-4 3/-f H4,0S R·5 MNA4 'OTJ;'· Af fin! fl~ or ,-uord•fion M-llli, ,,,.,,,, 1~ Tnl~ owncrs111p o/,l,t,~prc1c,,,,l11ned1n J."f.s A.JJ.C. t.D ,s,,,9ved,on. One ,,,1e,,./-o/·NNsm,,p,s-fi,J""# :~/';~";i~~i:11:r~:::e ::ri~~~ °>Z."~ ::::. l1119v,~fa1I Clt:t,,,., .Jo so,d oreo conf•,ned"' lofs A, 8 CID, T,H~ -lo f1t~SG lof.s Shllllnof be -lrtu,s/c,nd"fo o;,'/' mt~u.JI> ofl,1.r fh•n I, -IIM l/ttlllV.S o.l' fM. o,t'jt1Cenl-po,-ce.l.1 al "7ml ly,,,, m,rllo,,111,ferlf.; so,ilrt'-ICT ~-1/pon umpkl,on ol said fNll'3hr .~-n,;fG., -fheN-Idler dtStfA.:rle.d pq,cel:1 N/011 M-1 be. ruold l .rcp1uate rn,,,,,.sa,d 11<1;.'ou,,/ P"~t!b ~ ~ w,ll,NfP"'t:.ee.dtn9w1tht1pP"'(t;:;a;e +. i ~!":;;:.11~';:-!';,~~:;e:ctvrcs • .. t.. '\ TRACT NO. 600 Ap;,,-t,on or LOTS 1,4,6,C,(0 oFA.l'okwsom's J..o,,d' .:1s s~wn o,, m.:1p Iii~# 8¥: A,}). 11 ~.,,_. City ol ,42/?0YO Cll4NIX-~vnt of SAN LI/IS Ol!J/SPO CALl~02Nf GA~N~, TAYL.OR • AaSOC., MC. CivU Eno1nit,t,rS A,,oyo Gronde-, Col'lfOffllCll ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MONDAY, MAY 7, 2018 ARROYO GRANDE CITY HALL, 300 E. BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CA 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Warren Hoag called the Regular Architectural Review Committee meeting to order at 2:30 p.m. 2.ROLL CALL ARC Members:Chair Warren Hoag, Vice Chair Bruce Berlin, and Committee Members Mary Hertel, Colleen Kubel, and Keith Storton were present. City Staff Present: Planning Manager Matt Downing and Planning Intern Christopher Turner were present. 3.FLAG SALUTE Committee Storton led the Flag Salute. 4.AGENDA REVIEW None. 5.COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS None. 6.WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 7.CONSENT AGENDA Committee Member Storton made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Berlin to approve the minutes of the February 5, 2018 Regular Meeting as submitted. The motion passed 4-0 on the following voice vote AYES: Storton, Berlin, Hoag NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hertel, Kubel Chair Hoag requested a correction for the minutes of the April 2, 2018 meeting to clarify on the motion for item 7.a. that the record state the Committee continued the Minutes for the February 5, 2018 meeting in order to allow for a quorum of Committee Members present at that meeting. Staff was in concurrence with the proposed correction. Committee Member Hertel made a motion, seconded by Committee Member Storton, to approve the minutes of the April 2, 2018 Regular Meeting as corrected. The motion passed 4-0 on the following voice vote: AYES: Storton, Hertel, Kubel, Hoag NOES: None ABSTAIN: Berlin ATTACHMENT 3 Item 10.a. - Page 15 Minutes: ARC PAGE 2 Monday, May 7, 2018 8. PROJECTS 8.a. CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-001; CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,784 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN THE GENERAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT; LOCATION – 1212 FLORA ROAD; APPLICANT – MURAT & NANCY AKALIN; ARCHITECT – BILL ISAMAN, ISAMAN DESIGN (Downing) Planning Manager Downing presented the staff report and responded to questions from the Committee regarding improvement requirements, the location of the proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on the property, zoning regulations in the Agricultural (AG) district, size of the existing residence, and utility connections for the proposed ADU. Murat Akalin, applicant, and Bill Isaman, architect, spoke in support of the project and responded to questions regarding the location of the proposed ADU on the property, street access, building materials, the design of the proposed structure, fencing, lighting, materi als for the driveway, landscaping, and the ability of the property to support animal husbandry. The Committee spoke in support of the project, commenting that the location of the proposed ADU on the property was logical based on the reasons provided by the applicant, the size and color of the proposed ADU would complement the surrounding neighborhood, separation from the primary residence was appropriate, and that the size and location of the proposed ADU did not preclude use of the property for agricultural purposes. The Committee expressed concern regarding the lack of landscaping detail and the proposed building materials. The Committee suggested construction with board and batten rather than stucco. Committee Member Storton made a motion, seconded by Committee Member Kubel, to recommend approval of the project to the Community Development Director subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a detailed landscaping plan, including proposed lighting, to the Architectural Review Committee for review prior to the issuance of final building permits. 2. The applicant shall construct the proposed ADU utilizing horizontal ship lap siding or in a manner consistent with the board and batten architectural style. The motion passed 5-0 on the following voice vote: AYES: Storton, Kubel, Hertel, Berlin, Hoag NOES: None 8.b. CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 18-001; CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 496 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT; LOCATION – 513 IDE STREET; APPLICANT – DAVID IWERKS (Turner) Planning Intern Turner presented the staff report and responded to questions regarding landscaping and the proposed drainage basin. David Iwerks, applicant, spoke in support of the project and responded to questions regarding the proposed driveway improvements for the primary residence, location of the proposed ADU on the property, design of the proposed ADU, functionality of the windows, color of the roof, water supply, and the potential to subdivide the property. Item 10.a. - Page 16 Minutes: ARC PAGE 3 Monday, May 7, 2018 The Committee spoke in support of the project and commented that Arroyo Grande needs more ADUs, the size and style fits the neighborhood, and that the proposed ADU would help revitalize Ide Street. The Committee expressed concern with the location of the proposed ADU on the property, commenting that, provided the amount of available space on the property, the proposed ADU could be moved further away from the adjacent property. Committee Member Hertel made a motion, seconded by Committee Member Storton, to recommend approval of the project to the Community Development Director, as submitted. The project passed 5-0 on the following voice vote: AYES: Hertel, Storton, Kubel, Berlin, Hoag NOES: None 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS None. 10. COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS Committee Member Hertel informed the Committee that she would be available for the June 18, 2018 meeting in the event she is needed to meet a quorum, otherwise she would be absent, and that she would absent from the July 16, 2018 meeting. Vice Chair Berlin informed the Committee that he would be absent from the June 4, 2018 meeting. Chair Hoag informed the Committee he would be absent from the August 6, 2018 meeting. Committee Member Kubel informed the Committee that she may be absent on short notice from upcoming meetings due to personal reasons. Committee Member Storton informed the Committee of his intent to run for City Council. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Planning Manager Downing informed the Committee that the environmental documents for the proposed Brisco interchange project are available for public review and that the City is accepting comments until Friday, May 11, 2018. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:51 p.m. _____________________________ _____________________________ CHRISTOPHER TURNER WARREN HOAG PLANNING INTERN CHAIR (Approved at ARC Meeting ___________) Item 10.a. - Page 17 ATTACHMENT 4 ACTION MINUTES MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2018 ARROYO GRANDE COUNCIL CHAMBERS 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Martin called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Planning Commission: Commissioners Frank Schiro, John Mack, Terry Fowler-Payne, Lan George and Glenn Martin were present. Staff Present: Community Development Director Teresa McClish, Planning Manager Matt Downing and Senior Office Assistant Patrick Holub were present. 3. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Schiro led the flag salute. 4. AGENDA REVIEW None. 5. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS None. 6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS The Commission received the following material after preparation of the agenda: 1. Letter from Vivian Krug-Cotton signed by residents neighborhood regarding Agenda item 8.a. 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7.a. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MINUTES Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 1, 2018 as submitted. Action: Vice Chair George moved to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 1, 2018. Commissioner Schiro seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: George, Schiro, Fowler-Payne, Mack, Martin NOES: None ABSENT: None 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.a. CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-001; CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,784 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN THE GENERAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT; LOCATION – 1212 FLORA ROAD; APPLICANT – MURAT & NANCY AKALIN; ARCHITECT – BILL ISAMAN, ISAMAN DESIGN Planning Manager Downing presented the staff report and recommended the Commission adopt a Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 18-001. Planning Manager Downing responded to Commission questions regarding density, legally non-conforming lot size, and prime agricultural designation. Item 10.a. - Page 18 PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 MINUTES MAY 15, 2018 Bill Isaman, architect, spoke in support of the project and responded to Commission questions regarding siting, agricultural impacts, and viewsheds. Chair Martin opened the meeting for public comment. Sam Cotton, Greenwood Drive, thanked staff for their work on this project and expre ssed concern about future developments on Agricultural zoned properties. Vivian Krug-Cotton, Greenwood Drive, stated that this is a unique case and could have impacts on future development of Agricultural zoned properties. Gene Blanchard, Greenwood Drive, expressed his concerns with changing existing policies related to Agricultural zoned properties. Kristen, Flora Road, spoke in favor of the project, stating that it is the appropriate scale, size, and orientation to complement the existing neighborhood. James Stava, Flora Road, supported the Architectural Review Committee’s decision to recommend approval of the project and stated that he was opposed to the proposed bike trail. Jason Tealander, Flora Road, suggested widening the existing shared, private driveway. Terri Ikeda, Branch Mill Road, spoke in support of the project. Vard Ikeda, Branch Mill Road, spoke in support of the project and mentioned how respectful and conscientious the applicant has been to the neighbors. Hearing no further public comment, Chair Martin closed the public comment period. Action: Commissioner Schiro moved to adopt a resolution entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-001; LOCATED AT 1212 FLORA ROAD; APPLIED FOR BY MURAT AKALIN” as submitted. Chair Martin seconded the motion. The motion failed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Schiro, Martin NOES: Fowler-Payne, Mack, and George ABSENT: None Director McClish indicated that due to the Commission not passing a motion of approval, staff would return with an appropriate resolution for denial of the project at the next meeting. 9. NON-PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 10. ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE MAY 1, 2018 None. 11. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Chair Martin spoke of his responsibility as Planning Commission Chair and spoke about the decision-making process of the Commissioners. Item 10.a. - Page 19 Figure 6: Bicycle and Trail Network Plan 3.0 Bicycle & Trails Network Plan See Appendix F for a larger image of this exhibit ATTACHMENT 5 Item 10.a. - Page 20 ·······~~" " ... BICYCLE & TRAIL NETWORK PLAN SLO County ••• ••• ••• ••••• SLOCounty •••• J ,,,,-------. .............. .._. Fulunt ,,, '::::.. ;/ \'lpportunlty , ! ;z: :r• ~= g! "'• • ••••• • P-:.1 •••01>-••· : ••--•• ••••• sti!: • ·•'\:..G~ 3 r,. iii: ....... ··-...... . E• -.._ • :: ~= ····: . :! ! • , ____ : ~ Ash St. •••••~: -~~~~ .. .:.·-:~===·· : SatDSpora I Part< : .... c-,..J ~ =• · : Com~unly : r ---• FairOaksAve. • Hoapilllll 1 t,I I • ···················•••:••••····• l : •• : l "j-~;;;;;;,:-----.:.i __ :: FarrollAve. ~i.,~~ 5 f• • • • u5 : ~: : E i • • ; ...---__.,) : • AlffltOGrande HlghSchoal ; • .. SLOCounty SLOCounty ~= i ! \ : i?l : Woodland •• .. , _# .. /\ <.## 'V'" / • SLO County : . _ •• =·····Pa'·~ The Pike --_/## Oceana SLOCounty ~CITY OF ---7 ~ City oJArroyo Grande --~~ -srcYCLE & TRAILS MASTER PLAN l~~I Update2012 .......... •••••••••• .......... EXISTING BIKE BOULEVARD EXISTING CLASS 111 EXISTING CLASS 11 EXISTING CLASS I EXISTING DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATH PROPOSED BIKE BOULEVARD PROPOSED CLASS 111 PROPOSED CLASS II PROPOSED CLASS I• PAVED PROPOSED DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATH ~ h.rtJ-t...1--i .. SCALE:1'-600' • SCHOOL DESTINATION POINTS OF INTEREST • EXISTING BIKE PARKING • EXISTING PARK & RIDE V EXISTING TRANSIT STOP (bikes allowed) • PUBLIC RESTROOMS RETAIL / EMPLOYMENT CENTERS REGIONAL CONNECTIONS .~ PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT '-' INTERSECTION ATTACHMENT 6 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING APPEAL CASE NO. 18- 001 AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18- 001; LOCATED AT 1212 FLORA ROAD; APPLIED FOR BY MURAT & NANCY AKALIN WHEREAS , the project site is an approximately 5.08 acre site located in the General Agricultural (AG) zoning district and currently developed with a single-family structure; and WHEREAS, the construction of an accessory dwelling unit is permitted in the AG zoning district following approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Conditional Use Permit 18-001 for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit totaling 1,784 square feet; and WHEREAS, the size limitations for accessory dwelling units in the AG district are determined through the discretionary review process; and WHEREAS , protection for continued agricultural operations and production is very paramount on land zoned AG; and WHEREAS , the proposed accessory dwelling unit is located adjacent to the existing access driveway to the existing residence on the site, limiting the project’s impact on current and future agricultural operations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was unable to make all the required findings in the affirmative and denied the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the project applicants appealed the Planning Commission’s determination to the City Council on May 18, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and determined that the project is exempt per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines regarding new construction of an accessory dwelling unit; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing on June 12, 2018, and considered all written evidence and oral testimony; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: Item 10.a. - Page 21 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 Conditional Use Permit Findings: 1. The proposed use is permitted within the subject district pursuant to the provisions of this section and complies with all the applicable provisions of this title, the goals, and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City. The proposed use is permitted within the Agricultural district pursuant to Chapter 16.28 of the Development Code and the project complies with all applicable provisions of the Development Code, the goals and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan including Policy Ag 1-4.1 of the Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element and the Bicycle and Trails Master Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City. 2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located. The proposed use will not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located due to the small nature of the development and the placement of the new building on the project site in a way that avoids the conversion of agricultural soils. 3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is proposed. The site is 5.08 acres, which is smaller than the minimum lot size required in the Agricultural district, but remains suitable for the type and intensity of use since the use is planned in a way that does not impact the ongoing light agriculture and grazing uses of the site. 4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure public health and safety. The accessory dwelling unit will utilize City supplied water, sanitation, and public utilizes and services that ensure public health and safety. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor will it be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity as it will comply with all applicable codes and standards of the Municipal Code and in accordance with conditions of approval specifically developed for the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 18-001 as set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this Item 10.a. - Page 22 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 reference. On motion by Council Member _______, seconded by Council Member _______, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 12th day of June, 2018. Item 10.a. - Page 23 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 ________________________________________ JIM HILL, MAYOR ATTEST: ________________________________________ KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ________________________________________ JAMES A. BERGMAN, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________________ HEATHER K. WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY Item 10.a. - Page 24 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 5 EXHIBIT ‘A’ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-001 1212 FLORA ROAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. This approval authorizes the construction of a new 1,784 square foot accessory dwelling unit on the property located at 1212 Flora Road 2. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 3. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit 18-001. 4. This application shall automatically expire on June 12, 2020 unless a building permit is issued. 5. Development shall conform to the General Agricultural (AG) requirements except as otherwise approved. 6. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the City Council at the meeting of June 12, 2018. 7. The applicant shall agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in any way relating to the implementation thereof, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. 8. A copy of these conditions shall be incorporated into all construction documents. 9. Development shall comply with Development Code Sections 16.48.070, “Fences, Walls and Hedges”; 16.48.120, “Performance Standards”; and 16.48.130 “Screening Requirements”. Item 10.a. - Page 25 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 6 10. Setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratios shall be as shown on the development plans. 11. Noise resulting from construction and operational activities shall conform to the standards set forth in Chapter 9.16 of the Municipal Code. Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM Monday through Friday. No construction shall occur on Saturday or Sunday. 12. At the time of application for construction permits, the applicant shall provide details on any proposed exterior lighting. The lighting plan shall include the height, location, and intensity of all exterior lighting consistent with Section 16.48.090 of the Development Code. All lighting fixtures shall be shielded so that neither the lamp nor the related reflector interior surface is visible from adjacent properties. All lighting for the site shall be downward directed and shall not create spill or glare to adjacent properties. All lighting shall be LED and comply with the current California Energy Code. 13. All new construction shall utilize fixtures and designs that minimize water and energy usage. Such fixtures shall include, but are not limited to, low flow showerheads, water saving toilets, instant water heaters and hot water recirculating systems. Water conserving designs and fixtures shall be installed prior to final occupancy. 14. Landscaping in accordance with the approved landscaping plan shall be installed or bonded for before final building inspection/establishment of use. The landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect subject to review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. The landscape plan shall be in conformance with Development Code Chapter 16.84 (Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance). 15. All conditions of this approval run with the land and shall be strictly adhered to, within the time frames specified, and in an on-going manner for the life of the project. Failure to comply with these conditions of approval may result in an immediate enforcement action. If it is determined that violation(s) of these conditions of approval have occurred, or are occurring, this approval may be revoked pursuant to Development Code Section 16.08.100. BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY DIVISION AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 16. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of all California Codes, as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande. 17. Prior to bringing combustibles on site, the applicant shall, to the approval of the Fire Chief, improve the driveway from Flora Road to the end of the new accessory dwelling unit to provide a 20-foot all weather fire access. Item 10.a. - Page 26 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 7 18. Prior t issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the unpermitted roof structure at 1212 Flora Road shall be properly permitted. 19. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall post designated fire lanes, per Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code. 20. All fire lanes must be posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire Department guidelines. 21. Project shall have a fire flow and duration per the latest adopted edition of the California Fire Code and with approval of the Building Official and/or Fire Chief. 22. The new building must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire Department guidelines and per the California Fire Code. 23. The applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non-conforming items such as septic tanks, wells, underground piping and other undesirable conditions. 24. The address of the proposed accessory dwelling unit shall be 1208 Flora Road. 25. Any review costs generated by outside consultants shall be paid by the applicant. ENGINEERING DIVISION AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS POST CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, AND ANNUAL STORMWATER CONTROL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 26. The Applicant shall develop, implement and provide the City a: a. Stormwater Control Plan that clearly provides engineering analysis of all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls. b. Operations and Maintenance Plan and Maintenance Agreements that clearly establish responsibility for all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls. c. Annual Maintenance Notification indicating that all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls have been maintained and are functioning as designed. d. All reports must be completed by either a Registered Civil Engineer or Qualified Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Developer (QSD). 27. Prior to any Permit – Stormwater Control Plan. Provide a Stormwater Control Plan that complies with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 5.2.2. 28. Prior to Final Approval - Operations and Maintenance Plan, Maintenance Item 10.a. - Page 27 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 8 Agreement, and Maintenance Notification. Provide an Operations and Maintenance Plan, Maintenance Agreement, and Maintenance Notification that complies with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 5.2.3. GENERAL CONDITIONS 29. Working hours shall comply with Standard Specification Section 5-1.01. 30. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the most recent version of the City of Arroyo Grande Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards. 31. Record Drawings (“as-built” plans) are required to be submitted prior to release of the Faithful Performance Bond. 32. Submit as-built plans at the completion of the project or improvements as directed by the Community Development Director in compliance with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 9.3 Provide One (1) set of paper prints and electronic documents on CD or flash drive in both AutoCAD and PDF format. 33. Preserve existing survey monuments and vertical control benchmarks in compliance with Standard Specifications Section 5-1.26A. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 34. Improvement plans must comply with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 1 and shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or qualified specialist licensed in the State of California and approved by the Public Works Department and/or Community Development Department. The following plan sheet shall be provided: a. Site Plan i. The location and size of all existing and proposed water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities within the project site and abutting streets or alleys. ii. The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures. iii. All existing and proposed parcel lines and easements crossing the property. iv. The location and dimension of all existing and proposed paved areas. v. The location of all existing and proposed public or private utilities. vi. Location of 100-year flood plain and any areas of inundation within project area. b. Grading Plan with Cross Sections c. Retaining Wall Plan and Profiles d. Roadway Improvements Plan and Profiles. e. Storm Drainage Plan and Profile f. Utilities - Water and Sewer Plan and Profile Item 10.a. - Page 28 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 9 g. Utilities – Composite Utility h. Signing and Striping i. Erosion Control j. Landscape and Irrigation Plans for Public Right-of-Way k. Tree Protection Plan l. Details m. Notes n. Conditions of Approval o. Other improvements as required by the Community Development Director. (NOTE: All plan sheets must include City standard title blocks) p. Engineers estimate for construction cost based on County of San Luis Obispo unit cost. 35. Prior to approval of an improvement plan the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the required improvements. 36. Applicant shall fund outsourced plan and map check services, as required. 37. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining an encroachment permit for all work within a public right-of-way. STREET IMPROVEMENTS 38. Obtain approval from the Public Works Director prior to excavating in any street recently over-laid or slurry sealed. The Director shall approve the method of repair of any such trenches, but shall not be limited to an overlay or type 2 slurry seal. 39. All street repairs shall be constructed to City standards. CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK 40. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 41. All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a document separate from a map, shall be prepared by the applicant on 8 1/2 x 11 City standard forms, and shall include legal descriptions, sketches, closure calculations, and a current preliminary title report. The applicant shall be responsible for all required fees, including any additional required City processing GRADING AND DRAINAGE 42. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT, the developer shall submit two (2) copies of the final project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or a Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP) consistent with the San Luis Item 10.a. - Page 29 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 10 Obispo Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWCB) requirements 43. All grading shall be performed in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance and Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards. 44. Drainage facilities shall be designed in compliance with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 5.1.2. 45. Submit a soils report for the project shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and supported by adequate test borings. All earthwork design and grading shall be performed in accordance with the approved soils report. 46. The applicant shall dedicate a fifteen foot (15’) pedestrian trail easement along the westernmost parcel boundary. 47. The developer shall submit a detailed grading plan showing how draining enters each inlet. 48. All drainage calculations and facilities shall be constructed in accordance with Section 5 Storm Drainage of the Engineering Standards WATER 49. A new water lateral for the accessory dwelling unit shall be installed with the project. 50. A Reduced Pressure Principle (RPP) backflow device is required on all water lines to the structure and landscaping. 51. Non-potable water is available at the Soto Sports Complex. The City of Arroyo Grande does not allow the use of hydrant meters. 52. Lots using fire sprinklers shall have individual fire service connections. A fire sprinkler engineer shall determine the size of the water meters. 53. Existing water services to be abandoned shall be abandoned in compliance with Engineering Standard 6050. SEWER 54. All sewer laterals shall comply with Engineering Standard 6810. 55. Existing sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be abandoned in compliance with Engineering Standard 6050. Item 10.a. - Page 30 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 11 56. All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be constructed in accordance with Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards. 57. Obtain approval from the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District for the development’s impact to District facilities prior to permit issuance. 58. Obtain approval from the South County Sanitation District prior to relocation of any District facilities. PUBLIC UTILITIES 59. The developer shall comply with Development Code Section 16.68.050: All projects that involve the addition of over 100 square feet of habitable space shall be required to place service connections underground - existing and proposed utilities. 60. Public Improvement plans shall be submitted to the public utility companies for review and approval. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Works for approval. 61. Street lighting shall comply with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 3.1.2.Q. 62. New trees shall not be located over existing or proposed service lines. FEES AND BONDS The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees, including the following: 63. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO PLAN SUBMITTAL a. Plan check for grading plans. (Based on an approved earthwork estimate) b. Plan check for improvement plans. (Based on an approved construction cost estimate) c. Permit Fee for grading plans. (Based on an approved earthwork estimate) d. Inspection Fee of subdivision or public works construction plans. (Based on an approved construction cost estimate) e. Plan Review Fee (Based on the current Building Division fee schedule) 64. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT a. Water Neutralization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance, involving water connection or enlargement of an existing connection. Item 10.a. - Page 31 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 12 b. Water Distribution fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. c. Water Meter charge to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. d. Water Availability charge, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. e. Traffic Impact fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. f. Traffic Signalization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. g. Sewer Connection fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. h. South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Connection fee in accordance with Municipal Code Section 13.12.180. i. Drainage fee, as required by the area drainage plan for the area being developed. j. Park Development fee, the developer shall pay the current parks development fee for each unit approved for construction (credit shall be provided for existing houses), to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. k. Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of development in accordance with State mandate. l. Building Permit Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of development. BONDING SURETY 65. Erosion Control, prior to issuance of the grading or building permit, all new residential construction requires posting of a $1,200.00 performance bond for erosion control and damage to the public right-of-way. This bond is refundable upon successful completion of the work, less expenses incurred by the City in maintaining and/or restoring the site. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CONDITIONS 66. Prior to building permit issuance, the final landscaping, lighting, and architecture shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee for a recommendation to the Community Development Director. Item 10.a. - Page 32 EXHIBIT "B"Item 10.a. - Page 33PRO.JeC.T DlREC.TORY' MIA'Uott-~T"""""""' 12t2""°""'1itCAD .or.AAOTO.-...,.oe,C..-. i-MQNL l'T.01·••••1'T. ,...x. n,01.0,.,, ,2 (MAL _.a...,.-~ ·-· ......... .._ .... 2•>0..-0,.0'9'Til£n ....... u.~.GA•t•01 C.0,,fAC,t IM.L~ "'°"'-,.0,,, ...... ,.,2 FAA.-(.OSJ .......... , ~oae.-•19'\,C,Olll PROJEC.T DATA ,...,._'l 001-,,1-021 t!le'.ll:,TOHC.lt"'1l0"-""4""""""°"or~ 2HO 2 ltATMAGGC..MORTO~IMT(~,..,.... :~~~ffDO-T-C.~TY,.t1212!"L.OllAIII.OAD.AAAD'tO ..... ~u,ws;,,,..J~T\A~~ -LOT,r,JU,'t.,:,1,2a•_..,1, ......,..,....... 90C ,-....._p KTeACA ..,.,. .. ,._ --~'OOT1""Uft ~o,U,.flt'flC.t ,.r"'"'°°"t~J ..... ..,..,,,,.,..,, ~ 2~ ~>, ,,.,,.,..,,.,..... ~,-I<,,.~ 40tdl'llWG.TIONNl't ~or•,~ ~~KU!lllJtCcr.>-.. ........... .,,..,,. .,,..,,. .,,.,,. .,,.,,. :.-• ,,.,. •·• ~,, .. ' ,... Isaman design, Inc. AKC111,•& T ! ' l t • , • • • !li I r • • I S1• L•lt O•h,•• CA 9J'fl ,..... ..,,,,, ,,1J: f'•\I •• ,,,,,.,.,1 • • • ,!•••••<lil••l • t•• <( u L!.l Cl z ~ 0 0 >-~ <( Item 10.a. - Page 34_...-, ... P:---I _,,,,,,,,-, --I ,' _,,,,,,,-' ----I ......... _ ----I I II _.,._,,, -----I I ----------I I ,--------------pl, J -----.// I I I / / J--·---/ I I I I I I I ., I I I I 'I / I I I / I -=~ I //II I J I •' I I I I I I A.., I I ,/ I I I I ~ ---~ / I :/ I' I I f - / • .......... / ' -........,,_ -. to,............... / I -...._f:' ' V / ' ... / 0 ~~,_!<:;; PLAN I I I I I I I I I I I I I i/ • I I ~ ~ -:.,.. ---------------,---' I I I I I I I -----------------------------------< u ui Cl z ~ 0 0 >-0 ~ < . ,:,,----,.,.,. /i I I I I • I I I I I I I ~ ~ c., /~ / ~ /I ~ / ,0 I I~ .,..,_,._.,~ ~ ,.,,_....,...,. rr..,. / "-_ / 0 I I r:./J II r::/J. I I l ~ I I~ U I I u / / ~ / / .. / / ~ /~,' ~ I I ~ I I I /Isaman design, Inc. ~_P __ .:c;-c,,t--'N ____________ _ AKCtt1·r~c-r l 4 l t I r • • 4 llo I , • • I 11• L•lt 0•1o,., CA Jl•tt , ..... ; ,,,,, ..... ,,,J ,.,,1 •• , , .... ,,,1: • • • I 1 • • 1 ••••I 1 , 1 • Item 10.a. - Page 35SCALE 1/4" • l'-0" 4 <-,,G,\Jl,6AJUr61! ,, .. ,,. 0 0 i • r: -........ C '"""' ) C ) EJ a i T [D I t] [Q Q (ITT7··-· ~ ..... • ..... 16,1( t2'111° ----==-==-_._ .. ID T Lo---o---O---<>----<>----<>---<>----.,-0 -<>----o---<>-----O--O--<>---<---->-O--<>---O----<>---<>-----O--------<>------<>----O---<>----<>-----<>--<l--<>-O--<>---<>-Isaman design, Inc. AH.CIIITt;(ZT l•lt Ir••• $1,,,1 51• l•I• o,a.,e, CA 9J4t I PIii•••: lt.SIS••.J•'Jl P111 ftl/54•.S,•2 .... , ........... , .. 6 w 0 z ~ 0 0 >-~ < Item 10.a. - Page 36SCALE 114" • l'-0" ~ ,-f ,. ~ Isaman design, Inc. AH.ClltTt:; T 1,1 •• , .... ~,, •• , .Si• l,•lt Ollhp1, f: \ •l4t1 •11,.,1 ae,11,,.s,,1 "·~· .. , , .. ,., ... , ....... , ............ , .. < u UJ 0 ~ 0 0 >-0 ~ < 1 Matt Downing Subject:RE: No to this From: "Warren Clift" To: "Jim Hill" , "Caren Ray" , "Tim Brown" , "Kristen Barneich" , "Barbara Harmon" Subject: No to this Our Greenwood/Flora/Tanner area is still unspoiled which is why we moved here 15 years ago. I am dismayed to see this notice for another house wanting to be built on good ag land. 1212 Flora Road. An old neighbor who owned 1189 Flora was refused some years ago when he wanted to build 1 more house on his 10 acres. The then owners of 1273 Branch Mill were also refused some years ago. I for one do not want the construction trucks/personnel coming up and down Flora from Coach which is the easiest way in and out, nor do I want another house being built in this lovely area. Respectfully. Warren Clift m m m m V ATTACHMENT 7 Item 10.a. - Page 37 • Item 10.a. - Page 38 1 Matt Downing From:Jason Telander Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 9:04 PM To:Matt Downing Subject:1212 Flora Road Arroyo Grande Attachments:2 driveway map.pdf Good Evening Matt, Thank you for returning my call the other day. As you requested in your message, I'm providing the concerns I mentioned to you in my voice mail to you in writing. Please let me know if this is the proper method of providing information to the Planning Commission so that it may be included in their review of the proposal. I have two concerns regarding the proposed construction of the additional dwelling unit on the property. 1. My first concern is that of access to our property at 1189 Flora Road. Access to our property is provided through an easement that crosses the property of 1212 Flora Road and 1167 Flora Road. We are concerned the additional house will generate additional traffic on a single lane driveway. We ask that the applicant be required to construct a two lane driveway to the point that the driveway is no longer shared. Access to 1212 Flora and 1189/1167 Flora was previously provided through via two separate driveways. The applicant removed the driveway that provided access to 1212 Flora Road in 2017 and began to use the driveway that provides access to 1189/1167 Flora Road for access to their property as well. A satellite image of the property that shows the two driveways as they previously existed is attached. I respectfully ask the planning commission to ensure the free and unfetter access to our property as provided in our easement is maintained by requesting the applicant construct a driveway of sufficient width to allow vehicles to pass one another to the point that the driveways are no longer shared. A two lane driveway would ensure unrestricted access to 1167, 1189, 1212 and XXXX Flora Road is maintained for current and future property owners. 2, My second concern is the size of the dwelling being proposed. The second full sized house would be constructed on one of the few remaining agriculture zoned properties withing city limits. A smaller dwelling would be more in keeping with what I believe is the purpose of preserving the appearance and use of agricultural property within the city limits. I fully support the desire of the Akalins to construct a home for their parents to live on the property together as an extended family. It is an ideal situation that many of us would like to be able to provide for our parents. My concern stems more from second or third owners of the property who may not see the second full size home as a home for their extended family, but may use it as a rental property and essentially create two separate and distinct homes that will more closely resemble two large suburban lots than an agricultural property. Thank you for your time and for allowing me the opportunity to share my concerns with proposed additional dwelling unit at 1212 Flora Road. Jason Telander 1189 Flora Road Arroyo Grand, CA Item 10.a. - Page 39 Item 10.a. - Page 40 Untitled Map Legend ~ 1 Matt Downing Subject:RE: Planning Commission Hearing From: Vivian Krug [ Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 9:14 AM To: Kelly Heffernon Cc: John Hurst; Frank Schiro Subject: Planning Commission Hearing Hey Kelly. Can you answer a question for me. We received a notice regarding a conditional use permit for 1212 Flora. Have they provided exactly where on their property they plan to build this house? We along with several other neighbors have concerns about our view, increased traffic, and setting a precedence, etc., etc. Fyi, the only reason we purchased our home (over asking price) over three years ago was because the land behind us was zoned ag and we knew we could depend on the city to preserve ag and our view would never be altered. It was a main selling point listed by the Realtors and family selling this home. Many of us will be at the meeting and / or will have written in opposition of this request. We would like to know a bit more before writing our letter. Thanks and see you this afternoon. Viv -- Vivian Krug-Cotton .....loving life in paradise on the Central Coast of California View my newest photography at https://www.facebook.com/a1000words or Follow Me! at https://www.facebook.com/emotions Emotions Photography & Greeting Cards The Ultimate in Snail Mail & photo gifts New!!!! http://www.photobyvivian.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message. Please note that email correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law. Item 10.a. - Page 41 Item 10.a. - Page 42My name is Vivian Krug Cotton and I live at -Greenwood in AG. It is my understanding after talking to City staff in the planning department that this is the first case of its kind, so you will be making a very important decision. A few years ago there was a request to subdivide a portion of ag land for two homes in this same area and it was unanimously turned down. This request for an ADU that is just shy of 1,800 sq ft on ag land isn't much different In my opinion calling a 1,800 sq. ft. house an ADU is stretching the intent of ADUs -CA Law states .... Typical maximum unit sizes range from 800 square feet to 1,200 square feet. The ADU can be attached to the existing home. This ADU is larger than almost every home in the neighborhood, with exception of a couple two story homes. Although it may not be 'prime' ag land it is zoned ag. ag land in any form is precious. Arroyo Grande is only a bit under 6 square miles. You don't protect your open space, your ag land and you chip away at it a little piece at a time, it doesn't seem like much but before you know it, it will all be gone. You can't unring the bell, you can't get it back. I'm not opposed only because it impacts my home, but it will set a precedence and will impact every other property in Arroyo Grande that is zoned ag. Arroyo Grande is a unique gem of the central coast. The character and lifestyle is like no other because the diligence of past City Council's and other boards recognizing our qualities, our assets and working hard to preserve ag land. Allowing this sets a bad precedence and opens the door to more of the same. I respect everyone's property rights and I'm told that this house will be for the petitioners parents which is nice, however, all of us that live in this neighborhood have property rights as well. The accessory unit (house) being requested is lar~er than almost every home on the streets around it: (Flora, Greenwood, Tanner, Coach). This house will impact our view as it will for several other homes on our street. As in the letter we presented to you, our home received 8 offers the day it was listed all over asking price because the fact that it had a view and was surrounded by ag land. Our home is a standard home, the value is in the view, not the house. We did our homework when buying this home for just that reason. Allowing this house to be built will bring down the value of our property and take away from our enjoyment of our back yard as well as those of the homes around us. Most of us have short fences, (see photos) our next door neighbor closer to this has no fence at all so they can enjoy the view. The petitioners have pJaced this house probably as far away from their own home as can be done, maybe so it doesn't impact their view, they won't be looking at it but we will! I ask you to deny this request. Item 10.a. - Page 43May 15. 2018 Community Development Department City of Arroyo Grande 300 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Re: Consideration of Conditional Use Permit 18-001 -1212 Flora Rd. To Whom It May Concern: We live at -Greenwood Drive and are against the proposed 'accessory dwelling unit1 being considered at 1212 Flora Rd. It is our understanding that an 'accessory dwelling unit' is a structure that is substantially smaller than the main home on the property. The home on 1212 Flora is, by online records, 1,860 square feet. The proposed accessory unit is 1,784 square feet, just 76 square feet smaller. This is not a typical accessory, but another house. It is also larger than most of the homes in the neighborhood. This accessory unit would be larger than our home at 1,576 square feet, which is about the same s12e as almost every house on Flora and Greenwood which it would be next to. The only reason we purchased our home on Greenwood in May of 2014 was because the !and behind and around 'Greenwood Manor' was zoned ag and we knew the City of Arroyo Grande preserves and protects its valuable resources such as ag land, so we knew our view would never be altered by more homes or development. Our street is a quiet dead end/cul de sac with views of the hills and open space on one end looking towards Strother Park, the other end Newsom Springs / Huasna and back to the Santa Lucia / La Panza Mountains. The views were the main selling point listed by the Realtors and family selling this home. The day our home was listed on the market it received 8 offers, all over asking. The price was not dictated by the house itself, but the back yard view and the fact the neighborhood was surrounded by ag land and hills on all sides. All the houses on the NE side of the street facs this view. Most have very short fences or no fences at all, just open to the aig land to enjoy these views. There are also homes on Branch Mill Road with the view to the North. This is our view (photos attached). This is what we look at when we dine on our patio, sit in our spa and entertain our friends. This view is the reason when our house went on the market, had 8 offers on the day it listed all offering more than asking price. The house is a regular house. The value is where it sits and the view, not the house itself. It was the reason we were very careful selecting our home knowing it was in an area tt-iat was protected by its ag designation. Page lof2 Item 10.a. - Page 44There is also an abundance of wildlife which uses this corridor to come down from the hills and reach the creek for water. We have deer, wild turkeys, quail, coyotes, raccoons, frogs, skunks and even an occasional bear all coming through this corridor to reach water. There are also many properties in the area with horses and other farm animals, induding the 1212 Flora property. If the City keeps whittling away at its ag zoned properties, at some point all these areas will be like any other residential neighborhoods. Ag and farm land will be pushed further and further back or into nonexistence. Building another home on ag zoned property sets up a precedence and opens the door for more potential requests and development down the line as well as the loss of more and more ag land. If you allow more development on ag land, inching away pieces of ag land, little by little, it is going directly against the reason is was zoned ag land to begin with and the City's commitment to protect and preserve ag land. We paid a higher premium for our home because of its view shed. Allowing this to pass not only takes away ag land, it will damage our view and harm us financially by bringing down the value of our piece of property. Please do not allow the loss of more ag land and the precedence this will set. It will surely open the doors for more requests to come and loss of even more ag land. Th~nk_yo_u, / 1 I_ //.-; < ·/;}1 {~ /, /,: ~uel Cott~. Viviarf K_ruglG61to~---Greenwood Driv~,,. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Pagel of2 Item 10.a. - Page 45 me ' Pelh · ,cl;;i;o C..de !>tli'"""'.n lOp:-~n j ¥!!U1Ji e. trit? ~~.e ctt ~e,ei tl'tl:1 ;~!i!cir. st~.,~ :,n the !Jlll.1,-D Item 10.a. - Page 46 I// /~ 1/J !JI i,fj /.·' ,; i 11/ //i ,,, w ,•:1 . /, ',' ~· i ; Our view from the table on our patio and the spa. The XXXs show the proposed location and what will be the the view for us and all the neighbors around us . Item 10.a. - Page 47 X.XX Item 10.a. - Page 48 View after --construction of proposed location of house (XXX) Item 10.a. - Page 49Concerning the proposed development on 1212 Flora Rd. Arroyo Grande. I am a resident of 1Greenwood Acres' which includes Flora Road. I am concerned that allowing this use permit and construction of another home on the property is setting a bad precedence in protecting and maintaining our ag land and opening the doors for future requests and development Allowing this will damage the unique nature of our neighborhood which is surrounded by ag land on 3 sides and mountain / open space on the other. I feel that allowing thjs development to occur wiH allow erosion of the special nature of Greenwood Manor not only by the loss of more ag land but by an increase of traffic and noise and slowty losing more and more ag land. l therefore am opposed to any conversion from ag land to allow development of homes. Signature , M,,.t-td a6.,,c,.l, J v--fJ ·· r, v1 l') II. . ?~fl• -f-i,,Y-! l(,, A ,.'5f-<...r C:z~t.At...Jcc'c.( &,r. ~ L vJ_J,.;;.;:,~ Ch-e-1:1l k·,,~llL(~t_ _ __. (_ue--.c,zwl..t ~ t-1 r·\"i,. ") .r-'1 \_, <DJ'"'-" \: ·r ., ·J J -N, '--·;,.: ¢. /-1r6 t/ 3 L/:) O Gr f ·b ) v:/Qc;c_.f Dr-J..t ( .. \ t;,-3 4 ;l._u loi-L~~ LA3 cd) (jf\fX.."" ;J,,,j pl~,~, f Ac1.t: "f"-",1..-..,<,_~-lCl('.ocq () l1t1 i,-1.___ -' / / ,,:f, /{ /J I 1' ,. JA ,. 1, · t__ L,, :·•,f{(il.. f'---,''t • . 'A'// L-10,-• 'J.·"\J r v r v ,, , \.-'. . 1 1 P;,b r, j ~~ :/ v' ') ,' t-"t.1?/'~I ~ .. ·. !. · ,~·-, .. .,..) ,,. J . ~/ 6r ..J..M/ vJ c>-e C ~ . ,; "--"7,-,,_e-1T ~ ,., r f),. /~~ ', ""\ ... ,,,,, 1) t) •• ., .... ~.. • ~ ... ,., .. .. ..... 6K~~·:-,Lft:_,•i'c~ ., .It.· ', • ~ .:;1,. l.. I', i '\:"-....-L:, l:... /) 1/ ;.~-4- Item 10.a. - Page 50.S v DY i3 L rJ-/41~4 -D f,k-lvc.-.-~ <.. ~ f.Jc!.--fl--i1.JL!) Item 10.a. - Page 51Conceming the proposed development on 1212 Flora Rd. Arroyo Grande. I am a resident of 'Greenwood Acres· which includes Flora Road. I am concerned that allowing this use permit and construction of another home on the property is setting a bad precedence in protecting and m~intaining our ag land and opening the doors for future requests and development. Allowing this will damage the unique nature of our neighborhood which is surrounded by ag land on 3 sides and mountain/ open space on the other. I feel that allowing this development to occur will allow erosion of the special nature of Greenwood Manor not only by the loss of more ag land but by an increase of traffic and noise and slowly losing more and more ag land. I therefore am opposed to any conversion from ag land to allow development of homes. d (? \J~ 'VfrWP L0b"011-s lY I\ \rV' 0 ") 0 ~ 'C, I Cl! ~va.M""-r{µ ~1,~1,~~~ ~~.~ ~ Nancy & Murat Akalin 1212 Flora Road, Arroyo Grande, CA City of Arroyo Grande 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (805) 473-5400 (phone) May 23, 2018 RE: Application and Appeal for Proposed ADU at 1212 Flora Road Dear Members of the City Council: Thank you for your time in reading this letter and hearing our concerns regarding building an in-law unit (accessory dwelling unit) on our 5+ acre property. I appreciate your challenge of balancing the landowner’s personal freedom with the public interest in such things as safety and creating a desirable community in which it’s residents can live, work and thrive. We specifically chose to live in Greenwood Manor because we love the neighborhood and our neighbors! Our parcel is at the very end of Flora Road, creating a cul-de-sac feel to our driveway. We have welcomed many neighbors to enjoy our property. In fact, it has become a meeting place for walkers, little kids on bikes and scooters and people bringing carrots for our horses. We have also invited many neighbors to walk their dogs here, where they may enjoy our views and be safe from the neighborhood traffic. I certainly understand how some people in the community are worried about “developing ag land”. I am worried about the same thing. We all love Arroyo Grande and don’t want to see the charm disappear. Nonetheless, housing is and will continue to be needed in this community. In fact, a Senate Bill was passed and approved by the Governor in September 2016 intended to “encourage the development of badly needed housing…” Additionally, many affordable housing experts have argued that the development of even small numbers of units have numerous positive benefits on an area’s housing market. We don’t want to build a gaudy, over-sized home. We want to build a single story, farmhouse style home with board-and-batten siding, a covered porch and a couple of rocking chairs. It will be a 2-bed, 2-bath home. We have specifically chosen the corner of the property closest to the developed neighborhood so as to not block the open views. The proposed home will be situated at the end of Flora Rd, adjacent to the 2 neighboring, 6- foot tall privacy fences located to the south and to the west. The beauty of the home, designed by Isaman Design, Inc, will enhance, not detract from the neighborhood. We plan to keep the remainder of the property wide open, as pastureland for the horses, goats, and chickens, yet manicured and maintained. We have all driven through small, rural towns only to find parcels covered with over-grown weeds, abandoned automobiles and an assortment of junk. That will not be our parcel! We have received a bid from “Gardens by Gabriel”, to design a drought tolerant landscape. Recently, we installed solar panels with enough to support a 2nd home. My father-in-law, a retired engineer, loves to fish. He will be managing our mini-farm, and likely organizing a rotating list of to whom he should bring the next dozen eggs. My mother-in-law will be busy cooking up a storm and feeding the neighborhood her amazing Mediterranean style dishes, including homemade goat cheese and yogurt. We do feel fortunate to have convinced them to spend a good part of the rest of their days close to us (they still plan to travel as much as possible). We are fortunate to have many great friends who live and work here, and we look forward to taking care of our aging parents in this amazing community of Arroyo Grande. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Nancy T. Akalin P.S. My husband could not write this note today because he is “very busy”. He is a physician, on the board of Hospice of SLO County, and is giving a talk today on “End of Life Care”. Phone (Nancy): Email: Phone (Murat): Email: Item 10.a. - Page 52 Item 10.a. - Page 53 Matt Downing To: Teresa McCl ish Subject: RE: ADU Appeal on Flora Rd. From : Vivian Krug Date: Tu e, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:39 PM Su bject: ADU Appeal on Flora R d. T o: Kr isten Bam eich , Tim B rown , Jim B er gm an , Bar bara H aimon It is our understanding t h at th e ADU requ est o n Flora has been appealed to the City Council with an amendmen t to th e p l an . As you m ay have r ead from our commen ts an d testimony to th e P lanning Commissio n o n th e original requ est, we were n ot in favor of th e ADU due to the si ze , th e location and th e re m oval of ag land th at if inigated woul d be considered prim e ag land. It al so would have obstm cted som e of o ur view of fie lds and trees which was th e reason we purch ased a h om e th at back ed up onto ag lan d. We had m any of t h e same concerns as di d som e P lanning Commissi on ers. With th e amen dm ent to th e plan of p lacing t he ADU dir ectly behind the h ou se th at is on th e com er of Flora and G r eenwood and n ot in th e locati on previously requ ested and k eeping that portion of lan d to be u sed fo r prairie , horses, goats an d ag uses, we would n ot object. It a ll ows fo r the m ost open space for th e lan d to continue as ag l an d n ow an d/or in t h e future and does not obstruct th e view for m ost of u s wh o live on Gr een wood enj oy fro m our back yai·ds . We h ope th at both th e P lanning Commission an d City Council look at r equests they r eceive for ADUs o n ag l an d in th e future ve1y car e full y an d always tak e into acco unt th at although it m ay n ot be fa1med n ow d ue to water , that in th e future w hen we do h ave water , that the limited ag lan d in this coITidor would be prim e if iITigated. You can't p ut b ack ag land th at you have tak en away. Atta.ched is what we understan d to be th e location of t h e new am en ded request an d if so, we wou ld suppo1i an ADU in t h at location an d k eeping t h e previous spot op en fo r ag u ses. If you have any questions , p lease fee l free to contact us . Th ank you fo r your time. Samu el Cotton , Vivian Kmg Cotton • Gr een wood Dr. An oyo Grande , CA Vivian Krug-Cotton .... .loving life in paradise on the Central Coast of California View my newest photography at https ://www.facebook.com/al000words or Follow Me! at https ://www.facebook.com/emotions Emotions Photography & Greeting Cards The Ultimate ill S11ail Mail & photo gifts New!!!! http://www.photobyvivian.com 1 Item 10.a. - Page 54lile Path Measure the distance or area of a geomeb"ic shape on the ground 218.73 Feet ;====== 2,971.781 Square Feet Item 10.a. - Page 55 6/5/2018 City of Arroyo Grande 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: Application and Appeal for Proposed ADU at 1212 Flora Road (Ref. Conditional Use Permit 18-001) Dear Members of the Planning Division and City Council, I am writing this letter in support of the Akalin family’s Auxiliary Dwelling Unit proposal on their home at 1212 Flora Road. While I do not currently reside in Arroyo Grande, I will always consider it home. The parcel of land in question, 1212 Flora Rd., is a parcel of land formerly owned by my grandparents. This piece of land is as much where I was raised and where I “grew up” as was my home on the adjacent 1167 Flora Rd. property. I credit much of my success in life to the ideals which were instilled in me as a part of the community of Arroyo Grande. What I learned, saw, and experienced as a child, adolescent, and young adult in the city of Arroyo Grande and in this specific community and subdivision is absolutely part of who I am today. I am fearful to think that any individual’s personal desires, feelings, and assumptions of their perceived rights as a homeowner would jeopardize the ideals and core values on which I was raised. Bluntly stated, the community of Arroyo Grande has been immensely impactful in my life; and I cannot imagine a community in Arroyo Grande in which the ideals of family and community were not upheld above personal gain or personal desires. Tuck and Sally Been moved onto the 10 acre parcel adjacent to the Greenwood subdivision a number of years before I was born. Had it not been for my grandparents’ generosity in extending my parents the capacity to build on the property, my story of my childhood would be immensely different. To grow up around multiple generations of my family was a gift for which I will be eternally grateful. I am immensely hopeful that the Council and Planning Division will allow the Akalin family this same opportunity to further instill the values of family, respect, and community within the area of Arroyo Grande I still refer to as home. I believe that the ADU proposed by the Akalin family falls in line with established City precedent for auxiliary buildings on land zoned as Agricultural. I believe that due to the size of the lot in question the proposed size of this ADU is negligible in comparison with other Arroyo Grande approved ADUs. However, most importantly, I believe that the core values of family and community, which are core to this City, are supported greatly by this proposal. I hope that if I am ever given the blessing of moving my family back to my hometown that these family ideals have not been abandoned. As a proud product of Arroyo Grande and this particular parcel of land, I urge all involved to support this family’s endeavor. I am confident that my grandparents, who owned this land until their recent passing, would be thrilled to see their home as a place of family, community, and togetherness. I Item 10.a. - Page 56 fully believe that Tuck and Sally Been would have wanted, in their absence, the property at 1212 Flora Road to support multiple generations of the Akalin family today and into the future. I appreciate your support of the Akalin family, of Conditional Use Permit 18-001, and of my grandparents’ values. Sincerely, Jackson J. Stava, M.A. Arroyo Grande Past Resident Hopeful Future Resident Item 10.a. - Page 57 1 Matt Downing From:Jim Sent:Tuesday, June 05, 2018 5:57 PM To:Matt Downing Subject:Conditional Use Permit 18-001 (1212 Flora Road June 5, 2018 City of Arroyo Grande 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (805) 473-5400 (phone) (805) 473-0386 (fax) RE: Application and Appeal for Proposed ADU at 1212 Flora Road (Ref. Conditional Use Permit 18-001) Dear Members of the Planning Division and City Council, My name is James Stava, a 31 year resident at Flora Road; the nearest and perhaps most impacted neighbor to the proposed Auxiliary Dwelling Unit (ADU) at 1212 Flora Road. Our’s is a great neighborhood and a very special place to make our homes. I fully support the Architectural Review Committee’s recommendation to approve this Conditional Use Permit, so that the Akalin’s parents can also become a part of this amazing community. I believe that the memorandum to the Planning Commission from Teresa McClish, Community Development Director dated May 15, 2018 adequately addresses the concerns noted in the public comments and during the Planning Commission’s meeting on May 15, 2018. Here are a few that I would like to highlight:  The construction of an accessory dwelling unit is permitted in the Ag zoning district following approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code  The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located  The Municipal Code does not have limitations on maximum size of an ADU for the Ag district. The typical 1,200 sq. ft. maximum applied in residential zoning districts, with smaller lot sizes ranging between 5,000 and 50,000 sq. ft., are not necessarily appropriate for a property totaling over 220,000 sq. ft. Although I support the CUP, I continue to be opposed to the proposed easement for a bike trail (ref. General Condition #46), presumably to connect Strother Park to the Greenwood subdivision. It appears to me that the goals of the city in this regard are somewhat conflicting. If the City is truly concerned about maintaining the integrity of Ag land within the City Limits and keeping it productive, then encouraging access through, and possible encroachment onto, these lands should be limited and tightly controlled…preferably by the land owners. This is an issue that should be considered, and discussed publicly, based on its own merits and not appended to an unrelated CUP. Item 10.a. - Page 58 - Item 10.a. - Page 59 Thank you for your time and for your consideration of my input regarding this matter. Sincerely, 2 June 4, 2018 Attn: City of Arroyo Grande City Council Re: Consideration of appeal for requested conditional use permit 18-001. Dear City Council Members: Thank you for your time. I had two concerns regarding the proposed construction of the additional dwelling unit on the property located at 1212 Flora Rd. when I wrote to the planning commission prior to the commission’s May 15, 2018 hearing on the conditional use permit request. My first concern was that of access to our property at 1189 Flora Road. I was pleased to see the planning commission addressed my concern with the inclusion of item 17 in the preliminary conditional use permit. Item 17 required the applicant to widen the road to the end point of the new access for the proposed additional house and thereby ensured access to our property at 1189 Flora Road. My second concern was that of the size of the proposed home. After hearing the testimony from many of my neighbors, I’m more concerned than previously over the fact that this large second home is not congruent with the agriculture zoning of the property and the agriculture zoning of the adjacent parcels. The project may meet all of the technical requirements of a CUP for agricultural zoned property, but falls short of the intent and spirit of agricultural zoning. Agricultural zoning is designed to protect productive farm land from development and to keep it in agricultural production. The planning commission stated this same concern more eloquently in the excerpt below from the proposed City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission denial resolution dated June 5, 2018. The proposed use on the project site will impair the integrity and character of the AG zoning district, which is primarily to provide for and protect lands for agricultural crop production, grazing, limited sales of agricultural support industries and services. The impact to agricultural land resulting from the construction of the proposed 1,784 square foot accessory dwelling unit and the location of the structure near to the middle of the productive portion of the agricultural property will further constrain the site from fulfilling the primary purpose of the AG zoning district. Additionally, the proposed bike/pedestrian path adjacent to the agricultural zoned property was intended to allow all residents of Arroyo Grande access to view and experience the open space of protected agriculture land and not simply to access a residential neighborhood. Finally, there are plenty of residences available in San Luis Obispo County with two large residences and acreage. There is no reason to convert one of the few remaining agricultural parcels within city limits to residential use. Thank you for your time and consideration. Your service to our city is greatly appreciated. Jason Telander 1189 Flora Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Item 10.a. - Page 60 Item 10.a. - Page 61 Matt Downing From: Sent: To: Subject: Date: June 6 , 2018 Evelyn Stava Wednesday, une Matt Down ing CUP for 1212 Flora Rd. AG TO: City Council of Arroyo Grande RE: Application and Appeal for Proposed ADU at 12 12 Flo ra Road (Re f. Conditional Use Permit 18-001) Dear City Council Members, I understand that considering new development w hile balancing property owner rights with the needs of the community is a difficult ente1prise. Many in OUl' community have the mindset that we should allow NO growth under any circumstances. However we must resist thinking that because we live here, no one else should get to. It is the "we have our piece of the pie, and now no one else can have any" type of thinking. I hope you can see the problems with this mentality. The City Council must find ways to have controlled development and growth to provide more housing and dwelling units in the City of AlToyo Grande, instead of NO growth at all. California has already mandated that s econdary units be allowed. The Accesso1y Dwelling Unit at 1212 Flora Road should be allowed if it meets the guidelines of the General Plan and the building requirements of Alwyo Grande. It appear s in this case the applicants have met the requirements from the City with their Accessory Dwelling Unit plans. They should be allowed to build a second home on their five acre parcel. I therefore fully s upport the approval of this Accesso1y Dwelling Unit at 1212 Flora . However, the proposed bike trail that is part of this Condit ional Use Penuit should not be allowed . The City should not be able to make this a condition of the Condit ional Use Penuit. The bike trail is tota lly unrelated to the Accesso1y Dwelling Unit and looks to be a move by the city to unnecessarily encumber the 1212 Flora parcel. This parcel is zoned AG and the bike trail seems contradicto1y to w hat the City Council and Planning Commission think is important, that being the preservation of AG land. Respectfully, ~Stava -.1:'loraRoad -0 Evelyn Stava BRE#00585744 Benzer Real 1 To Whom it May Concern, My name is Kristin Juette and I own the AG zoned property almost directly across from the Akalin residence. I would like to begin by stating my own experience with the people in our neighborhood. We are newcomers to the area, having purchased our property in February of this year. In March our dog was killed and the response and kindness of everyone in the neighborhood was truly overwhelming. We received cards, flowers, even an angel statue from people we had only just met. The Akalin’s brought over flowers, Warren Clift offered his condolences multiple times. We feel so fortunate to be surrounded by such wonderful people and to live in such a beautiful setting. I believe all of our hearts are in the right place. My professional background is in Architecture, specifically high-end residential projects. I attended Cal Poly School of Architecture for both my undergraduate and graduate degrees and am currently managing numerous projects on the Central Coast. I’ve had the chance to review the proposed project and I believe it is appropriate in terms of scale, proportion, and design and absolutely fits within the context of the neighborhood. This is not another tract home being proposed, rather it is a farmhouse design with cues to the vernacular architecture of historical Arroyo Grande. There are large covered porches with a distinct connection between interior and exterior spaces to take advantage of the temperate climate. It is appropriately sized as a relatively small two bedroom and two bathroom. It is oriented to mitigate heat gain from southern exposure while simultaneously encouraging natural ventilation. Finally, it has been designed by renowned local architect Bill Isaman. In my professional opinion, this is an extremely well designed and thoughtful project and that it will only serve to increase the property values of the surrounding neighborhood. In terms of traffic concerns, property owners of Agriculture zoned land have the right to farm. In fact, they are encouraged to do so. Currently the majority of the AG zoned properties in the neighborhood are maintained as pasture land. That said, if an AG property owner were to farm there would be heavy equipment moving through the neighborhood constantly and throughout the year, as they currently do on Coach Road. That’s the reality of the neighborhood that was planned in such a way that the AG zoned properties are boxed in from direct access to Branch Mill. With all due respect, I would argue that a potential temporary traffic increase in the neighborhood for the construction of a small home is extremely minimal given the potential for ag production traffic. Finally, I completely respect and understand the concerns of the neighborhood. It is a very family-oriented and close knit community of young families, retirees, animal lovers and dog walkers. I understand the Akalin’s do not have children, so that the current population density of their property is likely the lowest of the whole area. Ironically, bringing the parent’s home to live with the children is a concept popular in the era of early Arroyo Grande, with many in-laws living together with their children on family farms. It is wonderful to see a return to this concept and an emphasis on family. We fully support this project. Respectfully, Kristin Juette + Eric Gannon Flora Road May 15, 2018 Item 10.a. - Page 62 - ATTACHMENT 8Item 10.a. - Page 63PRO.JeC.T DlREC.TORY' MIA'Uott-~T"""""""' 12t2""°""'1itCAD .or.AAOTO.-...,.oe,C..-. i-MQNL l'T.01·••••1'T. ,...x. n,01.0,.,, ,2 (MAL _.a...,.-~ ·-· ......... .._ .... 2•>0..-0,.0'9'Til£n ....... u.~.GA•t•01 C.0,,fAC,t IM.L~ "'°"'-,.0,,, ...... ,.,2 FAA.-(.OSJ .......... , ~oae.-•19'\,C,Olll PROJEC.T DATA ,...,._'l 001-,,1-021 t!le'.ll:,TOHC.lt"'1l0"-""4""""""°"or~ 2HO 2 ltATMAGGC..MORTO~IMT(~,..,.... :~~~ffDO-T-C.~TY,.t1212!"L.OllAIII.OAD.AAAD'tO ..... ~u,ws;,,,..J~T\A~~ -LOT,r,JU,'t.,:,1,2a•_..,1, ......,..,....... 90C ,-....._p KTeACA ..,.,. .. ,._ --~'OOT1""Uft ~o,U,.flt'flC.t ,.r"'"'°°"t~J ..... ..,..,,,,.,..,, ~ 2~ ~>, ,,.,,.,..,,.,..... ~,-I<,,.~ 40tdl'llWG.TIONNl't ~or•,~ ~~KU!lllJtCcr.>-.. ........... .,,..,,. .,,..,,. .,,.,,. .,,.,,. :.-• ,,.,. •·• ~,, .. ' ,... Isaman design, Inc. AKC111,•& T ! ' l t • , • • • !li I r • • I S1• L•lt O•h,•• CA 9J'fl ,..... ..,,,,, ,,1J: f'•\I •• ,,,,,.,.,1 • • • ,!•••••<lil••l • t•• <( u L!.l Cl z ~ 0 0 >-~ <( Item 10.a. - Page 64_...-, ... P:---I _,,,,,,,,-, --I ,' _,,,,,,,-' ----I ......... _ ----I I II _.,._,,, -----I I ----------I I ,--------------pl, J -----.// I I I / / J--·---/ I I I I I I I ., I I I I 'I / I I I / I -=~ I //II I J I •' I I I I I I A.., I I ,/ I I I I ~ ---~ / I :/ I' I I f - / • .......... / ' -........,,_ -. to,............... / I -...._f:' ' V / ' ... / 0 ~~,_!<:;; PLAN I I I I I I I I I I I I I i/ • I I ~ ~ -:.,.. ---------------,---' I I I I I I I -----------------------------------< u ui Cl z ~ 0 0 >-0 ~ < . ,:,,----,.,.,. /i I I I I • I I I I I I I ~ ~ c., /~ / ~ /I ~ / ,0 I I~ .,..,_,._.,~ ~ ,.,,_....,...,. rr..,. / "-_ / 0 I I r:./J II r::/J. I I l ~ I I~ U I I u / / ~ / / .. / / ~ /~,' ~ I I ~ I I I /Isaman design, Inc. ~_P __ .:c;-c,,t--'N ____________ _ AKCtt1·r~c-r l 4 l t I r • • 4 llo I , • • I 11• L•lt 0•1o,., CA Jl•tt , ..... ; ,,,,, ..... ,,,J ,.,,1 •• , , .... ,,,1: • • • I 1 • • 1 ••••I 1 , 1 • Item 10.a. - Page 65SCALE 1/4" • l'-0" 4 <-,,G,\Jl,6AJUr61! ,, .. ,,. 0 0 i • r: -........ C '"""' ) C ) EJ a i T [D I t] [Q Q (ITT7··-· ~ ..... • ..... 16,1( t2'111° ----==-==-_._ .. ID T Lo---o---O---<>----<>----<>---<>----.,-0 -<>----o---<>-----O--O--<>---<---->-O--<>---O----<>---<>-----O--------<>------<>----O---<>----<>-----<>--<l--<>-O--<>---<>-Isaman design, Inc. AH.CIIITt;(ZT l•lt Ir••• $1,,,1 51• l•I• o,a.,e, CA 9J4t I PIii•••: lt.SIS••.J•'Jl P111 ftl/54•.S,•2 .... , ........... , .. 6 w 0 z ~ 0 0 >-~ < Item 10.a. - Page 66SCALE 114" • l'-0" ~ ,-f ,. ~ Isaman design, Inc. AH.ClltTt:; T 1,1 •• , .... ~,, •• , .Si• l,•lt Ollhp1, f: \ •l4t1 •11,.,1 ae,11,,.s,,1 "·~· .. , , .. ,., ... , ....... , ............ , .. < u UJ 0 ~ 0 0 >-0 ~ <