PC Minutes 1996-07-161
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 1996
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairperson Tappan
presiding. Present were Commissioners Deviny, Keen, Titus and Lubin. Community
Development Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck, Associate Planners Lori Rosenstein and Scott
Spierling were in attendance.
INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER - Chairperson Tappan
introduced Commissioner Lynn Titus.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Mayor Pete Dougall thanked the Planning Commission for all
of their hard work on the GenCom, Inc. project.
PUBLIC IIEARING - LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPLICANT;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 92 -502 AND 94 -527, TIME EXTENSIONS,
REQUEST FOR A TWO YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR THE LOPEZ CONTINUATION
I-IIGH SCHOOL INCLUDING A SPECIAL START PROGRAM WIIICH ADDRESSES
THE NEEDS OF A TEENAGE ACADEMIC AND PARENTING PROGRAM (TAP); 227
BRIDGE STREET
Associate Planner Lori Rosenstein presented the staff report. She informed the Planning
Commission that Lopez Continuation High School had been approved as a temporary use at 227
Bridge Street by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 92 -502 and the expiration date for that CUP
was August 18, 1996. The second CUP, No. 94 -527, was for the operation of a Teenage
Academic and Parenting Program (TAP) at the same location and had the same expiration date.
The Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMUSD) requested a two year time extension on both
of the CUP's. A memo from the Police Department regarding lack of incidents in the area is
attached to the staff report. A letter dated 7- 15 -96, from Mr. Bill Hart a neighbor, was received
and presented to the Planning Commission this evening. The Staff Advisory Committee has
reviewed the proposal and recommends approval.
Commissioner Lubin asked staff about the status of the sidewalk repairs. Staff replied that the
District had posted a bond for the improvements and presented a plan to the Traffic Commission
but it had been denied. The applicant was currently working with the City to make the
improvements.
Chairperson Tappan opened the public hearing.
Scott Lathrop, Lucia Mar Unified School District representative - stated that a meeting was
set for July 17, 1996 with the Engineering Department to resolve the question of elevation for'
the drainage in this location. LMUSD intended to complete the improvements prior to school
starting in September. He noted that the bond that was posted has expired. LMUSD has
budgeted the money for the improvements and wants to have their plans approved so that they
can move forward. Commissioner Keen asked Mr. Lathrop about the special condition for six
(6) month review of the CUP; Mr. Lathrop indicated that they requested on -going review at the
Staff Advisory Committee meeting and prefer to deal with any problems immediately.
Commissioner Deviny expressed concern that the sidewalk had not yet been improved; Mr.
Lathrop stated that they intended to resolve any .issues at the meeting with Engineering.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2
July 16, 1996
Craig Campbell, City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department - discussed Condition of
Approval (COA) #17 in Resolution No. 94 -1493, CUP Nci. 94 -527, regarding proposed public
improvements and suggested how to assure compliance since the bond had expired.
Iloward Mankins, owner of property at 127 Bridge - stated that he favors approval of the
time extensions and the school program; expressed the opinion that the six (6) month review
should not be a part of the approvals due to the costs involved
With no further comments from the audience, Chairperson Tappan closed the public hearing
There was discussion regarding compliance with the public improvement condition; LMUSD
intention to move the school to a permanent location; proposed six (6) month review of the
CUP's; and improvement that had occurred at the site.
After discussion by the Commission regarding the above issues, the following action was taken,
to adopt:
A RESOLUTION OF TiIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A TWO YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 92 -502 AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94 -527, FOR TI-IE OPERATION OF LOPEZ
CONTINUATION HIGH SCHOOL INCLUDING A TEENAGE ACADEMIC
AND PARENTING PROGRAM (TAP) AT 227 BRIDGE STREET APPLIED
FOR BY LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Modify COA #9: "Prior to August -18- ;4996 gj > ex 1 9G the applicant shall renew the
performance bond orothcr ce
acpfable se curit and execute a new agreement with the City on
the installation of the required public improvements, of 1ia 1 > I1s1 e 1ni xt,Y; nients:: s
addies l tr.. Conditrn „ IJJ' .9 .-527
RESOLUTION NO. 96-1570
On a motion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Lubin, and by the following
roll call, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Deviny, Lubin, Keen, Titus and Tappan
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Staff advised the public of the right to appeal this project decision.
PUBLIC HEARING - OTTSE, INC., APPLICANT; AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 1997; AMENDED MITIGATION MEASURE NO. 23 TO REDUCE THE
TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE; NORTFI OF JAMES WAY AND WEST OF LA CANADA
WITI -TIN TIIE RANCHO GRANDE SUBDIVISION; REPRESENTATIVE SHELTER
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3
July 16, 1996
Associate Planner Lori Rosenstein presented the staff report. She reviewed the background of
the approvals for this project and the City Council policy which allowed developers who had not
recorded their maps to apply for an amended map and an amendment to the original fee
schedule. An amendment to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Rancho Grande
Subdivision and approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 1997 and Specific Development Plan
90 -04 has been prepared and was included with the staff report. Staff noted that Planning
Commission by -laws require four (4) affirmative votes of the Planning Commission to send a
recommendation to the City Council. Tract No. 1997 was approved for fifty -six (56) dwelling
units and it was noted, if approved, the traffic impact fee would be reduced from $2656 per lot
to $1,069.22 for this tract only. In February of 1996 the Planning Commission provided a
recommendation of approval of an identical amendment to Tract 1834 on a 3 to 2 vote and the
City Council voted in March of 1996 to approve the amendment to Tract 1834.
There was discussion regarding the requirement of the by -laws; the concept of a sliding scale
for fees; the number of potential future applications that may occur; and how the GenCom fees
were assessed.
Chairperson Tappan opened the public hearing.
Don Ritter, Shelter Construction representing Ottse - stated that the applicant appreciated the
assistance staff has provided. He stated that Tract 1997 is the last unrecorded tract of this group
and they request Planning Commission approval of the amendment.
With no further comments from the audience, Chairperson Tappan closed the public hearing
Commissioner Deviny expressed concern with the impact of the Rancho Grande tracts on the
City and the need for them to pay their fair share. He referred to page 4 of the Addendum and
the fact that further residential development in Rancho Grande would impact Brisco Road
interchange to an unacceptable level.
Commissioner Keen stated that both this and the previous request were to implement policy as
set by the City Council. Community Development Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck stated that
the Council had set the policy that if the map was not recorded the applicant could petition for
reduction of fees, the Planning Commission would have to make specific findings regarding the
environmental document to deny the request.
Commissioner Lubin stated that he was opposed to reducing the fees by such a significant
amount.
There was discussion regarding the need for a 4 -1 vote; a possible adjustment to the rate
schedule; possible basis for denial; concern with reducing fees; difference between residential
and commercial impacts; and the rationale that the City Council used when reducing the fee.
After further discussion by the Commission regarding the above issues, the following action was
taken, to adopt:
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4
July 16, 1996
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1571
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFY THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
RANCHO GRANDE SUI3DIVISION AND TIIE ADDENDUM FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1997 AND
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 90 -04 IIAS BEEN PREPARED IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT
On a motion by Commissioner Lubin, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and by the following
roll call, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Keen, Deviny, Titus, and Tappan
NOES: Commissioner Lubin
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Keen called for a "point of order" regarding making a motion and then voting
"no" on it. Commissioner Lubin stated that it was appropriate if the motion was made for
purposes of moving the item forward, he stated that in further discussion he would have again
expressed his negative feels toward reducing the fees.
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1572
A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN
AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1997 AND
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 90 -04 FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED NORTH OF JAMES WAY AND WEST OF LA CANADA IN
THE "RANCHO GRANDE" PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, APPLIED FOR
BY OTTSE, I
On a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Titus, and by the following
roll call, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Keen, Titus and Chairperson Tappan
NOES: Commissioner Lubin and Deviny
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Deviny stated that he felt the addendum was in compliance with CEQA but he
was against reducing the fee. Community Development Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck stated
that the item would be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for certification
of the Addendum to the EIR but noting concerns with the amendment to the Vesting Tentative
Map.
Staff advised the public of the right to appeal this project decision.
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5
July 16, 1996
NON - PUBLIC BEARING - REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION, CLASSIFICATION OF
PROPOSED USE IN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; ELMER GARZOLI,
APPLICANT; 410 EAST BRANCH STREET
Associate Planner Lori Rosenstein presented the staff report. The applicant has requested
Planning Commission interpretation of an ambiguity in the Development Code regarding a
proposed use in the Village Commercial district. The proposed use would consist of the retail
sale of small farm and yard maintenance equipment, all terrain vehicles, jet skis, and sporting
goods with outdoor storage. The current use is an art gallery with auxiliary retail sales and
classes. Staff referred to the Development Code table which lists allowable uses. She stated
that after review staff determined that the proposed use, which includes vehicle sales was not
within the purpose and intent of the Development Code and the General Plan. The applicant has
prepared a letter describing his proposal use, which was attached to the staff report and this
evening there are pamphlets being presented to the Commission indicating the type of equipment
that is in question. Staff indicated that if the Planning Commission determined that the use was
appropriate, a Conditional Use Permit would be required prior to the use being instituted as it
would constitute a change in use and would be more intensive than the existing use. Staff
recommends that the Commission approve Resolution #2, which finds that the proposed use is
not permitted in the Village Commercial District.
Commissioner Deviny asked where the boundary line was for the Village Commercial District
was located. Staff indicated on the map that it was approximately four lots away from this
proposed use.
Although this was not a public hearing, Chairperson Tappan invited the applicant to address the
Commission.
Elmer Garzoli, - stated that he had been looking for a location for this type of business within
the Arroyo Grande area. He sold tractors in Santa Maria for approximately 20 years and stated
that he will not be dealing in heavy machinery. He stated that he would utilize the front of the
building for some outdoor display of jet skis and lawnmowers, the business would serve both
residents and tourists. He requested a favorable interpretation by the Commission.
Bob Lund, president of the Village Improvement Association, - stated that the Board of
Directors had taken a vote and recommended that the Commission agree with the staff
interpretation that the use was not in conformance with the intent of the Village Commercial.
Commissioner Keen asked if any equipment repair was intended. Mr. Garzoli stated that he
would probably do warranty repair on small pieces of equipment. Commissioner Keen
expressed concern with this type of business in the Village Commercial District and stated that
perhaps the Chamber of Commerce could assist in locating another site.
Commissioner Titus stated that her main concern was with impeding traffic; Commissioner
Lubin stated that he had a concern for the image of the Village; Commissioner Deviny stated
that he could see the need for the business but not in the Village; and Chairperson Tappan stated
that he could see no similar use in the Development Code table, he also stated that he had
referred to the Village Design Guidelines and could find no support for this type of business.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6
July 16, 1996
The following action was taken, to adopt Resolution #2:
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1573
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE PROVIDING AN INTERPRETATION OF THE
DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT A BUSINESS WHICH INCLUDES
VEHICLE SALES IS NOT A PERMITTED USE IN THE VILLAGE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
On a notion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Keen, the Planning
Commission, by the following roll call, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Deviny, Keen, Lubin, Titus and Tappan
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
NON - PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FOR CONSISTENCY
DETERMINATION RELATED TO FENCE /RETAINING WALL HEIGHT;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94 -538 (PUD PERMIT) AND LOT LiNE
ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 94 -521; FARROLL ROAD GROUP, APPLICANT; 1131
FARROLL AVENUE
Associate Planner Scott Spierling presented the staff report. He discussed the background of this
request and stated that the position of the applicant is that the fence /wall height is in substantial
conformance with the original approvals for the project. He presented an overhead showing the
approved grading plans and stated that they had been revised to grade the lots to the street thus
affecting the height of the fences on top of the retaining walls. While reviewing the revised
plans, the Public Works Department determined that the request would require a variance as it
was substantially different than the Planning Commission approved plans.
Craig Campbell, Public Works Department stated that staff agreed with the proposed change to
the drainage plan due to the benefit it would create. He stated that the applicant initiated the
change to avoid a drainage ditch along the rear of the lots which would have had to be
maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
Although this was not a public hearing, Chairperson Tappan invited the applicant to address the
Commission.
Edwin Dorfman, 289 La Cresta, stated that in the Landscaping Plan for the front entry on
Farroll Road the wall height was presented at approximately 10' and that did change to fence
over retaining wall. He stated that the Morning Rise project was intended to present a better
home at an affordable cost and that by utilizing a zero lot line then could provide homeowners
with a 10' usable side yard. He stated that they felt the PUD process allowed variable standards
and that during the architectural review process the 6' fences were clearly indicated and than the
change was in the retaining walls of various heights which the City had approved. He requested
Planning Commission approval of Resolution #3 with the findings of Resolution //2.
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7
July 16, 1996
Jim Garing, Garing, Taylor & Assoc. stated that in addition to being the engineer on the
project, he was a financial partner. He reviewed the background of the approvals and stated that
he believed the PUD process allows deviation from the everyday standards in order to provide
more efficient use of land. He discussed the project Conditions of Approval (COA) that support
his contention; presented overheads of the retaining wall /fence combinations; discussed changing
the drainage on the lots to the street and how it was achieved; discussed staff interpretation of
Development Code regarding "fences, hedges and walls "; expressed differences between "garden
wall" and "retaining wall "; stated objections to variance requirement; presented photographs of
walls /fences previously approved by Planning Commission that were higher than 6'; discussed
COA //40 which required annexation into Arroyo Grande Landscaping and Lighting Assessment
District No. 1 and the Parks and Recreation determination that the CC &R's should be revised
to make the Homeowners Association responsible instead; discussed the entryway area and the
COA that allowed the Planning Director to approve the treatment; and requested Planning
Commission approval of Resolution {i3 with the findings of Resolution #2.
The Commission discussed the change in the drainage of the lots from the rear to the front; the
necessary approvals for the front entryway; wall heights along Farroll; treatment for walls in
a backyard as opposed to those viewed by the public; responsibility for maintaining entry
landscaping; need for variance and requirements; need to clarify height of retaining wall in
future approvals; need for a better definition in the Development Code for retaining walls;
concept of substantial conformance; and, COA 1/12 which allows Planning Director approval.
The Commission took a short break.
After further discussion by the Commission regarding the above issues, the following action was
taken, to adopt:
'i th the fol1oWiii (_alid:in
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1574
A RESOLUTION OF TI-IE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE PROVIDING AN INTERPRETATION THAT THE
MAXIMUM RETAINING WALL /FENCE HEIGHT ALLOWED
PURSUANT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94 -528 AND
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 94 -521 IS AS SIIOWN ON THE
CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR THE PROJECT, BUT IN NO CASE
SI - IALL EXCEED TWELVE FEET, FOUR INCHES (12'4 ")
....................
..aInI ng 1
.................
ttun..: eig
* Exhibit A consists of the 3 drawings in the staff report.
ill
On a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Lubin, and by the following
roll call, to wit: •
AYES: Commissioners Keen, Lubin, Deviny, Titus and Tappan
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
time
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8
July 16, 1996
PLANNING COMMISSION /COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEMS ANI)
COMMENTS
A. Letter of Appreciation for Jean Beck
On minute motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and by
unanimous consensus, the Planning Commission endorsed the proposed letter.
Chairperson Tappan indicated that he would ask that Commissioner Keen sign the letter
as he was Chair during Ms. Beck's tenure on the Commission.
B. Update of Projects
• Community Development Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck advised the
Commission that the Gen Corn project had been approved by the City Council;
and
• She advised the Commission that City agendas were now available on the
internet.
C. Proposed Special Planning Commission Meetings:
• Thursday July 25th (6:30 p.m.) Joint Meeting with City Council and Traffic
Commission regarding Great Street Program
• Tuesday July 30th (6:30 p.m.) - Long Range and Short Range Traffic Reports
D. Chairperson Tappan suggested that a letter of appreciation also be prepared for
Commissioners Soto and Carr. He also requested input from the Commission regarding
the proposal to reduce the number of members on City Boards and Commissions.
Commissioner Lubin requested that the Commission recommend to the City Council that
long time Commissioners be recognized on the next agenda.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1. Agenda Item No. II. A., Letter dated 7 -15 -96 from Bill Hart
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner Keen,
seconded by Commissioner Lubin, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15
p.m. to the special meeting on July 25, 1996.
ATTEST:
Luci`(le Breese, ommission Clerk
AS 0 CON,TEN :
Doreen Liberto-Blanck, Community Development Director
William a aH ' Chairperson
� erson P
1