Loading...
PC Minutes 1995-10-03ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairperson Keen presiding. Present are Commissioners Carr, Beck and Lubin. Commissioners Soto, Deviny and Tappan are absent. Community Development Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck, Public Works Director John Wallace and Current Planner Scott Spierling are in attendance. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Chairperson Keen advised a request was made to move Agenda Item IV.A. to the top of the agenda. There were no objections from the Commission. DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 95 -523, 1081 FARROLL AVENUE (LARRY GIN AND PETER KEITH) Public Works Director John Wallace reviewed the staff report dated October 3, 1995. He advised that a preliminary Lot Line Adjustment Map was approved by the Planning Commission on March 21, 1995. Subsequent to that approval, the applicants submitted improvement plans and Certificates of Compliance for the lots to be created. The current status is the improvement plans have been approved, the project is in construction and the Certificates of Compliance are under review. During the final design, the developers made adjustments to the configuration of lots to address various issues. He referred to a copy of the new layout with the original lot lines also shown. Mr. Wallace stated the end result is that the configuration of lots now preferred by the applicant is different from that approved by the Planning Commission. Staff believes the Planning Commission should make a determination as to whether or not the current configuration of lots can be considered in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Map. He advised the improvement plans and Certificates of Compliance conform to the modified lot lines. If the Commission determines the project is in substantial compliance, and authorizes staff to sign the final documents, then the applicant would be able to continue with the project. If the Commission determines that the revised lot lines are not in substantial compliance with the Preliminary Map, the applicants would have to either resubmit the revised preliminary Map or final the project according to the original configuration. Mr. Wallace pointed out Lot 11 is proposed with a substandard frontage width. The original configuration of lots for this lot line adjustment allowed a reduced frontage for Lot 11 down to 32 feet. The new proposed configuration indicates a frontage width for Lot 11 of 22.67 feet. The proposed lot is wedge shaped, which causes the space available for a driveway to be even less at the curb face than at the property line. To fit a 16 foot wide driveway and aprons within the property frontage requires a minimum frontage of 25 feet at the property line. Based on this, staff recommends Lot 11 be required to have a frontage at the property line of at least 25 feet. Commissioner Carr inquired if by increasing the frontage of that one lot, the two front lots will still have the required lot width? Mr. Wallace advised the required lot widths would be achievable. There being no further comments, on motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Beck, and unanimously carried, to approve staff's recommendation to find the revised lot line configuration in substantial conformance with the approved tentative snap, with the provision that Lot 11 is revised to have a minimum frontage of 25 feet. 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 October 3, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING - VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 95 -053, 233 RUTH ANN WAY (EDMUND HORN /CHARLES PENDERGAST) Current Planner Scott Spierling reviewed the staff report dated October 3, 1995. He stated the proposed addition is less than the existing maximum height of the house. He further advised that a letter regarding the proposed addition was received from Chuck Pendergast, in favor of the proposed addition. Letters opposing the addition were received from Edward and Marilyn Grover, John Townsend, 245 Ruth Ann Way; Vic Beeler, 1245 Newport; John and Marilyn Nairn, 1245 Montego; Mr. and Mrs. Helair Carpentier, 1243 Montego, and Etta McFadden, 1239 Montego. Mr. Spierling recommended the Commission open the public hearing, accept public testimony and, by minute motion, either approve or deny Viewshed Review Case No. 95 -053. In making the decision, the Planning Commission should discuss the basis for their decision so it is on record. Chairperson Keen declared the hearing open for public comment. Richard Oliphant, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the proposed addition. He briefly described the addition. stating the Grover's views are basically from the front, and the proposed addition will not impede that view. The addition would impede approximately 6 feet of Mr. Townsend's view, but it would be of Von's Market; not Point Sal or the dunes. He would still maintain almost a 100 degree view. Marilyn Grover read a letter opposing the proposed addition. She stated even though the proposed construction would not affect their own view, they were concerned the proposed addition would set a precedent in the area. Hearing no further comments either for or against the proposed construction, Chairperson Keen declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Carr's commented that from Mr. Townsend's letter, it was his impression that his entire view would be lost. Mr. Spierling stated that, from looking at the area and the proposed construction, his feeling is that only a small portion of that view would be obscured. Commissioner Carr commented it appears that the amount of the structure would not substantially affect the view, and that the required findings could be made. Commissioner Beck stated she visited the site this afternoon and, if the addition is exactly as described, she felt it would not significantly impair the Townsend's view. Commissioner Lubin commented that the 6 feet extension on the west elevation would only be blocking 4 feet or Less, and Mr. Oliphant indicated that there was a 100 degree view, so the extension would only be taking 4 or 6 feet off of that, which is not significant. It would not block the view of Point Sal or the dunes; just the market. Chairperson Keen stated it is his opinion that since the roof line does not extend over the existing roof line, and the view is only blocked by that 6 feet, he feels this should go forward as a project. He commented he has a lot of concerns about viewsheds, but he is also very concerned about people's right to build on their own property as long as they do not impact on surrounding properties. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 October 3, 1995 After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Lubin, seconded by Commissioner Beck, and unanimously carried, Viewshed Review Case No. 95 -053 was approved with the findings listed in the staff report, dated October 3, 1995. Current Planner Scott Spierling pointed out that this item is appealable by filing an appeal with the City Clerk within 15 consecutive business days from this date. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT CASE NO. 95 -048, 565 WOODLAND DRIVE, CALDWELL CONSTRUCTION (APPELLANT: ROBERT EMCH) Current Planner Scott Spierling reviewed the staff report dated October 3, 1995, noting that the purpose and intent of a Home Occupation Permit is found in Section 9 -03 -090 of the Development Code as follows: "...to allow for enterprises that are conducted within homes in residential districts, and that are clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling unit and compatible with the surrounding residential uses." Mr. Spierling stated that because of the concerns expressed by Mr. Robert Emch, staff visited the Emch residence and the Caldwell residence as part of the review. After this review, the Planning Director approved the Home Occupation Permit subject to several conditions. One of the conditions stipulated no more than three business related visits could occur each week. On August 24th this decision was appealed to the Planning Commission. The appellant has indicated the Home Occupation Permit causes an invasion of his family's privacy and is detrimental to his family's health and general welfare. The stairway to the home office is located adjacent to the property line shared by the Caldwells and the appellant. According to the appellant, persons going to and from the office look into his home, thus invading his privacy. He also indicates more than three persons per week are going to the office on business related traffic. Mr. Spierling further advised that when staff did the site inspection of these properties, it was apparent both residences were built with minimum setbacks. Staff also observed most of these homes were on very narrow lots and have limited setbacks and limited privacy because of the limited setbacks. These factors do appear to be the main contributors to the privacy concerns addressed by the appellant. After conducting the field review and researching the property, staff concluded that the privacy concern expressed by the appellant was probably going to be ongoing regardless of whether or not the Home Occupation Permit is permitted. Another issue raised by the appellant was the number of business related visits that occur. The Development Code leaves that number up to the Planning Director, and staff has typically limited the number of visits to no more than three per week, as was done with this permit. Staff has experienced no problems with that limit. Since no information has been provided to staff to show that more than three persons per week are making business related visits to the home, it appears that the business is in compliance with the conditions of approval. Mr. Spierling pointed out that the Planning Commission has three options in this case. (1) the Planning Commission may deny the appeal by minute motion; (2) the Planning Commission may uphold the appeal and deny the Home occupation Permit by minute motion; or (3) the Planning Commission may modify the conditions of approval prohibiting all business related visits. 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 October 3, 1995 Commissioner Lubin commented that the garage and the second floor stairway were completed sometime ago, and the Emch home was completed February 1994, so the stairway and the garage addition were there and had been used for a number of years. Commissioner Lubin also asked if staff is fairly well satisfied that there is limited or no construction parking done on the site? Mr. Spierling stated staff is not aware of any overnight parking of construction vehicles. Commissioner Beck stated the bump -out window on the residence may very well be the worst offender as far as invasion of privacy. She stated, in her opinion, as long as people want to optimize the amount of building that they can put on these lots, we are going to have recurring problems of invasion of privacy. Commissioner Carr asked Mr. Spierling if the garage with the room above it is a legal structure. Mr. Spierling advised it is a legal structure. Chairperson Keen opened the public hearing for public comment. Robert and Alta Emch, 553 Woodland Drive, appellants, opposed issuance of the Home Occupation Permit. Mr. Emch read a letter addressed to the Commission. Mr. Emch also referred to a letter from Robert Sanders substantiating the circumstances described in the appeal. Mr. Emch stated when they purchased the lot in 1984 with plans to build their retirement home, there were no structures on either of the adjoining lots. Mr. Emch explained one instance that brought this to a complete undesirable situation was while is wife was sewing at the dining room table and looked up, she was startled by a stranger looking into the house from the stairway above. He stated this situation is unacceptable and the issuance of this Home Occupation Permit allows an invasion of their privacy and threatens his family's health and well being. He also advised there is a traffic problem created because no parking is available other than the street. Mr. Emch presented photographs to the Commission showing two separate construction trucks parking on the wrong side of the street, with one truck leaving the motor running and the other leaving the door open while visiting the construction office. Mrs. Emch spoke regarding staff's suggestions. She commented they do have shutters and awnings, but resents the fact that by covering their windows they are depriving themselves of light, sunshine and air to prevent the public from invading their privacy. Peggy Caldwell, 565 Woodland Drive, spoke in favor of the Home Occupation Permit. Mrs. Caldwell stated they originally operated their business out of their home at 565 Forrest Glen, where they lived for 5 years. She stated they have lived in their present residence for 7 -1/2 years. She read letters of support from neighbors who were not able to attend tonight's meeting. One of the letters was from Donna Jett, 850 Forrest Glen; and the second from a neighbor who lives across the street at 556 Woodland Drive. Mrs. Caldwell referred to pictures showing the layout of the driveway. She stated that this particular room is used for many other things than business related uses. Shari Dodds, 849 Forrest Glen; Tara Webb 577 Woodland Drive; Denise Wilson; Greta Christiansen, 818 Forrest Glen spoke in support of the Caldwells and the Home Occupation Permit. Melvin Caldwell, 565 Woodland Drive, stated he is involved with the Arroyo Grande Little League responsible for about 565 children, along with their involvement in the Boosters Club, so people other than business related visitors do come to their home and they do come to the back door. He further stated he is concerned that no one take names or numbers or harass anybody who comes to his back door, either friends or relatives. Hearing no other comments from the audience, Chairperson Keen declared the hearing closed. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 October 3, 1995 Commissioner Lubin noted that the Caldwell house was there and was built and approved according to the plans several years prior to the construction of the Emch house. The fact is the design of the Emch house could have been adjusted prior to construction, with the knowledge of the existing house and, in his opinion, it was an avoidable issue prior to construction. Commissioner Carr stated there are two issues here; one is the issue of privacy and the other is whether a Home Occupation Permit is appropriate in this location, and whether the occupation is permissible. He commented that, in his opinion, the home occupation permit is separate from the privacy issue, and even if there wasn't a home occupation there, there would still be a privacy issue. He believes the home occupation should be approved and is hoping that will be the end of the issue. Chairperson Keen agreed the privacy issue is being used more than the home occupation issue. He stated he feels the home occupation is allowed in this area and it meets the criteria for which it was applied. Hearing no further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Beck seconded by Commissioner Lubin, motion carried unanimously, the appeal was denied with the three findings listed in the staff report dated October 3, 1995. Current Planner Scott Spierling pointed out that this item is appealable by filing an appeal with the City Clerk within 15 consecutive business days from this date. TIME EXTENSION REQUEST FOR APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 1834 AND 1997, JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA (OTTSE, INC.) Current Planner Spierling advised that the subject tracts were approved by the City Council on April 30, 1991. The applications allowed the applicant to subdivide several large existing parcels into 276 residential lots. Construction of tract improvements is nearly complete for Tract 1997, and some grading has been performed on Tract 1834. Mr. Spierling noted only one finding is necessary for approval of a time extension, and that finding requires that there have been no significant changes in the General Plan, Municipal Code, or character of the area within which the project is located that would cause the approved project to be injurious to the public health, safety or welfare. The Staff Advisory Committee has reviewed these time extensions and recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of a one year time extension to the City Council. There being no discussion, on motion by Commissioner Beck, seconded by Commissioner Carr, and unanimously carried, recommending to the City Council to grant a time extension to Tentative Tract Maps 1834 and 1997. TIME EXTENSION REQUEST FOR APPROVED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 85 -408, 590 E. CHERRY AVENUE (COKER ELLSWORTH) Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated October 3, 1995. He advised the Tentative Parcel Map was approved by the City Council on December 1, 1986. The application allowed subdivision of a 16 acre parcel into four lots. The developer objected to the conditions placed on the project and initiated litigation. One of the terms of the settlement was that the developer could apply for a time extension for approval of this tentative parcel map. Mr. Spierling reviewed the findings and conditions for approval. He advised that the Staff Advisory Committee reviewed the request and recommends that the Planning Commission approve a one year extension for Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 85 -408. 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 October 3, 1995 There being no further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Lubin, seconded by Commissioner Carr, and unanimously carried, Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 85 -408 was granted a one year extension subject to the findings and conditions for approval listed in the staff report dated October 3, 1995. ANNUAL REVIEW - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 92-495, UNION OFFICE AND TRAINING CLASSROOM, 117 POOLE STREET (CARPENTER'S UNION LOCAL #1800) Current Planner Spierling reviewed the background of this particular use, stating that the use permit allowed construction of a 2588 square foot building to house Carpenters' Local 1800. Approximately one half of the building is being used for offices and the other half for a training classroom. Because of noise concerns a condition was added requiring an annual review. He stated that staff has contacted all departments to determine if they have received any complaints or noticed any problems within the last year, and no complaints or problems were reported by any department. Because there have been no complaints or problems reported within the last two years, staff is recommending the annual review requirement be terminated. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Beck, seconded by Commissioner Carr, and unanimously carried, the Planning Commission approved the annual review and deleted future annual review requirements. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW - 550 RODEO DRIVE, ROYAL OAKS ESTATES P. D. #355 C.S. /P.D.1.3 (DON MC IIANEY) Mr. Spierling advised even though this is not a public hearing, staff recommends the Commission allow the applicant's representative to give a short presentation of the project and answer questions the Commission may have and, after the applicant's presentation, the Commission should comment and indicate their areas of concern. He stated no vote or formal action of any type is necessary or recommended. This is strictly advisory and does not bind the Planning Commission. Also this pre- application review will be discussed by the City Council because . the project is within a P.D. zone. This process allows an applicant to discover possible obstacles to development before a lot of time and money is invested in the project. It also allows the City of provide input on a project design before a full set of plans is drafted. Mr. Spierling stated that the applicant is proposing a General Plan amendment, P.D. rezone and tentative tract map to allow resubdivision of Lot 182 into 42 lots on 29 acres. The original project, Royal Oaks P.D., allows 235 units on 150 acres. Lots 1 through 7 are designed for custom or semi - custom homes; Lots 8 through 40 are designed as small lot tract homes; and Lots 41 and 42 are designated as open space Jots. He noted that the Staff Advisory Committee reviewed this project and prepared comments and draft conditions, which were included with the staff report. The main areas of concern were the amount of grading required for Lots 8 through 24; access for Lots 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 38 and 39; and access and circulation for the entire proposal. It was staff's feeling that a thorough review of parking, access and circulation will be needed as part of the environmental review for this project. The review will also address street designations, widths and non - vehicle access and circulation. Staff's general feeling was the main project roadway would have to be designed to collector street standards. This could divert some traffic from Rodeo Drive which, according to residents, is heavily used by through traffic. The applicant has expressed cost concerns about having to provide a collector street. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 October 3, 1995 Dan Lloyd, EDA, representing the applicant, reviewed the proposed project. He stated he would like to get some feedback from the Commission regarding some of the issues. He stated the basic issues of access, water and sewer all seem to be there. He discussed several issues enumerated in the staff report because they do have economic consequences and consequences related to the type of development that you might see as a result of the direction given. There was considerable discussion about parking and traffic problems already being experienced on Rodeo Drive, and some of these problems were addressed by the Parking and Traffic Commission at their last meeting. Commissioner Lubin asked if a copy of minutes from the Parking and Traffic Commission could be included in the agenda packets on a regular basis. After review of numerous items listed in the staff report, and comments offered by the Commission, it was the consensus of the Commission and Mr. Lloyd that it would be more beneficial to continue the pre - application review to the meeting of October 17th when more Commissioners will be present, and to include a copy of the Parking and Traffic Commission minutes of their last meeting along with the agenda packets. After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Lubin, and unanimously carried, Pre - Application Review on Lot 182, Royal Oaks Tract 1390 was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 17, 1995. Mr. Spierling advised that the scheduled joint meeting with the City Council on October 17, 1995 had been cancelled and, therefore, the next meeting will be a regular Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P.M. on motion by Commissioner Lubin, seconded by Commissioner Beck, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: Pearl'-LJ Phlnney, ammiss 1 1 1