PC Minutes 1995-01-031
1
1
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 3, 1995
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairperson Keen
presiding. Present are Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Carr, Deviny, Hatchett, and Beck.
Current Planner Scott Spierling is in attendance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and unanimously
carried, the minutes of November 29, 1994 and December 6, 1994 were approved.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
NON - PUBLIC IIEARING - REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF DEVELOPMENT
CODE TABLE 9- 06.050 -B AS IT PERTAINS TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT,
APPLICANT IS FARROLL ROAD GROUP
Current Planner Spierling presented this item, stating the applicant has requested an
interpretation of a footnote to Development Code Table 9- 06.050 -B, which states:
"If a lot is located within a residential zone and was created prior to the June 13,
1991 effective date of the Development Code, buildings may conform with the
setback and lot coverage standards of the previous zone, as outlined in Appendix
C.W.D.2.19."
Current Planner Spierling explained that after adoption of the Development Code, the City
Council indicated it was not their intent to have new setback and lot coverage standards apply
to residential lots created prior to the adoption of the Development Code, and therefore adopted
the footnote mentioned above. Mr. Spierling continued his presentation briefly explaining the
difference the proposed interpretation would make for the applicants' lot line adjustment request.
Current Planner Spierling ended by advising the Planning Commission to adopt either of the two
resolutions, and that this decision will apply City wide, not just to this project.
Chairperson Keen then invited the applicant to speak.
Ed Dorfman, one of the applicants, said that the memo from the Planning Department states the
applicants have requested an interpretation of the footnote on the Development Code. However,
he said, the applicants feel it is the Planning Department asking for an interpretation, because
the applicants feel the words in the footnote are simple and clear. Mr. Dorfman read the foot-
note and the paragraph of the January 3, 1995 memo to the Planning Commission giving the
reason the City Council adopted the footnote. Mr. Dorfman said he felt the Planning
Department is not asking the Planning Commission to clarify ambiguities, but rather creating
new requirements. Specifically he felt the Planning Department is asking the Planning
Commission to amend the Development Code and add language to the Development Code that
does not exist. A lot line adjustment, Mr. Dorfman continued, does not create new lots. He
stated when the applicants met with the City Attorney, Mr. Lyon stated that this was an
interpretation and it was up to the Planning Commission to make the final decision. Using the
overhead projector, Mr. Dorfman presented the proposed project to the Commissioners. He
ended by asking the Planning Commission to uphold their right to apply the footnote to their
project.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2
January 3, 1995
Jim Garing, one of the applicants, stated they were not there to discuss the layout of the project,
but rather the issue of the interpretation.
During the discussion by the Planning Commission, Commissioners Carr, Soto, Tappan,
Hatchett and Chairperson Keen said they had individually met with the applicants to discuss this
project prior to this meeting.
Some of the concerns discussed by the Commissioners were: no open space proposed; the
impact of over 100 homes on the City's recreational facilities, resources, traffic, and so forth;
and how this interpretation would affect future development.
After lengthy discussion, the consensus was that the applicants' interpretation was correct.and
should be upheld, with the following action taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -1496
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE PROVIDING AN INTERPRETATION REGARDING
SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE STANDARDS
On motion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Tappan, and by the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Carr, Deviny, Hatchett, Beck and
Chairperson Keen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 3rd day of January 1995.
NON - PUBLIC HEARING - PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW FOR 25 -26 LOT PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT /LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 1081 FARROLL AVENUE,
APPLICANTS ARE LARRY D. GIN AND PETER D. KEITH
Current Planner Spierling gave an overview of this item, indicating that a lot line adjustment
would be required and possibly a Planned Unit Development (PUD) permit. Mr. Spierling
stated that a PUD would only be required if the applicants wanted relaxation of the setback
requirements. He then showed the three preliminary configurations and one of the proposed
floor plans, stating that the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) preferred the central cul-
de -sac design.-
Current Planner Spierling ended by advising the Planning Commission that there would be no
vote or formal action, but that the Planning Commission may want to comment on general site
design, home design, and areas of concern.
Chairperson Keen invited the applicant to speak.
Peter Keith, one of the applicants, stated there were 20 lots and 10 fragments, as part of an
antiquated subdivision, along with paper streets on the site. Basically, he said, they were asking
for some guidance from the Planning Commission on the development of this project. Mr. Keith
1
1
1
1
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3
January 3, 1995
said their desire was to develop a neighborhood atmosphere by using a central cul -de -sac, a
boulevard type street, a Victorian style home with front porches and white picket fences in front.
He explained they also would like about 7 two story -homes within the complex. The homes are
planned for first -time buyers and retired people, ranging in price from $150,000 to $160,000
with the single -story hones at 1100 to 1200 square feet and the two -story houses at 1200 to 1300
square feet. Mr. Keith said they began with a proposal of 25 lots and have reduced it to 21 lots
and that they would like to ask for consideration on the design of the street and the set backs
through a variance as opposed to going through a PUD. Mr. Keith stated they would need a
setback reduction in front of 5 feet from the required 20 feet so they could include the front
porches and a reduction from a cumulative total of 15 feet on the side to 10 feet.
Commissioner Carr asked Mr. Keith why he was opposed to a PUD to which he replied that it
often took considerable time to do and was very costly. Commissioner Carr said his preference
was the first layout and was not opposed to changing the setback requirements, suggesting a
meandering type of sidewalk. Commissioner Carr said he had a concern about the private drive
on the east side of the project. He said that he felt the City expected that drive to become a
public street when this property developed and putting up a backyard fence across from the lots
that are already there is not appropriate. Commissioner Carr also stated that it seemed this
whole area is being developed piece -heal and needs to be looked at and planned better.
Chairperson Keen was concerned about not having enough parking in front of the garages, so
that the sidewalk would not be blocked. He felt that a setback reduction from 20 feet would
present a problem. Mr. Keith responded they could move the garage back to take care of that.
Chairperson Keen said he was concerned about having a wide enough easement in case the sewer
ever needed replacement. Mr. Keen said he preferred the center cul -de -sac and was willing to
look at the 15 foot setback and that a few two stories, not exceeding seven, would be workable.
Commissioner Soto said this project was not compatible with anything in the neighborhood and
would adversely impact that neighborhood. He also felt it was precedent setting in that this was
zoned Single Family and there were too many homes on such a small site.
Commissioner Tappan felt this project was a good transition and it seemed the trend was for
smaller lots, though he liked the first proposed arrangement, but not the other two. He said he
liked the narrower sidewalks with trees and mixing a few two stories in with the one -story
homes seemed fine.
Mr. Keith summarized what he felt the majority of the Commissioners were stating; i.e. the
center cul -de -sac concept is acceptable, 21 lots is probably acceptable, a reduction in the
setbacks is probably acceptable with a few conditions in that there is a boulevard meandering
sidewalk, that there are tree canopies over the street, that there are porches in front, a front
picket fence, and that the garage is set back 20 feet minimum. When Mr. Keith asked the
Commissioners if his review of their input was correct, Commissioner Deviny said he felt the
word possible was more appropriate to use than probable to which Mr. Keith agreed.
Commissioner Beck raised the question of a PUD for this project. Current Planner Spierling
responded that if the applicant does not use the PUD process, choosing to use a lot line
adjustment and possibly a variance for the setbacks, the applicant would not necessarily submit
building elevations, floor plans, and so forth for review, as these are not necessary for either
the lot line adjustment or variance. Mr. Spierling stated that a lot line adjustment application
cannot include certain stipulations, such as designating the number of two -story houses. He
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4
January 3, 1995
explained that when the lot line adjustment is approved, the next step is obtaining building
permits. Commissioner Carr asked Current Planner Spierling if this was also true on a variance
for the setbacks. Current Planner Spierling answered that a variance could include reasonable
conditions, however he was not sure what exceptional circumstances would be found to allow
the same variance and setbacks for 21 lots. He stated that there are certain findings to make that
are required by State law that may be somewhat difficult to make through a variance procedure,
whereas through the PUD process, it allows the Planning Commission to review the project as
a whole. Mr. Spierling said it also made it much easier to allow reductions in setbacks because
you did not have to snake the exceptional circumstances finding or other hardship findings that
you do with a variance. Mr. Spierling concluded that to approve a reduction in setbacks is
easier through a PUD process than through a variance.
Commissioner Soto asked Current Planner Spierling about infrastructure improvements, and
sewage and water impacts. Current Planner Spierling responded that this particular project
would use more water, and generate more traffic, sewage and solid waste than was anticipated
in the General Plan. Mr. Keith said it would be much less than the 30 lots shown on the
antiquated subdivision map recorded in 1908 and they would be abandoning a well on the
property.
After a few more comments, Mr. Keith thanked the Planning Commission for their input.
NON - PUBLIC IIEARING - AMENDED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 79-191,
FACELIFT FOR AN EXISTING BUILDING, 1208 GRAND AVENUE, APPLICANT IS
FOODMAKER, INC. (JACK IN THE BOX)
Current Planner Spierling gave a brief presentation, passing photos and a colorboard to the
Commissioners. He advised the Planning Commission that the Architectural Advisory
Committee denied the project as submitted and offered a variation with four modifications. Mr.
Spierling ended by stating Staff recommended approval by Minute Motion of the modifications.
Rick Cowel, applicant, read a letter from Foodrnaker, Inc. discussing the changes to the
restaurant and their reasons for desiring these changes.
Discussion was held among the Commissioners, asking various questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Carr made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hatchett, the project as modified
by the Architectural Advisory Committee, including all four items. The motion failed on a 2:5
vote.
Commissioner Soto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Beck, to approve the project,
as presented by the applicant. The motion failed on a 3:4 vote.
Commissioner Tappan made a motion, seconded by Chairperson Keen, to approve the project
as modified by the Architectural Advisory Committee, with the first three items but excluding
item 4. The motion failed on a 3:4 vote.
Commissioner Deviny made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carr, to approve this project
as modified by the Architectural Advisory Committee, including all four items. This motion
failed on a 3:4 vote.
1
1
1
1
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5
January 3, 1995
On a motion by Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, with a 4 :3 vote, this
project as modified by the Architectural Advisory Committee, including the first three items, but
excluding item 4, was approved.
NON - PUBLIC IIEARING - SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MASTER PLAN TO REDUCE
DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE
Police Chief Rick TerBorch spoke on this item, stating he was asked to review this plan, and
he feels such a plan is not needed in Arroyo Grande. The reasons he provided included: the
City does not have the same problems as the larger cities; through the planning process and
developmental review process the City does have the ability to impose many of these conditions
proposed in the County Plan, and the City has a very close working relationship with the
California Alcoholic Beverage Control. Chief TerBorch stated that the two areas the Police
Department needs help are adoption of a noise ordinance and an adult entertainment ordinance.
Chief TerBorch concluded by saying his recommendation was that the Planning Commission not
recommend to the City Council that the County plan be adopted in Arroyo Grande.
Commissioner Carr made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council that it join with the Commission to reconfirm the City's commitment to a drug free and
alcohol non -abuse community and that the Council accept the Chief's recommendation to not
move forward with adoption of additional ordinances for implementation of the proposed drug
and alcohol abuse master plan. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Tappan and
unanimously carried.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS
Current Planner Spierling had none from Staff.
The Commissioners suggested a study session on items such as the potential development of the
area off Farroll area (involving the first two projects discussed this evening), antiquated sites
already built on, conditions on PUDs, City wide fees and so forth. Current Planner Spierling
said he would discuss their request with Planning Director Liberto - Blanck.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner Soto,
seconded by Commissioner Hatchett, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at
10:15 P.M. to the next regular meeting on January 17, 1994.
ATTEST:
Nancy Brow , otnmission Clerk
n Keen, .1 • erson