Loading...
PC Minutes 1991-10-15326 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1991 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Gallagher presiding. Present are Commissioners Soto, Souza, Brandy and Moore. Commissioners Carr and Boggess are absent. Planning Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck and Current Planner Spierling are also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL Hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 20, 1991 were approved as prepared, on motion by Commissioner Souza, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 91 -159, VARIANCE FOR FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, 496 COACH ROAD (TOM O'MAHONEY.) Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated October 15, 1991. He advised that the project site is developed with an older house, a garage, and a storage shed. The garage was constructed with a building permit, however it appears that it has been converted to living quarters without City permits or approvals. The existing house has been red - tagged because the Building Department discovered that the owner was doing an interior remodel and rebuilding the foundation without necessary permits. With adoption of the new Development Code, setbacks in the AG zone were increased from 25 feet in the front to 50 feet; from 10 feet for a street side yard to 30 feet; and from 30 feet in the rear to 50 feet. Setbacks across the street from this property in the SF zone are 20 for the front yard; 15 feet for the street side yard; and 15 feet in the rear, for a two story building. It should be noted that the setbacks are based on a minimum lot size of 10.0 acres in the AG zone and 7,200 square feet in the SF zone. This lot is most closely sized to the RS zone, which requires a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet, and front, street side yard and rear yard setbacks of 25, 15, and 20 feet respectively. Mr. Spierling stated that the applicant has proposed construction of a two story addition to the rear of the existing house and a covered porch in the front of the house. The existing house has a 25 foot front yard setback. The covered porch is proposed to extend five feet closer to the street for a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet. This setback is consistent with the SF zone but is less than half the required setback for the AG zone. The proposed two story addition is shown on the plans attached to the rear of the house with a minimum 10 foot street side yard setback. This is five feet less than is allowed in the SF zone and 20 feet less than is allowed in the AG zone. Maintaining a 10 foot setback allows the applicant to maximize the building area without encroaching on the existing driveway. Each floor of the proposed addition will comprise 552 square feet of area. The proposed addition meets the required rear yard setback. At the Staff Advisory Committee Meeting held on this project on September 15, 1991 planning staff was made aware of two major issues regarding this project. 1. The Public Works Department indicated that a 10 foot right - of - way dedication was required on Branch Mill Road to widen the road to its planned width of 60 feet. This dedication would reduce the minimum street side yard setback for the proposed addition to 0 feet. Therefore, the variance would have to be for a 0 foot side yard setback. Without a setback form the public right -of -way, it does not appear that the proposed addition meets the intent of the Development Code or the objectives and policies of the General Plan. • 2. The second concern is the illegal construction that had taken place on this lot. The Building Department is working with the applicant to resolve this issue, however, all illegal construction would have to be remedied (i.e. permits issued or illegal construction removed) prior to issuance of permits for this proposed addition and porch, if approved by the Planning Commission. After review, the Staff Advisory Committee recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution included in the agenda packets denying Variance Case No. 91 -159 with the findings for denial listed in the staff report dated 10- 15 -91. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10/15/91 Page 2 Mr. Spierling stated that, if the Planning Commission feels that the findings for approval of this variance can be made in the affirmative, staff recommends that the findings be outlined and staff instructed to draft a resolution for approval of the project. The public hearing should then be continued to a date uncertain to allow staff to develop conditions of approval, conduct environmental review in light of the conditions of approval, advertize the environmental determination, and draft the resolution for approval. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 91 -159 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gallagher declared the hearing open. David Brown, representative from Tom O'Mahoney, spoke in favor of granting the variance. Mr. Brown briefly described the applicant's plans for upgrading and remodeling the residence to fit the family's needs. He stated he started this project in April of 1991, and in June of 1991 the new Development Code was adopted and the setbacks were changed. With the new zoning regulations, the setbacks allow only an 8% building area as shown on Exhibit "A ". Since that time, he met with the Planning Department and it was his impression that a variance, as proposed, would seem likely to be approved due to the circumstances involved. Having been told this, it was a shock to find out that the Planning Department is recommending denial of the variance. He spoke of some of the issues regarding right of way dedication, visibility requirements at intersections, installation of curb and gutter, and setbacks. He stated that the main issue is to obtain a variance for setbacks for agricultural zoned property deemed non- conforming by zoning changes. Also, it is the applicant's feeling that an offer to dedicate 10 feet along Branch Mill Road should not be attached to the variance, because the opposite side of the road would present a better choice for the road expansion. Mr. Brown presented another option to the Commission, as shown in Exhibit "C ", which would make the proposed addition no closer than the already existing garage. He stressed, however, that the first proposal is foremost and desired by the applicant. Tom O'Mahoney, 496 Coach Road, applicant, spoke in favor of granting of the Variance. Debra Bingham, Co -owner of the property, also spoke in favor of granting of the variance. She stated her concern regarding the requirement for right of way dedication, stating it is likely going to be many years before this road is widened to 60 feet. She pointed out when they bought the property, the previous zoning ordinance was in effect and they were told there would be no problem in applying residential setbacks. closed. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chairman Gallagher declared the hearing With regard to the requirement for the roadway dedication, Mr. Spierling advised that a 10 foot offer of dedication would be required. The Circulation Element of the General Plan indicates that Branch Mill Road is a collector street. A collector street is one of the streets within the city's Circulation Plan and is designed to take traffic from local streets and place traffic on the arterial streets. It is designed to carry a certain amount of traffic and in order to the capacity to carry that traffic, it has to be a certain width. Chairman Gallagher recommended that Mr. O'Mahoney work with his designer to work within the footprint to come up with a workable plan that is compatible with his family needs. After considerable discussion, it was concluded that there is still a lot of work to be done on this application. Mr. Spierling stated that, if the Commission wishes to continue the matter, staff will work with the applicant to try and resolve some of the issues. On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Brandy, and unanimously carried, Variance Case No. 91 -159 was continued to a future date pending further work on the project. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 91-157/SIGN PERMIT CASE NO. 91 -102 AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM, 320 EAST BRANCH STREET, LAST CHANCE LIQUORS (CHARLES DOSTER /CARLEN LANDECK.) Chairman Gallagher advised that the applicant has requested continuance of this item. On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Brandy, and unanimously carried, Variance Case No. 91 -157 and Sign Permit Case no. 91 -102 was continued to the meeting of November 19, 1991 as requested by the applicant. 327 328 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10/15/91 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by Commissioner Brandy, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P.M. ATTEST: M. P. Gallaghe Page 3 1 1