PC Minutes 1991-10-01322=
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 1, 1991
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Gallagher
presiding. Present are Commissioners Moore, Carr, Soto, Brandy and Souza. Commissioner
Boggess is absent. Planning Director Doreen Liberto- Blanck and Current Planner Scott Spierling
are also in attendance.
PUBLIC HEARING - REVERSION TO ACREAGE CASE NO. 91 -498 AND LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 91 -497, 117 POOLE STREET (EARL
PATTON /CARPENTER'S UNION).
Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated October 1, 1991.
He stated that the application involves Tots 13 and 14 of the Poole Tract. The applicant has filed
a reversion to acreage map to combine the two existing 8064 square foot lots into one 16,128
square foot lot. The applicant hopes to construct new offices for the Carpenter's Union on this
parcel after the reversion to acreage map has been recorded. The formal application for the
offices will be forwarded to the Planning Commission once staff has reviewed the project and
environmental review has been completed.
With regard to the lot line adjustment, Mr. Spierling advised it is proposed to move a lot
line that currently goes through two buildings. He pointed out that, over the years, the First
Presbyterian Church constructed several buildings on several Tots in the Poole Tract. The
Sanctuary is on lot 1, the offices and main classroom building are on lot 2, and some classrooms
are located on the rear of lot 1. Both sets of classrooms were constructed across the property
line between their respective lots and lot 14 of the Poole Tract. The applicant has proposed
moving the lot line 13 feet to the east to provide adequate setbacks for the two classroom
buildings. With the previously discussed reversion to acreage, lot 14 will be combined with lot
13 for a total lot area of 16,128 square feet. The lot line adjustment will decrease this area to
14,672 square feet which is still well above the minimum lot area requirement of the Development
Code.
Mr. Spierling stated that this project has been reviewed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and staff does not anticipate any significant environmental
impacts due to this reversion to acreage or lot line adjustment. The Staff Advisory Committee
recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolution adopting a negative
declaration, approving Reversion to Acreage Case No. 91 -489, and instructing the clerk to file
a Notice of Determination; and adopt the attached resolution approving Lot Line Adjustment Case
No. 91 -497.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for
Reversion to Acreage Case 91 -498 and Lot Line Adjustment Case 91 -497 had been duly
published and property owners notified, Chairman Gallagher opened the public hearing. Hearing
no comments from the audience for or against the proposals, Chairman Gallagher declared the
hearing closed.
After a brief discussion among the Commission, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1349
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, APPROVING REVERSION TO ACREAGE
CASE NO. 91 -498 APPLIED FOR BY THE CARPENTER'S
UNION /EARL PATTON AT 117 POOLE STREET, AND
INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF
DETERMINATION
On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Moore, Carr, Soto, Brandy, Souza and Chairman Gallagher
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Boggess
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 1st day of October 1991.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -1 -91 Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1350
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 91 -497 LOCATED AT 117
POOLE STREET APPLIED FOR BY THE CARPENTER'S
UNION (EARL PATTON).
On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Moore, Carr, Soto, Brandy, Souza and Chairman Gallagher
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Boggess
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 1st day of October 1991.
PUBLIC HEARING (CONT) - APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF HOME
OCCUPATION PERMIT CASE NO. 91 -32, 903 FARROLL AVENUE (LARRY TRETT.)
Current Planner Spierling reviewed the background of this application, stating that on
September 17, 1991 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this appeal and, after
taking public testimony and discussing the proposed business with the applicant, the
Commission continued the hearing. The Commission requested that the applicant submit a new
application for a Home Occupation Permit accurately describing the proposed business, and to
provide information to staff about where business materials will be stored.
Mr. Spierling advised that, as requested, Mr. Trett submitted the revised HOP application
and a rental agreement with A & M U -Stor. The revised HOP application eliminated storage in
the garage and indicated that materials or supplies would be stored at A & M U -Stor. The rental
agreement is for a five foot by nine foot (5'x9') storage locker and is on a month -to -month basis.
Chairman Gallagher re- opened the public hearing.
Larry Trett, applicant for the Home Occupation Permit, 903 Farroll Avenue, stated they will
only be receiving phone calls, mail and small deliveries. He stated that the business equipment
in the home consists of an answering machine, a desk, a phone, a computer and computer desk,
and they do not advertise or display the home address; all sales are done by catalog in the
customer's home and by home demonstration in the customer's home. He stated it is primarily
a service business and all required adjustments are done at the customer's home. All satellite
systems will be assembled at the customer's site, and any equipment having to do with the
satellite business will be stored at A & M U -Stor. Mr. Trett stated it is their feeling that they
comply with all of the conditions for issuance of a Home Occupation Permit.
There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Gallagher declared the
hearing closed.
Commissioner Carr expressed his opinion that Mr. Trett shows that he is trying to comply
with the conditions set forth for Home Occupation Permits. Commissioner Brandy suggested that
a condition be added requiring Mr. Trett to obtain a post office box for the business. The
Commission was in agreement with the suggestion.
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner
Souza, and carried with one "no" vote, the Planning Commission upheld Mr. Trett's appeal of the
Planning Director's denial of Home Occupation Permit No. 91 -32 with the three findings for
approval listed in the staff report, dated October 1, 1991, and with the added condition that the
applicant obtain a post office box in connection with the business.
DUE TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, ON THE NEXT ITEM,
COMMISSIONERS SOTO AND SOUZA LEFT THE MEETING AND ARE NOW
ABSENT.
323
324
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -1 -91 Page 3
NON - PUBLIC HEARING - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 89 -444, 122 LE
POINT STREET, CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO -STORY OFFICE BUILDING (M. C.
THOMAS)
Mr. Spierling reviewed the staff report dated October 1, 1991. He noted that the
application was not found complete until April 12, 1991. Because the application was submitted
and found complete before adoption of the Development Code, a conditional use permit
application is not required.
Mr. Spierling advised that the applicant has proposed construction of a 2003 square foot
office building roughly in the middle of a 6940 square foot lot. The applicant has taken
advantage of the fact that no setbacks are required in the Village Commercial zone and has
designed the building with no side yard setbacks. The front setback is 51 feet and the rear
setback is 66 feet. Parking is located in the front and the rear of the building. Parking in the rear
is accessed by a porte cochere (a passageway through the building) adjacent to the easterly
property line. The applicant has provided 10 parking spaces. This exceeds the requirements
of the Development Code.
Mr. Spierling referred to two major issues involving this project.
1. The site slopes downward from Le Point Street and no drainage facilities or easements
exist to transport the water to Branch Street. This requires the water to be collected at
the lowest point of the project and pumped back up to Le Point Street. Le Point Street,
however, is not fully improved and there is nothing to prevent the water from flowing back
into neighboring yards. To prevent this occurrence, the applicant will have to construct
some type of temporary improvements from the project west to Nevada Street. Once the
improvement water reaches Nevada Street adequate facilities exist to transport the water
to the Creek. This is a rather unusual drainage system, however, the Public Works
Department feels it will work provided the recommended conditions of approval are
implemented.
2. To the west of the project site are two single family homes on one lot. The house on the
rear of the lot currently takes vehicular access across the project site. The owner of the
houses has expressed concern that if this project is constructed, the access will be lost.
There is insufficient room to gain access around the front house because of its minimal
side yard setbacks. The applicant has indicated that he is willing to construct a gate in
the rear fence for the benefit of the rear house for moving furniture, however, he is not
willing to grant vehicular or pedestrian access on a regular basis. The owners of the two
houses have indicated that this is the least that they would accept. The City Attorney has
indicated that the question of access is a civil matter that should be settled between the
two property owners.
The AAC reviewed this project several times and worked with the applicant to achieve a
design that would be aesthetically pleasing and in character with the rest of the Village. The AAC
has provided several recommended conditions of approval. Many of these conditions have
already been implemented on the latest revision of the plans. After review, the Architectural
Advisory Committee and the Staff Advisory Committee recommend that the Planning Commission
approve Architectural Review Case No. 89 -444 with the findings and subject to the conditions of
approval listed in the staff report dated October 1, 1991.
Commissioner Moore questioned the water sump, pointing out that if it failed, water would
go to the Rutherford's building. Mr. Spierling stated he is not sure of the flow pattern if the sump
were to over flow, however, a condition of approval could be added requiring that with the
drainage calculations that are presented to the city engineer, information also should be provided
to indicate what would happen in case the pump failed. Commissioner Carr questioned the type
of motor that would drive the pump. It was indicated that it would probably be electric.
Charles Cebulla, Architect for the project, stated they are concerned about the condition
requiring a 12" water main, stating it is their feeling that a 12" main is an expensive item for a little
project like this one. Mr. Spierling advised that a fire hydrant has to have sufficient flow and
pressure, otherwise it doesn't do any good to have a fire hydrant. The Fire Chief was not sure
what size water main was in Le Point Street at the time of the Staff Advisory Committee meeting,
but he did indicate that the main had to be of sufficient size to provide the required flows and
pressures. The Public Works Department required the 12"
main to complete a loop in the water system. Michael Thomas, 244 Old Willow Road, applicant
for the project, spoke regarding the requirement for installation of a 12" line, stating it was a
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -1 -91 Page 4
surprise to him, and it is pretty expensive for a 2,000 square foot building. He further stated he
doesn't feel he should be responsible for providing all of the fire safety for that block from Miller
Way to his property. Mr. Spierling stated that the applicant would have to go through the Public
Works Department, but the Code indicates that agreements can be made, upon approval of the
City Council, for reimbursement by future developments for facilities required by the City to the
extent that such facilities are in excess of the sizes, length and locations needed to serve the
project involved. Mr. Thomas could also appeal the condition to the City Council.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that there have been two new residences built on Le Point Street
in the past several years and obviously they did not have to install a fire hydrant.
Chairman Gallagher suggested that if the applicant is not in agreement with the conditions
provided by staff, and if the project is approved with those conditions, then he can appeal to the
City Council, and in the meantime work with the Fire Department to see if something can be
worked out to perhaps come to an acceptable alternative.
Barbara Veness stated she is the owner of the property just to the west of Mr. Thomas'
property. She advised she has an agreement from Mr. Thomas providing a gate for limited
access, and she asked if this would be a matter of record so that the access not be taken away.
Mr. Spierling advised that the City Attorney has advised that this is a civil matter and the City
really has no involvement in the matter in requiring that it be unlocked, etc.
ATTEST:
In further discussion, revisions to the conditions of approval were proposed as follows:
Condition #28.
Condition # 29.
Condition #41.
The applicant shall submit a grading and drainage plan for review
and approval of the City Engineer. All improvement water shall
drain to Le Point Street, and shall be conducted from the site to
Nevada Street. This may require temporary street improvements
along Le Point Street. These improvements may include A.C.
berms, redesign of driveways, and other improvements as required
by the City Engineer. The applicant is responsible for the design
and construction of all such temporary improvements. The
applicant shall also investigate storm water flow' should the pump
fail, and provide any necessary emergency downstream
improvements.
The pump system for drainage water shall be an electric system
designed by a mechanical engineer registered in the State of
California.
A fire hydrant shall be installed with flows and pressures required
by the Fire Department, on Le Point Street, at the most feasible
easterly point on the property, prior to delivery of combustibles,
except concrete framing materials.
After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner
Brandy, Architectural Review Case No. 89 -444 was approved with one "no" vote with the findings
and conditions listed in the staff report dated October 1, 1991, and with the revisions to those
conditions as stated above.
COMMISSIONERS SOTO AND SOUZA RETURNED TO THE MEETING AND ARE NOW PRESENT.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
9:40 P.M. on motion by Commissioner Brandy, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and
unanimously carried.
325