PC Minutes 1991-04-02Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
April 2, 1991
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman
Carr presiding. Commissioners Soto, Moore Gallagher, Souza and Boggess are present.
Commissioner Brandy is absent. Also in attendance are Planning Director Doreen
Liberto - Blanck and City Attorney Judy Skousen.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of January 15, 1991 and special meeting of
January 29, 1991 were approved as prepared on motion by Commissioner Moore,
seconded by Commissioner Souza, and unanimously carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 88-440, 227
BRIDGE STREET, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA.
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck reviewed the staff report, dated April 2, 1991. She
advised that the Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Planning Commission in
September of 1988. One of the conditions of approval of the CUP was the requirement
for a yearly review to determine if there are any adverse noise impacts as a result of the
carpentry school operation.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that the public hearing
for review of Conditional Use Permit Case 88 -440 had been duly published, posted and
property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Hearing no
comments from the audience for or against the Conditional Use Permit, Chairman Carr
declared the hearing closed.
Chairman Carr suggested that next year when this matter comes back to the
Commission, the applicant could request a revision to the Conditional Use Permit that the
requirement for yearly review be deleted.
After a brief discussion, it was determined that there is no need for a noise study
at this time. On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Boggess,
and unanimously carried, the applicant was instructed to return next year for review as
required by Conditional Use Permit Condition #7.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 91- 156 /CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CASE NO. 91 -483, 212 MILLER WAY, (RICHARD AND TERRY PAYNE)
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck reviewed the staff report dated April 2, 1991.
She pointed out that the current zoning ordinance does not provide clear guidance about
whether the height of a building should be calculated from natural grade or finished grade
(after grading). It appears that different persons at different times have interpreted the
ordinance differently. The draft development code clearly indicates that the height of the
building is from natural grade. In this staff report, building heights will be given both
ways, from natural and finished grade. A variance and conditional use permit (CUP) is
required in both cases.
Ms. Liberto - Blanck advised that the applicants have proposed construction of a two
story victorian style house with a detached two story garage /storage area /shop (carriage
house) on one of the last vacant lots in the subdivision. A variance is required on the
house because it exceeds the 30 foot maximum height limit. A CUP is required for the
garage because it exceeds the 14 foot height limit for accessory structures. These are
two applications which may be acted upon separately, however, they are interrelated
through the victorian design theme.
She further stated that the applicants' desire to maintain the authenticity of the
victorian design is the basis for their request for granting the variance and CUP.
According to the applicants, they have done extensive research on the victorian design
1
273:
274
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -2 -91
and have designed the house with high ceilings and steeply pitched roofs to maintain the
authenticity of the design. This increases the overall building height beyond that allowed
by the zoning ordinance. Likewise, according to the applicants, the two story detached
garage or carriage house is of authentic victorian design. The applicants feel that
decreasing the height of either of these structures to within legal limits will result in a much
poorer design.
With regard to the Variance application, Ms. Liberto - Blanck advised that the
proposed house will require substantial grading and a number of retaining walls to
construct a flat pad upon which the house can be built. The applicants have designed
the grading so that retaining walls will not exceed six feet in height. The applicants also
designed the pad height to accept the height of house proposed without blocking views
of neighboring residences. This has resulted in a pad height which is approximately four
feet higher than the average of the highest and lowest points under the house at natural
grade. Thus, the house is 33 feet above the height of the pad but the maximum height
of the house, calculated from natural grade, is 37 feet. Section 9- 4.505(a) limits the height
in this zone to 30 feet. As mentioned, the applicants designed the grading to protect the
neighbors' views. The lowest point of the lowest window in an adjacent house is at an
elevation of 251.4 feet. The top of the highest peak of the proposed house is 251.5. This
will result in no loss of views of the distant mountains and dunes but may sightly block
views of the Village.
In order to approve a variance the Planning Commission must make four findings
in the affirmative. Staff has been unable to make two of these findings.
1. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject
property because...
Staff feels that other homes in the area were constructed within the height limitations of
the zoning ordinance and there are no major differences between this lot and others in
the area or zone. The applicants have provided a finding for approval basing the
exception on maintaining the authenticity of the victorian design.
2. The strict application of the RA -B3 zone does deprive such property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity or same zone because...
Staff feels that the applicants can build a home on the lot which is of the same square
footage and character as other homes in the vicinity or zone and thus they are not
deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties. The applicants have provided a finding
for approval based on their ability to build the house of their choice.
With regard to conditional use permit issues, staff does not feel that the design and
layout of the proposed garage is suitable for two major reasons. First, the grade of the
lot and the applicants' preferred driveway location requires the southerly portion of the
garage to be constructed on a retaining wall. The height of this wall varies and the .
maximum height has not been determined. It appears that it could be between four and
six feet. The height of this wall, in addition to the height of this building will project an
apparent building height of about 29 feet. This structure will be the closest structure to
the street, having a 31 foot front setback (the front setback for the house is 87 feet). The
structure is also within 7 feet of the southerly property line. Staff feels that these factors
combined will produce a building which is too massive for an accessory building.
Staff's second concern is with maintaining the character of the neighborhood. No
other detached garages have been constructed in this neighborhood, which are visible
from the street. Staff is concerned that this detached garage is not in character with the
existing development.
2
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -2 -91
Ms. Liberto - Blanck stated that, because the applicant's proposed findings for
approval of the variance hinged on the desirability of constructing a Victorian style house,
and because of the number of modern style homes in the area, staff requested that the
Architectural Advisory Committee review the applications. The AAC's review centered on
whether it was appropriate to construct a Victorian style house in this area, not on the
question of whether the findings could be made for approval of the variance or the CUP.
After review, the AAC determined that the site was located close enough to the Village to
make the Victorian style architecture desirable.
The AAC did discuss with the applicants ways of lowering the maximum height of
the structures and did express concern about the garage being constructed on top of a
retaining wall.
Ms. Liberto - Blanck advised that staff is unable to recommend findings for approval
of the variance, however the applicant has supplied possible findings and these can be
adopted if found appropriate by the Planning Commission. Resolutions for approval and
denial of the variance are attached. Also, staff is unable to recommend findings for
approval of the CUP, however, staff has provided possible findings for both approval and
denial. Resolutions for both approval and denial of the CUP are attached.
She further advised that the Planning Department received a phone call at 5:00
P.M. tonight from Jean Souza stating she did not feel that the Victorian style structure with
a detached garage would be consistent with the C. C. & R.'s for the tract.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for
Variance Case No. 91 -156 and Conditional Use Permit Case No. 91 -483 had been duly
published, posted, and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the public
hearing open.
Richard and Terry Payne, applicants, spoke in favor of the Variance and
Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Payne showed photos of some of the existing Victorian
Houses, noting that two Victorian homes were approved by San Luis Obispo County last
year. He pointed out that the retaining walls were engineered by a California Civil
Engineering firm, and the plans have already been approved by the Building Department
and they have been issued a grading permit for the project. Mrs. Payne stated that there
are no restrictions in the C.C.& R.'s with regard to detached garages.
Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chairman Carr declared the
hearing closed.
Chairman Carr stated his feeling is that the finding necessary to grant a Variance
and Conditional Use Permit cannot be made, and in addition, he felt that while the level
view of the people up hill from the house would not have their level view impaired, they
would have their view down into the valley impaired. He further stated that, in his opinion,
the home in question should be built on a piece of flat land instead of on a hillside.
Commissioner Boggess stated his feeling that a variance is precedent setting and
when you allow a variance for height, the next person that comes along is going to ask
for the same thing and use this structure as an example.
Commissioner Soto stated he likes the architectural style of the Victorian house,
and all of the hillside homes he has seen in the area, this is a little better plan because
of the tremendous wall you normally see on the downhill side, and the downhill side on
this lot has been stepped down; and it is his opinion that it is the best alternative to the
designs that are there. Commissioner Souza stated he agrees with Commissioner Soto
and likes the design that the applicants have presented. Commissioner Moore stated he
likes the design and he doesn't feel that the height interferes too much on a 4 -1 slope.
3
275
276
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -2 -91
He further stated that 2,000 yards of cut and fill is not too much.
Commissioner Gallagher commented that the examples the applicants showed the
Commission of existing Victorian homes are built on flat or enclosed areas, and he felt
that a Victorian style house would probably be more appropriately placed on a flatter lot.
He also felt that the house should be more in keeping with the contours of the land and
designed in such a way as to have a minimal impact on the particular lot that they have
chosen. He further stated he could not see any extraordinary reasons to support the
request for a variance.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1329
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE
NO. 91 -156, APPLIED FOR BY RICHARD AND TERRY
PAYNE AT 212 MILLER WAY TO CONSTRUCT A 2 STORY
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT EXCEEDS BY 7 FEET
THE 30 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO
FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION.
On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Soto, Moore and Souza
NOES: Commissioners Gallagher, Boggess and Chairman Carr
ABSENT: Commissioner Brandy
the foregoing resolution was denied this 2nd day of April 1991 due to lack of a majority
vote.
After discussion, the following action was taken on the Conditional Use Permit:
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1330
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT CASE NO. 91 -483, TO EXCEED HEIGHT LIMIT
FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING FROM 14 FEET TO 24 FEET,
APPLIED FOR BY RICHARD AND TERRY PAYNE AT 212
MILLER WAY, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF
DETERMINATION.
On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Soto, Souza and Moore
NOES: Commissioners Gallagher, Boggess and Chairman Carr
ABSENT: Commissioner Brandy
the foregoing resolution was denied this 2nd day of April 1991 due to lack of a majority
vote.
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck advised that a split vote constitutes a denial and
the applicant has the right to appeal to the City Council within ten days.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -2 -91
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 90-
481 /ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 90-463, 138 JUNIPER STREET (RONALD
GRANT).
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck reviewed the staff report dated April 2, 1991. She
advised that the Arroyo Grande Mini - Storage was constructed in 1977 after gaining
approval of Architectural Review Case No. 77 -136 by the Planning Commission. The
manager for the units currently lives in a rented residence on a property adjacent to the
mini - storage property. This residence is in poor repair and the owners of the mini - storage
would prefer to have the manager on -site than to provide funds to restore the rented
residence.
She stated that the applicant has proposed conversion of 900 square feet of
storage units into a manager's quarters for the existing mini - storage. Another 200 square
feet of storage will be converted into a single car garage for the unit. An additional open
parking space will be provided in the southwest corner of the site. This meets the parking
requirements of the zoning ordinance for apartments, multi - family dwellings and second
residential units. This proposal will result in the elimination of twenty 5 by 10 foot storage
units and four 7.5 by 10 foot storage units. Two new 10 by 20 foot storage units will be
created. The exterior of the unit will be modified by replacing the existing storage locker
doors with doors and windows for the residence. These modifications may require
installation of new siding and roofing. A condition of approval has been added requiring
the new materials to match existing materials and colors.
Ms. Liberto - Blanck noted that the plan locates the manager's unit near the
entrance driveway in the center row of storage units. This is the most logical location for
the unit because it allows surveillance of those persons entering and leaving the facility
and allows customers to easily locate the manager. This location is also closer to existing
residences and further away from commercial properties along Grand Avenue. For these
reasons, staff feels that the proposal meets the intent of the zoning ordinance in the
location of the manager's unit.
She advised that the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the design of the
proposed manager's quarters and had several recommendations. These
recommendations have been included as conditions of approval. After review, the
Architectural Advisory Committee and the Staff Advisory Committee, recommends that the
Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution adopting a negative declaration,
instructing the secretary to file a notice of determination and approving Conditional Use
Permit Case No. 90 -481; and approve Architectural Review Case No. 90 -463 by minute
motion.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for
Conditional Use Permit Case No. 90 -481 had been duly published, posted and property
owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open.
Byron Grant, High Mountain Road in Arroyo Grande, stated he is the son of the
property owner and applicant for the project. He questioned the regulations as far as the
fire hydrant condition is concerned. He stated that there is a fire hydrant 140 feet away
and another one some 150 feet away from the property boundary, and there is also
another one located at the corner of Juniper and Poplar Street. He also pointed out that
the assigned number for the entire property is 1304 Poplar Street. He asked that the fire
hydrant requirement be left as an open condition to see if the Fire Chief really feels it is
necessary. Dale Rainey, D & R Drafting, representing the applicant, clarified that the
description given in the staff report, Page 1 under "Discussion ", 2nd paragraph, on the
amount of units that will be removed are incorrect. He stated the correct numbers should
be three 10 x 20 units, and four 7-1/2x10 units, and in addition, one 10 x 20 will be used
for parking, so there will be a total of four 10 x 20 units that will be removed from rental
and no new rental units will be created.
5
277
27.8
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -2 -91
Hearing no further comments for or against the Conditional Use Permit, 'Chairman
Carr declared the hearing closed.
Commissioner Souza suggested changing the wording of Condition #16 regarding
the requirement for a fire hydrant, commenting that he is not so sure that a hydrant is
necessary in there. Chairman Carr suggested amending the condition by adding the
words "...subject to additional review and concurrence by the Fire Chief ".
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1331
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 90 -481, TO
ALLOW ADDITION OF A 900 SQ. FT. MANAGER'S UNIT
AT ARROYO GRANDE MINI STORAGE, 138 JUNIPER
STREET, APPLIED FOR BY RONALD GRANT, ADOPTING
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INSTRUCTING THE
SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION.
On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Soto, Moore, Gallagher, Souza, Boggess and
Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Brandy
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 2nd day of April 1991.
On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Moore, motion
carried with one "no" vote, Architectural Review Case No. 90 -463 was approved.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 90 -01 AND
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1834 /PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONE,
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 90 -03
AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1994 /PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD)
REZONE, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90 -04 AND
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1997 (OTTSE, INC.).
Chairman Carr advised that this item deals with several different aspects of the
Rancho Grande Development, noting that a staff memorandum was included in the
packets which encompasses the entire package to be reviewed by the Commission will
be reviewing tonight, including 5 resolutions to act on in order to complete the
Commission's action on the Rancho Grande development.
Mike Multari, Planning Consultant on the Rancho Grande project, briefly recapped
the last meeting for the benefit of those Commissioners who were not present at that
meeting. Mr. Multari also reviewed the staff report, dated April 2, 1991 entitled
"Recommendation on Rancho Grande Projects."
Mr. Multari spoke about the possibility of alternative design, stating that since the
last meeting, he received letters from both the applicant and Mr. Phil Ashley, who was the
proponent of an alternative design. He stated that after reviewing the letters, he did not
think the arguments were any different than those that already been heard. He
commented that he was comfortable recommending to the Commission a particular
6
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -2 -91
design, and he is still comfortable with that recommendation. He stated, in general, the
approach that is being suggested is to keep the lots in the open areas and out of the
trees to the largest extent that is practical, and everyone seems to be in agreement that
that is the correct approach.
After completion of the staff presentation, Chairman Carr reopened the public
hearing for comment.
Mr. Phil Ashley spoke regarding the wildlife issues, and suggested installing a stop
sign at James Way and Rancho Parkway to slow people down, stating this would do a
lot to protect wildlife, and also some "Deer Crossing" signs placed along James Way
would also be of benefit. He stated that the proposed culvert appears to be too small for
deer to get under the bridge. He commented that a bridge at the intersection at La Pinata
and James Way would be the only way to guarantee moving wildlife through there safely.
Mr. Wes Carlson stated he lives on the two acre parcel in the middle of Tract 1994.
Mr. Carlson commented he has a number of concerns because he is probably the most
effected person in the City by this development, however, most of those concerns
seemed to have been addressed with the exception of a few of those concerns. He
stated that last week the idea of gates was brought up. He pointed out that essentially
this tract is across from a commercial area and he would like to some way to keep the
employees of the commercial area off of those narrow streets to avoid any conflict
between parking and commercial areas, stating this kind of problem could be
compounded by the narrow streets. He also stated he is concerned about the lot facings
becoming narrower and narrower, and he favors the widest frontage on the streets that
can be accomplished. Mr. Multari referred to a letter received from Mr. and Mrs.
Baron, who live in the adjacent tract, asking that certain lots in Tract 1994 be analyzed
to see if their view will be affected, and if their view will be blocked, they have asked that
there be a lower height limit than the 27 feet. Mr. Multari stated he is not prepared to
respond to this tonight and this is something that could be looked at with the Council to
determine if some adjustment needs to be made.
Mike Durkee, of McCuetchon, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, Attorney for the applicant,
spoke about some of the concerns of the applicants. One of the concerns is public vs.
private roads, and their preference at this time is private streets and a gated community.
However, if the streets are going to be open to the public, then they should be publicly
maintained. Secondly, with regard to Brisco Road improvements, he stated that the
applicants have agreed to continue to work with Mr. Multari on the bike lanes, however,
they do have continuing concerns which will be worked out through staff for presentation
to the Council.
Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chairman Carr declared the
hearing closed.
The Commission reviewed the unresolved concerns listed in Mr. Multari's staff
report dated April 2, 1991. After discussion, the following action was taken:
Mr. Multari read the title of a resolution recommending that the City Council certify
the Environmental Impact Report prepared for various Rancho Grande applications with
the appropriate recommendations discussed at tonight's meeting. Thereafter, a motion
was made by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and unanimously
carried to dispense with further reading of the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1332
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
7
27`9
28 9
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -2 -91
COUNCIL CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL HO GRANDE" APPL CAT ONS:
PREPARED FOR VARIOUS "RANCHO
motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Gallagher;;. and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Soto, Moore, Gallagher, Souza and Chairman (:':rr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Brandy and Boggess
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 2nd day of April 1991
Mr. Multari read the title of a resolution recommending approval of the General
Development Plan for the portions of the property previously designated as "Unplanned
Areas" in the Rancho Grande Planned Development, including applicable modifications
and additional recommendations as discussed at tonight's meeting. Thereafter, a motion
was made by Commissioner Soto, seconded by the resolution.
Commissioner Gallagher, and
unanimously carried, to dispense with further reading of e
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1333
A RESOLUTION OF ANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL CITY OF ARROYO GR PROVAL OF A
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PORTIONS OF THE
PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED AS "UNPLANNED AREAS"
IN THE "RANCHO GRANDE" PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Soto, Moore, Gallagher, Souza and Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Brandy and Boggess
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 2nd day of April 1991.
Mr. Multari read the title of a resolution recommending approval of a specific
development plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 1834 including applicable
modifications and additional recommendations as discussed at tonight's meeting.
Thereafter, a motion was made by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner
Soto, and unanimously carried to dispense with further reading of the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1334
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 1834, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
NORTHEAST OF JAMES WAY IN THE "RANCHO GRANDE" PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT.
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Soto, Moore, Gallagher, Souza and Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Brandy and Boggess
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 2nd day of April 1991.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -2 -91
Mr. Multari read the title of a resolution recommending approval of a specific
development plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 1994, for property generally
located between James Way and Rancho Parkway in the Rancho Grande Planned
Development, including applicable modifications and additional recommendations as
discussed at tonight's meeting. Thereafter, a motion was made by Commissioner
Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously carried to dispense with
further reading of the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1335
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 1994, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
BETWEEN JAMES WAY AND RANCHO PARKWAY IN THE "RANCHO
GRANDE" PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Soto, Moore, Gallagher, Souza and Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Brandy and Boggess
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 2nd day of April 1991.
Mr. Multari read the title of a resolution recommending approval of a specific
development plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 1997 for property generally
located Northwest of James Way in the Rancho Grande Planned Development, including
applicable modifications and additional recommendations as discussed at tonight's
meeting. Thereafter, a motion was made by Commissioner Soto, seconded by
Commissioner Moore, and unanimously carried, to dispense with further reading of the
resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1336
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 1997, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
NORTHWEST OF JAMES WAY IN THE "RANCHO GRANDE"
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Soto, Moore, Gallagher, Souza and Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Brandy and Boggess
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 2nd day of April 1991.
PLANNING DIRECTOR /PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS
Viewshed Review 91 -28, 680 Vista Court, 2nd Story Addition to Existing Residence
(F. P. and G. M. Vasquez) - Informational. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck reviewed the
staff report, dated April 2, 1991. She noted that no public comments were received on
the proposal and, based on these findings, Viewshed Review Permit No. 91 -28 was
approved on March 19, 1991 subject to a 10 day appeal period.
9
281
282
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -2 -91
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was
adjourned by the Chairman at 10:50 P.M.
ATTEST:
10
Pearl . Phinney, Secretary Robert W. Carr, Chairman
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Arroyo Grande Planning Commission