PC Minutes 1990-12-18Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
December 18, 1990
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session at 7:00 p.m.
with Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Moore, Boggess, Souza,
Brandy, Gallagher and Soto. Planning Director Liberto -Blanck and Long Range
Planner Bierdzinski are also in attendance.
MINUTE APPROVAL
Hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the Planning Commission
meetings of October 16, 1990 and November 6, 1990 were approved as prepared, on
motion by Commissioner Brandy, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously
carried.
NON - PUBLIC HEARING - SIX MONiIH REVIEW OF ARC ITEL'TURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 90 -447,
221 E. BRANCH STREET (MARK GODFREY)
Planning Director Liberto -Blanck advised that this it is recommended for
continuance to the meeting of January 15, 1991. She stated the applicant has
agreed to the continuance. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner
Soto, seconded by Commissioner. Gallagher, and unanimously carried, review of
Architectural Review Case 90 -447 was continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of January 15, 1991.
PUBLIC HE?RING - VARIANCE ASE NO. 90- 153 /LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 90 -492,
130 AND 136 ALLEN STREET AND 137 -1/2 CHERRY AVENUE (DICK KELSEY)
Planning Director Liberto -Blanck reviewed the staff report dated December
18, 1990. She briefly reviewed Alternatives A, B and C. She advised that after
looking at the three alternatives, staff felt that Alternative B or C would be
the most appropriate. The applicant has indicated an interest in either
Alternative B or C, however, they did indicated that they wanted to retain the
easement to Cherry Avenue. Ms. Liberto -Blanck referred to a letter from Carl
Bockhahn, 139 E. Cherry Avenue, petitioning the Commission to require access on
Alien Street, rather than Cherry Avenue.
Upon being assured by the Planning, Commission Secretary that public hearing
for Variance Case No. 90 -153 and Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 90 -492 had been
duly published and property owners notified, Chairman.Carr declared the hearing
open.
Mr. Dick Kelsey stated he is representing the family that owns the
property, and as far as the easement is concerned, they would like to continue
using it, because in addition to providing road access, it is also a utility
easement for the sewer line for Parcel A. He stated they paid for a sewer
connection, and inquired that if_it went out to Allen Street if they would have
to pay for another sewer hookup._ Mr. Kelsey stated they would like to keep that
easement as a second access to the.property._
Carl Bockhahn, 139 E. Cherry Avenue, requested that the easement not be
used for vehicular access and that access come_fram Allen Street and not from
Cherry Avenue. Anna Mercado, 129 -E. Cherry .Avenue, stated they always had a
problem with the people using that access..from Cherry Avenue and they would like
to have it closed.
Hearing no further comments from the audience for.or against the proposed
variance and lot line adjustment,. Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that Alternate C
was appropriate, and they indicated they.had. concerns about using the easement
for vehicular access. Ms. Liberto -Blanck suggested re- wording Planning
Department Condition No. 6 in the. draft_ Ordinance -to .read as follows:
6. The existing access. easement to.East. Cherry Avenue shall be
relinquished for vehicular.access.by a method approved by the City
Attorney prior to recordation of the lot line adjustment. A utility
easement shall remain. _
After further discussion,. the following- action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1318
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING _ CISSIOI. OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING_ VARIANCE, CASE NO. 90 -153,
APPLIED FOR BY DICK KELSEY LOCATED_ AT 130 AND 136 ALLEN
STREET AND 137 -1/2 EAST CHERRY AVENUE TO ALLOW PRIMARY
LOT ACCESS THROUGH AN ACCESS EASEMENT, AND ADOPTING -A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
2'33
234
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES Commissioners Moore, Boggess, Souza, Gallagher, Brandy, Soto
and Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of December 1990.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1319
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 90-
492 LOCATED AT 130 AND 136 ALLEN STREET AND 137 -1/2 EAST
(CRY AVENUE APPLIED FOR BY DICK KELSEY.
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Moore, Boggess, Souza, Gallagher, Brandy, Soto
and Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of December 1990.
PUBLIC HEARING (CONT.) - DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE /SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE)
Long Range Planner Bierdzinski referred to the Development Code Discussion
Items Agenda that was distributed to the Commissioners, suggesting that the items
on the list be discussed tonight, and then continue the Draft Development Code
to a Special Planning Commission Meeting on January 10, 1991. Planning Director
Liberto -Blanck advised that the Rancho Grande project is being scheduled for a
Special Planning Commission Meeting on January 29, 1991.
Chairman Carr opened the public hearing and invited the audience to make
comments.
Item 1. Flag Lots - Ms. Bierdzinski stated that some concern was expressed
about how many parcels were left in the City that could be split using flag lots.
She referred to a map showing existing flag lots and those lots that possibly
could be split into flag lots in the SF zone, and most of those are less than
14,000 square feet and if they were split they would not have the minimum lot
width for each lot. Commissioner Soto stated that in the past the Commission,
in granting approval for flag lots, has looked at flag lots in comparison with
the rest of the neighborhood. Chairman Carr commented that, basically, flag lots
could be permitted in minor subdivisions of four (4) or less parcels.
It 2. Permitted Uses - Residential Districts - Ms. Bierdzinski referred
to Page 135 for residential uses, suggesting that condominiums be listed as a
separate use, and that they be permitted in the MF, MFA and SR zones.
Permitted Uses - Commercial Districts - Ms. Bierdzinski advised that a
conditional use permit, basically, is required any time there is new construction
in order to have the proper environmental review, and also when a use changes in
an existing structure, such as from a retail business to a restaurant use.
Commissioner Gallagher asked how much more cumbersome is it to go through the CUP
process. Ms. Liberto -Blanck advised that the CUP process could result in some
mitigation measures, and it does provide the community an opportunity to review
the proposal at a public hearing. Chairman Carr suggested setting up some kind
of monitoring system to see whether or not this process is working. Ms. Liberto-
Blanck advised that this could be done for a six month period with a report back
to the Commission at that time, and if it is found there is a problem area, it
can be amended.
Charles Moon, 425 Traffic Way, asked that the Commission not recommend the
Conditional Use Permit procedure. He stated it sounds great but, in his opinion,
it is just another layer of bureaucracy and gives the Commission and staff more
opportunity to be arbitrary. Mr. Earl Patton spoke regarding the requirement for
conditional use permits. He stated it would cost him $25,000 for an engineer and
architect to design a building, and inquired if he should apply for a use permit
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 12/18/90 Page 3
first or pay for the design. He was concerned that if the CUP is not approved,
he would be losing the cost of the design and engineering. Ms. Liberto -Blanck
commented regarding the Design Guidelines for the Village and working with the
Architectural Advisory Committee on the design of the structure.
With regard to Mr. Moon's letter submitted to the Commission this date,
containing detailed recommendations for the Development Code, Chairman Carr
requested that copies be distributed to the Commission at the next meeting with
staff's comments.
Matthew Roberts, 1231 Sidney, San Luis Obispo, commented regarding
Commercial District Standards, Page 155, and asked for a definition of a
residential district; whether reference is being made multiple family or
single family use. Ms. Bierdzinski stated staff is looking at this and will
respond at the meeting of January 10th. Mr. Roberts stated that since it appears
that almost everything listed in the chart that is a new developments requires
a Conditional Use Permit, it appears to him that, under "Special Requirements"
the 100 ft. review area, which is not a setback, the statement that it will not
be issued without a Conditional Use Permit seems redundant since it is already
required: Ms. Bierdzinski agreed with Mr. Roberts-and advised it would be
changed. She further advised that staff is-looking at reducing- the review
setback to 50 feet. Mr. Roberts commended the staff on the change where a
portion of the-20 ft. setback is now being allowed 'for-parking.---
Dr. Jorgensen stated in relation to the Commercial District standards, he
is a little uneasy about the need for CUP's for everything, but-if it is being
reviewed in terms of making a really good project, then he has-no resistance for
that, but if-the idea for the review is to be negative and to squelch needed
development, then he would really be concerned about that He stated he is glad
to hear that 50 feet review setback is being considered and encouraged that be
adopted. Also, we was glad to hear that parking would be allowed in a portion
of that particular area. He stated that he owns the property adjacent to the
hospital, and the feasibility of a wisely designed, well--landscaped facility for
a medical office building is the ideal -use for that property. He commented that
he was hoping the setbacks would be reduced so more parking could be provided and
also a better layout of the building.
Regarding the Highway Commercial District, Ms. Bierdzinski advised that the
purpose of this zone is to permit uses oriented-to the public, such
as gas stations, auto services, etc., however, more uses 'could be added if the
Commission wishes. Ms. Liberto - Blanck advised that the existing Highway Service
zone we have now is much more restrictive than the one proposed.
Item 3. Signs - Ms. Bierdzinski staff will return at the next
meeting with comments on neon signs. She asked the Commission if they feel
comfortable with the number of signs permitted per use. She stated there will
be same changes to the table as a result of previous discussions by the
Commission.
John Keene, 298 No. Elm Street, referred to a window completely outlined
in neon tubing which makes the entire store stand out like a sign. He asked that
something be put into the ordinance to prohibit this - type of display. Ms.
Bierdzinski pointed out that anything like that in the window will be
considered a sign, and neon can only be 20% of-the - total sign area and is
considered as part of the allowable signage.-
Item 4. Parking Regulations - Ms. Bierdszinski stated it is staff's
recommendation that Page 237, Paragraph 9- 12.020 be revised so that where there
is an existing building and there is a change in the use, or expansion in the
existing use, and there is no way of providing on- site a minor exception
request would be required. There was a brief discussion regarding senior housing
parking standards for independent living. Ms. Bierdzinski advised that the
existing ordinance requires 1 space per-unit; what staff had proposed
was going to require a little more than one space - per - unit and an additional :25
space per unit for visitor parking. After looking at that in regards to allowing
some type of incentive for senior housing, staff is now recommending that the
visitor parking be deleted. She pointed out that the parking standards are based
on the number of bedrooms; if there are two bedrooms, the requirement would be
one covered space per unit and a hal f of uncovered space per One space per
unit would be required for a one bedroom or studio -
235
236
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 12/18/90 Page 4
Item 5. Auto Uses. Ms. Bierdzinski referred to Item 5 of the staff
report. She pointed out on the map areas of existing auto uses on Grand Avenue.
She noted that at the last meeting the Commission discussed the auto uses and
some way to allow them to continue in the general commercial zones. After
talking with the City Attorney, it was suggested that special privileges could
be allowed to existing auto uses through a conditional use permit under the "Non -
Conforming Use" section so if they wanted to expand they could do so through
applying for a conditional use permit. In response to Chairman Carr's question
if this would apply to all auto related uses or just to service stations, Ms.
Bierdzinski stated that the Commission could restrict the use to just service
stations, or all auto uses. Chairman Carr stated it seemed to him the major
concern was the loss of service stations. Ms. Bierdzinski explained that this
would affect only those uses designated as primary uses at the time of the
adoption of the ordinance. Ms. Liberto -Blanck pointed out that a gas station
that has been abandoned for more than 180 days in -the general commercial district
would not be allowed to go back in there. After discussion, it was the consensus
of the Commission to just provide this type of protection to gasoline dispensing
services.
Item 6. Walls Along Double Frontage Lots. Ms. Bierdzinski stated that the
question came up about walls on lots with double frontages where people may want
to put a wall up within their rear street yard to allow more privacy. Staff has
suggested a general type of description of how we would handle a request for
walls and fences, and basically a 3 foot wall or fence would be allowed, however,
it the property owner wanted something other than that, then they would have to
go to the Architectural Advisory Committee for approval. Chairman Carr stated
that the definition of a street rear yard indicates that it is no longer a front
yard and, therefore, it would not be measured from the front property line, but
youmeasure it from the property line not providing access, and he suggested that
the first paragraph should be changed to read... "measured from, the property line
not providing access to a public street."
Item 7. Staff Recommended Changes to Development Code. Ms. Bierdzinski
asked if the Commission has any comments or changes to the staff's recommended
changes as of this date. She commented that there will probably be more changes
after completing the research on the other items to be discussed at the next
meeting.
Item 8.. Staff Responses to Letters 1 - 17 and Comments A - AA on
Development Code. Ms. Bierdzinski stated that staff responses were attached to
the various staff reports to the Planning Commission, stating that if the
Commission has any comments or disagrees with staff's responses, this is the time
staff would like to hear those comments. She commented that the owners of the
Vagabond Mobilehome Park, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, have submitted several letters
and have testified at both meetings, have asked that any discussion regarding
their comments be given at the next meeting, since they were unable to be here
tonight.
Ms. Bierdzinski further advised the Commission that slides will be
presented at the next meeting and more information on PUD standards in response
to comments received on those types of projects.
Chairman Carr referred to a response to a comment received about providing
a design overlay on several different projects. Ms. Liberto -Blanck stated this
was regarding the Ed Dorfman tract, which has already been approved. Ms.
Bierdzinski commented that staff is also plans to use design overlays for other
approved and developed planned unit developments.
Chairman Carr asked if there were any comments to staff responses to
testimony at the last meeting, to the letters, or to the recommended changes to
the development code. Ms. Bierdzinski advised that items on the staff report
marked with asterisks were the most controversial items, and the most major
changes that the Commission may want to look at scone more before the next
meeting. There were no comments from the Commission, and Chairman Carr asked
that these items be placed on the next agenda.
Item 9. Other Development Code Itemms Identified by the Commission. There
were no comments from the Commission regarding this item.
Ms. Bierdzinski referredto Item 10, stating that the recommendation is to
adjourn to a special meeting on January 10, 1991 at 7:00 P.M. to discuss the
issues listed therein and, hopefully, instruct staff to return with resolutions
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 12/18/90 Page 5
recommending adoption of the Development Code.
Hearing no further discussion on the proposed development Code, Chairman
Carr declared the hearing closed.
PLANNING DIRECTOR ITEM .
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck briefly updated the Commission on the
Coordinated Agricultural Protection Program, stating the City will be awarded a
$25,000 contract, and basically, the City will be responsible for hiring a
consultant to work on this program.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion by Commissioner Boggess, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and
unanimously carried, _the regular meeting of January 1, 1991 was canceled, and
this meeting..was adjourned to a special meeting at 7:00 P.M. Thursday, January
10, 1991.
Pearl L. Phinney
Secretary
Robert W. Carr
Chairman
2'3-;7