Loading...
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