PC Minutes 1990-11-06Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
November 6, 1990
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman
Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Brandy, Gallagher, Souza and Boggess.
Commissioners Moore and Soto are absent. Also in attendance are Planning
Director Liberto - Blanck, Current Planner Scott Spierling, City Attorney Judy
Skousen, and Chief Building Inspector John Richardson.
MINUTE APPROVAL
Upon hearing no additions or corrections, on motion by Corrrnissioner
Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and unanimously carried, the minutes
of the regular meeting. of October 2, 1990 were approved as. submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Tony Orefice, RMO Architects, representing Dr. T. G. Gjerdrum, requested
that the Commission consider a proposed modification of a condition of approval
regarding Architectural Review Case 89 -440 for a medical office building at 354
So. Halcyon Road. Commissioner Boggess stated he.was not -on the Commission in
May when this :item was approved. City Attorney Skousen advised the Commission
that a four- .fifths vote of-the Commission .is. needed to place the on the
agenda, and there are not enough Comnissioners present to put . this on the agenda.
Chairman Carr stated that the Commission cannot act -on - this request tonight and
that. the matter could be- placed on -the November 20th.agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING (CONT.) - -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 90- 478 /ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW CASE:N0.•.90- 462, SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND :FARM OFFICE OVER EXISTING
GARAGE, .801 HUASNA ROAD JAMES . P... DOTSON . ; = .. .
_Current_Planner Spierling reviewed; the staff report dated November 6, 1990.
He advised_ that this project_ was continued from the Planning Commission meeting
of October 2., 1990- to allow-..staff : :to . discuss: issues - raised. -by the. Planning
Commission with the City Attorney.. Also, the Planning Commission requested that
staff review _the required findings for the project and develop possible findings
for approval and denial of the project.
_ . Mr._Spierling stated that conditions of approval.have been added to the
project to meet specific FireDepartment .development.requirements, and the Staff
Advisory_ Committee - recommends- that--the Planning Commission: adopt-the draft
resolution attached to the_staff report, adopting a. negative declaration and
approving _Conditional Use. Permit Case_ :No.. 90 =.478 .subject to .the findings and
conditions of .approval.. _ l.isted._in. the .staff report-dated November 6,. 1990, and
approve by minute motion Architectural Review Case No..: -90 -462.
__Chairman Carr re- opened_the public hearing to give the applicant a chance
to submit additional_ :information_and for the_general public to give additional
information that was not provided in the testimony at the public hearing held on
October_2, 1990._.. _ .: _ -- . ___ __ ..- -- - . _ _ _ .
Evadene Dotson, 801 Huasna Road, read a letter addressed to the Commission,
dated_Novernber._4, _.1990, ..signed by :James. P. and .Evadene Dotson, .requesting that
the: Planning Commissionapprove .the_..Conditional_Use.Permit and Architectural
Review, noting that the request -is.an authori.zed•use -and has.met all zoning and
building standards. John Malony, 253 Oro Drive; Mike Rohla, 423 Platino; Mr.
Bishop; .7.99 Huasna.Road;_ Sharon_Olson, 516 Platino Lane; and•Mar-y Miller, 270 Oro
Drive, _spoke in favor_ of . the_project,. stating:_they like the agricultural use on
the property.. _Ron. Olson, .516- .Platino..Lane,-.s.tated if Mr.- Dotson did do• something
illegal in the precess, then he could be fined,.but..should not.be forced to
remove the structure.
Roy Moser, 259 Oakley Court; Mr. Bernstein, 255 Oakwood;Court; Elizabeth
Bernstein, 255 Oakwood Court; Mr. Don Robinson, 250 Oakwood Court; and Jane
Sullivan,_263 Tempus Circle, spoke_in.opposition -to the project, citing excessive
traffic; -loss of :viewshed, -and noise - problems. .- •
- _ : Jim Dotson,: applicant, -spoke in= favor of approval of the project. He
apologized for the noise and stated that his construction operation does not work
out _of this property,: _and_: the -project will not-create any more traffic than what
is there . now._ . _ _ . . .
Shauna. Sullivan, _Attorney - representing: the applicant; stated the project
conforms with the zoning requirements and, in her opinion, the miission has no
basis for denial of the permit at this time, and that the law is quite clear that
the basis for such denial must be._health and-safety requirements. Also, she
stated that as far as the conditions of approval attached to the permit, it is
her feeling that these would not be required of a single family residence, such
as the requirement .that the _residence be hooked up to the sewer and the
requirement for_ sprinklers.. She concluded it is her feeling that denial of the
221>
222
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 11 -6 -90 2
permit at this time would be an arbitrary and capricious act, and urged the
Commission to grant the permit.
Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed conditional use
permit, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed.
City Attorney Judy Skousen advised that the Commission can condition a
project for aesthetic purposes only, however, when a building is already
constructed, very strong reasons are necessary to tear a building down. This
case may be weak; it is always stronger to tie it to health and safety reasons.
She further stated that the amount of construction completed and the cost of
removing the structure is very relevant. Chief Building Official John Richardson
stated that at this point the structure is a shell that looks complete from the
exterior, however, there is no wiring and no sheetrock in the interior.
Commissioner Souza stated the matter involves the fact that the applicant
built the second story without having the proper permits, and he could not
support that action. Commissioner Gallagher stated that in lieu of a Code
Enforcement Officer for the City of Arroyo Grande, the Commission has the task
of monitoring compliance and, in his opinion, going through the process of
getting prior permission and prior approval of a project was ignored.
Commissioner Boggess stated his concern about the City Attorney's comments
regarding this being a weak case if it should go to litigation because of denial.
Commissioner Brandy stated it is his feeling that it is the Commission's job to
vote on issues as they see it, and if the matter does go to court, let it stand
on its own merits. Chairman Carr stated his feelings are if.this matter had came
to the staff for a Viewshed Review Permit as it should have, a different way to
do it would have been suggested. Also, he feels that in the past the Commission
has gone along with these kinds of permits and may be sending out the wrong
signals. For those reasons he would support a motion for denial and trusts it
would be elevated to the City Council and alert theme of these problems.
In answer to the Commission's question as to the cost involved in removing
the top half of the structure, Mr. Richardson estimated this to be 30 to 40% of
the building which might equate in materials to somewhere between $5,000 and
$10,000, however, some of the materials might be salvaged. Mr. Dotson responded
by stating that the tile roof will be lost and the cost to remove this part of
the structure would be between $12,000 to $20,000. Mrs. Dotson stated if the
unit is torn down, they will have to find alternative .housing for family members
that were going to move in there.
Staff suggested four findings for denial of the Conditional Use Permit in
addition to the two findings listed in the draft resolution.
After further discussion, the following action was taken, with the findings
listed below:
1. Building of the proposed use was commenced without a building permit and
without a Conditional Use Permit in violation of the City's Municipal Code
and in violation of the Uniform Building Code.
2. If the appropriate permits had been applied for as required by law, the
project would have been conditioned to require placement in a different
location to allow the applicant full use of his property but still. respect
the views of existing development.
3. Applicant is not precluded from applying for this use in a better location
on his property.
4. The proposed use is not consistent with Policy 7.2 of the General Plan
Land Use Element because it does not respect views of existing
development. In particular, Implementation Actions {d) of Policy 7.2
require that new developments be designed so as to respect the views of
existing, development. If the project had been reviewed prior to
construction, alternative locations on the 8 acre site would have been
reviewed in order to comply with the provisions of the General Plan.
5. The proposed use will have an adverse effect on the use of surrounding
property because of the reduction of views.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1312
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COlMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO.
90 -478, APPLIED FOR BY JAMES P. DOTSON, 801 HUAS A ROAD,
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 11 -6 -90 3
TO LEGITIMIZE A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED 630 SQUARE FOOT
SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND FARM OFFICE ATOP A GARAGE.
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Brandy, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit: -
AYES: Commissioners Brandy, Gallagher, Souza and Chairman Carr
NOES: Commmissioner Boggess
ABSENT: Commissioners Moore -and Soto
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of November 1990.
Planning Director Liberto -Blanck advised that the Ca miission's denial can
be appealed to the City Council within ten (10) days.
Architectural Review Case No. 90 -462. On motion by Commissioner Gallagher,
seconded by Commissioner Brandy, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review
Case No. 90 -462 was denied-based the fact that the Conditional Use Permit was
denied, and the above-findings. --
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 90- 150, VARIANCE TO RAISE EXISTING WALL ALONG
HUASNA ROAD TO SIX (6') rIzT IN HEIGHT, 169 AND 167 VARD.LOOMIS COURT, 1126 AND
1127 VARD LOOMIS LANE, AND 119 AND 104 IKEDA WAY (RICHARD A. LOEW.
Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated November 6, 1990.
He stated that as part of the development of the Sunny Gardens Tract a wall was
constructed along Huasna Road four feet behind the sidewalk. The wall ranges in
height from just under three feet to slightly over four feet and is constructed
of slump stone. Most of the homes-with yards adjacent -to Huasna Road are - several
feet lower than Huasna Road, and because of this difference in elevation and the
height of the existing wall, the yards and houses are visible from the adjacent
street and sidewalk, and this creates a noticeable lack of privacy for these
homes. Mr. Spierling pointed out that earlier this year the Planning Commission
approved a variance for wall height for Tract 555 located across the street from
this subdivision. The applicant requested a six foot high wall for privacy and
noise attenuation for the houses with side or rear-yards adjacent to Huasna Road.
Mr. Spierling further stated that the application has been reviewed by the Staff
Advisory Committee and they recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution which approves the variance, adopts a negative declaration
and instructs the-secretary to file a Notice of Determination.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing
for Variance Case No. 90- 150-had been duly published and property owners
notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. -
Mr. Richard Loew, representing the homeowners requesting the Variance,
spoke in favor of the variance being granted. He referred to Condition of
Approval #7 requiring that the wall be designed by a structural or civil
engineer. -He requested that this condition be eliminated because of the costs
involved.
Mr. Spierling-stated- that the requirement for engineering design of a 6
foot block wall is required -by the Construction - Standards for -the.City of Arroyo
Grande. He also stated that-the Building Inspector has - looked at the existing
wall in the past and is concerned -that the footings may not be adequate.
Chris Levett, 1126 Vard Loomis Lane, stated they had talked to an engineer
about raising the wall and were - advised-there would be no problem at all.
After further discussion, the Commission-agreed to continue the public
hearing to enable the applicants to work with staff and perhaps -revise their
application for some other design.
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and
unanimously carried, Variance Case No. 90- 150 continued to the Planning
Commission meeting of December 4 -, 1990. • • - -
PUBLIC HEARING - REVERSION TO ACREAGE CASE NO. 90 -494, 100 BARNEiT STREET (GRAND
CENTRAL STATION.) -
Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated September 6,
1990. He stated that on November 7, 1989 the Planning Commission approved a
conditional use permit and architectural review for this project, which consisted
of a 15,959 sq. ft. retail shopping center with an under- building parking
structure. As construction plans were being drafted it was discovered that the
site, which was thought to be one parcel, was actually three parcels, one of
which was not owned by the developers, however, they have since purchased that
parcel. When the Building Department found that three parcels were involved in
22.3;
224:
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 11 -6 -90 4
the development, the applicant was directed to ascertain whether the building
crossed any of the -lot lines, and it was determined that the building did cross
lot lines. The Zoning Ordinance requires that whenever a permanent structure is
constructed.across_the property lines dividing two or more parcels, all lots or
parcels upon which the structure is erected shall be combined into one parcel.
Mr. Spierling referred to .the recomnnended conditions of approval under
"Planning Department Conditions ", stating staff is recommending deletion of
Condition #5 requiring that all utilities be undergrounded along Barnett Street.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing
for Reversion to Acreage Case No. 90 -494 had been duly published and property
owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open.
David Main, EDA, representing Grand Central Station Partnership, stated
they are agreeable with the Conditions of Approval as amended. With regard to
Condition #6,.Mr. Main pointed out that the sign will be removed as a part of the
engineer drawings for road improvements. Current Planner Spierling suggested
modifying Condition #6 as follows: "Prior to recordation of the final reversion
to acreage map, the applicant shall remove the non- conforming pole sign(s)
located near the northern frontage of the property, as necessary for roadway
improvements."
Hearing no further comments for or against the proposal, Chairman Carr
declared the hearing closed.
After a brief discussion the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1313
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, APPROVING
REVERSION TO ACREAGE CASE NO. 90 -494 APPLIED FOR BY
GRAND CENTRAL STATION, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP,
AT 100 BARNEZT STREET, AND INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY ARY TO
FILE A NOTICE OF DE.TERMINATIOI.
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Brandy, .Gallagher, Souza, Boggess and Chairman
Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Moore and Soto
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of November 1990.
PUBLIC HEARING - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 90 -493, VARIANCE CASE NO. 90 -151
AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIESWT CASE NO. 90 -453, 1156 GRAND AVENUE (PEDIATRICS
ASSOCIATES (THE PEPRA GROUP.)
Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated November 6, 1990.
He stated that the plans were reviewed by the Architectural Advisory Committee
and discussed at some length, which resulted in some conditions being added to
the project by that Committee. He further stated that the lot line adjustment
is fairly minor and would result in increasing the size of lot 2 by 4900 square
feet, while reducing Lot 3 by the same amount. Lot 2 will be 17,598 square feet
in area, and Parcel 3 will be 21,811 square feet. Both lot sizes exceed the
minimum lot size in the Zoning Ordinance which is 10,000 square feet. Mr.
Spierling pointed out that conditions of approval have been added requiring that
the easement for access and public utilities be extended to assure that adequate
access would be provided. The Architectural Advisory Committee and the Staff
Advisory Committee recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution
approving the Lot Line Adjustment and the resolution approving the Variance,
subject to the findings and conditions of approval, and approve Architectural
Review Case No. 90 -453 subject to the findings and conditions of approval listed
in the staff report dated November 6, 1990.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing
for Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 90 -493 and Variance Case No. 90 -151 had been
duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing
open.
John Mack, Architect with RRM Design Group, representing the applicant,
stated they agree with all of the recommended conditions.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 11 -6 -90 5
There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Carr declared
the hearing closed. After a brief discussion the following action was taken:
ATTEST:
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1314
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUS MENT CASE NO. 90-
493 LOCATED AT 1156 GRAND AVENUE APPLIED FOR BY
PEDIATRICS ASSOCIATES.
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Brandy, Souza, Gallagher, Boggess and Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Moore and Soto
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of November 1990.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1315
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 90 -151,
APPLIED FOR BY PEDIATRICS ASSOCIATES, LOCATED AT 1156
GRAND AVENUE, ALLOWING THE HEIGHT OF FENCES AND WALLS TO
EXCEED SIX (6) k'iwi', AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION.
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Brandy, Gallagher, Souza, Boggess and Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Moore and Soto
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of November 1990.
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Brandy, and
unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No. 90 -453 was approved subject
to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report dated November 6, 1990.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was
adjourned by the Chairman at 10:05 P.M.
Pearl L. Phinney, Secretary
Robert W. Carr, Chairman
225