Loading...
PC Minutes 1990-06-19Arroyo Grande Planning Commission June 19, 1990 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Carmissioners Soto, Gallagher and Brandy. Ceaimissioners Moore and Flores are absent. Also in attendance are Planning Director Liberto - Blanck, City Attorney Judy Skousen, Public Works Director Paul Karp, and Water Conservation Coordinator Karen Williams. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 983, 139, 141, 143 AND 145 TALLY HO ROAD (L. C. LAVINE.) - _ - - • Chairman Carr stated it his understanding that the Planning Commission's action on this item is -to make recearmendations to the City Council on findings and conditions of approval. COMMISSIONER 1400RE ENTERED THE MEETING AT 7:38 P.M. - AND IS NOW PRESENT. Planning Director'Liberto -Blanck referred to the staff report-dated June 19, 1990. She stated that, -at the Council's request, the Planning Commission reviewed this project at their- meeting -of June-5, -1990. The Planning Commission continued the - review of the project to this meeting to allow -time for staff to develop conditions -of approval.. -- - - - H. Liberto -Blanck briefly reviewed findings that the Coannission could make in approving this project, and referred t� the recommended conditions of approval if they feel they are - appropriate.- She described some modifications to the conditions fisted in the staff report dated June 19, 1990. A condition requiring that a- -building - envelope be- shown -on- Lot 4, subject to the Planning - Director's approval was recommended as an additional condition of - approval.. Chairman Carr re- opened the public hearing for public comment. - Jim McGillis, — Surveyor -with San Luis Engineering,- representing the applicant, - stated that - =the - map- is consistent with the - General Plan and the zoning, and the - conditions- as they stand mitigate any -- concerns regarding the project. He further stated an agreement 'was -made to -a condition on Lot 4 that would -limit the building to the area where the greenhouse has -a pad already so there would be -no additional - grading, and the- two -lots in the rear would - remain the same. He briefly described the drainage considerations-stating it could either -go- underground -or- continue to drain to-- La- Barranca:- He also explained that there may be -need for retaining-walls in one - -area- - because -of- slope. -He stated the actual walls would --be no more than 3 feet high and would -be made out of railroad- ties. -•_ = - • - With-regard to water consumption, Mr: McGi- llis- advised that there is a greenhouse- there right now- that - -is using a lot -of water, and also a requirement for water saving- devices has now - been incorporated- into building permit requests. and,- in -al -1- probability,- -the total -water usage for -the- subdivision wil -1- be less than what is presently being used. -Hearing -no further comments for or against the proposed project; 'Chairman Carr declared - the - hearing- closed. - - 1 Planning Director- Liberto- Blanck - listed - findings the Commission would have to make in -the affirmative -if -they feel the - project is - appropriate: - . • 1. The proposed map, design and improvements of this subdivision are consistent with the General Plan map -and text because the General •P1 -an designation -is Low Density - Residential,- 0.2 -4.5 dwelling units per -acre- and the applicant is proposing 1.5 units per -acre. 2. This site is physically suitable for the proposed type 'and density of development because all yards, parking spaces, setbacks, driveways, safe - access and other features can be -accommodated. 3. The- proposed subdivision-design' is -not likely to cause substantial and considerable damage to the natural environment, including fish, wildlife or their habitat because measures have been included in the conditions of approval for the project, which, when implemented will mitigate any potential impacts-.• • - -- - 4. The proposed design of the subdivision of proposed improvements are not likely to cause public health problems. 5. The proposed subdivision design will not conflict with public easements within or throughout the site, if the conditions of approval are implemented. 185 186 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -19 -90 Chairman Carr stated his feelings that the concerns have been addressed and he feels confortable with the condition regarding tree removal and the testimony that there are no plans to remove any trees, and if those plans change, they have to be approved by City staff prior to removal. He felt the redesign of the project.has pretty well addressed any earlier concerns. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Chairman Carr, motion carried with one "no" vote and one abstention, the original denial by the Planning Commission was reconsidered because of additional information submitted, recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration with the findings as delineated by the Planning Director above, and with the listed conditions, as modified. Viewshed•Review Case No. 90 - 20, 1320 Hillcrest Drive (Ramsum). Planning Director Liberto -Blanck referred to the staff report dated June 19th regarding the above project. -She advised that a Staff Advisory Committee meeting was held and a Notice of Intent to Construct an Additional Structure was sent to all property owners within 150 feet of the project on May 25, 1990. Staff received no adverse comments from adjacent neighbors on this proposal. She stated that, based on the findings listed in the staff report, Viewshed Review Permit No. 90- 20 was approved on June 13, 1990 subject to a 10 day appeal period. She noted that the issue may,come back to the Commission at a future date. This piece of property was a of litigation about three or four years ago and, out of the court case came a decree that indicated there had to be some off -site parking on the property. The applicant has requested that the City look at that requirement and possibly delete it. These are really two distinct issues and staff wants to look at the Viewshed Review independently fran the court decree. WATER POLICY WORKSHOP Planning Director Liberto -Blanck briefly reviewed same of the items handed out to the Commission tonight. First of all, a letter received from Gene Nooker submitted during the General Plan update was handed out to the Commission in response to a phone call from Mr. Nooker today. Other information submitted is a letter from Public Works Director Paul Karp, dated May 21, 1990, and a memo dated June 7, 1990 to the Planning Director. The other item is an executive summary that was. taken out of the draft EIR on the State Water Project, and the Public Information Program, included in your packet as Exhibit "A ". On May 22nd the City Council requested that the Planning Commission formulate and recommend to a City water policy. What staff has attempted to do with the document before you is include some of the basic information regarding water; where are we right now, how much water do we have, and where are we going? Staff wanted to give the Commission as much background information as possible before attempting to put together a City water policy. She pointed out that the staff report in the packet was put together with information submitted by Karen Williams, City Water Coordinator; Judy Skousen, City Attorney; Paul Karp, Director of Public Works, and the Planning Director. Considerable discussion followed relative to information.included in the various documents presented to the Commission. There was general discussion regarding water conservation methods, population buildout, water resources and availability, allocation of building permits for growth control, development in the County along City boundaries without adequate EIR's and the proposed State Water Project and potential cost. Chairman Carr stated that an ordinance that puts things in place for new development is a good idea. It was also suggested that a recommendation be made to the City Council requesting that the County give more consideration to our resources when making decisions regarding development projects in the Arroyo Grande fringe area. After further discussion, Planning Director Liberto -Blanck commented that the information received tonight would be reviewed by staff and incorporated into a report for further review by the Commission towards formulating a City Water Policy. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the_ meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 10:35 P.M. Pearl Phinney, Secretary 2 Robert W. Carr, Chairman