Loading...
PC Minutes 1990-03-0615.0 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 1990 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Flores, Soto, Moore, Brandy and Fischer. Commissioner Gallagher is absent. Also in attendance are Planning Director Liberto -Blanck and Current Planner Spierling. APPROVAL OF MINUTEaS Upon hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meetings of October 17, November 7, November 21 and December 5, 1989 were approved by the Chairman as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -454, SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT, 1053 ASH STREET. (TOMMY H. HASBJN /TONY JANOWITZ) Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated March 6, 1990. He noted that as of this date one letter has been received from an adjacent neighbor urging the City to make sure that this project is made to observe all the current zoning requirements. Mr. Spierling stated that the project was reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee and they recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution of approval subject to the findings and conditions of approval listed in the staff report dated March 6, 1990. Upon being assured by the Commission Clerk that public hearing for Conditional Use Permit Case No. 90 -454 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Christi Hasbun, agent for applicant, spoke in favor of the Use Permit being granted. Tawny Hasbun, applicant, spoke in favor of the Use Permit, stating that there are a lot of homes with carports, and there are some granny flats without garages. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed Conditional Use Permit, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. In answer to Commissioner Flores' question, Mr. Spierling advised that the ordinance requires one covered and one uncovered parking space for second residential units. Also, in answer to Commissioner Brandy's question about owner occupancy, Mr. Spierling advised that Condition No. 4 requires that the applicant record a deed restriction and an agreement in accordance with the provisions of Article 40, which requires owner occupancy of one of the units and maximum occupancy of the second unit is restricted to two persons. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1276 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -454, APPLIED FOR BY TOMMY HASBUN /TONY JANOWITZ, LOCATED AT 1053 ASH STREET FOR A SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION. On motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Flores, Moore, Brandy, Fischer and Chairman Carr NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Soto and Gallagher the foregoing resolution was adopted this 6th day of March 1990. PUBLIC HEARING - PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 89 -487, 516 PLATINO LANE (RON OLSON W ENGINEERING.) Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated March 6, 1990. He stated that the Staff Advisory Committee reviewed the project and recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolution attached to the staff report denying the project based upon water resources, unless the applicant agrees in writing to a waiver of the time limits for processing applications. If the applicant does agree to the time waiver, then the Staff Advisory Committee recommends that this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 17, 1990, at which time it is expected that a City water policy will be available. Mr. Spierling noted that two letters were received after the packets were sent out opposing the project; one from Mike Miner, 316 Oro Drive, and one from Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3/6/90 Lee R. Hilton, 511 Platino Lane. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Clerk that public hearing for Parcel Map Case No. 89 -487 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Ron Olson, 516 Platino Lane, applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal. Terry Orton, Westland Engineering, representing the applicant, also spoke in favor of the project, stating they are in agreement with the recommended conditions of approval. Jim Dotson, 801 Huasna Road, spoke in favor of the project. He noted that the building code now requires water saving devices, and all new plumbing now has.water saving devices.. Mr. DeCarlo, 516 Platino Lane, stated he would not find_it.upsetting having one more house_up :there. Commissioner Moore asked.where the drainage water will go; in the street or downhill? .Mr. Orton stated a portion will go to the back.and a portion will go to street. Hearing no further comments for or against Parcel Map Case, No. 89 -487, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. - Considerable discussion followed regarding water conservation, retrofitting and drought resistant landscaping. Planning Director Liberto -Blanck advised that water saving devices are-defined in the Uniform Building Code. It was suggested that the following mitigation measure be added as follows: "The existing residence on Parcel 1 and all construction on shall utilize fixtures and designs which minimize water usage: Such-fixtures and designs shall include; but are not limited to, low flow-shower heads, water - saving toilets, instant water heaters or-hot water recirculating systems, drip irrigation with drought tolerant-landscaping and etcetra. CC&R's requiring-the above shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and recorded prior to, or concurrently with the parcel map." After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1277 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE •APPROVING PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 89 -487 LOCATED AT 516 PLATING LANE APPLIED FOR BY RONALD R. OLSON, AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION On motion by. Commissioner Flores; seconded by Chairman Carr, and by the following roll:call vote, to-wit:' - AYES: . Commissioners Flores, Moore and Chairman Carr NOES Commissioners Brandy and- Fischer ABSENT: Commissioners Gallagher and Soto the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of March 1990. PUBLIC HEARING - _VARIANCE CASE NO. 90 -144, VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO REQUIRED 20 FOOT FROIT YARD SETBACK, 510 IDE STREET (RICHARD AND - COLE N RUBEL.) Current Planner :Spierling reviewed the-staff report -dated March 6, 1990. As background information , :Mr. -Spierling-stated that the project site.is Parcel 2 of Parcel Map AG -77 -195, recorded November 17, 1977. This parcel map created four lots and stretched from Ide Street in the north to Pacific Coast Railway Place in :the :south.: An offer of dedication for road purposes was made so that at some Place could be extended to Ide Street.,. - The_ offer- of• dedication varied--in-width,r from about 31 feet in the south to 25 feet in the north. A 20 foot front building-setback line from the offer of dedication was also shown on the parcel map. There are currently no plans to construct-Pacific Coast•Railway,Place,.however, it is expected that the road will be constructed with development of-the• area occupied by the avocado orchard to the west. He stated that on October 31,• 1989 the City Building Department issued a building permit to the applicants to construct a single family The Building Department had reviewed the plans, which were drawn by Mrs. Kubel, and the setback was shown being greater than 20 feet (it was later_discovered that the plans incorrectly represented the location of the offer-.of dedication 2 15:1 1:52 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3/6/90 and the front setback line). As a condition of issuance of the permit, the applicants were required to hire a Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor to stake thehouse footprint and verify that all minimum setbacks were met. This is a standard condition employed by the Building Department to prevent any encroachment into the required setbacks. The applicants hired San Luis Engineering, who provided a verification of the setbacks to the City Building Department. After the setbacks were verified by the engineering company, construction progressed on the house. As the house was being framed, a neighbor who had constructed a house on Pacific Coast Railway Place came into the Building Department to ask why the front setback of the house under construction did not appear to line up with the setbacks of the other houses on the street. After a field review by the Building Department, San Luis Engineering was contacted and asked to review the setbacks. San Luis Engineering reviewed the setbacks and found that the front setback was incorrect. On December 15, 1989 the Building Department placed a "Stop Work Order" to prevent further construction of the house until the setback was rectified, or a variance was approved. Mr. Spierling informed the Commission-that the applicants have requested a refund of their processing fees for the application. He pointed out that only the City Council can authorize a refund of the application fee. Since the City incurred costs in the processing of the application; staff is recommending that the Commission forward the request to the Council with a recommendation that the fees not be waived. Mr. Spierling stated that, within the R -1 zone, the minimum front yard setback is 20 feet without gaining special approval from the Planning Director, and even then the setback cannot be less than 17 feet. The applicants have poured a slab and framed a house with a minimum 11.5 foot front setback. The minimum setback is to a portion of the house that will became the master bedroom and bathroom. The remainder of the house, including the garage has a setback of about 22 feet: Thus this variance will not affect the parking for the residence. As of this date, staff has received one letter from Brianne Donahue, 227 Railway Place, objecting to the granting of the variance, however, no reasons for the objection are stated. In reviewing this proposal, staff does not feel that findings can be made for approval of this project. Specifically, there are two - findings which staff is unable to make in the affirmative. First, staff is not aware of any exceptions or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property which would necessitate the variance. The lot directly adjacent to this lot to the south is a mirror image of this lot. The house constructed on this lot has met the required setback. Second, staff does not believe -that the strict . application of the R -1 zone deprives this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity or same zone. Once again, the properties to the south of this parcel are similarly sized and the homes have been built within the required setback. If this variance is not approved, the portion of the house lying within the required front setback could be fairly easily removed since the house is still in the rough framing stage. However, removal of this portion of the house would eliminate the master bedroam and bathroom. Relocation of the master bedroom and bath would necessitate almost complete redesign of the house, which in turn, may result in substantial portions of the house being removed and reconstructed. The Staff Advisory Committee was unable to make the required findings for approval of this variance. Therefore, it.is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution denying the variance.with the following findings for denial. 1. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property. 2. The strict application of the R -1 zone does not deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity or same zone. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Clerk that public hearing for Variance Case No. 90 -144 had been duly published and property owners 3 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3/6/90 notifiefd, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Jim McGillis, Surveyor with San Luis Engineering, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that the standards as shown on the plans are issued by the City of Arroyo Grande, noting that the major reason for front setbacks is to ensure enough room for a driveway. Coleen Kubel, applicant, spoke in favor of the Variance. She stated the plans with_the front setback were drawn as indicated by the Building Department. • Terry Donahue, 227 Railway Place, read a letter dated February 3, 1990 frown Brianne Donahue, opposing the. variance. .- Hearing -no further comments for or against the proposed Variance, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. Chairman Carr-stated that at the site, he had a difficult time visualizing how the street look_.when built out, and he did -not have a good feeling about it. He further:stated he would like to see this item continued and request the applicant to return.with a detailed layout of the existing buildings on Railroad. :Street between Ide and Allen to show how the street would look when it is:finally_ built :out. Commissioner-Flores stated have a difficulttime.approving this Variance, primarily-because :he: could not : find :exceptional or. extraordinary circumstances that would allow the Commission to :do so. Commissioner Moore made :motion_to :.continue this item and request that the applicant submit -a detained drawing of_ entire street between Ide and Allen with all of the residences depicted on it. The motion was. seconded by Chairman Carr, and was defeated by a 3 to 2 vote. After further discussion,. the following was.taken: - RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1278 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING.O *OMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING A VARIANCE; CASE NO. 90 -144, APPLIED FOR BY RIC ARD ..AND .COLEEN KUBEL AT 510 - IDE STREET, TO ENCROACH INTO REQUIRED 20_FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK• On motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and by the following roll call vote,._to wit: _ AYES: Commissioners Flores, Fischer and Brandy NOES: Commissioner__Moore = • • - ABSTAIN: Chairman Carr ABSENT: Commissioners Gallagher and.Soto the foregoing resolution was adopted this 6th day of March 1990. REVIEW - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE•NO.. 88- 440,.'.227 BRIDGE STREET (UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND. JOINERS-OF AMERICA.) Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated March 6, 1990. He stated that on September 20, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a use permit for union offices, a meeting hall and a carpenter's school, subject to a review of the school's operation-after the - school was in operation for three months. The purpose of the review was to whether-significant noise impacts exist. No significant impacts were found, and the Planning Commission modified the requirement to•seview the :use .permit .at one_.year-- intervals. He advised that no complaints have been filed with the Planning-Department, however, a petition supporting the school has been received Upon being assured - by the Planning: Commission Clerk hearing for review of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 88 -440 had been duly published and property owners notified;. Chairman. Carr declared the hearing open. Mr. Earl- Patton,--126 Nelsons_ Street , »the.applicant, explained the union and school activities .__Jim:McGillis,- 133.Bridge Street, stated-he is pleased to have .': Union and. - School for neighbors, and there is no noise problem.:.- After-a brief discussion; on motion by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner-Flores, and unanimously :carried, that no additional action be 4 153 154 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3/6/90 taken and the use permit remain in effect, with review to take place in one year as required in the Conditional Use Permit. PUBLIC HEARING --RIGHT TO FADS ORDINANCE (CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE) Planning Di- rector . Liberto -Blanck referred to a copy of a draft ordinance attached to the staff report dated March 6, 1990. She stated staff is recommending that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the ordinance. She commented that the City .wants to protect agriculture. However, nuisance complaints from adjacent residents make it more difficult for farmers to continue their operation. She stated that, basically, the proposed ordinance is an attempt to promote a good neighbor policy between agriculturalists and residents by advising purchasers and residents of property adjacent to or near agricultural. operations of the potential problems associated with living adjacent to farmland. Chairman Carr stated, in his opinion,.if - the Commission recammends the ordinance for adoption, there should be some kind of disclaimer that provides guidance to the effect that if there is information that leads the City or others to believe that there are health effects associated with nearby agricultural operations, that ordinance does not exempt them from whatever action may be necessary to alleviate the health problem. Planning Director Liberto -Blanck stated, for :example, if the City found that there is a hazardous situation, the ordinance would have to be amended upon receipt of such information. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Clerk that public hearing for the proposed Right to Farm Ordinance had been duly published, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Jim McGillis, 238 W. Branch Street, stated that the farming industry is taking place, basically, on land that is not zoned for - agriculture. What he is trying to say is "let's get this on the right level ", let's say that even though it's a non - conforming use, that it is a conforming use, and unless you can show you are doing harm to your neighbors, it wouldn't be shut down. He pointed out that right now the farmers have less than the normal amount of rights. He stated that the Okui property is zoned PD, the Kobara property is zoned Multi - Family, and the Kaowoka property is zoned industrial, and growing strawberries there is a non - conforming use. They would like to be on an even plane and have the right to farm the same as if the property were zoned agriculture. Hearing no further comments from the audience for or against the proposed ordinance, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1279 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING ARTICLE 42 ESTABLISHING A "RIGHT TO FARM" ORDINANCE On motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Moore, Fischer, Brandy and Flores NOES: None ABSTAIN: Chairman Carr ABSENT: Commissioners Soto and Gallagher the foregoing resolution was adopted this 6th day of March 1990. PUBLIC HEARING - SIGN PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -96, PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM, 610 GRAND AVENUE (JOHN HAYASHI /CN SIGNS & GRAPHICS) John Ashbaugh, - Planning Consultant, reviewed the staff report dated March 6, 1990. He stated that Toyo Plaza has been in existence and occupied for some time, but no planned sign program was ever proposed or approved for the project. The existing signs on the building are a mixed assortment with respect to materials, graphics, size, and location. The tenants have each been responsible for their own signs, and they have each chosen to locate their signs on the shingled portion of the building that overhangs the 5 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3/6/90 western-style arcade along the front of the building. Mr. Ashbaugh explained that staff has interpreted the signs to be "roof signs" that are not permitted under the terms of the sign ordinance, and the key issue in this interpretation is whether the structure to which the signs are to be mounted is part of the "roof" of the building, or merely a "facade" that could more rightly be considered a wall.- He stated that the applicant has requested the sign permit be reviewed by the Planning Commission and an interpretation regarding "roof signs" be made. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Clerk that public hearing for Sign Permit Case No. 89 -96 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Wayne Millheim, CN Signs and Graphics, stated he basically agrees with the staff report; that there is no uniformity of signs in this center. - He further stated, in looking at the facia, the question is, if this is a roof structure, then where do you put the signs for the individual businesses; they either have to be put on this facia or in the window. In summary, Mr. Millheim stated it seems unreasonable to.classify these as a typical "roof sign ", because of the unique facade on the -front that is tilted almost perpendicular to the ground, and -it is really designed to hold a sign. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. After considerable discussion, on motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Brandy, motion carried with two "no" votes, Sign Permit Case No..89 -96 was continued to the.meeting.of April 3, 1990, pending submittal of a variance application. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - SIGN PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -91, PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM, 345 SO. HALCYON ROAD (AMI ARROYO GRANDE - HOSPITAL) - Curr-ent - Planner Spierling advised that this project was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of January 16, 1990 at the applicant's request. He noted that the applicants are really only proposing two signs that come under the requirements of the zoning ordinance. AYES NOES: • Mr. Spierling advised that the proposal has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee and they recommend -that the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolution included with the staff report to approve the sign permit with the findings and subject to the conditions of approval listed on the resolution, with the added condition that the faces, returns -and bases of the signs shall be.blue -grey in color, .Frazee Paint. Color No. 5014B to match the metal panels and window frames per the approved architectural review -for the hospital. The resolution also adopts a negative declaration, and instructs the Secretary to file a Notice of Determination. Mr. Spierling commented that if the applicants do propose any changes to the sign program, it would have to came back to the Planning Commission. Chairman Carr reopened the public hearing for public comment. Hadley Davis, representing the applicants, spoke in favor of the sign permit request, and briefly reviewed the colors to be uses. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed sign permit, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1280 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -460, APPLIED FOR BY ARROYO GRANDE HOSPITAL AT 345 SO. HALCYON ROAD FOR A PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM On motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: Commissioners Flores, Moore, Brandy, Fischer and Chairman Carr None 6 1-5'5 ,1 - 5}6 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3/6/90 ABSENT: Commissioners Soto and Gallagher the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of March 1990. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 89- 443; - ADDITION OF A 65 SQ. FT. ENCLOSED PATIO TO RESIDENCE IN PD ZONE, 537 BAKFMAN LANE (HAROLD AND MARY RILEY) Mr. Ashbaugh briefly reviewed the staff report dated March 16, 1990 stating that the request is for a small addition to an existing residence, and requires architectural review and approval because it is located within a Planned Development zone. He described the addition as a 64.8 square foot enclosed patio, and will have a "truelock" roof with bronze aluminum extrusions and 2 ft. high simulated stucco kickplates. There being no further discussion, Architectural Review Case No. 89 -443 was recommended for approval to the City Council with the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, dated March 6, 1990, on motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner-Moore, and unanimously carried. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 90 -447, RETAINING WALL AND PROJECT SITE DEVELOPMENT, 221 EAST BRANCH STREET (MARK GODFREY /THE WHITE HOUSE) Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated March 6, 1990, primarily discussing the three major issues related to this project. Mr. Spierling noted that the applicants are not present at the meeting and if the Commission wishes to deny the project, staff would recommend that the Commission continue the matter to a time when the applicants are present to respond to the concerns the Planning Commission may have. He noted that the Staff Advisory Committee recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed architectural review by minute motion subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Brandy, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No. 90- 447 was continued to the meeting of April 3, 1990 when the applicants are present. PLANNING DIRECTOR /PLANNING C1MISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS Viewshed Review Permit Case 90 -17 - Planning Director Liberto -Blanck advised that this it is for the Commission's information, and no adverse comments were received from surrounding property owners. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 10:30 p.m. to March 19, 1990 for a special public hearing on the General Plan. The regular meeting of March 20, 1990 was cancelled. ATTEST: Pearl L. Phinney Planning Commission Secretary 7 Robert W. Carr Chairman