PC Minutes 1989-11-079,4
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
November 7, 1989
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman
Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Soto, Gallagher, Brandy and Fischer.
Commissioners Flores and Moore are absent. Planning Director Liberto-Blanck and
Current Planner Spierling are also in attendance.
MINUTE APPROVAL
Upon hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular
meeting of August 15, 1989 were approved as prepared on motion by Commissioner
Soto, seconded by Commissioner Gallagher, and unanimously carried.
WELCC E TO NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER
Chairman Carr welcomed Sharon Fischer to the Planning Commission, stating
it is a pleasure to have her back on the Commission and he hopes it will be a
long tenure.
ORAL CINICATIONS
Chairman Carr commented that water has again become an issue within the
City. He stated there have been actions on some its in the past based on
concerns about water, and he wanted to remind the Commission about that and
encourage them to try to be consistent in their actions on items where water is
concerned.
C *4MISSIONER SOTO STATED HE HAD A POSSIBLE CL1NFLICT OF INTEREST WITH AGENDA ITEMS
(1) AND (2) AND WOULD BE ABSENT DURING DISCUSSION OF THESE TO ITEMS. HE LEFT
THE MEETING AND IS NOW ABSENT.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -456 AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
CASE NO. 89 -420, OFF -SITE PARKING FOR C 4(RCIAL CENTER, AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
FORA 3,562 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 150 W. BRANCH STREET (DOLORES DANA AND
PAUL J. RALPH).
Current Planner Spierling reviewed that the Planning Commission held a
public hearing on this item on October 3, 1989 and, after hearing public
testimony, the Commission decided to continue the matter to this meeting to allow
the applicants time to resolve two issues that were brought up at that meeting.
The first issue was the number of excess parking spaces that were available
in the Guidetti Square project since the size of the drainage basin required
for the Guidetti project has not yet been determined, and the size of the basin
directly affects the number of parking spaces. He stated that he has been
informed by the Public Works Department that the basin will not substantially
change in size and will not take up any more parking spaces. Therefore, the
Guidetti project will have 57 excess parking spaces, which appears to be enough
to serve the Dana -Ralph project.
The second issue concerned the possibility that the applicants may try to
develop this project independently of the Guidetti Square project. The
applicants indicated that a mutual development agreement and parking agreement
existed between themselves and the Guidetti Square project, however, the Planning
Commission wanted this agreement reviewed by the City Attorney prior to approving
the project. He stated that both agreements were submitted to the City Attorney
and found to be inadequate to protect the interests of the City. The specific
problem was that the agreements could be cancelled by either party and they were
not binding on future landowners. He stated that if the Planning Commission
wishes to approve the project, they should add a condition stating that both
agreements shall be approved by the City Attorney and shall be entered into prior
to issuance of any City permit.
Mr. Spierling referred to a third issue that has come up in the last four
weeks, which is the issue of water. He noted that the proposed project will
probably use more water than the existing uses on the site. Staff estimates that
the difference will be approximately half an acre foot per year and until a City
water policy is adopted, staff is unable to determine if this increase
constitutes a significant adverse impact under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that this
item be continued until the City Council has adopted a water policy. He did,
however, remind the Commission that action has to be taken on this item prior
to the end of December.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 11 -7 - 89
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing
for Use Permit Case No. 89 -456 had been duly published and property owners
notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open.
KemWeber, representative for the Dana Family, advised that he had met with
the City Attorney, Mr. Spierling and Mr. Karp last Friday, and the concerns
regarding the parking vs. the retention basin and the development agreement has
been resolved, and it is his understanding that a document will be presented to
the satisfaction of the City Attorney that provides adequate protection to the
City in terms of termination of the development project of either party. He
noted that there is a written joint development agreement that links the Guidetti
and Dana Families to the point of completion, and neither party can go forward
without the other one. He stated he feels that the design and architecture that
has gone into these two projects has kept the water concern in mind. He
encouraged the Commission to look favorably on this application and to consider
the economic benefits. He stated he feels the water usage is minimal in
comparison to the tax benefits that will accrue to the City. He also stated they
intend to implement state -of- the -art systems as far as sprinklers, irrigation
and whatever else is available to them.
Dennis Law, representing the Guidetti Square project, spoke regarding the
development agreement and the mutual easement agreement for the parking. Mr.
Law addressed the question as to the impact on the Guidetti Square project if
the Dana Ralph project were to be delayed. He stated they are waiting now for
the Dana project to catch up to them and have been doing so for quite sometime.
They originally had hoped that the Dana project would obtain architectural
approval a month or so ago, and assuming they could obtain a building permit in
the next couple of months, it was the hope that they could begin construction
when the dry season starts. If the Commission's action tonight would
substantially delay the Dana project, then they could easily miss the window for
construction during the next dry season. He stated he is concerned that the
Commission would consider postponing a decision because of action that may
ultimately be taken by the City Council. He further stated it is his feeling
that the Commission should follow the guidelines and criteria that are on the
books today.
Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed use permit,
Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed.
Commissioner Gallagher stated that it appears the issues outlined above
have been or will be resolved to the satisfaction of the staff and the City
Attorney. With regard to the water issue, he stated his feeling that this is
a minor amount of water relative to the scheme of things in Arroyo Grande and
he is satisfied that he could make the finding that the granting of this
application would not result in an adverse impact on the City.
Chairman Carr inquired as to the time frame when a water policy might be
on the books. Planning Director Liberto -Blanck advised that the Public Works
Department has indicated the earliest they can get something to Council will be
in December. Chairman Carr suggested adding a condition to cover internal water
conservation practices. Planning Director Liberto -Blanck advised that a
condition could be added under "Planning" requiring the use of internal water
conservation devices of the latest technology.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 1251
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE
NO. 89 -456, APPLIED FOR BY DOLORES DANA AND PAUL J.
RALPH, 150 W. BRANCH STREET FOR OFF -SITE PARKING.
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Brandy, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Gallagher, Brandy, Fischer and Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Flores, Soto and Moore
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 7th day of November 1989.
2
916
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 11 -7 -89
Architectural Review Case No. 89 -420. After a brief discussion, on motion
by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Brandy, and unanimously
carried, Architectural Review Case No. 89 -420 was approved subject to the
findings and conditions listed in the staff report dated November 7, 1989.
COMMISSIONER SOTO ENTERED THE MEETING AND IS NOW PRESENT
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -455, SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT
OVER GARAGE, 290 RIDGEVIEW WAY (ED CHAt.JELL.)
Chairman Carr advised that staff has been unable to contact Mr. Chadwell
and it is their recommendation that this item be continued. On motion by
Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Gallagher, and unanimously
carried, Use Permit Case No. 89 -455 was continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of December 19, 1989.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 89- 140 /AMENDED PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 88 -470,
350 WALNUT STREET (JOIN R. BACERRA.)
Current Planner Spierling reviewed that on January 17, 1989 the Planning
Commission approved Parcel Map Case No. 88 -470 which approved the creation of
two single family residential lots in a flag lot configuration. The access for
the flag lot was to be via a 12 foot wide access easement, ten feet of which was
on the Bacerra property and two feet was on the neighboring property to the
south. Staff was advised by Mr. Bacerra that the neighbor is now unwilling to
grant the required 2 foot easement. Mr. Bacerra would like to revise his parcel
map and the conditions of approval in order to delete the 2 foot easement. This
would result in a 10 foot access to the rear lot. Section 9- 4.2607(a) of the
zoning ordinance requires a minimum access width of 12 feet and, therefore, a
variance is required in order to approve the revised parcel map.
Mr. Spierling noted that the Staff Advisory Committee reviewed the proposal
and the majority felt that the proposal would create no problems, provided that
a condition be added requiring automatic fire sprinklers on any residential
structures constructed on the rear lot. He stated that the Planning staff does
not feel that 10 feet is adequate access for the rear lot, especially considering
that the existing house is only 1 foot away from the access. He stated also that
staff does not feel that the required findings can be made for the variance;
specifically, staff knows of no exceptional circumstances applying to the subject
property, such as size, shape, topography or surroundings which do not apply
generally to other properties in the R -1 zone.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing
for Variance Case No. 89 -140 had been duly published and property owners
notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open.
Bill Sommermeyer, engineer for the applicant, stated that he had discussed
the easement with the Fire Chief, who indicated that the 10 foot easement would
be acceptable provided the applicant agreed to install a fire protection line
and sprinklers. He further stated that this is an in -fill project and is one
of the few parcels in that area that can be divided in this manner, so the
Commission would not be setting a precedent by granting the request, and the
properties on both sides have this same flag lot configuration.
John Becerra, applicant, spoke in favor of the variance and amended parcel
map. He stated that there are two houses in his area with 10 foot easements.
In answer to Chairman Carr's question, Mr. Becerra stated that the bulk of the
driveway would be 12 feet wide, however, it would be 10 feet wide just where his
house is located.
Hearing no further comments for or against the variance and amended parcel
map, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed.
Chairman Carr stated his feelings that there could be findings made to
grant the variance for the easement and the request because it would not be
detrimental to other properties in the area because there are similar lot
configurations. Commissioner Gallagher agreed with Chairman Carr, stating the
request is consistent with other properties in the area. He stated he would like
to see a condition added requiring, where possible, the 12 foot access would be
accommodated. Commissioner Soto stated that this is probably one of the last
lots in the area that can be split, and that the whole neighborhood has a
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 11 -7 -89
precedent for flag lots. Also, the Fire Department has covered their
by requiring a sprinkler system. .
by
After further discussion the following action was taken:
On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Gallagher,
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 1252
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CCMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 89 -140,
APPLIED FOR BY JC IN R. BFEERRA, LOCATED AT 350 WALNUT
STREET, FOR REDUCTION IN THE LOT ACCESS WIDTH FROM 12
Fir ' TO 10 FEET, AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
Commissioners Soto, Gallagher, Brandy, Fischer and Chairman
Carr
None
Commissioners Flores and Moore
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 7th day of November 1989.
On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -1253
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AMENDED PARCEL MAP CASE
NO. 88 -470, 350 WALNUT STREET, APPLIED FOR BY JOHN R.
BECERRA, AND ADOPTION OF'A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
concerns
and
Commissioners Soto, Gallagher, Brandy, Fischer and Chairman
Carr
None
Commissioners Moore and Flores
resolution was adopted this 7th day of November 1989.
VIF3WSHED REVIEW PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -10, 266 NO. ELM STREET, 2 STORY ADDITION TO
EXISTING RESIDENCE (FAYE THOMPSON.)
Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated November 7, 1989
regarding the subject application. He stated the proposal is to construct a 633
square foot, two story addition on the rear of an existing 1320 square foot
residence. In assessing the impact that this addition will have on neighboring
views, the addition is only 15 feet, 8 inches wide on the side that faces the
uphill neighbors, and since the proposed addition is this narrow, it is expected
that the impact on neighboring views would be limited. Also, the addition is
located on the rear of the house, which should further limit the impact on
surrounding neighbors.
Mr. Spierling stated that the Staff Advisory Committee has reviewed the
plans and recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request with the
findings and conditions of approval listed in the staff report dated November
7, 1989.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing
for Viewshed Review Permit Case No. 89 -10 had been duly published and property
owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open.
Faye Thompson, 266 No. Elm Street, applicant, spoke in favor of the
Veiwshed Review Permit being granted.
John Keene, 298 No. Elm Street, stated what he is really concerned about
is that the neighbors next to him indicated if Ms. Thomson builds this addition,
then they are going to also build a two story addition, and basically he is
worried about the "domino" effect that will be created by this particular
application.
Chairman Carr explained that by allowing this one addition does not
4
.97
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 11 -7 -89
necessarily allow the domino effect to occur; each application would have to go
through the viewshed review process.
Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed Viewshed Review,
Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed.
Commissioner Soto commented that, in his opinion, the application has some
warrant because it appears it would have a minimal impact on the rest of the
neighborhood.
After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner
Gallagher, and unanimously carried, Viewshed Review Permit Case No. 89 -10 was
approved with the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff
report dated November 7, 1989.
C t1MISSIONER SOTO LEFT THE MEETING DUE TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON THE
FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEM AND IS NOW ABSENT.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 89 452 /ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 88 - 417, 100
BARNETT STREET, TO ALLOW FOR PARKING STRUCTURE (GRANDE CENTRAL PARTNERSHIP.)
Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated November 7, 1989.
He stated that the project originally came to the Commission in February and,
at that time, the applicants needed conditional use permit approval for their
building because it had architectural features in excess of the 30 foot height
limit. The use permit was denied and the applicants had to redesign the project
to be within the height limit. The Planning Commission also had several concerns
about the project including the parking structure. He stated that on March 14,
1989 the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance which required conditional
use permit review of all parking structures /underground parking. The ordinance
was extended for 10 months and 15 days after holding a public hearing on April
25, 1989.
Mr. Spierling stated that the applicants are proposing construction of a
15,959 square foot building for retail sales. This is a 24% reduction in square
footage from the originally proposed building, which was to be 20,990 square
feet in size. Parking for the building consists a conventional parking lot
and subterranean parking under the northerly half of the building. The
applicants have designed the site in such a way that a second building can be
placed on the southwest corner of the site. This second building must undergo
the necessary processes and permits prior to development. If this project is
approved, it does not guarantee that the second building will be approved by the
City.
With regard to the conditional use permit, Mr. Spierling advised that the
proposal appears to meet all requirements of the ordinance, with one exception.
The ordinance requires a perimeter landscaped strip, four feet wide around the
parking structure. The proposed structure is located directly adjacent to the
Highway 101 right of way with no setback, thus there is no roam for the
landscaped strip. While currently there is landscaping in the highway right of
way, the City has no guarantee that the landscaping will always be there to
screen the structure. He stated that all other ordinance requirements for
access, ventilation, fire sprinkler systems, pedestrian movement, security, and
landscaping have been incorporated into the project's design.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing
for Use Permit Case No. 89 -452 had been duly published and property owners
notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open.
DaleWeisl, representing Grande Central Partnership, stated they have been
working quite diligently with the Planning staff in an effort to provide an
adequate project. He spoke regarding the issue concerning water usage, stating
the engineering firm they consulted based their calculations on shopping center
usage and, in their findings, using all the high gp units that are required under
the typical waste water flows and commercial sources, they estimate that this
project will use .5 acre feet, which is equal to what is presently being used.
Mr. Spierling stated that staff looked at the church usage and asked the
Water Department to submit an average figure for an average year, and it came
out to approximately one half acre foot per year. Then staff tried to find a
shopping center that was close in size to this one, compared the square footage,
5
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 11 -7 -89
and adjusted it per the square footage differences between the two projects.
The subject project, based on staff's estimates, would use approximately 2 -1/2
acre feet per year.
Hearing no further comments for or against the project, Chairman Carr
declared the hearing closed.
Commissioner Gallagher stated his feeling that this project has
significantly improved from the original submittal and presents less of a visual
impact. Also the parameters of the subterranean parking and security measures
that are in accordance with our new parking ordinance, and if they comply with
all of those recommendations, it will be a good project.
Commissioner Fisher stated she is concerned about the ingress and egress
on Grand Avenue, because of the amount of traffic with the freeway off -ramp and
McDonald's that close, and knowing the amount of people that make left -hand
turns onto Grand Avenue, that just a sign saying "right turn only" makes her
hesitant to accept access to Grand Avenue. Mr. Weisl stated that a raised 6"
concrete curb will be installed to allow only right hand turns to alleviate the
problem of left -hand turns onto Grand Avenue.
Mr. Spierling advised that the Planning Commission could request that the
Parking and Traffic Commission review the requirement for a median, similar to
the one in front of the Cass Plaza Center and make a recannendation to the City
Council.
Commissioner Fischer questioned the purpose of Condition of Approval #10
wherein reference is made to future development. Planning Director Liberto-
Blanck suggested eliminating that condition and revising Condition #8 requiring
that area to be landscaped.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -1254
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PEIRMIT CASE NO.
89- 452, APPLIED FOR BY THE GRANDE CENTRAL PARTNEIRSHIP,
100 BARNEIT STREET FOR A PARKING STRUCTURE.
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Gallagher, Brandy, Fischer and Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Soto, Flores and Moore
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 7th day of November 1989.
Chairman Carr pointed out that this project came to the Commission a year
ago when water was not a front burner issue with the City, and the applicants
have worked with the City to resolve most of the problems, and in the meantime
the water issue has core up. He stated that, in his opinion, the overriding
issue in this matter was the timing and that in bringing this kind of project
back to the Commission is going to be one of the criteria that he will personally
use as to what has been the past history of these types of projects and, as far
as the water usage is concerned, he believes that two additional acre feet of
water is an amount that would be too much in his mind, and something along the
line of a standard single family dwelling would be probably be the cut -off point
until the City gets a water policy in place.
Architectural Review Case No. 88 -417. Planning Director Liberto -Blanck
reviewed the findings for architectural review approval listed in the staff
report, dated November 7, 1989. Current Planner Spierling presented the
Commission with two alternatives for the Grand Avenue elevation. One is the
Grand Avenue elevation with two turrets visible, or the one with three turrets
visible.
After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by
Commissioner Fischer, and carried with Chairman Carr abstaining, Architectural
Review Case No. 88 -417 was approved, choosing the design with the three turrets
6
0
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 11 -7 -89
visible from Grand Avenue, subject to staff recommendations and the four findings
listed in the staff report dated November 7, 1989.
COMMISSIONER SOTO ENTERED THE MEEPING AND IS NOW PRESENT.
NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
(1) Viewshed Review Permit Case No. 89 -13, Addition to Residence, 491
Garden Street (A. and M. Wartanian.) Planning Director Liberto -Blanck advised
that staff reviewed the application and approved Viewshed Review Permit Case No.
89 -13.
(2) Herb Phillips, Planned Development Rezone, Development Plan and
Tentative Tract Map No. 1769: Resolution Clarifying Planning Commission Action.
Planning Director Liberto -Blanck asked that the Planning Commission adopt two
resolutions clarifying the Planning Commission's action. on the Okui property that
was before the Commission two weeks ago.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 1255
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE PRESENTING A "NO RE XlHEDATION" ON
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN CASE
NO. 89 -217 DUE TO A LACK OF FOUR VOTES (HERB PHILLIPS.)
On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Gallagher, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Soto, Gallagher, Brandy and Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Fischer
ABSENT: Commissioners Flores and Moore
the foregoing resolutibn was adopted this 7th day of November 1989.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 1256
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING 03-MISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE WITH A RE CMIENDATION OF DENIAL ON
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1769 (HERB PHILLIPS.)
On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Gallagher and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Soto, Gallagher, Brandy and Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Fischer
ABSENT: Commissioners Flores and Moore
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 7th day of November 1989.
Planning Director's Report /Discussion. Planning Director Liberto -Blanck
briefly reviewed the City Council's answered agenda for October 24, 1989,
presented an update on the coming joint Planning Commission and City Council,
meeting proposed for November 20th at 7:00 P.M. to discuss the General Plan.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was
adjourned by the Chairman at 11:10 P.M.
ATTEST:
Pearl L. Phinney, Secretary
Arroyo Grande Planning C ion Chairman
7
Robert W. Carr