PC Minutes 1989-08-1570
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 15, 1989
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman
Gerrish presiding. Present are Commissioners Gallagher, Carr and Brandy. Absent
are Commissioners Flores, Soto and Moore. Also in attendance are Planning
Director Liberto - Blanck, Current Planner Spierling and Long Range Planner
Bierdzinski.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Upon hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular
meetings of May 16, June 6 and June 20, 1989 were approved by Chairman Gerrish
as submitted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERt4IT CASE NO. 89- 453 /ARCHITECM RAL REVIEW CASE
NO. 89 -423, 320 E. BRANCH (CHAFE DO5r'ER/CARLFN LANDECK).
Current Planner Spierling advised that the applicants requested that this
item be continued until the meeting of September 5, 1989. The Planning
Commission agreed with the continuance until September 5, 1989.
Chairman Gerrish advised that he would be unable to vote or. the next three
items on the agenda, Coastal Christian School, City of Arroyo Grande - Police
Department, and Rivera's Body Shop, due to a possible conflict of interest.
Inasmuch as one more Commissioner needs to be present for a quorum vote on those
three items, and Commissioner Soto is expected after 8:00 P.M., he stated these
items will be heard after Commissioner Soto arrives.
NON - PUBLIC HEARING - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 88 -418, 5091 AND AVENUE
(MIDAS MUFFLER, TRANS -KING TRANSMISSION)
Current Planner Spierling advised that at the last meeting, the Planning
Commission denied the revisions to this project. The applicant his requested
that the item be rescheduled so that they could attend and presents heir views.
It is up to the Planning Commission whether or not to open this a?7chitectural
review up for public testimony.
Chairman Gerrish asked the applicant for comments.
Michael King, 910 McCloud, Santa Maria, representative for Midas and Trans -King
Enterprises, stated that the reason for submitting changes was the exorbitant
sticker price on the project, and they consulted their builder to determine the
things that were excessive and expensive, and would not create largo changes in
the basic overall looks of the building, and it was their feeling that the
changes were reasonable..
Chairman Gerrish stated that Midas - Trans -King came in with a project
everybody liked and he thought it was impressive. One of the reasms it was
approved was because of the design. He further stated that financi.11 impacts
are not what the Planning Commission is required to consider. He coca nted that
he did not feel it was right that after a project is approved, that th&!applicant
comes back and wants to delete many of the things that look nice and mid to the
attractiveness of the project.
Mr. King claimed that the changes were minor in nature as fir as the
overall look of the project.
Tony Orefice, RMO Architects, advised that the big money item is tie roofed
storage area adjacent to the trash enclosures. Mr. King explained that they
would like to change the wall in the front, cutting down on the staziping and
allowing the removal of the trash bin enclosure.
After considerable discussion, on a motion by Commissioner Gallagher,
seconded by COEUnissioner Brandy, and unanimously carried, Revision rb. 2 was
revised deleting the concrete block wall on the westerly property line flan Midas
to Grand Avenue, and Revision No. 5 eliminating the roof storage area adjacent
to the trash enclosures in the back. All other proposed revisions were rejected.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT /DISCUSSION
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck advised that on City Council's answered
1
agenda for August 8, 1989, the City Council directed the City Manager to prepare
a Right to Farm Ordinance, which will be brought to the Planning Commission some
time in the Fall. The other item on the agenda was an urgency ordinance on adult
entertainment uses. There is a 45 day period in.which adult entertainment uses
are not permitted in the City, it can be extended for a period of time. Staff
has been directed to prepare an ordinance regarding adult entertainment.
Mr. Spierling reviewed that at the Commission's last meeting, the remodel
of Arroyo Drug and the Arroyo Grande Flower Shop was brought before the Planning
Commission. One of the conditions was that the plans for the remodel needed to
be approved by the State Pharmaceutical Board. He stated that the proprietor
of the pharmacy advised that they contacted the State, and were advised that they
did not need to review the plans. Mr. Spierling stated that, given this
information, that condition should be deleted and building permits can be issued
on the project.
Current Planner Spierling advised that he had spoken to Mr. Bush and he
is planning on going over security concerns with our Police Department.
Chairman Gerrish declared a short recess while awaiting the arrival of
Commissioner Soto.
COMMISSIONER SOTO IS NOW PRESENT
The Planning Commission meeting was continued at 8:45 PM., with
Commissioner.Soto acting as Chairman.
CHAIRMAN GERRISi LEFT THE MEETING AND I3 NOW ABSENT
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -459, 1220 FARROLL AVENUE,
COASTAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL & LANDMARK MISSIONARY CHURCH.
Current Planner Spierling advised that this project site is within the R-
3, medium high density residential zone. Earlier this year the City enacted
Ordinance 399 C.S., which basically placed a moratorium on all projects in this
zone. On July 11th, the City Council adopted Ordinance 411 C.S. modifying 399
C.S. ThisOew ordinance allows conditional use permit review of projects that
would be allowed in the R -1 zone, in this R -3 zone. This review would be done
by both the Planning Commission and the City Council, and, therefore, the
Planning Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr.
Spierling pointed out that since a school is a permitted use in the R -1 zone,
subject to obtaining a conditional use permit, it falls under the provisions of
the latest ordinance.
Mr. Spierling reviewed the staff report dated August 15, 1989. He stated
the applicants are requesting approval of a plan to use the existing church
facilities and grounds for a private elementary school (pre - kindergarten through
6th grade). The applicants have indicated that this is a temporary relocation,
to last between two (2) and four (4) years. The school will house 175 students
and 15 staff members. Two busses will be uses to transport the students.
The applicants are also proposing several on -site improvements. These
include; - stripping the parking lot, construction of a volley ball court and
playground area, and a lunch area with tables. He stated that a traffic report
was required and, in that report the consultant made several recommendations
which are included in the project as conditions of approval. One of the
conditions that was placed on the project in Condition #8 is to remove stops
signs on South Elm Street at Farroll Avenue. The Public Works Department would
like that condition deleted. The traffic consultant also reviewed the proposed
parking lot configuration and found that it would be satisfactory once it was
properly marked.
The Staff Advisory Committee reviewed several items on this proposal and
one of the main issues was student safety. Several conditions which are
incorporated in the conditions of approval will encourage student safety. These
include removal of the dangerous fencing along the easterly property line and
replacing it with a more satisfactory type of fencing. Also, it is recommended
that on street parking be limited to encourage parents to pick up the students
within the parking lot area rather than allowing the students to be picked up
on Farroll Avenue. The Police Department felt it could cause safety concerns.
Also the site should be inspected by both-the Fire Department and the Building
Department, to make sure that all necessary safety issues are resolved before
occupancy of the building. One other issue is the recommendation that there be
a yearly review of this conditional use permit. Staff felt that this would allow
the Planning Commission to deal with any problems that might arise during the
2
'71
72
course of the year, and also to review present concerns such as traffic and
student safety.
It is the recommendation of the Staff Advisory Committee that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of this use permit to the City Council with the
findings, and subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report
dated August 15, 1989. Mr. Spierling listed the following changes to the draft
resolution:
1) Delete Condition #8;
2) Condition #7 should be changed to read: "Use Permit shall be reviewed
at the first Planning Commission meeting in June of each year,
starting in 1990, to determine whether there are any public or safety
concerns due to the operation of the school. In the event there are
public or safety concerns which need to be addressed in a public
hearing, the applicant shall request and pay for a public hearing.
If the concerns cannot be resolved, the Planning Commission may
revoke the conditional use permit.
3) The asterisk ( *) on the conditions means that, "if these conditions
cannot be satisfied prior to occupancy the applicant shall enter into
an agreement with the City and or submit a bond for the improvements
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director ".
The Commissioners discussed condition #10 eradicating old "stop" pavement
markings, the picking up and dropping off of students, red curbing, dedication
of right -of -way, and fencing.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Clerk that the public hearing
for Coastal Christian School had been duly published sand property owners
notified, Acting Chairman Soto declared the hearing open.
Lou Caballero, 210 Indio Drive, Shell Beach, school board member and
representing Los Padres Engineers, stated they prepared the site plan and had
the traffic consultant prepare the traffic report. He further stated that they
agree with the conditions in the report.
Jim Hendershot, 333 Miller Way, stated he is in favor of the proposed use
permit. He commented he has had some experience with existing facility, in that
he had an office on Traffic Way across the street from the existing school. He
stated that the traffic situation was well controlled and there were no traffic
problems.
Evelyn Calhoun Tallman, 532 Carol Place, stated she is concerned about the
increased traffic in the area.
Mr. Caballero reviewed the transportation system being planned for this
school. He stated they have two busses; and the pick -up point will be the
Assembly of God Church. Basically, they will be asking the parents to drop off
their children at that point, and then the bus will take them to the school on
Farroll Avenue.
Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed use permit, Acting
Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed.
With regard to the recommended conditions of approval, the following
revisions were agreed upon by the Commissioners:
#7. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed at the first Planning
Commission meeting in June to determine whether there are any public
or safety concerns due to the operation of the school. In the event
that there are public or safety concerns which need to be addressed
through a public hearing, the applicant shall request and pay for
a public hearing. If the concerns cannot be resolved, the Planning
Commission may revoke the conditional use permit.
#8. Delete.
#10. Parking shall be prohibited and curbs painted red within 50 feet of
the South Elm Street /Farroll Avenue intersection on all legs.
#12. The applicant shall dedicate a ten foot (10') wide easement for
street tree planting purposes, and public utilities along Farroll
Avenue prior to occupancy.
In addition to the above changes., also add an explanation of the asterisk.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
On motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Gallagher, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
_NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing
RESOLUTION NO. 89
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CCMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REOCIVDING APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -459, APPLIED
FOR BY COASTAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, 1220 FARROLL
AVENUE, FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL IN THE R -3 ZONE;
AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Commissioners Carr, Brandy, Gallagher and Acting Chairman Soto
None
Commissioners Flores, Moore and Chairman.Gerrish
resolution was adopted this 15th day of August 1989.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 89- 137 /ARCHITEC'iURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 89 -429,
VARIANCE FROM FENCE HEIGHT LIMITATION /EXPANSION OF ARROYO GRANDE POLICE STATION,
200 NO. HALCYON ROAD (CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE /POLICE DEPARTMENT. )
Current Planner Spierling advised that the Police Department is proposing
to expand its headquarters at 200 No. Halcyon Road. The expansion will more
double the existing building area from 3,224 sq. ft. to 6,771 sq. ft., and will
extend across Cornwall Avenue. The closure of Cornwall Avenue between Halcyon
Road and Rena Street was approved by the City Council on May 9, 1989.
Mr. Spierling reviewed the architectural review, proposed access,
circulation, landscaping and parking. He advised that the variance is being
requested from the maximum height allowed for a wall facing the rear of the lot
along Rena Street. Sec. 9 -4.13A of the Zoning Ordinance states, "where the
fences and walls are located adjacent to any access into a public street, these
shall not exceed two and one -half feet in height." Mr. Spierling stated that,
in this case, the Police Department wishes to erect six foot walls around the
rear parking lot to ensure the security of their vehicles, and staff feels this
is a valid justification for a variance, considering the nature of police work
and the undisputed need for security measures at such a facility.
Mr. Spierling pointed out, however, that the Staff Advisory Committee did
express concern that it would be difficult to see on- coning southbound traffic
on Rena Street as one leaves the rear entrance of the public lot due to the 6
foot block wall on the north side of the driveway, and they recommend that the
10 foot wall closest to the street be changed to wrought iron to increase
visibility.
Upon being assured by the Commission Clerk that public hearing for Variance
Case No. 89 -137 had been duly advertised and property owners notified, Acting
Chairman Soto declared the hearing open.
Tony Orefice, RMR Architects, architect for the project, spoke regarding
the proposed project and elaborating on the parking, architecture, colors and
materials, etc. Rick TeBorch, Chief of Police with the City of Arroyo Grande,
spoke in favor of the granting of the variance. With regard to the
recommendation that the 10 foot wall closest to the street be changed to wrought
iron, he stated that wrought iron would serve no purpose, and that a solid wall
is needed for security on the inside.
Hearing no further comments from the audience for or against the proposed
variance, Acting Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed. He stated he likes
the project and it is important that the Police Chief and his staff are happy
with the design. After further discussion, the following action was taken:
4
73
74
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 1240
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE
NO. 89 -137, APPLIED FOR BY THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE POLICE IMPARTMENT, LOCA'r11) AT 200 NO.
HALCYON ROAD, ALLOWING A SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE
AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Brandy, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Gallagher, Brandy, Carr and Acting Chairman Soto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Flores, Moore and Chairman Gerrish
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of August, 1989.
Architectural Review Case No. 89 - 429 -
It was agreed by the Commission that It No. 3 under Planning Department
Conditions of Approval be deleted. Commissioner Carr clarified the fact that,
if there is any place on the plans that shows an entire wall as wrought iron,
it should be clarified that the entire fencing will be six foot high block wall.
After a brief discussion, Architectural Review Case No. 89 -429 was
unanimously approved on motion by Commissioner Gallagher, and seconded by
Commissioner Carr.
NON - PUBLIC HEARING - REVISED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 88 -411, REMODEL
EXISTING BUILDING, 110 BRISCO ROAD (RIVERA'S BODY SHOP /ABEDUN CONSTRUCTION.)
Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated August 15, 1989.
He pointed out that after the last Planning Commission meeting, the applicant
hired a structural engineer to determine what is necessary to construct the
project as originally approved. The applicants then assessed the costs of the
required modifications and, based upon this information, the applicants again
requested to appear before the Commission in the hope of gaining approval of a
revision to the original plan. He referred to a letter from the applicant's
engineer listing three alternatives and what is necessary to construct each one.
Mr. Spierling stated in order to construct the project per the approved plans,
Alternatives I and II would be necessary. Mr. Spierling also referred to a
letter from Abedun Construction estimating the cost and time to construct each
alternative along with a fourth suggested alternative.
Mr. Spierling pointed out that if the Planning Commission wishes to approve
a revision to the approved architectural review, application for a conditional
use permit and variance must be processed, due to the lack of parking and
excessive lot coverage and, in that case, the revised architectural review will
be formally considered at the same time as the conditional use permit and
variance.
In answer to Commissioner Carr's question, Mr. Spierling stated that the
original plans showed a column on each corner, and that was originally designed
to hold up the canopy, and it was designed just as a canopy; not as an enclosed
structure. He stated the applicants did not realize what would be required by
a structural engineer to do the construction with the columns, and when they
found out, that is when they went with the walls. He stated the work was stopped
on this project because the walls were not approved by the Planning Commission.
Jose Rivera, applicant, spoke in favor of approval of the revised
architectural review. He commented that the lot coverage is far less than what
was there originally, and the parking situation has been significantly improved;
as a matter of fact, there was virtually no off - street parking there at all.
Also, the project itself aesthetically improves that area.
Commissioner Soto pointed out that with the area open the way it was
approved, it did facilitate parking on that side, but with the wall there it does
not. Also, because it wasn't a wall, it constituted an open structure and we
didn't think of it as a closed building, and in the calculation of parking
spaces, that was not considered as a closed structure because the wall was not
shown on the plans that were presented.
John Richardson, Chief Building Inspector, requested that the applicant
take this as a message, along with his contractor, to work within the system,
come up with a plan that they will follow; to the end and not deviate from it.
He stated the project started out to be a.very'nice project, but has been varied
so many times, and back and forth so many times, that the first thing you know
everybody loses context of what is really happening.
After considerable discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gallagher, and
seconded by Commissioner Carr, it was unanimously carried that the revised plans
are in substantial conformance with the plans previously approved on October 4,
1988.
ADJ
r - IiDI
There being no further business before the Planning Coirmission, the meeting
was adjourned by Acting Chairman Soto at 10:45 P.M.
n
Mar 7 en Lein
Comni�sion Clerk
ger
John
Actin • Chairman
6
75