PC Minutes 1989-06-205 E4
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
June 20, 1989
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chairman
Flores presiding. Present are Carmissioners McCann, Moore, Gallagher and Soto.
Chairman Gerrish is absent. One vacancy exists on the Commission. Also in
attendance are Planning Director Liberto - Blanck, Current Planner Scott Spierling
and City Attorney Skousen.
PUBLIC QMVIQJr
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck pointed out that a "Public Carment" item has been
listed as the first 'tenon the agenda to enable those in the audience to speak on any
i tens not specifically listed on the agenda. Vice Chairman Flores asked for public
cement. There was none.
CXNFIN ED PUBLIC HEAR1M - PD ORDINANCE AMENEMENT ND. 88-212; IEVEILFM Nr PLAN 186
C.S.; ZENFATIVE 'Meer 1642; ATIEN MENV IRCNNENTAL Imo REPORT, RANCID GRANDE
DEVEILFMENT (arisE, DC, IIRPRII3ENIED BY PRIER
Current Planner Scott Spierling reviewed that at the Planning Carmission meeting of
June 6, 1989 the Canmi ssion opened the public hearing, accepted public testimony and
continued the hearing to this meeting. During the public hearing, several issues
were raised by the public and member s of the Corrmission. Mr. Spierling reviewed the
issues of tree removal, open space, unplanned area, amount of grassland in the
unplanned area, drainage, water supply, traffic and circulation and views from
Tract 1132. He stated that one of the reasons for continuance of the public hearing
on this project was to allow the new City Attorney time to review the conditions of
approval. After review, Ms. Skousen recommended one major change to condition
number 21C to clay ify the condition. Staff modified condition number 31 requiring
that the applicant show building envelopes on each lot rather than allow the
applicant the option of just providing development standards. He stated it was
staff's feeling that it was the Planning Carmission's desire that the number of
trees removed for construction of individual houses be kept to a minimum. Staff
felt that requiring building envelopes was the best way to achieve this goal. Mr.
Spierling stated there were other minor changes made to some of the conditions to
clarify them or correct minor typographical errors.
Mr. Spierling advised that the Staff Advisory Committee recommends that the
PlanningCarmission adopt the appropriate resolutions recarmending approval of the
project to the City Council with the findings listed in the staff report dated June
20, 1989.
Vice Chairman Flores opened the public hearing for public comment.
Pete Miller, attorney and representative for the applicant, 679 Monterey Street,
San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that since the last
meet ing everything has been pretty much resolved except for a few of the recammended
conditions. He referred to the development agreement intered into in 1983 in which
it was agreed that Ottse would be allowed 527 units; 134 units have been completed,
and the phase now being considered represents the next 83 units. He noted that with
the proposal, 90% of the existing oak trees will be saved; 48% of the site is being
permanently dedicated as open space, not including the parkland. If you add the
parkland to the 48%, there is somewhat over 50% of open space in the project. With
regard to net loss or net gain of trees, he pointed out that the developer will be
providing the cost of street trees in the project, thus adding 313 additional trees
on the site. He stated he has been working with a nursery to begin propogation of
new oak trees and they would have no objection if the city wants to use some of these
trees. He stated they are contemplating requiring the lot owners to plant two of
the saplings and care for them.
Mr. Miller referred to the staff's amendment of Condition 31, stating that the
developer feels that imposing these building envelopes before the houses are in the
building stages is psi a good idea. The lots are difficult and he has had a lot of
experience as a veteran of the Architectural Control Carmittee of Rancho Grande.
He presented a letter from Rudy Veland, local architect, addressed to the Planning
Carmission, recarmending that such a condition not be imposed on the project. Mr.
Miller stated it is their feeling that such a conditionwillbecounter- productive.
If the envelope eliminates all of the trees, a difficult building situation will be
created, and what we are looking for is some creativity in the design. He stated
they do not want to lock in steep grades, lock in drainage problems, etc. He urged
the Planning Commission not to take the staff's recommendation on Condition #31.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, June.. 20, 1989 2
With regard to drainage, Mr. Miller referred to the drainage plan by Gar ing, Taylor &
Associates, stating that there is a 70% safety factor above the normal safety factor
design. He pointed out that there have already been large scale drainage
improvements made, such as the culverts under James Way, and these will cane into
play with the additional drainage improvements. Regarding traffic, Mr. Miller
stated that neither the staff report or the addendum EIR really discusses the fact
that the developer overbuilt improvements with Phase 1, in addition to the fees
which nobody else has paid yet to serve as ttaff is mit igations. He reccrrmended that
the Commission not get into the issue of views from other properties because of
setting a precedent. He cammented they would have no problem with notifying
neighbors when certain lots come in for design review, however, he feels that any
design decision made at this time with regard to design envelopes is really
premature.
Keith Gurnee, RRVI, stated his firm was retained by Pete Miller to take a look at a
project that had received priliminary plan approval for 527 units, and the question
is not whether or not this area is going to develop, but how? He commented that of
the 527 units, 394 were essentially approved in a land pattern that was incorporated
into the planned area, which left 133 lots that were to be developed in the unplanned
PD area. He stated in dealing with this particular phase and, given the tone that
has been set with the existing Tract 1132, the neighborhood would not be too
interested in seeing very small lots. He carr ented that one of the guiding cri teria
from day 1 was to preserve oak trees. The applicants feel this is a good project and
one that works with the oak trees and one that merits the Carmission's support.
Mr. Gurnee referred to Page 4, Condit ion No. 31 of the recommended conditions. He
requested that this condition be modified to read: "Prior to recordation of the
final map, the applicant shall provide adequate development standards for the
project, and or showon the grading plan a conceptual building envelope for each lot,
which will be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Parks and Recreation, and
Building Departments. It
He requested that the 2nd sentence be modified to read: "The issues which shall be
addressed are building setbacks from lot lines and slopes; preservation of oak
trees; propogation of new oak trees; building heights and so forth." Mr. Gurnee
stated as a site plan concern, the grasslands, which staff has cane fairly close to
describing, but there is qui te a bi t more grasslands along James Way and other little
nodes. More open space has been created in areas shown as grasslands to connect
with an existing open space corridor from the existing development that will allow
public access through a series of trails down into the oak grove. Also, rather
than consuming the corner of Camino Mercado and Rancho Parkway with lots, an open
space easement with landscape design features is proposed rather than simply having
houses hitting you there as you enter the development. In conclusion, Mr. Gurnee
stated it is there feeling that this is one of the more sensitive plans the
Corrmiss ion wil l see; it took a lot of time and a lot of work to get to this point, and
with the number of conditions recommended for the project, the City is well
protected.
Ella Honeycutt, 560Oakhill Road, stated when the Ci ty adopted the PDordinance, the
citizens were guaranteed at that time that they would know how many units would be in
the planned development. There are unplanned areas in this plan; what is going to
be there? She stated those unplanned areas must be specified at this time or the
project should not go forward. What we are creating are windfalls for the
developers. The City will have to pick up the development costs later. Most
cities with planned developments do not have these. loopholes. She stated the open
space must not end up being developed later on and should be tied up now. She
stressed that the City must get in writing the total units and assure that the
overall land will never get any more units than what is authorized right now.
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck advised that the PD ordinance was originally
approved in 1978 for 527 lots on the overall 464 acres, and that PD ordinance also
indicated that the areas not shown with lots are unplanned onwhich 133 units could
be placed. At the time they want to develop those areas, a planned development
rezonemust be processed. The number of units are locked into the 1983 development
agreement, and the applicants are not asking for any additional units that have not
already been approved.
Lou Schaffer, 1003 Hodges Road, stated she opposes the project because of the
5.5
5 , b
ehiri
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, June 20, 1989 3
increased traffic and the disruption of the oak trees that will result from the
development. Margaret Smith, 1006 Acorn Drive, spoke regarding the trees and the
greenbelt. Greg Southcott, 1011 Hodges Road, stated the development should stay
out of the oak trees and stay in the grassland areas. He carmented that the land
adjacent to Noyes Road should be looked at more closely, and that all three parcels
should be considered at the same time for these 133 units. He inquired why the
original 37 units proposed for the Noyes Road area has been deleted from the plan.
Chuck Fesco, 1015 Hodges Road, stated when the project was originally approved the
north side of that hill was going to stay in tact and, in his opinion, they should not
be allowed to cane down this hill. Judy Southcott, 1011 Hodges Road, stated she
opposes the plan and the developers should be restricted to development of the
grassland area, and should not be allowed to put a road in through the grove of trees.
She stated her concerns about the view of oak trees being obstructed by two story and
split level hones. She suggested that the higher density homes be built entirely
out of the tree area on the south side of the hill across from the commercial
property. She stated that smaller lot sizes would reduce the amount of water
consumption, and the runoff could be funnelled to the south away from the James Way
basin area and that would eliminate the 41% increase of runoff behind Leisure
Gardens. Doug Bosch, 1011 Acorn Dr ive, stated his concern about the open space, the
percentage of oaks being removed and preservation of wildlife. Jock Shockshire,
1004 Stevenson Drive, stated his concern about the loss of the oak trees. Janet
Talbert, 1015 MeadowWay, stated she is concerned about the drainage and the 41 %more
runoff. She inquired who is responsible for damages if flooding occurs. Judy
Skousen, City Attorney, stated that ultimately the developer is responsible, but
the City should make sure at this point that the drainage will be taken care of . The
Homeowners Association will take part of that responsibility and the individual
owners will also have certain drainage facilities on their lot they will be
responsible for. Gary Elms ,1105 Grieb Drive,spoke regarding drainage and erosion
concerns, noting that this drainage and erosion question has been addressed by the
Department of Fish and Game, and he asked if anything more had been done to respond to
the Fish and Game's concern.
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck responded to Mr. Elms' comments, stating that the
original maps that were sent were different than what is shown here, and lots 81 and
82, as referred to by Fish and Game originally encroached on the proposed open space
and had substantially more fill. The applicant has modified those lots and has
worked out the concerns that the Department of Fish and Game had about installing an
underground sewer line. Also with regard to maintenance of the retaining basin,
there was a condi t ion placed in the requirements, and the Department of Fish and Game
has agreed to it, that upon the formation of the Homeowners' Association, they must
enter into an agreement with the Fish and Game Department to assure implementation
of a maintenance program with appropriate inspection by their department.
Arnold Holm, 1035 Acorn Drive, stated his concerns regarding the wildlife and loss
of oak trees. He suggested relocating the number of units promised to the developer
in such a way to leave the green spaces open for the people and the animals. Barbara
Sla , 1004 Stevenson Drive, requested that the present plan be rejected and
that development take place in the grasslands. Carol Elms, 1105 Grieb Drive,
stated her concerns regarding the loss of the oak trees and wildlife. She requested
that the City not allow the project to develop on this site; that the environment
must be considered first.
Current Planner Spier l i n g referred to the comment as to why the Noyes Road area was
not included in the plan. He stated that this area was not ignored. When the 1977
EIR on the project was reviewed, it was found that the two lots have a number of
problems; one is that there are land slide rifts in that area that make development
very difficult. There is also a stand of Torry Pines which is a rare and endangered
species and development should not be done anywhere near those trees. Another
issue is the high groundwater and this would create a similar situation to what we
have near Lei sure Gardens. The homeowners there are aware of the type of problems
caused by the groundwater and we don't want to get into those kind of problems again.
Also, the slopes are extremely steep, probably 30% or more. Again, we are looking
at the original EIR five homes at the very most should be developed on each one of
these lots.
Jane Johnson, 1033 Meadow Way, expressed her concerns regarding flooding, stating
that a flood control project should definetely be implemented. She also expressed
concerns about the school facilities being overcrowded. Carol Elms spoke
regarding objections to the possibility of putting paths in to allow public access
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, June 20, 1989 4
to the greetbelt area, and also putting the sewer lines above ground.
Earl Paulding, 232 LaCresta Drive, stated he is in favor of the development, he
thinks it is a quality development, and he would like to see it approved with a
minimum amount of delay.
Tad Hopland, 103 Equestrian Way, stated he agrees wi th Mr. Southcott's carments and
would like to see the developers consider his suggestions. Barbara Fesco, 1015
Hodges Road, stated that if the oak trees are destroyed, the wildlife will also be
, destroyed. Paul Adkins, 1001 Hodges Road, stated he objects to the project because
of the loss of oak trees. He camnented that a lot of people here tonight have shown
some viable objections. He stated his concern is that all of the oak trees are going
to be dead in five years because of the bulldozers.
Kirby Gordon, Pismo Beach, spoke in favor of the project, stating he owns lot 50 in
the Rancho Grande development, which is directly across the street from the proposed
development and he would also be impacted if he did not feel this project was being
done correctly. He stated that the original EIR was for 990 units, proposing a
number of patio homes and townhouses, and the citizens objected to that plan and
encouraged the developer to offer custom lots in the first phase, which they did.
He stated he feels this has been a tremendously successful project, and instead of
the originally proposed 990 units, there will be 525 units on 464 acres. He
commented that this particular phase of 83 hones on 81 acres contains 48% open space
and he has not seen any other project in this area having that kind of sensitivity for
the environment. He noted that this is not an open ended agreement; this is a
development agreanent that calls for 527 units, and he firmly supports this project.
Greg Southcott, 1011 Hodges Road, spoke regarding Mr. Spierling's comments on the
possibility of landslides in the Noyes Road area, the Torrey Pines and steep slopes
in the area. He stated he is amechanical engineer and has walked that property and
didn't see any danger of landslides in the area of Noyes Road. He read a section of
the original EIR regarding the Torrey Pines and Coastal Oaks. He stated he would
like to have staff comment on the development of Noyes Road area before the
discussion is closed tonight.
Jim Strom, 688EquestrianWay, praised the Planning Carmi s s ion for their vision and
foresignt for the environment and in setting an acceptable density standard that is
envious, while al lowing control and measured growth. He stated he works in San Luis
Obispo and has heard numerous camnents about the desirability of Rancho Grande's
phase 1 regarding beauty, style of hones, the quality of living, and the
individuality afforded by these homes. He stated it is evident that great care was
taken to minimize the impact on the environment and its natural beauty, while
maximizing the utility of the property for the benefit of the homeowner and the
community. He noted he sees mainly positives from the total development, ranging
from good land use to increased taxes, from controlled growth to sensitivity to
change, from increased population to good citizens, f rom meet ing housing needs to
balancing the environmental needs, and from an attractiveness for future residents
to the quality of life.
Wes Carlson, owner of the central portion of the project, pointed out that he is
probablymost impacted by the proposed project. He stated he drove to the different
areas and, in his opinion, the development in question can hardly be seen fromOak
Park Acres . He noted that the only way to get to his house is through the area that
is going to be developed and, in the meantime he is going to have to use sane
temporary roads, and he would like to have the grading done before the rains start.
He asked that the Commission proceed with this in a manner that is the least trouble
to everyone.
McCoy Burgess, 107 Equestrian Way, stated when he moved into the area two years ago
he was told that the hill across the way was a dedicated open space, and he is
concerned that any properties that are going to be built on that grassland will
endanger the wildlife in the area. He also stated his concerns about the large
hares being built and conservation of energy, and the oak trees that will be cut
down. In conclusion, he stated we are spending our children's heritage right now
and we are looking at a very expensive plan that is going to do very little for the
community in terms of providing housing; it will provide housing for 83 families.
Also, the school situation has to be addressed; we have over 550 children in Ocean
View School right now and there is not enough room to add any more facilites. At
Margaret Harloe they are going to move relocatables because they are running out of
space. He requested that the Planning Commission consider this project extremely
carefully and what we are doing to our community here.
57
5 %8
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, June 20, 1989 5
Keith Gurnee stated that the applicants are creating a sensitive project and they
feel they are more than compensating for the removal of the oak trees with the design
guidelines and the oak tree planting being proposed. Mr. Gurnee responded to some
of the concerns that were expressed by the audience. With regard to open space
dedication, Mr. Gurnee stated that the area proposed for open space dedication will
not be subject to any future development; it is proposed for permanent open space
easements to run in perpituity and to be maintained by the Homeowners' Association.
Secondly, with regard to the wooded hillside, Mr. Gurnee advised that they walked
this area with John Keisler and his staff and the exhibit on tree removal was evolved
over time after looking at each tree that was to be considered for removal, and the
staff insisted upon retention of a number of trees that have been left now for
preservation. The tree removal plan has been agreed to after a detailed field
meeting with Mr. Keisler and his department.
Regarding the issue of Noyes Road, Mr. Gurnee stated that one of the biggest
problems, aside from the Torrey Pines, etc., there is awetland that goes along the
entire corridor of Noyes Road. The applicants retained a Biologist, B. L. Holland
of Cal Poly, who went out with Fish and Game and thoroughly surveyed the ent ire s ite,
and the site presented problems to the degree that we were not comfortable
addressing at this point with proposing any sort of development in that area at this
time. The 37 lot proposal was part of an earlier proposal and has been withdrawn and
the master plan shown contains the full complement of units that have been proposed
and approved in the Rancho Grande development agreement.
Mr. Miller concluded by thanking the Commission and the public for listening,
stating they do have a time problem and would like to get going with the project and
requested that the Commission take action tonight.
Hearing no further carrrents, Vice Chairman Flores declared the hearing closed.
Vice Chairman Flores stated he is currently in the process of buying a home in Rancho
Grande and, therefore, will abstain from the discussion and from voting.
Commissioner Soto asked about the Homeowner Architectural Rev iewCarmit tee . Mr.
Miller stated that a new committee would be selected. He commented that they would
welcome a City staff member to sit on the Architectural Review Committee.
Commissioner Soto commented that it looks like there is at least a dozen lots where
there are going to be trees removed and he felt it might be a partial solution to get
architectural approval on those lots at the City level. Mr. Miller stated that
whether the trees are removed at the beginning stage or during construction, all of
those tree removals will be approved by the City at one time or another. Planning
Director Liberto- Blanck advised that Mr. Miller is referring to Condition #31. She
further advised that if the City does go with development standards, the condition
would bemrodified to say it would go before the Planning Commiss ion and City Council .
Commissioner Gallagher stated he feels the 83 homes for this particular location is
too dense, and the remaining 133 homes should be distributed among the remaining
geographical locations. He acknowledged that the first phase of Rancho Grande is
an excellent development and a plus for the community of Arroyo Grande and for all
the future folks from the large metropolitan areas that will soon be relocating
here. He stated his concerns about the loss of oak trees, and his feeling that 83 .
homes on this site is more impacted than it ought to be.
Commissioner Soto pointed out that staff's report has over 90 conditions, which is
one of the longest sets of conditions he has ever seen, and these conditions are
mitigations measures required by different groups, two of them being conditions by
the Air Pollution Control District and by the Department of Fish and Game, and he
feels this is one of the better projects in the whole City. Another issue raised in
the public hearing was schools. He advised that in the City's Long Range Planning
Report schools are being planned by the School District and the way these are being
financed is through development fees with all new construction picking up the tab.
Corrmi ss ioner McCann stated she agrees wi th Commi ss loner Gallagher that the area is
to heavily impacted, and she would like to see the other two sections pick up some of
the units to be developed. Also, the oak trees need to be preserved.
Commissioner Moore expressed his concern over the loss of 200 oak trees that cannot
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, June 20, 1989 6
be replaced in time for our children to see them, noting that the road is planned to
go right through the row of oak trees. He also expressed concern about water use,
and the need for a flood control zone, stating he has not yet seen a grading or
drainage plan.
City Attorney Skousen outlined options open to the Commission. The Commission
could recommend approval of the project by adopting the resolution proposed by
staff, or amend that resolut ion and adopt the amended resolut ion for approval; the
second option would be to deny the project without prejudice and allow the developer
to redesign the project; and a third option would be to postpone the item for more
study or to refer it back for an additional environmental study and, if this option
i s chosen, the Commission should stipulate which areas they would 1ikemore studies
on. In the event there are insufficient votes to approve or deny the project, and in
this case four votes would be required, then the matter will go directly to the
Council with a lack of approval.
After further discussion, Camrissioner Gallagher moved to deny the plan without
prejudice, and request that a new design be formulated specifically to the density
and then be brought back to the Planning Corrmission. He stated he would like to see
the 133 remaining units targetedwithin the rest of the planned development project.
His concerns are the density of the project in the lower site; and he would like to
see the 133 remaining units focused in a total package and not incrementally; the
number of oak trees that are targeted for removal is excessive, and the location of
the roads through the oak groves are not consistent with what he would 1 ike to see for
this site. He listed the following findings for denial:
Findings: 1) The Planning "Crnmissioh finds that the subject site is not
physically suitable for the proposed type of density and development; 2)
the PD ordinance and development plan will cause damage to the environment;
and 3) the Planning Commission cannot recommend adoption of the addendum
EIR.
Af ter considerable discussion, a mot ion was made by Commissioner Gallagher ,
seconded by Carmissioner McCann to recommend denial without prejudice. The
following roll call vote was taken:
A3.: Commissioners McCann, Moore and Gallagher
N(ES: Crnmissioner Soto
ABSTAIN: Vice Chairman Flores
ABSENT: Chairman Gerrish
City Attorney Skousen advised that a 3 - 1 vote is insufficient to carry an
ordinance amendment. The matter will automatically go to the City Council with no
recom endation from the Commission.
PIBLIC HEARBC - VARIAN CASE R. 89 -135, VARIAN M M SIDEYARID SETBACK
R1TIREMENF FROM 30 FEET 'ID 15 FEET, 783 PRINIZ BM, GENE At) JUDI1Ii HEINEY.
Current Planner Scott Spier ling advised that the subject variance is a request to
allow a 30 foot side yard setback to be reduced to 15 feet in the R -S district. Front
and rear yard setbacks in this district are both 50 feet.
He reviewed that the proposed variance affects Parcel A of Parcel Map AG 81 - 179,
approved by the City Council on July 14, 1981. This parcel map was a lot line
adjustment that modified the length of the lot from about 650 feet to its present
length of approximately 428 feet. Prior to the lot line adjustment, the lot had
been split off of a parcel approximately 100 feet wide and 1,297 feet long. This
split required a variance since the minimum width in the R -S zone is 200 feet.
Mr. Spierling noted that a condition of Parcel Map 81 -179 required that "no
occupancy permit shall be issued on Parcel A until City water and sewer services are
59
60
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, June 20, 1989 7
available, or until sane other plan for said services to Parcel A i s approved by the
City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande." The applicant is working with the
engineer and the Public Works Department to provide a plan for the City Counci to
review.
He pointed out that the applicants are requesting this variance to enable them to
decrease the side yard setback, adjacent to the northwesterly property line to 15
feet. A 30 foot side yard setback would be maintained from the southeasterly lot
line adjacent to Easy Street. The front setback facing Printz Road would be 50
feet, and the rear yard setback would be approximately 314 feet. The applicants
feel that the decrease in side yard setback is necessary to allow construction of a
reasonable size house.
Mr. Spierling stated that, in reviewing the project, staff is unsure if the
applicant's interpretation of the location of the front setack versus the side
setback i s valid. Normally, the front setback i s taken from the edge of the right of
way of the abutting street. In this case there i s no abutting public street. There
is an abutting access easement, however (Easy Street). If the front setback is
taken from the edge of the access easement, then the lot is unbuildable without a
variance since front and rear yard setbacks are each 50 feet and the total lot width
is only 100.33 feet. The applicants have placed the front of their house facing the
nearest public street (Pr intz Road) . Therefore, they feel that the front setbacks
should be taken from the lot 1 1 n closest to the public right of way to the front of
their house.
With regard to environmental concerns, Mr. Spierling advised that staff does not
anticipate any significant impact to the environment to result from the proposed
project and a negative declaration has been prepared for adoption by the Planning
Commission. He stated It is the recommendation of the Staff Advisory Committee
that the Planning Canmission adopt the attached resolution approving the proposed
variance with the findings list ed, and subject to the list conditions and adoption
of a negative declaration.
Upon being assured by the Planning Cannission Secretary that public hearing for
Variance Case No. 89 -135 had been duly publi and property owners notifi Vi tye
Chairman Flores declared the hearing open.
Gene Heaney, 1356 Bee Canyon Road, applicant, stated that maintaining a 30 foot
setback from the road would give them an area for a garden and a patio and would
improve that area and give it a much nicer look.
Mr. Spierling noted that he had received a
Road, indicating that as long as it would
problem with the request.
Hearing no further comments for or against
Flores declared the hearing closed.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
telephone call fromMr. Nooker, Printz
not be setting a precedent, he had no
the proposed Variance, Vice Chairman
RESOLUTION ND. 89 -1237
A RFSOLITTICN C8? 111E PIANNJ 3 CAVMISSICN OF TIC
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANITIC A VARIANCE, CASE
ND. 89- 135, APPLIED ICR BY C;SSE AND J®ITH HEINEY,
LOCATED AT 785 PRINIZ MAD, 1V DIF 11 G A SITE YARD
SE'1K AND ADOPTING A NI ATIVE DFCLARATICN.
On mot ion by Can' ssioner Soto, seconded by Cammi ss i one Gal lagher , and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
Ate: Commissioners Soto, McCann, Moore, Gallagher and Vice chairman
Flores
NUS: None
ABSENT: Chairman Gerrish
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of June 1989.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE ND. 89- 426 , ARROYO GRANDE MOSER & P AND ARROYO WIG, 130
AND 132 EAST BRAN)) SJ1QZf, Mali OF EXISTING STRUCTURES MUM BUSH
(XNSIIUCTICN) .
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, June 20, 1989 8
Current Planner Spierling advised that the subject property is situated in the
Central Business District and is occupied by two existing businesses; the Arroyo
Grande Flower Shop and the Arroyo Drug Co. He explained that, like most of the
buildings in the Village area, this building was constructed about the turn of the
century. However, its present appearance came about as a result of a facelift that
occurred approximately 25 years ago.
Mr. Spierling stated that the applicant is proposing to reconstruct the front of the
building facing East Branch Street to make the existing building more consistent
with the surrounding buildings and the historic character of the Village. The
applicant also intends to bring the existing structure into canpliance with the
State seismic safety requirements set forth by Senate Bill 547. He advised that
the Staff Advisory Commit tee and the Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area
Advisory Board have reviewed this proposal and recommend approval of the project
based upon the listed findings and subject to the conditions of approval. Mr.
Spierling noted that the Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area Advisory
Board did express concern about the length of time the project might take to
complete. Also, they were concerned about the possible decrease in business for
the affected shop owners that may result due to the construction.
Jens Wagner, Arroyo DrugCo., stated his concern about the business interrupt ion and
also security of controlled substances in the drug store when the front windows are
replaced. Marlin Harper, owner of the Arroyo Grande Flower Shop, stated he is also
concerned about problems that might occur during the remodeling and, in his opinion,
the tenants should have more of a say in the proposal.
Ralph Bush, representing the building owner, stated he has talked to the owners of
both businesses. He further stated that a false wall out of plywood will be erected
and chain link fencing will be installed on the inside. Also, security lighting and
a security alarm will be added during the construction. He estimated the length of
time of construction to be about 45 days.
After a brief discussion, Architectural Review Case No. 89 -426 was continued to the
Planning Camissionmeeting of July 18th to provide more time for the applicant to
work out an agreement between the tenants and landlord regarding security, etc.
RHIUMT TIN 12 MONTH EXTINSICN - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE O. 86 -429 AND PAIL MAP
CASE ND. 86 -430, SLNtISE sIERRKE MEILEFIME PARK, 345 SU RISE IItIVE (ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES).
Current Planner Spierling briefly reviewed the conditions of approval of the
tentative maps originally approved in June, 1986. He stated staff is not aware of
any changes which would affect the findings and consitions of approval and,
therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Carmission grant a one year time
extension for the Lot Line Adjustment and Parcel Map, subject to the previously
approved conditions. He noted that, if granted, this would be the final extension
allowed for these projects under current law.
After a brief discussion on not ion byCarmissioner Soto, seconded by
Gallagher, and unanimously carried, a 12 month extension was granted on Lot Line
Adjustment Case No. 86 -429 and Parcel Map Case No. 86 -430.
CALIATICN CF JULY 4Ti PIANNIM3 CTdMISSICN MEHTIIG.
After a brief discussion, Vice Chairman Flores announced that the regularly
scheduled Planning Conmi s s ion meet ing of July 4th is cancel led, and the next regular
meeting will be held on July 18, 1989.
ADJDiIdl ENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
the Vice Chairman at 11:15 P.M.
ATTEST:
Pearl L. Phinney, Secretary
Oil
Tony Flores Vice Chairman
6 1