Loading...
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