PC Minutes 1989-04-18ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 18, 1989
COMMISSIONER MOORE ENTERED THE MEETING AT 7:35 P.M.
4'a / ?9 33
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman
Gerrish presiding. Present are Commissioners Flores, Soto, McCann and Gallagher.
Absent are Commissioners Scott and Moore. Also in attendance are Planning
Director Liberto- Blanck and Current Planner Spierling.
MINUTE APPROVAL
Chairman Gerrish corrected the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
January 17, 1989, Page 4, Paragraph 6, to read "specious" instead of
"inauspicious" and Planning Commission meeting of February 7, 1989, Page 5,
Paragraph 5, "home" instead of "hope ". Hearing no further additions or
corrections the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of January 3, 1989,
January 17, 1989, February 7, 1989, February 21, 1989, and March 7, 1989 were
approved as submitted, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner
Flores, and unanimously carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -450, CONSTRUCTION OF A GUEST
HOUSE, 444 TOYON COURT. (DREW BRANDY)
Current Planner Spierling advised that the City's Zoning Ordinance allows
construction of guest houses in the R -1 zone subject to obtaining a Conditional
Use Permit. The zoning ordinance defines a quest house as an accessory building
without kitchen or cooking facilities, used for living purposes and not for
rental. purposes.
The applicant is proposing construction of a 594 square foot guest house. This
guest house will have a common wall with garage, and the garage is connected to
a 2000 square foot house. There will be no interior access between the two
structures. The architectural style, colors and material will match the existing
house. Included in the guest house is a living room, study, bar, bedroom and
a bathroom. The guest house meets all the, parking, setback and lot coverage
requirements of the zoning ordinance. The major issue that needs to be addressed
is the current and possible future use of this proposed structure. The current
owners have indicated that it will be used to house an elderly parent. At this
time they have no intention of renting the unit. However, there have been cases
in the city where the property has been sold and the new owners illegally add
a kitchen and use the guest house for rental income. This application has a room
that is called a bar on the plans. This room has cabinets and a double sink.
With all the plumbing and electrical in place this room could easily be converted
to a kitchen.. Staff has received one letter, which was attached to your packet,
opposing the project based on the possibility of the unit becoming a rental.
Yesterday the applicant submitted a revised set of plans that show the bar
relabeled as a library. The new plans eliminated the sink and counters and show
books shelves instead. With the elimination of the sink and the associated
plumbing, a kitchen conversion would be fairly difficult. The Staff Advisory
Committee has recommended that the Planning Commission either approve Conditional
Use Permit No. 89 -450 with a condition requiring redesigning of the interior of
the guest house eliminating the room shown on the plans as a bar, which the
applicants have done on the revised floor plan. Staff would also like to add
a condition if this use permit is approved. Condition #3 reading, "if found
appropriate by the City Attorney the applicant shall enter into a recorded
agreement with the City that shall prohibit renting the unit or installing
kitchen facilities without necessary city approvals and permits ". This agreement
that would be entered into would give us little power, very little extra leverage
other than what we have already. But it would inform subsequent owners of this
property that it cannot be used for rental income. The other way that the
Planning Commission could go would be to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 89 -450
and ask the applicant to reapply for a Conditional Use Permit for a second unit.
This will require the addition of a single car garage and a kitchen to the plan.
Commissioner Soto asked if there was not an owner occupied requirement applied
to something like this.
Mr. Spierling advised that on a second residential unit, yes. On a guest house,
no. This is a guest house, not a second residential unit and there are some
slight differences. The guest house is an accessory structure which is not
intended to be rented out. The second residential unit is intended to rented
out. Thus you have the requirements for parking and you also have requirements
on the square footage and the number of bedrooms that are permitted.
34
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION, 4/18/89 Page 2
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Clerk that the public hearing for
review of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 89 -450 had been duly published and 32
property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish opened the public hearing.
Drew Brandy, property owner advised that he had no intention of renting the
guest house, it would be for his 82 year old father and perhaps later on his in-
laws.
Sharon Brandy advised that the only reason they do not have an entrance into the
house is because that is the way her father -in -law would like it to be. He
wants his own privacy.
Burnet Poole, expressed his feelings that it seemed a little hard if you are
building a quest house for your elderly parents and you do not have
facilities for even making a cup of tea or coffee and just wash out the cups.
Mike Rohla, 423 Platino stated that if one person starts building guest quarters
what is to stop other people from doing the same thing. Chairman Gerrish advised
that there is an ordinance that allows this to be done.
Pam Miller, 404 Toyon Court stated she nor her husband have any objections to
the proposed guest house.
Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed Conditional Use Permit,
Chairman Gerrish closed the public hearing.
Commission Flores stated that the revised plan is in keeping with our interests
but he also feels that it is restrictive to not even provide for a sink for the
individuals that will be residing in these guest houses to not even be able to
rinse out a cup and saucer.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -1232
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -450, APPLIED FOR BY DREW BRANDY
LOCATED AT 444 TOYON COURT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE
AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
On a motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Flores'and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Flores, Moore, Soto, McCann, Gallagher and Chairman
Gerrish
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Scott
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 18th day of April 1989.
PUBLIC HEARING - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 89 -474, 197 LE POINT STREET, BURNET
M. POOLE
Current Planner Spierling advised that the proposed lot line adjustment brings
two pre - existing substandard lots more into conformance with the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances. Two of the lots are currently only 50 feet wide and will
be widened per this lot line adjustment to 60 feet. They will also be increased
in size by approximately 11,000 square feet each.
As of this date only one complaint has been received about this proposal from
Mr. L. Pete Newman. According to Mr. Newman, moving the lot line will allow
placement of a house which will block his view if built to the 30 foot height
limit, allowed in the zoning ordinance. It is staff's understanding that Mr.
Newman and Mr. Poole are working out an agreement to alleviate Mr. Newman's
concerns.
The Staff Advisory Committee recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the
resolution approving Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 89 -474 and adopt a negative
declaration subject to the findings and conditions.
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION, 4/18/89 Page 3
In answer to Commissioner Soto's question regarding the driveway shown on map,
Mr. Spierling advised that there is an existing driveway that serves several
residents. It is an old section of a street acquired back about 1905 when this
was originally subdivided. The City still retains ownership. Mr. Poole may be
more familiar with this and will probably be able to clarify it.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Clerk that the public hearing for
review of Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 89 -474 had been duly published and 34
property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish opened the public hearing.
Pete Newman, 205 Miller Way read an agreement signed by Mr. Poole and himself,
dated April 11, 1989 as follows: "This is an agreement between Burnet M. Poole,
etal and L. Pete Newman, etal. Mr. Poole agrees to limit the height of
construction on the 20.44 addition of lot 5 of Beckett's Addition to 10 feet
below maximum height (30) feet allowed for old portion of lot 5. Mr. Newman
agrees to okay the lot line adjustment."
Burnet M. Poole stated some history on the two lots situated behind the Hoosgow
Park. He stated that the right -of -way is shown on earlier maps as part of Le
Point Street. It is still owned by the City and there is a 30 foot right -of-
way or easement for access to the two lots in question. These two lots were
actually originally owned by the City and sold to the previous owner in
approximately 1979. He stated when he acquired them he could have built on them
as 50 foot lots.' However, he is acquiring 20 feet from his son's large lot to
upgrade the other two lots.
There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Gerrish declared the
public hearing closed.
Commissioner Soto stated that the tree listed as live oak is actually a pine
tree.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -1233
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
CASE NO. 89 -474 LOCATED AT 197 LE POINT STREET
APPLIED FOR BY BURNET M. POOLE AND
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
On a motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Flores, Moore, Soto,
Gerrish
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Scott
Commissioner Flores and by the
McCann, Gallagher and Chairman
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 18th day of April 1989.
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PROCESSING
OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPLICATIONS, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck advised that a development agreement is a legal
instrument which establishes city rules and regulations in a specified period
of time. The State Government Code indicates that every city and county shall
establish rules and procedures for consideration of development agreements. The
City of Arroyo Grande has none, so all that we are doing is establishing
procedures and a fee. We do have a development agreement that was recently
submitted by Wilma Pacific that is going through the process and will come before
the Planning Commission. This primarily establishes rules and procedures on
processing development agreements. It does not mean that we are approving or
entering into any development agreement at this time. If at the time we do bring
a development agreement before the Planning Commission, the City does not have
to enter into a development agreement.
Staff recommends that you recommend that the City Council review the ordinance
and adopt it.
3,
hearing .c1b�ed:
eNordiliance , siso-eSt ablia
.„.,
rig ,t000fik
..::,43=4o0i: of revi evring a :
, _fiforei'lhel7APPIibantirnildc.subrait , ?t he dffference to
'the ty less reinibnrsed _
a
00,;Pre
j.
KSIDE MARKETPLACE,CONDITIONA
LARIILOONIS
, • :" C•i ••• ' • ' • 7 . • •
After a brief:, AlsOnsaidt 6,4•31lowing:IACtieni ifas ; taken:
Lo
• •
•
• t aff hai rev iewe 16ta
super1or to al�ne ,A a fj:-.4
•
Chalrman Get tt1s
a .3 oin
the" 101:
0
t1pn vi
•i•
SOLUTION "NO;:; :
RESOLUTION:OFTRE PLANNING.CONMISSION OF THE
;ARRait 134RECCiMittilDING::AN AMEND?!
1
'16NICIPALel "DE TO ESTABLISR PROCEDU
InrJ D REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOP
a ;.ccavi
r arking ieeessTa
'J,0
•
ommiSsiOlierStito'Pandt4-
•
Cgarin ,, GA and Chairman
•
- .
a .
eaec an es revised sign placeinen
al pla cement, tied lighting Is adequate
L '-thofe'..aelif dalyrpleasing than . t e concrete 4w#
plThrheti4vveVing t the t ".pro ect. as ,a who
remains unmet...: anne
ifthetectilife:ment p
trorn ,
-4Rptial4Aiarrie4Wie4working
t enipti 91M114,40!410he.:bi.,.. -
view it and :'1
f r
r em
e
'rit4roilld be enteieO'cint0Fon4- tha
,
PLANN DIRECTOR'S REPORT/DISCUSSIO
Planning Director 1Giberto= Blanck stated that lie' have received an .application from
the. ,county regariing atsecond residential unit. - have received a`few comments
from some of t e Planning Commissioners,: and ;wanted to 'address? thei concerns
The county does. have dif ferent1 standards for second ;residential units. The
biggest d fference between their standards and our City is that they; allow` second
residential units ;tci. be 1200` square f in size in o
: some zones, and we nlyallow
64 feet:
at ; > recen tly the ordinance was revise .fo
ng er automatically` come ;bef thePlannn
an i's, to be in formed when -we `do :grant"
complain'ts', ` and how the complaints 'ar
nnth viewshed review permit and'Oat a
wotild be loosing3 the privacy %_of their'bac;
ly+ as the i applicants" were :only putting
L ewshed.Review Perm :Case 89 04 wa.
erto Blanck annoutced.fhe Town Meetings comingr up�Apil h 25th,a
at -which tid�erthre land use�alternatves.!ill'be presented.
ommissicyners discuaBed tl e' positive, input at `the Workshop
Th'e Commissioners w ere veryuFimpressed';with Lloyd'-`Zola :
s presentatio wx �,.... .. 3
p s t
11040E it
ere being na further
a bus iness before ,,
' Chairman :.Gerrisli' t �8 20F