Loading...
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