Loading...
PC Minutes 1989-02-21ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 1989 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Soto presiding. Present are Commissioners Moore, Flores, Scott, McCann, Gallagher and Gerrish. Planning Director Liberto- Blanck and Current Planner Spierling are also in attendance. INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER Chairman Soto introduced Pete Gallagher to the Commissioners and welcomed him to the Planning Commission. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chairman Soto opened the nominations for Chairman for the fiscal year 1989 -90. Commissioner Gerrish nominated John Soto for Chairman. Motion seconded by Commissioner Flores. Commissioner McCann nominated Bill Gerrish for Chairman. Motion seconded by John Soto. Chairman Soto closed the nominations and asked for the vote. Commissioner Gerrish was elected as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the year 1989 -1990. Chairman Soto opened naminations for Vice Chairman. Commissioner Scott nominated Tony Flores for Vice Chairman. Nomination seconded by Commissioner Gerrish. Commissioner McCann nominated John Soto for Vice Chairman. Motion seconded by Commissioner Flores. Chairman Soto closed the nominations and asked for the vote. Tony Flores was elected as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for the year 1989 -1990. John Soto expressed his appreciation to the Commission, stating it had been a pleasure serving as Chairman of the Cormission. He then turned the meeting over to Chairman Gerrish. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT LINE ADJUSINIENT CASE NO. 88- 471/PD ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 89 -214, TRACT 1390 (ROYAL OARS ESTATES) Current Planner Spierling reviewed that the area of the proposed lot line adjustment is part of Tract 1390. The subject parcels are the former school site, Lot B, and the large estate lots 182 and 184. He noted that a haul road for grading operations dissects Lot B and Lot 182 and runs along the boundary of Lot 184. The haul road is not a designated access road and is only to be used for grading operations. He pointed out that staff is currently reviewing an application for construction of a church on Lot B. Mr. Spierling advised that the proposal involves two separate lot line adjustments. The first will be between Lot B and Lot 182. The second will be between Lot 182 and Lot 184. Lot 182 is being increased in size from 26.13 acres to 29.5 acres, and Lot 184 is being reduced from 7.52 acres to 7.2 acres; and Lot B is being reduced from 13.75 acres to 10.8 acres. He stated that the proposed lot line adjustments do not appear to create any inconsistencies with the language and intent of Ordinance 355 C.S., other than requiring revision of the map. Mr. Spierling stated that the Staff Advisory Committee reviewed the proposal and recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions recommending approval of the of the proposed Lot Line Adjustments and Planned Development Ordinance Amendment to the City Council subject to the findings and conditions listed in the draft resolution. In answer to Commissioner Moore's question regarding the drainage, Mr. Spierling advised that the engineer is working on modifying one of the drainage easements for the park. He noted that there is a drainage easement that runs down through Parcel 1, which is the former Lot B, and then continues through Lot B on down. He stated it doesn't affect the proposed Parcel 3. Commissioner Moore commented that the drainage is pretty sharp there and could be a problem if it was on two different properties and, in his opinion, it is better to make the waterway on one property. Mr. Spierling stated staff did not feel it would be feasible to put all the drainage on one property; there wouldn't be a way to get it directly to Lot 182 without going through Lot B. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Lot Line Adjustment Case 88 -471 and PD Ordinance Amendment No. 89 -214 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Keith Crow, EDA, representing the applicants, spoke regarding Commissioner Moore's concern relative to the waterway. He stated that the easement going across Parcel 1 was over what is no longer an existing drainage Swale. There has been another easement dedicated that runs along the toe of the slope on Parcel 1 and into another natural drainage swale. He pointed out that all of the drainage is contained on Parcel 2. He further commented with regard to the proposed school site that had been proposed for this tract, noting that the School District elected not to use the land for a school site. He stated that the primary reason for the proposed lot line adjustment is because the church did not want 14 full acres; and another reason was to align itself more in keeping with what the terrain is today. 10 - Arroyo Grande Planning Camnssion, 2 -21 -89 Page 2 Richard DeBlauw, 744 Alta Vista Way, stated he is a member of the Grace Bible Church, who is proposing to build a church on this site, and he wanted to let the Commission know that all of the members are in favor of this . lot line adjustment as presented. Hearing no further comments from the audience for or against the proposed lot line adjustment and ordinance amendment, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 89 -122`6 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 88-471 BETWEEN JAMES WAY AND RODEO DRIVE IN TRACT 1390. On motion by Comissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner McCann, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Scott, Moore, Florcs, McCann, Gallagher, Soto and Chairman Gerrish NOFS: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21st day of February 1989. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -122 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 355 C.S. ROYAL OARS ESTATES '10 MODIFY EXHIBIT "A ". On motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Scott, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Flores, Moore, McCann, Gallagher, Scott, Soto and Chairman Gerrish NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21st day of February 1989. . PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -449 AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 88 - 417, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT '10 EXCEED HEIGHT L1M1T, 100 BARNETT STREET. (GRANDE CENTRAL PARTNERSHIP). Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated February 21, 1989. He pointed out that . due to the fact that the turrets on the south end of the project do not meet the 30 foot height limit, a conditional use permit is required. The C -3 zone permits retail stow which primarily serve the traveling public with only architectural review. He noted that parking :'or this building consists of a conventional parking lot, parking under a second story portion of Buildirg A and subterranean parking under the northerly half of Building A. • Mr. Spierling advised that the applicants have designed the site in such a way that a second building of 3199 square feet can be placed on the southwest corner of the site. This' future building is planned to house a drive - through restaurant. Prior to development, this buildirg will have to go through architectural review and, if a drive- through is proposed, a conditional use permit will be required. Mr. Spierling pointed out that one of the concerns staff had with the project as proposed is the fact that there is no designated loading area. Currently the applicants do not have tenants for this building and, therefore, we are not are whether there is going to be a need for a loading dock or not. Staff felt it might be worth the Planning Commission's time to consider an area fur a loading area. He stated the items the Planning Commission needs to focus on are: (1) the height of the turrets; (2) the subterranian parking (whether it is appropriate for the area) and the 20% slope into the subterranian parking, and (3) the loading area, or lack of a loading area. He consented that, generally, on the subterranian parking, the Staff Advisory Committee reviewed the prcposal and felt that it was workable. They have recommended approval subject to the findings and (.onditions listed in the draft resolution. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Conditional Use Permit Case No. 89 -449 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish opened the public hearing. Arroyo Grande Planning C mrr lion, 2 -21 -89 Page 3 Dale Weisl, Architectural Concepts Limited, , 3 No. Richmond Avenue, Pasadena, representing the applicants, spoke regarding the underground parking structure and also pointed out several areas where a loading area could be accamnodated. Planning Director Liberto- Blanck stated that one of the major concerns of approval of large retail centers is that you have no control over where the uses are going because the applicant does not know yet. Chairman Gerrish questioned the practability of having a designated loading area. Mr. Weisl stated the applicants have been working with the staff for about six months and the conditions in the staff report are acceptable to them. The only concern is the restriction of the underground parking area to evening hours. Mr. Alan Hughes, 844 Calimex Place, Nipomo, stated they would like to maintain the underground parking during normal store hours, possibly from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 P.M., with hours around Christmas being extended to 9:00 P.M. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed use permit, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed. Camrnissioner Flores commented regarding the four turrets. He stated he doesn't have a problem with the height of the building, but does have a problem with the quantity of the high turrets. Commissioner Soto pointed out that there is no parking provided on the site for motor homes at all. Another concern he had with the structure in reference to Grand Avenue is the visual problems with the driveway being so close to that intersection. Also, he is concerned with the roof itself. The green metal roof will look like the other one we already have that has become a problem. Commissioner Flores stated his concern primarily is the 10 foot setback from Grand Avenue for the size structure, and he is also concerned about the number of turrets. Chairman Gerrish stated that when the other building comes in, it will create too many buildings for the site. Commissioner Gallagher suggested the same design only on a reduced scale. Conmissioner McCann commented the structure is very massive and should be reduced in size. Commissioner Soto stated the project is too massive, and he felt there could be more parking provided by lowering the size of the building. Mr. Weisl stated that they did stay within the parking requirements. With regard to the architectral review, Commissioner Gallagher stated, in his opinion, the design fits in with the neighborhood and is in keeping with the Victorian influence of the area. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 89 -122 8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMLSSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 88 -449, APPLIED FOR BY GRANDE CENTRAL PARTNERSHIP, 100 BARNEIT STREET, FOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES IN EXCESS OF THE 30 FOOT HEIGHT LIMrr. On motion by Ccnmissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner McCann, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Moore, McCann, Gallagher, Soto and Chairman Gerrish NOES: C,armissioners Flores and Scott ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21st day of February 1989. Regarding Architectural Review Case No. 88 -417, Carmissioner Soto stated he likes the basic architecture, however, he is concerned with the height because the structure is so close to Grand Avenue. Another concern is the 7 foot clearance of the underground parking structure. Commissioner Flores commented in terms of the massiveness of the structure and suggested reducing the number of turrets. Chairman Gerrish stated his biggest concern with a metal roof is durability. Be suggested that the applicant return in two weeks to resolve some of the Commission's concerns. After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Corrmissioner Moore, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No. 88 -417 was continued to the next regular meeting of March 7, 1989. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 89 -419, CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND GUEST HOUSE, 225 TALLY HO ROAD. (JEFFREY CARRITHERS) Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated February 21, 1989. He pointed out that the setbacks meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the Staff Advisory Committee has reviewed the application and recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Architectural Review subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report dated February 21, 1989. Z2 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -21 -89 Page 4 Commissioner McCann questioned the fact that there are two undesignated roars on the plans. Planning Director Liberto- Blanck advised that this came before the Planning Commission a few weeks ago as an application for a second residential unit, and the Planning Com, fission felt that the request was premature at that time because there was no primary residence. The zoning ordinance permits a guest house without any review. The Planning Corrmission is reviewing it because of the "D" Overlay. l After a brief discussion, Architectural Review Case No. 89 -419 was approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report dated February 21, 1989, on motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Scott, and unanimously carried. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 89 -421, CX)NS'FRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESEDFSICE, 221 TALLY HO ROAD. (JACK M. BELL) Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated February 21, 1989. He advised that the Staff Advisory Committe reviewed the proposal and recommends approval subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report dated February 21, 1989. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No. 89 -421 was approved, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report dated February 21, 1989. PLANNING D • D • R'S REPORT/DLLCUSSION Planning Director Liberto - Blanck stated that there are four genera;. plan elements that are not mandated by State law. These are the CBD, Public Buildings, Public Services, and the Scenic elements. She advised that staff will be coming back to the Commission requesting that these four elements be repealed, because the information will be updated and found in other mandatory elements. With regard to the City Council answered agenda, Ms. Liberto- Blanck advised the Council had net on the development fees and the matter was continued to Wednesday night at 7:30. She also advised the Camdssion that the Existing Setting report is due from the consultants on Friday. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by Chairman:Gerrish at 9:30 P.M.