Loading...
PC Minutes 1989-01-17ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 17, 1989 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Soto presiding. Present are Commissioners Flores, Moore, Scott, Boggess and Gerrish. Also in attendance are Planning Director Liberto- Blanck, Current Planner Spierling and Long Range Planner Bierdzinski. Chairman Soto advised that this is the last meeting tor Commissioner Don Boggess who is resigning for personal reasons. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING -- USE PERMIT CASE NO. 88-445, J. SCOLARI /E. C. L(X)MIS, PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR SCOLARI' S BROOKSIDE MARKETPLACE, ARROYO GRANDE VILLAGE Planning Director Liberto- Blanck advised that the applicant has requested to be continued indefinitely. The applicant was advised that when they wish to reschedule they will have to re- advertise. On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and unanimously carried, the matter was continued indefinitely. PUBLIC HEARING - PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 88 -470, DIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS AT 350 WALNUT STREET (JOHN R. BECF.RRA) Current Planner Spierling advised that the applicant is proposing to split one parcel with the total gross area of 21,266 square feet into two parcel:;. Parcel A 9,220 square feet, and parcel B 9,920 square feet. There is an existing structure encompassing 1,968 square feet on parcel B. The General Plan designation for this area is Low Density Residential which allows 0.2 to 4.5 dwelling units per acre. The project, as proposed, appears to meet this density. The project also appears to meet the standards of the zoning ordinance regarding minimum lot size, depth, and width. There are two major issues which need to be discussed. First are the setbacks. When this project was originally submitted, the tentative map showed a ten toot fee strip where the existing access easement is. This created a substandard side yard setback of approximately 1 toot. The fee strip has been changed into an access easement, which technically resolves the setback problem. The Planning Commission should decide if allowing a paved access to be within approximately one foot of an existing dwelling is an appropriate means of development, It should be noted also that Parcel Map AG 83 -073, which is directly above, was subdivided and created a similar condition. There it created a 2 to 3 foot side yard adjacent to the access to the parcel in the rear. The second issue are easements. The Public Works and Fire Department have required that the developer provide a minimum 12 foot unobstructed access and drainage easement for parcel A. The proximity of the existing house on proposed parcel B to the lot line allows only 10 foot width on the easement on the Becerra property. To get the full 12 feet they also have a 2 foot access on the Fletcher property to the south. This combination of easements provides the required access up to the boundary of parcel A, but not on to the property. The two (2) foot easement ends at the proposed property line for parcel A, thus narrowing the access to 10 feet. at that point. The Fire Department has reviewed the problem and maintains that the 12 foot access roust be continuous to the house. In.order to meet the conditions of approval of the Fire Department and Public Works Department, the Planning Commission should require that the south westerly corner of proposed parcel B be modified to provide an unobstructed access to parcel A. Additionally, the Planning Commission should probably add a condition that states something to the effect that the Planning Department staff shall review the final parcel map before recordation, to review the lot configuration with respect to the 12 foot unobstructed access. It is the recommendation of the Staff Advisory Committee that the Planning Commission approve the proposed parcel map with the attached conditions of approval. Commissioners Gerrish and Flores inquired about Parcel Map 83-073. They asked if Parcel Map 83 -073 had the full 12 foot easement along side of the structures that exist there. Mr. Spierling advised that it did have the full access required at the tiioe that map was recorded. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION, 1/17/89 Page 2 Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Clerk that Public hearing for Parcel Map Case No. 88 -470 had been duly published and 66 property owners notified, Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. 13i11 Sommerneyer, Engineer for the applicant, stated that there was no objection to adding a triangular element of the line, to provide the 12 feet clearance at property line. He agreed with the staffs recommendations, stating they :should have no trouble complying with the conditions. Mr. Sommernreyer thanked the staff very much for their efforts, and stated they have done a tine job reviewing it. Mark Fletcher, owner of adjacent property advised that he is in favor ot parcel. split. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed. Commissioner. Moore stated he would abstain from voting because the property involved is only about 300 feet from his property. Commissioner. Gerrish stated he would oppose the proposal due to the fact that there is only a 10 foot easement and the Commission has been requiring 12 -1/2 feet almost everywhere else. Particularly, because of the fact that in order to get 12 feet, we pick up 2 feet from another property where we reduce it to below 60 feet. After further discussion, 'on motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Scott, and carried with one "no" vote and one abstention, Parcel Map Case No. 88 -470 was approved subject to the recommended conditions given by staff, and adding condition 'Wunder "Planning Department ", stating that the "Planning Department staff shall review the final parcel map before recordation, to review the lot configuration with respect to the 12 foot unobstructed access ". PUBLIC HEARING - PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 88 -461, DIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS USING OPTIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS, 230 W. (BRANCH STREET,' EDWIN NELSON /CERTIFIED FREIGHT LINES. Current Planner Spierling advised that this proposed lot split would create two (2) 6250 square foot (net) parcels, using optional design standards of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The property is .located between West Branch Street and Larchmont Drive, with frontages on both streets. There is an existing residence on proposed parcel One. The garage for this residence is on proposed parcel Two. The general plan designation is low density residential, with 0.2 -4.5 dwelling units per acre. The zoning is R - -1, with a 6000 square foot minimum lot size.. The site is identified'as a sensitive archaeological site,.and therefore, an archaeological report must be prepared per State law. The applicant does not desire to prepare an archaeological report. Mr. Spierling stated there are two major issues that need to be addressed. The density for this project exceeds the general plan density designation and, therefore, the finding of consistency with the General (Tarr can not be made. The .applicant has indicated that the zoning requirements should determine parcel size. The question of hierarchy between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance has been hammered out in State law and court cases in the last 20 years. Beginning in the late 1960'c, many elected officials, planning professionals, legal observers and citizens carne to feel that if local government decisions were to be consistent with adopted long range comprehensive planning, then local governments' actions must be consistent with the General Plan. This general plan philosophy was further institutionalized through statutes requiring consistency of certain local.actions with the General Plan. The case of O'Loane vs. O'Rourke exemplified the new perception of the General Plan's central role by describing the General Plan as a "constitution" for all future development. Therefore, this law case seems to imply that the General Plan is on top of the hierarchy of land use regulations. The General Plan designation of low density residential stipulates 0.2 -- 4.5 dwelling units per acre. This translates to a minimum gross lot size of 9680 square feet. This proposed lot split produces two (2) lots, with .a gross square footage of 7750 each. Therefore, the proposed density is higher than the General Plan will permit. The applicant has argued that he should be able to utilize someone else's nearby property to justify a lot size reduction. However, in a letter regarding this project, the City Attorney has indicated that the tact that the surrounding area may not yet be fully developed to 4.5 units per acre does not in any way alleviate an individual developer from complying. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION, 1/17/89 Page 3 Mr. Spierling commented that staff feels very strongly that each individual development must internally comply with the General Plan. If developers are allowed to use surrounding areas to help them comply with the General. Plan, how large an area may they use? If they use a large enough area, practically any project could comply with the General Plan. The General Plan then becomes basically worthless. Staff teels that if the Planning Commission allows this project to slide through on General Plan density, they may be setting a precedent. Other developers are watching this application, and if it is passed I am sure we will have many similar projects in the months ahead. The second major issue, is the use of the Optional Design Standards in the Subdivision Ordinance. Section 9 -3.503 specifies requirements for approval of any subdivision using these standards: (a) For an improved design based on density control and better community environment, the standards set forth in Article 4 of this chapter and in Section 9 -3.502 of this article may be varied only when the gross density of an area is not increased, and when the design has the approval of the Commission and Conseil, and when, in their opinion, such deviation will: (1) Produce a more desirable and livable community than the minimum requirements set forth is this article; (2) Create a better community environment through the dedications ot public areas, setting out permanent scenic easements or open spaces, or through the rearrangement ot lot sizes or reforestation barren areas; and (3) Reduce the danger of erosion to approve. Staff does not feel that the findings can be made to approve this project through the use of optional design standards. It appears not r tha c the at p is living using them as a means to increase density, environment in the City. The Staff Advisory Committee does not feel that this project is Consistent with the General Flan or in keeping with the intent of the Subdivision Ordinance; theretore, the necessary findings tor approval cannot be ivade. Thus, staff did not prepare conditions tor the project or provide environmental review. If the Planning Commission feels that the project is consistent with the General Plan, that the proposed lot sizes are adequate, and the findings can be made tor a negative declaration and approval of the project, then the project should be referred back to the Staff Advisory Committee tor conditions and environmental review. Additionally, the applicant should be required to provide the City with an archaeological report, prior to a public hearing. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Clerk that Parcel Map 'case No. 88 -461 had been duly advertised and 26 hearing notices were sent on January `b, 1989, Chairman Soto opened the public hearing. Jim McGillis, surveyor for San Luis Engineering, on behalf of Ed Nelson /Certified Freight Lines, stated that the General Plan is the governing body, es City, but it does say area. What area are we referring to in the General flan, block? This is the only property between Branch and Larchuront that is not split. All the other lots are split right down the middle. If you take that area, you have a 6.8 unit per acre density. It you take the area that includes the Wou,ens' Club, then even our lot split does not give you a 4.5 unit per acre. The staff report indicates that the proposed lot split does not tweet the minimum Lrontage requirement of 60 feet, however, it does have frontage 'on both streets, which is not the normal lot split. This proposal is ditterent; you do not have 60 feet, but you do have a double frontage. The slopes do not meet the R -1 ordinance, but they are the same as the rest of the neighborhood. One of the reasons we are here, is because Mr. Nelson has owned this lot for so longoand held it in open space while everybody else developed their lots. Right do not think there is any question that you can use the overall neighborhood density. Three out of the last seven maps that are recorded exceed the General plan density. We are not asking for a major exception; this is the norm as far as what has been done in the past. The staff has a probleu, with us us.i.ug • optional design standards. We have to use optional design standards because we tit; not have 60 feet frontage, so we do not have a legal lot under the 1< 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION, 1/17/89 Page 4 density. We will be improving the neighborhood by getting rid of a back yard that fronts onto the street. In regard to the Archaeological report, we are willing to do the study after the general plan density problem is resolved. Edwin Nelson, 204 Larchmont, stated that the property was purchased in.1961 and was a corporate office for a trucking company until 1970. Mr. Nelson stated that he was only asking for what all the other people in the neighborhood have. He stated there are 9 houses above his property; all with 50 foot lots and the same grade level. He stated he discussed the project with 6 surrounding neighbors and all are in favor of the project. Tim Fissori and Mr. Ikeda spoke in favor of the project. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck advised that the other lots were split prior to the General Plan, so they came under older regulations. The zoning ordinance allows greater density, but the General Plan is the guiding- document and determines the density. At what point do we include the overall density"? The General Plan is calculated based on an area. The reason for the General Plan is to regulate, basically the flow of traffic. Think of the lots in the Oak Park area. At the time they were approved it was felt it was not significant; we are just approving 30 or 40 more lots. But look at the ultimate impact. We have two other people who have contacted us and indicated that they have project lots they want to divide and they intend to use this consistency determination to divide it. Commissioner Gerrish stated he feels that the whole General Plan density business is a .. .spacious argument. The.ordinanc:eastates that if the project is in a specific area an archaeological report is required. Commissioner Gerrish stated that he does not have a problem with the 50 foot frontage, but the slope is a serious problem. Commissioner Boggess advised that he has a problem with the fact that every time someone wants to split an R -1 lot and it does not conform, then the optional design standards are used. If the lot does not split up as an R -1 lot as it should, then it should not be split. Commissioner Flores stated his feelings that we are going to encounter to marry problems with this project, primarily with the definition of the neighborhood for defining density. What happened in the past is just that, it happened in the past before the General Plan had been amended. He stated he has problems with the 50 foot frontage and also the slope. The archaeological study needs to be done, it is a highly sensitive issue, that can not be' dismissed. Commissioner Scott stated he feels that if we deny this project we become discriminatory and is his opinion, the project will be an improvement. Commissioner Moore advised he was in favor of approval. Commissioner Soto stated he likes to compare the proposal against the existing neighborhood. Mr. Nelson is only asking for the exact same property rights as the rest of the neighborhood. This is the last parcel and there are existing 50 foot lots in neighborhood, and there are existing homes built on those slopes. We have deficiencies in our planning ordinances and our general plan; they can he interpreted in many different ways. Commissioner Flores pointed out that we are setting some really difficult standards for ourselves as Planning Commissioners if we approve this project. What we are suggesting here is that somewhere in our general plan there will have to be a definition of neighborhoods that tells us specifically how far we can extend those interpretations. Also, we have got to be careful that we do not start pointing at the general plan as being deficient every time there is a strong argument. The General Plan is the only thing we have right now, it is the constitution. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck advised that optional design standards go on to City Council for final approval. 12 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION, 1/17/89 Page f After more discussion, Commissioner Gerrish made a motion that Parcel Map Case No. 88 -461 be continued to the next regular tweeting and that staff prepare environmental review and conditions of approval under the Optional Deign Standards. Also that the applicant needs to prepare an archaeological report. Motion seconded by Commissioner Flores and passed with une "no" vote. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT /DISCUSSION Planning Director Liberto- Blanck advised that Public Wucks is advising the City Council that there is a need for development fees to construct road improvements. A copy of that staff report has been included for the Commission's reference. Also, there is a map that corresponds to it. All projects within the area will be required to pay the development fees. At this time it has not been approved; Council is still considering it and staff is still refining it. She advised that the screen check copy of the General Plan Existing Setting report has been received. For those members of the community that have been interviewed, basically what they have done is put together the commuuit:y issues based on the interviews. One of the primary issues that was brought up is the preservation of agriculture. As soon as staff reviews them, the consultant will revise there and copies will be sent to the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 8:50 P.M.