PC Minutes 1988-01-05392
Arroyo Grande Planning Commmission
January 5, 1988
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Carr presiding. Present
are Commissioners Moore, Boggess, Flores, Olsen, Gerrish and Soto. Planning Director Liberto-
Blanck and Current Planner Lanning are also in attendance.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 87 -110, VARIANCE FROM EMERGENCY
ORDINANCE LIMITING RESIDENCE ; BUILDING HEIGHT IX) FIFTEEN FEET (15'), 360
GULARTE ROAD. (P. REINHARDT & C' HUNSTAD.)
Planning Director Liberto- Blanck reminded the Commission that the City Council passed an Ordinance
restricting residential budding heights within the R -1 zones to 15'. Anythirg above 15' needs to go
through the variance process. Concerns were mainly involved around the loss of viewsheds.
Current Planner Lanning stated that the applicant is proposing to develop the property with a single-
family residence with an average height of approximately 26 -1/2 feet. The home is approximately 30'
high at its highest single point, as measured from adjacent grade. The maximum height permitted in
this zone prior to the ordinance was 30'. The proposed home is approximately 2,113 sq. ft. in size.
The front yard setback ranges from 20' to 60' in depth, with side yards of 8' to 10' in width. These
setbacks meet or exceed the minimum yard requirements. The rear yard is approximately 60' to 70' in
depth, with the majority of the slope occuring in this region. This provides a rear yard which exceeds
the 1,500 sq. ft. required by code. The proposed residence will have a height of approximately 23'
when viewed from the street.
The proposed home is located in a tract where most of the lots are currently vacant. The few lots
which have been developed are south of the site at a significantly lower elevation. The viewsheds of
these homes will not be significantly altered by the proposed development. Adjacent lots are
currently vacant, with no development pending at this time. This tract is one of the few undeveloped
tracts affected by the urgency ordinance. The majority of the areas affected by the ordinance are
already developed, and would only be subject to the requirements of the ordinance if there is infill
development or a room addition. Other residential areas currently under development are under the
P -D Planned Development Zone and are not subject to the requirements, as each lot is already under
Architectural Review.
The impact of the current proposal on the viewsheds of the adjacent properties is somewhat difficult to
assess, as there is no development at this time and future projections on development is theoretical, at
best.
The applicant has provided a substantial amount of information regarding the surrounding area and the
potential impact of this development on the surrounding properties. The properties to the south and
southeast are at a lower elevation and are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed home. The
properties to the west and east have a viewshed that runs parallel to the proposed development and
also should not have be significantly impacted. The properties to the north and northeast are the ones
most likely to be affected by the proposed home due to the direction of the viewshed in this area.
'These properties are at a higher elevation than the subject property; however, the land does slope
away toward the east as you go down Gularte Road. The cross - sections provided by the applicant
illustrates how properties to the north could be developed while maintaining the viewshed. The
cross s=ections assume no significant grading will take place. They also illustrate how a single -story
home could be situated on the lot in order to maintain view over the applicants' proposed residence.
Current Planner Lanning continued that while there is a chance that the applicants' proposed-residence
may impact the viewshed of adjacent properties to the northeast to some degree, the proposed
development does not appear to completely obstruct the viewshed, and future development will be able
to have substantial enjoyment of the views in the area. The applicant has provided information to
show that development of his property will not significantly impact the views of the adjacent lots.
The applicant has also shown that development of his lot in strict and literal compliance with the terms
of the ordinance would have an adverse impact on the development of his property. Development of a
single -story structure would be difficult and tend to produce a home that would look out of character
with the homes in the area, a number of which are 2 -story in nature. It should be noted that two
letters of support for the applicants' variance request have been received from other owners of lots in
the tract.
Mr. Lanning stated that, given the information that has been presented, and after Staff's review of the
project, Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution
recommending City Council approval of the Variance request subject to the listed findings and
conditions of approval.
Chairman Carr stated it seemed to him that the emergency ordinance was in effect to address this type
of development in an undeveloped area. He questioned Staff as to why this variance was presented
when it seemed to obviate the intent of the emergency height ordinance.
Arroyo Grande Plann k g► Commission Page 2
January 5, 1988
Planning Director LiDerto- Blanck responded by stating that the intent of the ordinance was to protect
viewsheds. The ordinance stated that if there were some reason to go above the 15', it could be done.
The Council's concern appeared to be with additions in established neighborhoods, where one knew
what the viewshed would be, at that time. The difference in this case is that adjacent lots to the
proposed developement are vacant.
Upon being assured by the Planing Commission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 87-
110 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open.
Paul Reinhardt, 836 Raintree Court, Santa Maria, one of the applicants, stated that he agreed with the
general purpose and intent of the emergency ordinance as it related to established neighborhoods and
the protection of those viewsheds. But in the neighborhood of the proposed development, there
already exist 2 -story structures, and a 2- story height datum has been established for the area. Also,
in order to develop the property, the height would have to be above the limit set by the ordinance.
Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed variance, Chairman Carr declared the hearing
closed.
Commissioner Gerrish stated that he thought the application of the ordinance to this particular
subdivision was absurd. He thought it unnecessary to go through a public hearing for a 2 -story house
in a brand new subdivision.
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and carried
with two no votes, Variance Case No. 87 -110 was recommended to City Council for approval at their
meeting of January 12, 1988.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 87 -113, VARIANCE FROM EMERGENCY
ORDINANCE LIMINTING RESIDENCE HEIGHT 'ID FIFTEEN FEET (15'), 1585 HILLCREST
DRIVE. (L. BERRY & V. BENNE IT.)
CXuTent Planner Lanning advised the Commission that the applicants are proposing to develop the
subject property with a single - family residence with an average height of approximately 25' as
measured by the zoning ordinance. The home is approximately 26' high at its single highest point as
measured from adjacent grade. This point is at the farthest point away from Hillcrest Street. The
proposed home is approxiamtely 1600 sq. ft. in size. The front yard setback is 20' per the zoning
ordinance. The house will be set back approxiamtely 35' from the limit of the existing street. The
side yard setbacks range from approxiamtely 12' to 68', which exceed the required 5 -foot setbacks.
The rear yard setbacks range from approximately 12' to 65', which exceed the 10 -foot setbacks
required by the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Lanning continued that the proposed residence is located in an area which is currently developed
with existing single - family homes. The majority of these homes are located at a higher grade level
than the existing property which drops off sharply away from Hillcrest Street. According to the plans
submitted by the applicants, due to the steep slope on the property the actual height of the proposed
residence, as viewed from the street, will range from approximately 2 to 12 feet, as illustrated on the
attached cross - section. The home has been designed to drop down with the slope of the property to
avoid a PG&E easement and to preserve as many oak trees as possible. According to the proposed
plans, it would appear that the view of the adjacent neighbors to the east and the south, across
Hillcrest which are at a higher elevation than the street, will not be significantly impacted by the
proposed development.
Mr. Lanning stated that due to the steep drop -off of the property in this area, the properties to the
north and west are at a lower elevation and, therefore, should not be severely impacted by the
proposed residence. The applicants have indicated that development of the lot in strict and literal
compliance with the terms of the urgency ordinance would have an adverse impact on the development
of this property.
Mr. Lanning continued that given the fact that the applicants have demonstrated a sensitivity to the
presentation of views on the adjacent parcels, that the proposed structure has been designed as much
as possible to keep within the intent of the ordinance while maintaining continuity and character with
the surrounding homes, that the applicants have demonstrated alternatives are not as viable as the
proposed development, and that the intent of the ordinance to preserve existing viewsheds has been
addressed through the design of the proposed residence, staff believes the applicants' request
represents a reasonable development of the property, and recommends that the Planning Commission
adopt the attached resolution approving the variance request subject to the listed findings and
conditions of approval.
Commissioner Soto questioned staff as to whether the Police Chief or the Public Works Director had
any comments regarding the driveway or the site distance clearance on both sides of the driveway.
393
394
Arroyo Grande Planting Commision Page 3
January 5, 1988
Current Planner Lanning stated that neither department had any negative comments regarding this
project.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No.
87 -113 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing
open.
Leonard Berry, 226 Castaic Avenue, Shell Beach, one of the applicants, stated that when the lot was
purchased approximately 7 months ago, the intent was to design and build a home that would be
compatible with the surrounding area and would not block neighboring viewsheds and/or solar access.
With those design requirements in mind, it was a buildable lot. Currently, with the emergency
ordinance in effect, the lot is not buildable, due to its shape and steep slope, unless a variance to the
ordinance is granted. The only portion of the intended structure that would be above the required
height limitation is the garage roof, which is 12' above the street level and is not in the view alley.
Commissioner Boggess asked the applicant whether the was a right -of -way to the street below.
Mr. Berry stated that there was no other right -of -way; that, basically, the lot was landlocked.
Commissioner Olsen questioned the accesslblity of fire equipment to the structure.
Mr. Berry responded that fire control access could be made via the parking bridge -type driveway.
Chairman Carr asked the applicant whether a flat roof for the garage had been considered, to which
Mr. Berry responded by stating that a flat roof had been considered, but was not compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood design and the extra 2' that would be saved is not in a viewshed area.
Mr. Fred Steel, 1598 Hillcrest, stated that he opposed the variance because it would block the only line
of view that he has for Avila Beach. There is a multi -trunk oak tree that is currently blocking that
view. He was also concerned with the underneath side of the house where the bracings were located.
He thought that in the future the applicants would perhaps close in the underside of the house, thereby
ending up with a 38' house side.
Chairman Carr asked Mr. Steel approximately how many degrees of view would be lost.
Mr. Steel responded by stating that approximately 20 would be lost.
Paul Karp, Public Works Director, stated that the proposed project would be built approximately 150'-
175' from the intersection of Hillcrest and Sierra.
Leonard Linger, 1203 Carpenter Canyon Road, spoke in favor of the project, stating that the
applicants' plans have been a diligent compromise in view of the lot's unique size and slope and that the
Steel's view of Highway 101 would perhaps be blocked.
Madeline Steel, 1598 Hillcrest, invited anyone who wished to do so to come to her home and look out
the window to see the view that would be blocked. Mrs. Steel stated that she opposed the variance.
Mr. Berry stated that in regard to the bracing, there are no plans to cover, mask, or otherwise build
around the bracings. That area will be camouflaged with landscaping.
Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed variance, Chairman Carr declared the hearing
closed.
Commissioner Soto stated that he wished to continue the hearing in order to investigate the project
further.
Commissioners Moore and Olsen also stated that they wished to continue the hearing in order to view
the site from the Steel's property.
After a brief discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Soto,
and unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing on this project to the January 19,1988 Planning
Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 87-451, REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE EXISTING PARCEL
INTO THREE (3) LOTS, WEST BRANCH STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY REGIONAL
CENTER. (COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.)
Planning Director Liberto- Blanck opened the discussion by stating the applicant is requesting to
subdivide the existing parcel into three lots, ranging in size from 5 to 14 acres.
Arroyo Grande Platmirg Commission Page 4
January 5, 1988
Current Planner Paul Lanning stated the the subject property was originally subdivided in October 1876
and the 40 -acre site is currently developed with the South County Regional Center, Library and County
Maintenance Facility. The proposed lot split would create three parcels from the 40 acre site.
Parcel 3 is divided by a road but is still considered to be one parcel under the State Subdivision Map
Act. The area between West Branch and Highway 101 is being dedicated to the City as right -of -way
for West Branch Street.
Mr. Lanning further stated that the proposed parcel map meets or exceeds the minimum requirements
of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. All of the
parcels exceed the minimum lot size of 1 -1/2 acres required in the A (Agriculture) Zone, and they
exceed the minimum lot width and depth of 150'. A number of public works improvements are
required as part of the parcel map approval, including street construction, widening, sewer and water
line extensions and relocation, etc.
Current Planner Lanning summarized by stating that staff would like to note that the General Plan
designation for the site is not low density residential as noted in the Staff report. Upon further
research, Staff discovered that in 1978, the General Plan was amended and this area was designated as
the South County Regional Center office and general plant. This does not affect the preliminary
findings necessary for the parcel map. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution approving the proposed parcel map.
Commissioner Soto questioned Public Works Director Karp as to who is Engineering Development
Association and if they are tied into the County or if they are a private entity.
Current Planner Lanning stated that he believed they're a private entity and the County contracted
with them.
Commission Gerrish asked staff as to why the Commission had to see this at all, since on a previous
occasion when the County wanted to put the regional center at its present location, they simply did
it.
Commissioner Olsen responded it was because this is a lot split and it is the only time the Commission
gets anything to say about that.
Planning Director Liberto- Blanck stated that in talking with the City Attorney about that, he said that
some people do argue that this is a government entity and that they can go ahead and divide property as
they wish; however, his feeling is that this did need to come through the City since it was within the
City's boundaries and the City should go ahead and review it.
Commissioner Gerrish stated that if the Commission denied it, the County would just go ahead and do it
anyway.
Chairman Carr asked if the City's General Plan or Land Use Legend spoke to minimum lot size for
property that's designated as South County Regional Center.
Planning Director Liberto- Blanck responded by stating that she had a copy of the resolution which
amended the Land Use Element of the General Plan that speaks to designating that area as the South
County Government Center and also a copy of the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission staff report,
which she then passed out to the Commissioners).
Commissioner Olsen wanted to know if staff had a copy of the papers that the Council has on this land.
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck commented that no, she didn't have that, but staff did locate the
file, and at that time the City went through and made several different land use element amendments.
On this site they outlined it as the South County Regional Government Center. However, there is no
text to go with it to basically specify what the South County Government Center was. There was a
discussion of what the County was proposing to put in there, which included a public entity and a
government center. But there is no text or legend.
Chairman Carr questioned whether there was any problem in allowing a lot split when the property is
shown on the General Plan as South County Regional Center, but in the zoning map, it's zoned as
Agriculture.
Planning Director Liberto- Blanck said no, because the minimum lot size there is 5 acres. Under the
Agriculture, it goes down to an acre and a half.
Commissioner Olsen queried as to whether the land talked about in a trade between Mr. Lackey and the
County was included on the map.
Planning Director Liberto- Blanck stated that the 5 -acre site is included in as one of the parcels.
395
396
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
January 5, 1988
Page 5
Public Works Director Karp stated that the portion that the County receives from Royal Oaks is not a
portion of this lot split. The portion of land that Royal Oaks receives from the County is a portion of
this lot split and it's shown.
A discussion followed as to the location of the 5 -acre parcel of Mr. Lackey's.
After being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Lot Split Case No.
87 -451 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing
open.
Keith Crowe, with Engineering Development Associates (EDA), San Luis Obispo, stated that EDA is a
private engineering firm, and that EDA did engineering on the Royal Oaks project; therefore, the
County found it convenient to use EDA for this parcel since they'd already done a lot of the work
associated with this map. Parcel 1 is the parcel that is intended for the City to get. Parcel C, not
shown on the map, is involved in trades. Mr. Crowe stated he was not here to discuss those items.
What he wanted to discuss were the conditions that are being imposed on the map. A portion of the
conditions listed are being installed with the Royal Oaks subdivision, namely typical street
improvements, some of the base work for PG &E utilities, some street lights in some locations, things of
this nature. Very specifically excluded from things being installed with the Royal Oaks is relocation
of the 12" water line along W. Branch, which is listed under Water Condition 1 on page 2, and under
Sewer Condition 1, the 8" sewer line in W. Branch extension to serve Parcel 1. It is the opinion of the
County staff that these conditions are excessive, they should not be applied to this parcel map, and
should these conditions be imposed and carried through to the City Council, the staff feels, at this
point, to recommend to the board of supervisiors that they not proceed with the parcel map. In their
opinion, the conditions are excessive and there should be virtually no conditions involved at all.
Commissioner Olsen asked if Mr. Crowe was the only County spokesman there.
Mr. Crowe stated that he was speaking for the County. There is a County representative here who had
not intended to speak tonight. Mr. Crowe further stated that the County has dedicated a right -of-
way in excess of 56', in that it goes from the northerly right -of -way of W. Branch all the way to the
freeway right -of -way. A lot of the land between the West Branch extension and the freeway right -
of -way right now is occupied with some major water lines - Number 1, the 12' referred to in the
conditions and also the 30" Lopez line. That land is probably not really usable for streets, and any
widening would have to take place on the north side of W. Branch. Without an adopted plan line to
know what and where the improvements are, what the street sections are going to be, County staff's
opinion is that essentially none of these should be the County's responsibility.
Commissioner Soto asked if the County staff had a grading plan for Parcels 1 and 2.
Mr. Crowe responded by stating that there is an as -built grading plan that reflects what grading has
taken place on Parcels 1 and 2, but, as far as the finished grading plan to show what they intend to do,
there was none.
Commissioner Soto asked if it had been approved in a public hearing or anything, and if, normally, the
County had to go through public hearings on grading plans.
Mr. Crowe stated not on typical grading plans; that's a building permit process and obviously depends
upon the nature of the entitlement. If it's a grading plan with a subdividion, yes; if it's a grading plan
for a single lot, no.
Discussion followed as to who was building the road at the project and whether hearings and/or County
approval had to be granted by Royal Oaks to build the road.
Mr. Crowe stated that the easements for the road have already been executed and recorded, and were
being handled on separate documents between the City and the County. The County has dedicated
right -of -way to the City.
Additional discussion followed regarding the conditions of the lot split. Mr. Crowe stated that the
Royal Oaks subdivision is conditioned to do these improvements that are being installed right now.
They won't get their final maps without it; in order to record the final maps, they will have to post
bonds to guarantee these improvements. The County is not paying a penny for any improvements
there.
Chairman Carr asked if the County was going to retain ownership of Parcel 2, and why it is being
divided from Parcel 3 if it's going to stay in the County.
Mr. Crowe stated that, as far as he knew, Parcels 2 and 3 were being divided purely for the convenience
of handling property inside the County. The original tentative map that was submitted showed only
two parcels, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, and the general services property managers asked that another
dividing line be put between the third parcel.
r:a<Y6:YTja`
Arroyo Grande Plannh g Commission ; Page 6
January 5, 1988
B>71 McCann, 575 Crown Hill, Arroyo Grande, stated that he had some problems with the secretive
manner of the land swap, and the fact that if and when approval of this lot split with the County is
made, the County, on the one hand, is telling the City specifically what we can do with our one parcel,
and on the other hand, they're not telling us anything they're going to do with their other two parcels.
He thought that if we're ever going to find out what the County is going to do there, and if we're ever
going to have any control over it, we'd better do it at this meeting tonight. And, if we can't decide
tonight and we can't get the answers tonight, then he thought we better decide we're going to put this
off until we can get these answers.
Gordon Bennett, 415 Allen Street, inquired as to whether or not it is the City and County's policy that
agriculture zoned land be left alone and not split.
Planning Director Liberto- Blanck stated that non -prime AG is an acre and a half and could be split.
Madeline Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, had a question regarding the parcel that Mr. Lackey was going to give
the City and what grading has taken place already on it.
Public Works Director Karp stated that there's been grading on permission from the County on their
site, and the City has no jurisdiction over their site, whether they retain ownership or give it to Bill
Lackey. The City merely did the inspection of that area because we were told that that would
probably be the City's property and it should be something that should be done with the grading, so that
was done with permission of the County and Mr. Lackey.
Fred Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, stated that he was not in favor of the Regional Center when that went into
that area.
William Lackey, 575 Easy Street, stated that as a citizen of both Arroyo Grande and San Luis Obispo
County, he doesn't lose or gain much.
Curt Sorg, 211 McKinley St., stated that the County only brought the plat before the Commission
because the 5 -acre Parcel #1 would eventually end up being donated to the City. He also stated that
he was not aware of any plan or other use that the County may have for Parcel #2. The master plan
for Parcel #3 is a sheriff's substation, courthouse, social services, mental health.. just government
facilities.
After a lengthy discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Soto,
and unanimously carried to continue this item to the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for
January 19, 1988.
PUBLIC HEARING - LOT LINE ADJUSINIENT CASE NO. 87 -452, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO
PROVIDE A 42 -FOOT WIDE ACCESS TO TALLY HO ROAD, 101 AND 250 RIDGEVIEW WAY.
JENSENILENGER SURVEYS, REPEBSENTATIVE. (SALLY WHITE/JOHN AND MARGIE
ASKELAND.)
Current Planner Lanning opened discussion by stating that the subject properties were orginally
subdivided in 1889 as part of the Hilliker and Woodbury Tract. The two westerly parcels were deeded
off from the original parcel in 1955 and given their current configuration by a parcel map approved in
1977. The easterly lot, Parcel 13, is the remaining portion of the original Lot 10 from the 1889
subdivision. Both parcels have been developed with single- family homes and related accessory
buildings. Parcel A is 6.89 acres in size, with Parcel B having an area of 2.70 acres.
Mr. Lanning continued by saying that the applicants are proposing to adjust their lot lines in order to
provide Parcel A with a 42 - foot wide access out to Tally Ho Road. The parcels will remain the same
size, as an equal amount of property is being exchanged throught the lot line adjustment process. The
reorganized parcels will meet or exceed the minimum requirements for parcels in this zone. The
proposed lot line adjustment is exempt from the requirements of the C Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA); therefore, staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment by minute motion.
After being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Lot Split Case No.
87 -449 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing
open.
Leonard Linger, 1203 Carpenter Canyon Road, representative for the applicants, stated that he agreed
with the staff report and was essentially there to answer questions.
Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed lot line adjustment, Chairman Carr declared
the hearing closed.
After a brief discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Soto,
and unanimously approved to grant approval of the lot line adjustment, deleting the "because" phrase
of the first item in the staff report under "Findings."
397
398
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
January 5, 1988
Page 7
PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 87-449, SUBDIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO FOUR LOTS,
136 PINE STREET. SAN LUIS ENGINEERING, REPRESENTATIVE. (JERRY GREEN/MARVIN
DEE.)
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck stated that continuation of this item has been requested by the
applicant, since an Archaeological Report on the site has been requested by staff. Chairman Carr
granted continuance to an unknown future date.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 87-397, SATELLITE ROOF ANTENNA, 1570 W. BRANCH
STREET. (K- MART.)
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck advised the Commission that this item has been withdrawn by the
applicant, due to the lack of information that had been requested by staff.
REQUEST FOR WAIVER 'ID CONSTRUCT A SIDEWALK AND DETERMINATION ON
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, 1577 EL CAMINO REAL. (SJ I EN N. COOL.)
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck informed the Commission that Mr. Cool had applied for a building
permit to remodel his law office at 1577 El Camino Real. A section of the zoning code requires curbs,
gutters and sidewalks be installed. While Mr. Cool is prepared to install the curbs and gutters, he feels
that the installation of the sidewalk is an undue hardship because the buidling site would require
retention walls, and it is neither necessary nor desirable at this location. The Public Works Director
has indicated that a waiver may be appropriate, only if a cash deposit is posted which covers the
installation of the sidewalk at a future date. Mr. Cool has filed a letter appealing the Public Works
Director's determination.
Planning Director Liberto- Blanck passed pictures among the Commission to illustrate gutters and
sidewalks adjacent to the site and the proposed curbs and gutters on the site.
Also, she stated that under the PC zone, one of the requirements of the buidling permits is that there
must be architectural review. Ms. Liberto - Blanck asked the Commission if they felt as though minor
items, such as remodels and so forth, should be handled by the Commission, or whether they would
rather have staff review these items.
Mr. Steve Cool, 250 Stagecoach Road, owner of the property at 1577 El Camino Real, stated that
according to the Public Works Director, any appeal to the zoning ordinance had to be addressed by the
Planning Commission.
After a brief discussion, when it was verified that if a waiver was granted, it was only applicable to this
particular building permit, motion was made by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner
Gerrish, and unanimously carried to grant the waiver to construct a sidewalk at 1577 El Camino Real.
Additionally, regarding the issue of whether or not the Commission wished staff to review minor
architectural review for building permits, motion was made by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by
Commissioner Olsen and unanimously carried that Planning staff could assume the responsibility of
reviewing minor architectural review requests until such time that a policy is written up that better
defines which permits fall under architectural review.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 87 -398, MODIFICATIONS OT STEEPLE STRUCTURE, 497
FAIR OAKS AVENUE. (GOSPEL LIGHTHOUSE CHURCH.)
Current Planner Lanning stated that this item was originally approved by the Commission on October
20, 1987, as Use Permit Case No. 87 -429. This item dealt with the construction of a church steeple in
the form of a lighthouse for the Gospel •Lighthouse Church. The construction of this steeple required
a use permit, as it exceeded the 30' height limit required by the zoning ordinance for structures in the
Agriculture (A) zone. The steeple is located close to the center of the 2.3 acre church stie and is to
be 45' in height, not including a cross. This item is coming before the Planning Commission at this time
at the request of the applicant.
Mr. Lanning continued by saying that the applicant is proposing some minor modifications to the steeple
structure. The height will remain at the originally approved 45'. The applicant is requesting the
design of the steeple structure be modified from a circular structure to a more squared -off
configuration. This modification will result in a slight increase in the base of the structure from 16' to
19 -1/2', and a charge in the appearance of the structure. As the proposed changes are minor in
nature and the height of the steeple is not charging, Staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission approve the proposed architectural changes by minute motion.
Reverend Larry Booker, Pastor of the Gospel Lighthouse Church, answered questions of the
Commission.
1
Arroyo Grande Pl,ennirg Commission
January 5, 1988
ATTEST:
Page 8
After a brief discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and
unanimously carried to approve Architectural Review Case No. 87 -398.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further discussion before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman
at 10:35 P.M.
399