Loading...
PC Minutes 1986-12-02308 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Gerrish, Moore, Olsen, Soto and Flores. Commissioner Boggess is absent. Planning Director Eisner is also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL 1 u Hearing no additions or corrections, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by , Caranissioner Moore, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the regular meeting of November 18, 1986 were approved as prepared. DESIGN REVIEW - RESIDENCE ON VISTA CIRCLE (LOT 38, TRACT 1149) IN OAK PARK ACRES. (MICHAEL ROBBINS). Planning Director Eisner advised that the application is for design review of a single family residence located on Vista Circle in Oak Park Acres. He pointed out that design review of single family dwellings is not customarily required by the,, City, however, in this instance, it was required as a condition of approval when the original tract map was approved in 1979. He stated the condition was imposed because of design concerns for excessive slopes on Lots 38, 39 and 40. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1986 Mr. Eisner stated the application has been reviewed by the. Staff Advisory Committee and is recommended to the Commission with the condition listed in the staff report, dated December 2, 1986. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and unanimously carried, design review was approved subject to the condition that the applicant submit a grading and drainage plan, prepared by a registered civil engineer, for approval by the Public Works Director prior to issuance of a building permit. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 86 -376, OFFICE BUILDING, 708 GRAND AVENUE IN THE "C-2" DISTRICT. (BOB BOWEN). Planning Director Eisner called the Commission's attention to the staff report included in the packets, dated December 2, 1986. He stated that because of the complexities of the issues, he would like to go through the staff report in sane detail. After a detailed review, Mr. Eisner stated it is staff's recommendation that in view of the concerns noted in the report and the possible need for substantial building redesign, that this matter be continued and referred back to the applicant. Mr. Eisner pointed out that if the applicant wishes to appeal the findings in the staff report on the structural concerns, a Board of Building Examiners would have to be assembled. Mr. Bob Bowen, applicant, addressed the items of concern. He stated there is a problem with the side yard setbacks, however, there is a 10 ft. setback from the rear of the property. He further stated that he does not like the requirement for red curb in front of his business. Mr. Bowen commented that this is the first he has heard about the requirement for redesign of the building to eliminate the code requirement. He protested to having to have the engineering done on the lot before coming before the Planning Commission, stating he has spent a lot of money just to get the engineering done. With regard to the structural posts, Mr. Bowen stated that the handicapped parking space is 10 ft. wide and there is a 3 ft. walkway between the parking space and the building and, in his opinion, it is not a big problem. He noted that the posts are in that 3 ft. walkway and they tried to space them so they would not affect trying to get in and out of an automobile. With regard to the trash enclosure, Mr. Bowen stated the trash is picked up at night when no cars are parked in the parking space. The alternative would be to put the trash enclosure directly in front of the handicapped parking space. He asked for suggestions from the Canmission for another location. Mr. Bowen commented about the requirement for a 6 ft. perimeter fence, stating he does not want a 6 ft. high fence. He stated he designed the project to have no fence on the west side, and that he and the attorney that owns the adjacent building agreed to have a 3 ft. planter on the left side with an irrigation system. Regarding Condition No. 6 relative to the sign, Mr. Bowen stated he must have misunderstood the sign ordinance. Chairman Carr stated he is not certain that the posts need to be redesigned because they may not present a problem, and he is not sure about the necessity to relocate the trash enclosure. He suggested leaving out the dimensions on the fence proposal and have it subject to the approval of the Planning Director. He stated the two main concerns he has is the paraphet wall and the sign proposal. Conanissioner Olsen stated her feelings that every precaution should be taken to be sure that the handicapped spaces are kept clear, but she felt the Commission could be a little more lenient on the fence. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No. 86 -376 was continued in order to give the applicant time to meet with the Planning Department to resolve some of their concerns, and possible redesign of the building. Arroyo Grande Planning man, 12 -2 -86 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 86 -439, 747 PRINTL ROAD IN THE "R-S" RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN DLSTRICT. (EUGENE AND JEAN NOOKER). Planning Director Eisner advised this is a request to divide an 8 acre parcel into three parcels in the "R -S" Residential Suburban District. He stated the applicants, Eugene and Jean Nooker, are applying under the Optional Design and Improvement Standarrds, Section 9 -3.503 of the Subdivision Ordinance. He reviewed that the proposal would create 3 parcels, of 2.25, 3.4 and 2.375 gross acres. The net acreage of two of the parcels (B and C) would be slightly less, when eliminating the stems of the flag lots and cross easements. The "R -S" zone district requires a minimum parcel size of 2.5 acres. The applicant is applying under Optional Design and Improvement Standards, which permits a deviation from zoning development standards and, in this case, the minimum lot size as long as the gross density of the lot is not increased. Mr. Eisner stated that, as a part of the submission, there are three additional pieces of information handed out to the Commission tonight; 1) a memo from Jerry Bowser, dated December 1, 1986, dealing with the question of slope and the method used to determine that the lots to be created do, in fact, meet the requirements of .the ordinance. Mr. Eisner commented that because of the unique circumstances, the Planning Commission will have to make a specific finding that a substandard lot is created by the fact that the lot is smaller than the 2 -1/2 acre minimum and finding that the Optional Design Standards takes this into account. The second document is a memo to the Planning Commission from John Keisler, Parks and Recreation Director, dealing with replacement trees, which constitutes a revision to the recommendation in the staff report. The third item is a memo from Paul Karp, Public Works Director, dated December 1, 1986. This memo modifies some of the conditions in the staff report, and also points out that Mr. Karp is precluded by State law from signing any final map and allowing any recordation unless there are specific findings that the Optional Design Standards are consistent with the Goals and Objectives of the General Plan. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 86 -439 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. F. J. Kirkpatrick, 737 Printz Road and Elmer Kirk 735 -Printz Road spoke in favor of the Lot Split being granted. Gene Nooker, 747 Printz Road, applicant for the lot split, stated he feels the Commission has been given adequate material that represents everything he has to make a decision. In answer to Commissioner Gerrish's question regarding the conditions, Mr. Nooker stated that the conditions listed are satisfactory to him. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed lot split, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Olsen stated she has looked the terrain over and feels it is a reasonable and desirable lot split. Commissioner Moore stated he has checked the site and Mr. Bowser's work and he is in complete concurrence with his report. He further stated there is no visable evidence of real land abuse and it is being taken care of right now. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No. 86 -439 was approved under Optional Design Standards, subject to the 7 conditions listed in the staff report, as modified, to be completed prior to recordation, and with the findings that the requested lot split is in conformity with the City's General Plan and that deviation from the zoning standards would produce a more desirable and livable community. PUBLIC HEARING - ROYAL OAKS ESTATES (FORMERLY OAK KNOLLS) - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM; PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 221 C.S. AND 317 C.S.; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1390. (ROYAL OAKS PARTNERSHIP). Planning Director Eisner left the meeting due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Rob Strong stated he would be acting as staff and making the staff presentation on this matter. He explained that Mr. Eisner has declared a possible conflict of interest due to a previous transaction, and to keep the record entirely clear, he has declined to act as Planning Director on this particular item and, therefore, the City has appointed him as Acting Planning Director on this matter. Mr. Strong reviewed his staff report, dated November 25, 1986, commenting that the three items before the Conrnission tonight are 1) certification of -the Final EIR and Addendum; 2) approval of amendments to Ordinance No. 221 C. S. and 317 C. S regarding the "P -D" zoning on the property; and 3) approval of the tentative map for Tract No. 1390. He stated it is his recommendation to the Commission that they emphasize their discussion tonight on the Environmental Impact Report and addendum. 309 310 Arroyo Grande Planning won, 12 -2-86 -• Page 3 He. commented that, in essence, staff is ultimately going to recommend conditional approval of all three items and, in his opinion, the addendum can be found to be adequate in addressing the possible adverse impacts associated with the project; that the Planned Development amendment be recommended for approval, subject to certain changes outlined in the conditions of approval; and that with a substantial number of conditions, the revised tentative map is appropriate for the property. Mr. Strong reviewed the previous EIR discussing Halcyon Hills proposing 288 residential units commenting that the EIR was accepted by the City,, however, the project was withdrawn after the EIR was accepted. Also, the City considered the Knollwood Project which evolved into the. Oak Knoll project which was approved in 1984 for 233 residential units and a park site. He noted that there is an approved final map on the property, and also an approved tentative map which remains valid and could be pursued in the event this proposal is unacceptable to the City. Mr. Strong briefly reviewed the drainage areas, the Oak groves to be preserved, the proposed street patterns, a proposed 10 acre school or park site, a YMCA site, the estate size residential lots and the proposed patio homes. With regard to the EIR Addendum, Mr. Strong advised that in the decision that this project would have possible adverse affects on the environment, the City identified the areas of concern; traffic, grading, drainage, and schools and parks. He noted if there are other concerns by the Commissioners, then they would have to refer back to the prior EIR and Addendum. He commented that the Addendum was specifically required by the Planning Commission and reflects up -to -date relative information and responds to the comments in the 1978 document. Mr. Strong stated that the basic strategy of tonight's meeting would be to allow the Commission to have a summary presentation from the Addendum consultants, to open the public hearing and, if possible, adopt a resolution as to the adequacy of the EIR and current Addendums. Mr. Strong introduced Mr. Andrew Meriam, of Meriam - Fraser, consultants selected by the City to prepare the EIR Addendum. Mr. Meriam commented that the report focuses on 5 issues which were determined by the Planning Commission to be the most critical; grading, drainage, traffic, schools and parks. An effort has been made to deal with and identify major issues. Mr. Meriam outlined concerns regarding 'grading and drainage, and briefly reviewed proposed mitigation measures. Mr. Meriam introduced Helen Bailey and Keith Higgins, stating they were the essentials in putting the report together. Ms. Bailey discussed the schools and the parks issues. She stated that the issue of schools has been identified as a potential substantial impact, and discussed possible mitigations. • Mr. Keith Higgins, Traffic Engineer with Meriam - Fraser, discussed the traffic analysis stating it deals primarily with off -site issues. Mr. Higgins recapped the primary ' impacts. He described the primary impacts on Oak Park Boulevard, taking that down to Oak Park /101 Interchange, impacts on Grand Avenue, East Branch Street, West Branch and down to Brisco Road. He discussed other impacts along Tally Ho Road and LePoint Street, and down to the Vilinge. He comnented that some of these impacts are not so much directly related to the Royal Oaks project, but this is more or less a cumulative analysis. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Environmental Impact Report Addendum, Proposed Amendment to Ordinance 221 C. S. and 317 C. S., and Tentative Tract Map 1390 for Royal Oaks Estates had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. • Mr. Hinderschott, 333 Miller Way, stated he is concerned about the street going through; he is concerned about the density, the water situation and the schools. He commented that the grading that is going to happen should be thought out carefully by the Planning Commission. Mr. Hinderschott stated he is also speaking on behalf of his neighbor, Mrs. Elizabeth Scott Graham. Mr. Al Spierling, 299 Miller Way, spoke regarding the oak trees. He stated that the current plan, as adopted has the tree easement in the private property owners' hands and, in his opinion, the City is making a serious error by not preserving those trees in open space that would be open to the public. He stated he hopes this body will urge strongly that the City Council reverse its previous action. Arroyo Grande Planning Ca uni ian, 12 -2-86 Page 4 Mr. Ken McDaniel, 396 Miller Way, stated he is against Miller Way going through. Gary Harmon, Manager of the Methodist Campground, commented regarding the impact on the campground. He stated he would like to see a green belt effect around the campground to preserve it, and also he is concerned about the wildlife. Mr. Dan Lloyd, EDA, Project Engineer for Royal Oaks Estates, stated it is their feeling that the EIR Addendum was done adequately. Upon hearing no further comments from the audience, Chairman Carr restricted additional comments to the Commission. Commissioner Flores inquired about the tree preservation easement.. Mr. Strong advised that the proposal is a reflection of a previous Council decision to have the tree preservation easement on private property. Commissioner Olsen referred to Mr. Harmon's comments, stating that the Planning Camnission should consider the impact on the campgrounds. She questioned why there was no study done on the effect of wildlife, and she commented about the merits of a greenbelt as a mitigating factor. Mr. Strong advised that wildlife discussions exist in the previous EIR introduction of Urban Development. He stated there is no question that the development of the adjacent property and additional traffic will have an adverse affect on wildlife. Chairman Carr commented if the Commission wished to provide some protection to the campground without revising the overall design of the project, perhaps that could be done through conditions. Mr. Strong pointed out that the Commission must have an acceptable environmental document before making a decision to approve a project. He referred to the various documents distributed to the Commission, stating that the Planning Commission, based on its review of the EIR and Addendumis, plus the public testimony and Commission discussion, should determine the adequacy of the Final EIR and current addendum. He stated, in staff's opinion, the document is sufficient and adequate to meet all of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Chairman Carr commented he feels that the addendum does a thorough job of addressing the impacts of the project and sufficient mitigations. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 86 -1104 EIR A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING EIR AND ADDENDUMS. On motion by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Olsen, Moore, Flores, Soto, Gerrish and Chairman Carr NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Boggess the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of December 1986. Commissioner Carr referred to the exhibits attached to Mr. Strong's staff report, stating he has a problem separating the action on Exhibit B and C. He commented, in his opinion, the Conmiission needs to deal with those items almost concurrently. He suggested that perhaps a study session on the 5th Tuesday in December would be appropriate. Mr. Strong recommended that the public hearing be continued and, if the Commission feels there is a need for a study session and /or field trip, it should happen between now and the Commission's next meeting on December 16th. After a brief discussion, a study session and field trip of the property was scheduled for Tuesday, December 9, 1986 at 1:00 P. M. at the Arroyo Grande Comnulity Building. Members of the audience and the developers were invited to attend. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 85 -2, AND GPA 86 -2 CHANGING CLASSIFICATION FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, EAST BRANCH STREET. (CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE /PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF INTENTION. Chairman Carr advised that this matter is being continued until after the first of the year. 311 312 Arroyo Grande Planning Capon, 12 -2 -86 STUDY SESSION - OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. Due to the lateness of the hour, Chairman Carr continued the study session on the Open Space Element to the next Planning Commission meeting of December 16, 1986. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 11:40 P.M. Chairman 1