Loading...
PC Minutes 1986-09-16296 Arroyo Grande Flaming Common September 16, 1986 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Moore, Olsen, Soto, Gerrish, Boggess and Flores. Planning Director Eisner is also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL Upon hearing no additions or 'corrections, the minutes of the regular meeting of September 2, 1986 were approved as prepared, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and unanimously carried. CONTINUATION - (PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED) - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 86 -434, PASEO STREET IN THE "RA -B3" RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. (G A. BRENIZER/MARSHA DUGGER). Chairman Carr referred to the information from the City Attorney discussing lot line adjustments, stating it . is pretty clear what Mr. Shaw's position is on the issue. Planning Director Eisner stated his recommendation would be to deny the application for a lot line adjustment for the reason that in accordance with the letter from the City Attorney, the application is inappropriate. This denial would allow the applicants to appeal to the City Council or resubmit as a parcel map. Mr. Eisner noted that at the last meeting, the Commission asked that this matter be submitted to the City Attorney for a legal opinion and, with Mr. Shaw's response, there leaves no room for discussion; therefore, staff saw no reason to submit a supplemental staff report. Chairman Carr reopened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a statement at this time. Steve Cool, Attorney for the applicant, pointed out that as they had indicated at the last meeting, their approach is that this is an appropriate lot line adjustment application; the real question is "is this malting the situation more non -conforming than it already is, or is it simply making the division of the property more orderly ?" Mr. Cool referred to the Council minutes back in May of 1986 regarding the development of Paseo Street and the manner in which it was to be developed. At that time the decision was made that it was definitely going to be necessary to change the configuration of the parcels. He stated his clients are now in the position where they really have to do something right away and, in his opinion, the Planning Commission should go ahead and approve this project. Marsha Dugger, 222 McKinley Street, one of the - applicants, stated they are faced with loosing this property because of the time element involved. She pointed out that they had approval for the development once, but it was taken away because of the trees. In answer to Mr. Brenizer's question as to why this matter was brought back to the Commission, Commissioner Gerrish explained that at the last meeting the applicants had the option of whether or not they wanted the application denied which would allow them to appeal to the Council, or continue the matter pending a legal opinion from the City Attorney and the Commission, after discussing this matter with the applicant, continued it for two weeks. Mr. Cool stated, when they were before the Council in May, it was clearly understood that there had to be a lot line adjustment to reconfigure the lots. Mr. Eisner stated the issue is whether or not the adjustment of the lot lines increased or decreased the degree of non- conformity. In the original staff report it was pointed out that the existing parcels all have access to a public right -of -way, and the proposal indicates three parcels served by a private easement and only one having access on a public street. He stated it was the feeling of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that this situation left little question that the degree of non - conformity was being increased. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. After discussion, Lot Split Case No. 86 -434 was denied without prejudice on motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and carried by a 4 to 1 vote with 2 abstentions. The denial was based on procedural grounds with the finding that the application for a lot line adjustment is not consistent with the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, Section 66412(d). PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 86 -415, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 86-375 AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, TRACT NO 1418, A 10 UNIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, 168 BRISOO ROAD IN THE "R -3" MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. (JOHN SPENCER /AVERY SETZER). Chairman Carr referred to a memo from Public Works Director Karp, dated September 16, 1986, regarding some difficulties with the tentative tract map and the architectural review Arroyo Grande Plernrug C mmission, 9 -16-86 Page 2 of this project. Planning Director Eisner advised that staff, in reviewing the materials, found some inconsistencies between the architectural review materials and the -tentative tract map materials, and at the time these discrepancies were found, there was not enough time to resolve the issues. Mr. Eisner pointed out that the Subdivision Map Act requires that a tentative tract map shall be deemed approved if there is no action taken by the City within 50 days (30 days according to City Ordinance) and, since this matter was continued from the Commission's last meeting and action of denial on the tract map is necessary so that the map doesn't become effective. He stated the questions to be resolved have to do with the drainage and the problem of inconsistency of lot lines between the Tract Map and the plans submitted for architectural review. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Use Permit Case No. 86 -415 and Tentative Subdivision Map, Tract No. 1418 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Mr. Avery Setzer, one of the applicants, stated they are trying to resolve the problems that Mr. Eisner mentioned. Upon hearing no further comments from the audience, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed, stating it will be reopened again when these items appear on the agenda. After a brief discussion, Use Permit Case No. 86 -415 and Architectural Review Case No. 86 -375 were continued, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and unanimously carried. The following action was taken on Tentative Tract Map No. 1418: RESOLUTION NO.86 -1097 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1418, FILED BY JOHN SPENCER AND AVERY SERER, FOR A 10 UNIT PLANNED DEVELOPMEN AT 168 BRISCO ROAD. On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Moore, Olsen, Soto, Gerrish, Boggess, Flores and Chairman Carr NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of September 1986. 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, WEST BRANCH STREET. (CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE /PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF INTENTION. Planning Director briefly reviewed the current status of this item. He advised that two consulting firms have been selected; one to do the overall EIR, and a second firm to do an analysis of the bridge proposal. The environmental review and whatever mitigations come out of that process will be the necessary ingredients to go on with this proposal. He commented that some soil analysis are now being done on the south side where the old warehouse fell down. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Carr reminded the Commission that a study session has been scheduled for the hesday,. September 30th at 7:00 P.M. Planning Director Eisner stated that the Study Session Agenda packets would be sent out a week before the meeting to give Commissioners time to review the materials. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 8:45 P.M. 1L'ST C%'Y Secretary J Chairman 4,1 297