Loading...
PC Minutes 1986-09-02292 Arroyo Grande Planrrirg Cormission September 2, 1986 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commssion met in regular session with Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Moore, Soto, Gerrish, Flores, Olsen and Boggess. Planning Director Eisner is also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL - . Upon hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meeting of August 19, 1986 were approved as prepared, on motion by Commissioner, Gerrish, seconded by Cbmnissioner Soto, and unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 86 -432, (LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT), 620 AND 621 CORAL PLACE IN THE "RA -B3" RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. (MANUEL SEBASTIAN/VAL MC CLURE). Planning Director Eisner advised the request is for a lot line adjustment. The zoning is "RA -B3" and, after the lot line adjustment, both lots will be in conformance with the provisons of the Zoning Ordinance. The request has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee and is submitted with no conditions and with a recommendation for approval. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 86 -432 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Manuel Sebastian, one of the applicants, spoke in favor of the proposed lot split. He explained the reason for the request is that he wants to purchase that small piece of property from Mr. McQure to provide more parking area for his property. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed lot split, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion, Lot Split Case No. 86 -432 was approved on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 86 -433, 1203 PRISCILLA LANE, IN THE "R -1 -D" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. (RICHARD TOWNSEND /OOLDWELL BANKER). Planning Director Eisner advised the request is for a lot split at 1203 Priscilla Lane. The zoning is "R -1 -D "; the " -D" is an overlay that deals with the height limit and in no other way is a restriction on the zoning. He noted that the proposal has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee and is recommended with the 3 conditions listed in the staff report, dated September 2, 1986. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 86 -433 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. have. Richard Townsend, applicant, was present to answer any questions the Commission may Planning Director Eisner noted that a letter has been received, and is a part of the file, from Mr. and Mrs. Ellis Roth, owners of the adjoining property at 213 No. Elm Street, stating they have no objections to the subject lot split. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed lot split, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. There being no discussion, Lot Split Case No. 86 -433 was approved subject to the 3 conditions listed in the staff report, dated September 2, 1986, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 86 -434, PASEO STREET, IN THE "RA -B3" RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. (C. A. BRENIZER/MARSHA DUGGER). Planning Director Eisner stated this is a request for a lot line adjustment on 4 lots on Paseo Street. This matter and the map were reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee, and it is the recommendation of that Committee, based on the definitions within the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, Section 66412 (d), that this matter not be heard by the Planning Commission and that the applicant be instructed to re- submit as a parcel map. It is staff's opinion that any other action is a violation of the Subdivision Map Act. Chairman Carr noted the matter is an advertised public hearing and perhaps the Commission should proceed with the public hearing and then close the hearing for Commission discussion. Mr. Eisner stated, if the applicant accepts the advice of staff, he could withdraw the application and re- submit. If not, staff recommends that the Commission deny the request in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and have the applicant re- apply. He pointed out Arroyo Grande Planning um 5sion, 9-2 -86 Page 2 that the present zoning of the property is "RA -B3 ", designating a minim= building site of 40,000 sq. ft. The request for the lot line adjustment would be adjusting 4 lots which are smaller than the 40,000 ,sq. ft. minimum lot size and, although staff recognizes that these are legal lots of record, there is the issue that two of the lots would be rendered landlocked without access to a recorded street, and they would be substantially smaller than the requirements in the "RA -B3" District. He noted that the lot line adjustment is a basic redivision of the property. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 86 -434 had been duly published and _ property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. _ Mr. Steve Cool, Attorney representing the applicants, stated they would not agree to resubmit the matter as a parcel map. He requested that the Commission hold this matter over until the Engineer, Mr. McGillis arrives. Chairman Carr announced that this matter would be continued to later on this evening pending arrival of Mr. McGillis. PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 86 -412, (X)NDOMINIUM CONVERSION OF A FOUR UNIT OFFICE BUILDING, 701 -707 GRAND AVENUE IN THE "0-2" GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. (THELMA WILLIAMS/PAT CAUDILL). Planning Director Eisner advised the request is for a condominium conversion of a completed four unit office complex at 701 -707 Grand Avenue. He noted that the complex was originally approved by the Planning Commission in February of 1986. The building was built to meet all of the requirements for a condominium at the time it was originally approved and, therefore, all that is required is approval of the Use Permit and parcel map. The Use Permit application and tract map have been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee, and it is felt that all of the conditions that were originally established have either been met or are in the process of being met. The recommendation on the Use Permit application and the tract map are for approval. He noted that there is one recommended condition attached to the Use Permit, which is listed in the staff report, dated September 2, 1986. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Use Permit Case No. 86 -412 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Hearing no comments from the audience for or against the proposed Use Permit, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO. 86 -412, APPLIED FOR BY THELMA WILLIAMS/PAT CAUDILL. On motion by Cbmrrissioner following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Moore, NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted Lot Split Case No. 86 -431. approved on motion by Commissioner carried. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -1095 Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by the Olsen, Flores, Gerrish, Soto, Boggess and Chairman Carr this 2nd day of September 1986. After a brief discussion, Lot Split Case No. 86 -431 was Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, TRACT NO. 1418, A. 10 UNIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, 168 BRISOO ROAD, IN THE "R -3" MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. (AVERY SETZER). Planning Director Eisner advised that the application before the Commission is for a Subdivision Timact Map. He recalled that when the R - and R - Districts were combined, one of the things that was eliminated was a requirement for a use permit for condominiums. However, unfortunately, we forgot to change a separate ordinance, No. 197, Conmunity Housing Standards, which requires a use permit application for condominiums, and, therefore, Mr. Setzer is requesting continuance for two weeks to allow for the companion Use Permit application to be heard concurrently. 293 294 Arroyo Gaande Planning Ccor fission, 9-2 -86 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 85-2 AND GPA 86-2 CHANGING CLASSIFICATION FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 10 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). Planning Director Eisner stated this item is again being continued to a later meeting. He gave a brief update on the matter, stating that the environmental work is being done and once we get the chemical analysis, there will be an assessment written by an engineer setting forth what has to be done to mitigate the residual problems in the soils. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 86 -434, P '1' 0 STREET, IN THE "RA -B3" RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. (C. ° A. BRENIZER /MARSHA DUGGER). Chairman Carr stated this matter was continued at the request of the applicant pending arrival of his engineer. Jun McGill's, San Luis Engineering, spoke representing the applicant. He advised that this is an existing subdivision and has been dealt with primarily at the Council level. Mr. McGillis briefly reviewed past discussions with the Council regarding the property. He pointed out that this application is submitted as a lot line adjustment, which is exempted from the Subdivision Map Act. He stated that all they are trying to do is to -provide these 4 lots with access. Chairman Corr stated the main issue is whether or not a lot line adjustment is the proper action to be taken. Mr. Cool stated he is at a loss to understand why the staff feels that reconfiguration of the lots makes it so the application is not a lot line adjustment. He commented that the Subdivision Map Act basically says that a lot line adjustment is exempt from the application of the Subdivision Map Act. With regard to staff's comments about the proposal creating two landlocked parcels, he noted that as indicated on the map, there is an area recorded as a permanent easement and will create a permanent access to Paseo - Street. He stated, in his opinion, legally the applicant is entitled to some lot line adjustment no matter what the configuration comes out, and his feelings are clear that this is not a subdivision; it is a lot line adjustment; they are simply changing the locations of those parcels and the shape of the lots. Marsha Dugger, 222 McKinley Street, and Charles Brenizer, applicants, spoke in favor of the lot line adjustment. Hearing no further comments from the audience for or against the proposed lot line adjustment, Chairman Corr declared the - hearing closed. Planning Director Eisner commented that staff, in reviewing this application, wants to be very clear that the issue is not the substantative design as submitted by the applicants; the issue goes back to the question of "...equal to or greater than..." under the subsection of the Subdivision Map Act that was referred to in the staff report. It was the considered opinion of the Staff Advisory Committee that the change in design would constitute a reduction in the circumstances and, therefore, fell out of "equal to or greater than" conformity with the General Plan. It was their feeling that four lots, with the present configuration notwithstanding, all had acquisition to a public street. It was on that basis that it was felt this no longer constituted a lot line adjustment, but a matter that should be taken up in a parcel map. Secondly, the new lot configuration had what appeared to be a greater amount of cross slope than would be permitted in the table of the Subdivision Ordinance. In answer to Commissioner Olsen's question as to ' why this matter had been to the Council before coming to the Commission, Mr. McGillis advised it was because this is an existing subdivision and was taken to the Council for their guidance. Mr. Eisner stated it is staff's recommendation that, under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, this matter be denied. If the Compression chooses not to deny the project, then he requested continuance because staff did not prepare a staff - report with conditions to allow this matter to proceed. In answer to Commissioner Flores as to why this was submitted as a lot line adjustment in the first place, Mr. McGillis advised it was filed as a lot line adjustment rather than a parcel map because of the rights inherent in a lot line adjustment; it is a procedure that is not as restrictive. Commissioner Olsen stated she would like to see the conditions in writing and would also like to have some sort of opinion from the city attorney. Commissioner Soto asked what would happen to the Paseo right of way at the bottom of the hill? Mr. McGillis advised it would probably remain as it is. 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Comnission, 9-2 -86 Page 4 Commissioner Gerrish conniented that the applicants have been working on this development for a long time and, basically, they are trying to work around the trees that exist to comply with the tree ordinance. C ormissioner Flores stated he is concerned with the way the proposed drive is going to split the parcel, and he is concerned with Lot 3 which essentially is a piece of unuseable land; the major portion of the land is a driveway and, in his opinion, the lot is little more than a drive through or parking lot. Commissioner Gerrish stated he agrees, but he is not convinced that this isn't the best solution to the problem, and he presumes that the configuration is the best way of producing the 4 lots and saving the trees. Mr. McGillis stated the applicants wanted to create 4 buildable lots with building sites that would have the least amount of disturbance to the hillsides, pointing out that it is a site that has to be handled in a sensitive manner; it is an existing subdivision. After further discussion, a motion was made by Comnissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Boggess to deny the lot line adjustment without prejudice, on procedural grounds based on the following: "Inconsistent with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, Section 66412 (d), and with the certain provisions having to do with slope as found in the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Arroyo Grande, as amended." Motion failed by a 4 to 2 vote with one abstention. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and carried with one "no" vote, Lot Split Case No. 86 -434 was continued to the next Planning Commission meeting of September 16th, with directions to staff to submit a complete staff report and a legal opinion from the city attorney. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF INTENTION - REPEAL OR MODIFICATION OF ORDINANCE 197 CS., "COMMUNITY HOUSING STANDARDS" Planning Director Eisner explained the necessity for repealing or modifiying Ordinance 197 C.S. is because it is in conflict with the current zoning ordinance. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 86 -1096 A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE QTY OF ARROYO GRANDE 1D RECOMMEND REPEALING OR MODIFYING ORDINANCE NO. 197 CS. "COMMUNITY HOUSING STANDARDS ". On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Con nissioner Soto, 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 2nd day of September 1986. PLANNING OOMMLSSION b 1'UUY SESSION Planning Director Eisner requested a work study session be scheduled for the fifth Thesday in September to discuss the parking requirements, sign requirements, and open space and guest parking requirements in the "R -3" district. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and unanimously carried, a work study session was scheduled at 7:00 P.M., September 30, 1986. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 9 :00 P.M. Chairman 295