PC Minutes 1986-03-18ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
.-'arch 18, 1986
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chairman Carr
presiding. Present are Commissioners Moore, Soto, Boggess and Olsen. Corrrassioner Flores and
Chairman Gerrish are absent. Planning Director Eisner and Associate Planner Iversen are also
in attendance.
~'INUTE APPROVAL
Hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meetings of February
18, 1986 and March 4, 1986 were approved as prepared on motion by G miissior_er Soto,
seconded by Commissioner Moore, and unanimously carried.
COI`.TT4"Ni UAT1ON - AR,C'IIT.EC URAL REVIEW CASE NO. 85-355, SIGN, 100 TRAFFIC WAY.
(SKILLEY'S CAMPER SALES).
Planning Director reviewed that approximately four weeks ago the Commission
considered an application from Skilley's Camper Sales and, at that time, it was felt that there
was not enough information available to determine what the sign would look like when completed.
Mr. Eisner noted it was the direction of the Corranission at that time that the applicant
come back with an illustration showing exactly where the sign will be located on the property
and how it would be designed. He described the proposed sign, stating it would be interior
lighted.
• After a brief discussion, the sign was approved on motion by Commissioner Olsen,
seconded by Commissioner Soto, and carried with one abstention.
- PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS RELATING TO
AGRICULTURAL ZONES.
Planning • Director Eisner advised that the purpose of the proposed Zoning Ordinance
and Zoning Map amendments is to implement adopted General policy and to create consistency
between the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. He noted that a public hearing for the
proposed amendments was advertised for the meeting of March 18th, under the provisions of the
California Government Code, Chapter 65000 and the provisions of • local ordinances. However,
since staff feels there may be room for interpretation or misunderstanding in the wording of the
legal notice, it is recommended that the public hearing be continued and that a complete
readvertising and noticing take place, establishing that a public hearing be held on . April 1,
1986. He further noted that this item is listed for study session under Item 3 of this agenda.
Vice Chairman Carr announced that the Public Hearing on the proposed Zoning
Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendments relating to Agricultural Zones has been continued to the
Planning Commission meeting of April 1, 1986.
PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 1395, "PACIFIC POINT'S
(RESUBMITTAL), A 42 UNIT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION IN THE "R -3" MULTIPLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SOUTH ELM STREET. (MID-STATE, ENGINEERS, INC.,
RRPRESENTLNG STRAWBERRY PATCH).
Planning Director Eisner noted that a few months ago the Planning Commission reviewed
a project submitted for a 57 unit condorrinium project on South Elul Street. At that' time • the
condominium project was reviewed with a density of about 15.5 units per acre. The issues that
were raised at that time had to do with the design and specific conditions that were
recommended by the staff on the project. One the " whether or not the
r J
V.lc IMPS Ln_� (;_.25t.01i as to ':L'h;' t
project could have a retention basin on- site, or whether it was reasonable to require that a
storm drain be ex tended from this site to a major ponding area on Farroll Avenue. The
Planning Commission, with the recommendation of the Staff Advisory Corrrnittee, recorrrnended the
project be approved with the conditions as submitted by staff. The matter was appealed to the
City Council and the recommendation of the Planning Commission was sustained.
He pointed out that there is now an approved project on this property for a 57 unit
condoner iun project on a 3.5 acre site, and it staff's understanding that the property has
changed hands and the new owners have resubmitted a plan under the provisions for Optional
Design Standards. The position that the applicants have taken in the project is an interest in
creating what is referred to as a "patio home" development, with reduced lot sizes and a series
of modifying designs to allow them to create a single family living environment.
He stated that the project before the Corrrrission tonight is a proposed 42 lot
subdivision; the zoning is ".R-3", not to exceed 14 dwelling was per acre. The proposal, as
submitted, contains 11.2 units per acre. He pointed out the distinguishing characteristics of the
project are the reduced lot area and the,dimensions of each individual parcel. Lot sizes range
from 2,672 sq. ft. to 6,092 sq. ft., with a majority of the lots being 2,672 sq, ft. The applicants
are requesting an Optional Design Standard on the street cross section of 49 ft. of right of
way, with a paved section of 39.5 ft. City standards provide for a 52 ft. right of way and 40
ft. of cross section. The proposal is to create a housing unit with a zero lot line on one side.
Each unit will have a two car garage. Both the minimum lot area and the unit size will exceed
those of the previously approved project.
256
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -18 -86
Mr. Eisner advised that the Staff Advisory Cowaittee has reviewed this project and it
is recommended with the 11 conditions listed in the staff report, dated March 18, 1986, and with
the addition of a 12th condition requiring that private sidewalks no less than 6 ft. wide be
added to the interior lots. He also called attention to Page 2 of the staff report and reminded
the commission that in a matter of this kind it is necessary to address certain specific findings,
as a pert of whatever action the Com,ission takes, whether it be for approval or for denial
Mr. Eisner further advised it is necesasary that the Commission consider and condition this tract
map so that it may not, under any circuristances, be recorded as a final map until all of the
architectural al and site plans for every lot have been reviewed and approved.
Upon being assured by Planning Director Eisner that public hearing for Tentative Tract
Map No. 1395 had been duly published and property owners notified, Vice Chairman Carr
declared the hearing open.
Marshall E. Ochylski, Landplars Plus, project repr gave a brief description of
the proposed project, and a comparison between the approved project and the one being
proposed. With regard to the conditions of approval, Mr. Ochylski asked for clarification
regarding to the setback. IIe stated what they are requesting is a minimum setback of 9 ft. for
a side yard on the 4 lots on Elm Street. He stated they would like to request a minor change
in Condition #2 by adding the words "were feasible "" to the end of the sentence. Planning'
Director Eisner commented that the change would be acceptable to staff. Mr. Ochylski
questioned the recorrr;endation for private sidewalks, stating the reason for requesting sidewalk
on only one side was because they wanted to provide more green space. He stated the impact
of the 42 units would be le than the 57 units, and it is their feeling that this is a much better
project than the approved project.
Terry Hetrick, resident of So. Elm Street, inquired if the 500 block of Elm Street is
going to be widened. He stated there is a traffic problem on Elm Street now, and where the
proposed plan is, the street narrows down to 2 lanes. Planning Director Eisner advised that
there is a plan line in the General Plan for Elm Street and, on a project review such as this,
the Public Works Department requires that the applicant be responsible for that portion in front
of his property. Vice Chairman Car stated he understands Mr. Hetrick's concern, however, the
street is essentially going to remain the same until development takes place. Commissioner
rvroore corrirented that this project will be adding two driveways coning out on Elm Street, and
what makes it dangerous is when traveling south, the cars are going over a hilltop. He stated
this is a traffic hazard and inquired as to what action the Corr could take to correct the
situation.
Rick Meers stated he lives on the south boundary of the proposed project and
questioned the height licit and if the applicant would be widening the street.
Hearing no further comments from the audience for or against the proposed tract map,
Vice Clairman Carr declared the hearing closed.
Commissioner Soto inquired if this project would set a precedent, being an "R -1"
project with substandard sized lots? Planning Director Eisner advised that the proposed project
is in an ''R -3" zone and, under that zoning, the density is "not to exceed 14 dwelling units per
acre ". He pointed out that under the Optional Design Standards a non - traditional multi - family
residential development is proposed, and the issue before the Cornnission is which develops ent
the Coili;ission thinks is more in tune with the objectives of the General Plan.
L:a[T""n� ssion .r Bogg e` referred to a similar tract in Grover City called "Sand I Harbor".
-I rbor
s r+ v ty �l��l ' �� id a ��1
noticed lie stated ted look at t that cars s_,_<<c.:� Pc 1v +� +,���_ at that tract today and �ILi•s +,: =ice sitting half in the street
and hall in the driveway. He pointed out that in a condominium project you have open space
that is controlled by a Homeowners' Association, but in the proposed type of development there
is no control and pe=ople are going to do what they want to do. He commented that about all
you see when you drive around the neighborhood is garage doors and, in his opinion, the
condominium concept can accept the density better, Commissioner Olsen stated she prefers this
project over the condom niurzs. Ccnrlissioner Soto stated he agrees with Commissioner Boggess
and would favor a 42 unit condominium project if there was more space for the children to play.
He .further stated he feels that, in either project, the water that is supposed to go down and
end up in the complex is going in the wrong direction and, in his opinion, the drain line should
go to the creek. Planning Director Eisner advised that the drainage requirement was from the
Public Works Department as a part of the Caty's overall drainage plan.
Conrrnssioner Moore commented with regard to sidewalks, and inquired if the sidewalks
wool`] have to be 6 ft. wide for those 16 houses, noting that hundreds of people going to and
from the high school get by with 4 ft. sidewalks. Vice aairman Carr stated he would be more
interested in seeing a development like this take place than 57 units on the property.
i
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Cession, 3 -18 -86
Commissioner Moore stated he likes the lower density, noting that there is some open
space around every house. He commented that there are less amenities with the higher density,
and he likes the 20 feet in front of each house. -
Planning Director Eisner stated that as far as the architecture is concerned, that is
something the Commission will have control over when the project comes up for architectural
review, He commented that if the Commission wishes to have C. C. and R.'s for the project, it
could be a condition that those C. C. and :?.,'s be submitted and approved prior to recordation
of a final map. If the Cormhhission dog require the establishment of a Home Owners'
Association, that phase shouud take place as a part of the Architectural Review.
Mr, Ochylski pointed out that the developer is giving . the Cty 15 less units; the G G
and R.'s - till not be a problem if that is what the Coen 'scion wishes. He stated the developer
will be building all of the 42 units and, with regard to the open space, the project is located
pretty close to the school so there is a play area close by. If there is a requirement for
common open space, then the developer would have to revert back to the 57 unit project. He
pointed out that the project provides 4 parking spaces per unit, plus 1 space in front of each
unit on- street. He stated his preference would be not to have interior sidewalks because of
getting more green and not having the cars hanging over the sidewalks. He further stated he
feels 4 ft. wide sidewalks are more than adequate.
Lilly Dureya, Garfield Heights, stated she favors the plan being proposed tonight as
opposed to the condominium project.
Commissioner Carr stated the action to approve the revised map is more in keeping with
what he would like to see, with the inclusion for the requirement of C. C. and R.'s to address
the problems brought up, and with 4 ft. wide sidewalks on the interior lots.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
On motion by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner
following roll call vote, to wit: •
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing
Plana
public hearing
STUDY SE�SSJON:
RESOLUTION NO 86-1080
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REVISED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1395 UNDER OPTIONAL DESIGN
STANDARDS.
Olsen, and
by the
Commissioners Moore, Olsen and Vice Chairman Garr
Cornn issioners Soto and Boggess Co riari_ssioner Flores and Chairman Gerrish
Resolution was adopted this 18th day of March 1986.
ing Director Eisner advised that this matter would go to the City Council for
three weeks from tonight.
RRO_POsij1 ZONING ODINANCE AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS RELATING TD
GRICUrL T7UR AL ZO N;_ S.
Planning Director Eisner advised this is a study session on the proposed ordinance
amendment relating to agricultural zones. He suggested that discussion be held tonight and the
Public Hearing will be held on April 1, 1986.
Mr. Eisner reviewed that approximately 6 months ago the Planning Commission and then
the City Council adopted a major modification to the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
That modification was based on the adoption by the City of the Soil Survey Report of San Luis
Obispo County, Coastal Part, provided by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service. This report was based on research done in 1984 and 1985. At that time,
by modifying the General Plan, the Planning Conrrission and the City Council adopted a
definition for Prime Farml=and, and that definition removed the previous definitions having to do •
with Class 1 and Cass 2 soils and, in their place, adopted a definition which reads 'Prime
Farrrdari as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture, is the land that is best
suited to producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. It must either be used for
producing food or fiber or be available for these uses. It has the soil quality, length of
growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce a sustained high yield of
crop when it is managed properly. Prime farmland produces the highest yields with mineral
investment of energy and economic resources, and farming it results in the least disturbance of
258
Arroyo Grande Planning Co!mnission, 3 -18 -86 Page 4
the environment. Prime farmland eonrnonly has an adequate and dependable supply of moisture
from precipitation or irrigation. It also has a favorable temperature and length of growing
season and an acceptable soil reaction. It has few if any rode. fragments and is permeable to
water and air. Prime farmland is not excessively eroded or saturated with water for long
periods and is not flooded during the o owing season. The slope is no more than 6 percent.
Soils that are limited by a hazard of flooding can qualify for prime farmland if this limitation. is
overcome by such practices as flood control. Onsite investigation is needed to determine the
extent of this limitation."
Mr. Eisner stated that the document goes on to specifically spell out a list of
qualifying soils.
After considerable discussion, the matter was set for public hearing at the regular
Convrission meeting of April 1, 1986.
STUDY SESSION - SAFETY AND SEISMIC SAFETY FLEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
The Safety and Seismic Safety Element was discussed and, after discussion, the matter
was set for public hearing at the regular Commission meeting of April 1, 1986.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Con.mission, the meeting was adjourned at
10:00 P.M. by the Vice Chairman.
Secretary
Vice Chairman
1