Loading...
PC Minutes 1986-02-18ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION February 18, 1986 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Gerrish presiding. Present are Commissioners Olsen, Flores, Soto and Moore. Commissioners Carr and Boggess are absent. Planning Director Eisner is also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL Chairman Gerrish noted that the last paragraph on Page 2 was duplicated on Page 3. Hearing no further corrections or additions, the minutes of the regular meeting of January 21, 1986 were approved by the Chairman as corrected. CONTINUATION - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 86 -355, REPLACE EXISTING ,SIGN, 100 TRAFFIC WAY. (SKILLET'S CAMPER SALES). Planning Director Eisner advised that this matter is still being continued pending resubmittal by the applicant. CONTINUATION - ARCIIITE(:111KAL REVIEW CASE NO. 85 -352, OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE ADDITION, 1052 GRAND AVENUE. (BLANKENBURG BROS. INV.). Planning Director Eisner reviewed that this matter was heard two weeks ago and at that time it was continued so that staff could gather additional information to answer questions that the Commission had. Mr. Eisner briefly reviewed the history of the property back to 1978, noting that the City approved a site plan for 9700 sq. ft. of manufacturing, 9,800 sq. ft. of warehouse and 12,800 sq. ft. of office space. 74 parking spaces were required to meet the parking standards in effect at that time. The basis upon which this determination was made is the same today as it was in 1978. Mr. Eisner stated that in reviewing this project, we can =now confirm that the parking was consistent with the Municipal Code at the time the overall site plan was approved by the City. The uses are substantially the same as they were at that time and, since the standards have not changed, the same standard of 74 spaces would be required today that' were required in 1978. As far as the plan that was resubmitted is concerned, Mr. Eisner advised that the applicants have prepared an amended site plan and building plan. The site plan has taken into account all of the requirements of the City's ordinance and has also taken into account the list of conditions that were reviewed two weeks ago; the parking standards have been met, the driveways have been reviewed and either meet the standards or have been approved by the Fire Department. Mr. Eisner commented that the project has been reviewed again by the Staff Advisory Committee and there is a list of proposed conditions in the revised staff report, dated February 18, 1986. Dick Blankenburg stated he and his brother, Kent, are the applicants proposing to make this addition to the newspaper plant. He stated they have done some research into the background of the property and have come up with the answers to the Coimmission's questions raised at the last meeting. Mr. Blankenburg commented that there have been a few more recommendations and requirements added to the project since the last meeting. With regard to Item No. 4, he stated they would like to accomplish that by signing cross easements between the different properties to protect everybody's easements. He stated they streniouusly object to Condition No. 1 relative to removing on-street parking on Grand Avenue, noting that he had attended the Parking and Traffic Commission meetings on several occasions to object to this policy. He pointed out that they have four tenants who face on Grand Avenue, and those parking places on the street are very desirable to their customers. They asked that Requirement No. 1 be deleted. Planning Director Eisner advised that Condition No. 1, the requirement for removing on street parking, is an outgrowth of an existing policy which has been implemented on a continuing basis by the Parking and Traffic Commission. The policy has been restated recently in the Traffic and Circulation Element, which has been approved by the -Planning Commission and is set for public hearing before the City Council. The purpose is to eventually get all of the on- street parking removed from Grand Avenue so that the maximum capacity can be obtained on Grand Avenue. Ron Harris, counsel for the applicant, noted that a letter requesting removal of on- street parking cannot legally be requested by the City or by Ordinance. Mr. Harris commented that when Grand Avenue Self Storage was put in on Grand Avenue, the City Council ordered that the Parking and Traffic Commiission red line property owned along Grand Avenue. The Parking Traffic Commission declined to do that. In the Blankenburg case, the property being developed is not even on Grand Avenue, but is simply under the same ownership. With regard to the issue of easements, Mr. Harris stated the applicants would like to have that subject to being done prior to Certificate of Occupancy rather than issuance of building permit. 247 248 Arroyo Grande Planning Cianissian, 2 -18-86 Page 2 Commissioner Olsen questioned Requirement No. 4 and the alternative suggestion. Planning Director Eisner stated that cross easements recorded prior to occupancy would suit the purpose. He pointed out that the City's interest is making sure that none of those . individual parcels could be sold without proper parking. Commissioner Flores stated it is the long term goal of the City to eliminate parking along Grand Avenue and, in his opinion, we need to take advantage of those opportunities that come before the Cbrnmi lion. Chairman Gerrish commented, in his opinion, all of the - on-street parking should be removed at one time. Planning Director Eisner stated he doesn't feel the goal is time related; the City is doing this in the same way they eliminate other non- conformities. This is a policy we have had for some time; this is a - request for "discretionary approval and this particular goal is-.included in the Goals and Objectives of the General Plan. He further pointed out that the decision to have this request combined in an overall application was made on the part of the applicant. After considerable discussion, on motion • by Commissioner Flores, seconded • by Cbnmissioner .Moore, and carried with one "no" vote, Architectural Review Case • No. 85-352 was approved amending Item No. 4 of the , recommended conditions to read .as .follows: • 1. Cross easements are to be recorded between all properties to assure that parking is accessible to each parcel. Recordation to be accomplished prior to grant of final occupancy. Planning Director Eisner noted that this matter is finaled with the Planning Com ission unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days. .. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 85 -422, 720 BRANCH MILL ROAD IN THE "A" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. (SAN LUIS ENGINEERING, INC., AGENTS FOR MIL11)N AND MARY HAYES). Planning Director Eisner advised the request is for a lot split to create two parcels of 119,290 sq. ft. and 65,404 sq. ft. respectively. The zoning on the property is " A" Agricultural, which has a minimum lot size of 1 -1/2 acrs. He noted that the proposal has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Cbnmittee and is submitted for Commission review with the conditions as recommended in . the staff report dated February 18, 1986. Upon being assured by the Planning Cam fission Secretary that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 85 -422 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Jim McGillis, San Luis Engineering, representing the applicant, spoke .in favor of the lot split. He stated that the property is zoned "A" and yet in no way, shape or form is the land "agricultural ", but it is definitely a difficult piece of property to deal with. John .Lowry, 544 Los Olivos Lane, inquired about the access to the area of the lot split. Planning Director Eisner advised : that, according to the, map ,as submitted, there are two access points. The first is a proposed extension of the roadway from. Los Olivos Lane, and the second is an accessway. to, Hubner Lane, which is shown on the lower right portion of the map. Mr. Lowry advised that there is a barrier there now, and inquired if the Director of Public Works approved the, removal of the barrier. Mr. Lowry stated as it stands now from the proposed private driveway, there is quite a drop down to the easement, and he is : concerned that when this is put in, that the area there is protected from flooding: Also, he stated there are two exposed gas lines going up the hill and he presumes that the . City would: require that they be covered. Logan Sidler, 506 Launa Lane, commented that the hill was graded over a year ago, and on January 8th of last year the City Council handed down an order that the grading be straightened up. He also inquired as to the 'grading of the hill, stating he doesn't believe that the grading complied with Article 7 of the Ordinance as far, as compaction is concerned. He inquired if this is going to be required to be done, or is it boing to be dumped on some other future home. Planning Director Eisner stated that any condition that is .attached to the tentative map would have to be fulfilled prior to recordation of the final map. As far as compaction is concerned, Mr. Eisner advised that the compaction on the roadway would have to be done at the time the roadway is put in. Mr. Sidler commented that the wall is. approximately 11 ft. tall and they have dumped loose dirt behind it. Mr. McGillis commented regarding some of the above concerns, stating that 'compaction is not the only thing that makes a roadway.. The Public Works Director has a copy" of a report that was prepared for this project, and the grading that was previously done was under the City's exploratory ordinance. With regard to the culvert, he stated that the size of the culvert was instituted .upon direction of the Public Works Director. He further advised that the staff recommendation was for. a 6 ft. access road, which could be from Hubner Lane. Arroyo Grande Planing Comrission, 2 -18-86 Page 3 In answer to Chairman Gerrish's question regarding the "existing road ", Mr. McGillis commented it was done under "exploratory "; there is a My ordinance that allovws that type of permit. He further commented that there was a lot of engineering thought put into this project and a lot of engineering expertise in a report that Public Works Director Karp =has. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed lot split, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Moore stated that he is familiar with what happened out there last year, and he is familiar witkthe terrain and how difficult it is to work with; it could be very difficult for the people downstream because they get the mud and the water. He further stated he is not happy with Hubner Lane because it is steep land and water can cause a lot of trouble in a hurry. He commented he doesn't consider Hubner Lane a permanent road; it could slide, and slip, and there are sane questions as to how determined the people are. that are going to live there to maintain that road. Chairman Gerrish questioned why the new road to be created would be an easement. Mr. McGillis stated it would for Mr. Hayes to use because, like Commissioner Moore, Mr. Hayes doesn't feel like Hubner Lane is going to last either.. With regard to the open gas lines, Mr. McGillis stated that a total design would have to be done, . which would include utility relocation, etc. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Chairman Gerrish, to approve Lot Split Case, No. 85 -422 subject to the three conditions listed in the staff report. Motion denied by unanimous vote. On notion by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No. 85 -422 was denied. Planning Director Eisner advised this matter is finaled with the Commission unless appealed to the C1ty Council within 10 days. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL 1D DENIAL OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT. NO. 86 -492, REQUEST 'ID DO MASSAGE THERAPY AT 791 PAUL PLACE IN THE "R -1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. (RODGER SORROW). Planning Director Eisner advised that, the .appeal is to an administrative denial of a Hone Occupation Permit application to operate as a massage practitioner at 791 Paul Place. He noted that the Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 9- 4.3001, defines uses that are permitted as a Home Occupation Permit, and this use is not among those specifically referenced: Communications with the Police Department indicate their concern about this type of use in resiential areas. Mr. Eisner pointed out that two such uses have previously been approved in Arroyo Grande; one of them has been granted for a very limited period of time, and the other is subject to normal review procedure. He stated the Planning Department has become concerned recently about the number of applications received for home occupations for this kind of massage therapy, and it has been generally agreed that until the language in the Ordinance can be clarified, that these matters be denied and brought to the Planning Commission for review. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Home Occupation Permit No. 86-492 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Rodger Sorrow, applicant, spoke in favor of the permit being granted. He stated this would be a part time job in which he hopes to build a clientel over a period of 6 months or a year to evaluate the feasibility of this as a profession. He anticipated having one or two clients per week, that would probably increase to maybe one or two clients a day in a period of six months to a year. Mr. Sorrow stated he doesn't feel this would be 'a significant increase in traffic. He presented a petition containing 13 signatures of families in the neighborhood support: his request. John ' Elander, 2544 Paul Place; • Darcy Schermerhorn, 781' Paul Place; Ivy Tpett 751 Paul Place and Sheryl Sorrow, 791 Paul Place, spoke in favor of the Home Occupation Permit being granted. Pete Meadville, 701 Paul Place; Charles Howell, 761, Paul Place; Mr. Kroviko, 761 So. Elm Street; Carl Ramage, 2569 Paul Place; Tfm Horne, 2568 Paul Place and Mr. Ketz, 721 Paul Place stated they are opposed to the requested Home Occupation' Permit because of increased traffic in the neighborhood and the fact that there may be other requests for this type of use in the area. Hearing no further comments from the audience for or against the proposed Home Occupation Permit, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed. Commissioners Soto and Olsen stated that, basically, they are opposed to home 249 250 Arroyo Grande Plantdog CimissTcn, 2 -18-86 occupations. Commissioner Olsen stated she feels we-are- building. to &major- °problem; and she is opposed to the general idea of allowing home occupation businesses in the "R -1" District. Commissioner ,Soto- stated he doesn't feel the Commission has clear cut guide lines to follow. Chairman Gerrish stated there should be no negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood in connection with a home occupation, and some of the neighbors present tonight feel there will be such an impact. After 'a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously carried, the C7amnssion upheld the administrative - denial - of Home Occupation Permit No. 86 -492. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED AMENDMENT 1n ORDINANCE NO. 186 ' C. S. (RANCH GRANDE) 10 MODIFY SECTION 1 BY INCREASING T HE COMMERCIAL AREA FROM 40 ACID 10 APPROXIMATELY 49 ACHES, AND ' MODIFYING EXHIBIT "A ", THE CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN, BY REALIGNING THE COLLECTOR STREET KNOWN AS "CAMINO MERCADO ". (BOURDON & BURKART, AGENTS FOR OTISE, INC.) Planning Director Eisner advised the request is in two parts; the first request is for a modification of the tentative map. The modification is to modify the alignment of Camino Mercado and to move the . lot slightly to the north to follow the butt of the hill. He stated that because of the nature of the Rancho Grande development and the "P-D" zoning, at the time we modify the tentative tract map, we 'also have to - modify Exhibit "A" attached to the back of Ordinance 186 C. S. As a part of the record, he stated the 'staff report points out that the gross land area difference would change fan 40 to approximately 49 acres. The net change in terms of commercial land available will be approximately 4 acres. Mr. Eisner advised this matter has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Corm ittee and no conditions 'have been recommended, however, all conditions of Ordinance 186 C. S. are in effect and would continue to be in effect. Upon being assured by the Planning lion Secretary that public hearing for the proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 186 C. S. had been duly published' and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Peter C . Miller, Attorney representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the . proposed amendment. - -He stated this is a troublesome parcel because of the shape; in the center it is constricted and every developer and planner they have talked with has indicated it would be helpful to widen that parcel in the middle. Mr. Eisner commented that by pushing the street toward the toe of the hill, from a land planning prospective, it is a more appropriate use of the property and it makes the parcel more developable. He stated that when measured against the Goals and Objectives of the General Plan, the usefulness of the parcel is not only beneficial to the applicant, but is . also beneficial to the City in terms of retail sales. - Hearing no: further comments from the audience for or against the proposed amendment and lot, split, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed. ° • Chairman . Gerrish commented he dislikes making changes to a reap that was so thrashed around by the Planning Commission ssion for a' number of years and, in his opinion, what we are 'doing is adding 9 acres to the commercial area; not 4. Commissioner Flores inquired if there are plans now that would . be facilitated or if this is some kind of contingency? M. Miller stated the applicant has entered into a contract to do the improvements on Camino Mercado, and Rancho Parkway is under construction. It wouldn't make much sense • to put the road • in at the old location if this is a better way to do it. O miiissioner' Olsen stated she is concerned because so hatch time and effort went into ironing out the plan, • and it seems like all • of that time was wasted because everything is constantly being. changed. Mr. Eisner stated that with a project of this size, there is no way you .can foresee .everything. Commissioner Olsen stated she doesn't think the increase of 4 to 9 commercial acres is minor, and the original EIR was done on what is presently commercial, and now that is being expanded. carmissioner Soto stated he is concerned that we don't have a centrally located business type district; it is spread out all over Arroyo Grande. Mr. Eisner stated he is not even sure in this case that the commercial area is pertinent; the issue at hand is the relocation of the road. Mr. Miller pointed out that the original EIR was done on the basis of over 900 dwelling units per acre; the .plan is now 537. The roadway was initially required to be an easement, and they were not required to develop it, but they are going to go ahead and do that. He stated, in his opinion, if the Cbmnmission looks at the dimensions involved, they will 'see that it makes a lot more sense for internal circulation. Page 4 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning won, 2 -18-86 Page 5 Commissioner Flores stated he feels that whatever we can do to assist the retail development in Arroyo Grande needs to be done. After considerable discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 86 -1077 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION OF THE QTY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 113 ORDINANCE NO. 186 C. S. (RANCHO GRANDE) 10 MODIFY SECTION 1 AND EXEIBIT "A ". On motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Flores, Soto and Chairman Gerrish NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners Olsen and Moore ABSENT: Commissioners Carr and Boggess the foregoing Resolution was defeated this 18th day of February for lack of four affirmative votes. Lot Split Case No. 86 -425. After a brief discussion, ow motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and carried, Lot Split Case No. 86 -425 was approved. ARUUIECITTRAL REVIEW CASE NO. 86 -356, FOUR UNIT OFFICE BUILDING, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH ALPINE STREET. (ROBERT L. LACKEY). . Planning Director Eisner briefly reviewed the proposal, stating that the project meets or exceeds the parking requirements. He advised that the matter has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee and is recommended for approval subject to the 5 conditions listed in the staff report, dated February 18, 1986. After a brief discussion, Architectural Review Case No. 86 -356 was approved, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, dated February 18, 1986, on motion by Comrnissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and unanimously carried. COMMUNICATIONS Planning Director Eisner referred to the draft of a revision of the Home Occupation Ordinance, which was distributed to the Commissioners. He requested the Commission's' comments as soon as they have had a chance to review it. Mr. Eisner requested that those Commissioners wishing to attend' the Planning Commissioners Symposium in March inform the staff as soon as possible. so that reservations can be made. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Goan issiori, the meeting was adjourned at 9;50 P.M. by the Chairman. AIT1 Secretary o-/ 251