Loading...
PC Minutes 1986-01-21240 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION January 21, 1986 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Gerrish presiding. Present are Com issioners Carr, Moore, Olsen, Soto, Boggess and Flores. Planning Director Eisner is also in attendance. COMMUNICATIONS Planning Director Eisner advised with regard to Agenda It No. 3, Lot Split Case No. 86 -423, the applicant is requesting a 90 day continuance. Hearing no objections to the request, Chairman Gerrish advised that Lot Split Case No. 86 -423 is being continued for 90 days Planning Director Eisner noted that there is one added item to the agenda; which is an architectural review case from Blankenburg Brothers Investment /South County Publishing Company. The second request is for an interpretation of expansion a legal non - conforming use. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 85 -415, PROPERTY LOCATED ON HIGHWAY 227 BETWEEN PASEO STREET AND OORBE7T CANYON ROAD, IN THE "RA -B3" RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. (SAN LUIS ENGINEERING, AGENTS FOR L. E. GUIDOTTI). Planning Director Eisner advised that the application is to create 4 parcels of approximately 40,000 sq. ft. each; they front on Highway 227 and abut up to the Tally Ho Creek at the rear. The map as presented indicates there are some requirements for dedication of right of way on Highway 227, and the dedication of easements consistent with the policies of the City along Tally Ho Creek. Mr. Eisner referred to the staff report, dated January 21, 1986, noting that the requirements cane primarily from the Public Works Department. He pointed out that the zoning on the property is RA -B3 and that the minimum lot size, after dedication, should be 40,000 sq. ft. Upon being assured by Planning Director Eisner that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 85 -415 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared the public hearing open. Jim Mc Gillis, Surveyor with San Luis Engineering, spoke representing the applicant. He stated that he believes the staff report is quite clear and unless they can receive relief from Items 2 and 3, they do not meet the minimum zoning requirements and, therefore, would not be allowed the lot split. He suggested they be allowed to dedicate the easement along Tally Ho Creek, but it not be counted against the gross square footage and, therefore, they wouldn't be under the 40,000 sq. ft. that is necessary to maintain the zoning in the area. With regard to Condition No. 3, this requirement would also put them just under the 40,000 sq. ft., although they could possibly adjust those lines and come up with the 40,000 sq. ft. if the Commission insists on Item No. 3. He pointed out that this property is being treated differently than other properties in the area, for instance Wildwood across the street was not asked to put in curb, gutter and sidewalk along Highway 227; the subdivisions that are behind this that are one acre were not asked to put in curb, gutter and sidewalk and, therefore, they feel they are being unfairly impacted by being required to put in these improvements. He pointed out that if they are relieved from the curb, gutter and sidewalk requirement, then they won't lose the additional 2 ft. that is required to dedicate, and they could meet the required minimum zoning as far as the 40,000 sq. ft. He noted that there are no specific plans for the highway at this time so anything they do there now is only a temporary solution; there is no question it is going to be changed in the future, it is a matter of when. He stated it is very possible that once the location of Highway 227 is decided, there will be a massive grading project take place. If the State builds Highway 227 in an alignment again changing the grades, it would be away all of the work that the applicant would do putting in curb, gutter and sidewalk. With regard to the access on Highway 227, Mr. McGillis advised that Cal Trans has already agreed that they would be allowed an encroachment permit for a driveway for each of the parcels. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed lot split, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Moore inquired if there is a plan for any flood control on the Tally Ho Road side; if there isn't, the people on the creek side are in jeopardy. Commissioner Carr stated, in his opinion, the Commission's hands are tied, in that they cannot deal with the request for relief of the dedication, or the requirement for curb, gutter and sidewalks, and they can't approve a lot split that does not comply with the Ordinance. Planning Director Eisner noted the lion's options as 1) Approve the map with the conditions as recommended, at which point the applicant can appeal to the City Council; 2) Deny based on the inability of the applicant to meet the recommended conditions, in which case Arroyo Grande Pima kE sian, 1 -21 -86 Page - 2 the applicant could appeal to the City. Council; or -3) the Commission could approve the lot split deleting one or both of the challenged conditions. After considerable discussion, on motion by Commissioner Moore, • seconded by Cbnniissioner Olsen, and unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No. 85 -415 was denied because of the lack of a flood control or maintenance plan in-- existence. Commissioner Carr stated, in his opinion, the Commission has no real alternative 9 because, in addition to Commissioner Moore's remarks, if the Commission approves the lot split, they would be approving sub - standard lots. Planning Director Eisner advised this matter is. finaled with the Planning Commission unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 86 -423, 1071 FARROLL AVENUE IN THE "R -1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. (W. W. AND S. M. MARVOS). Planning Director Eisner advised the applicant is requesting continuation for 90 days on this application. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 85-348 AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 85 -349, BUILDING SIGNS FOR MARIE CALLENDER'S RESTAURANT AND BEST WESTERN MOTEL, 840 AND 850 OAK PARK BOULEVARD. (COMET SIGN CO.). Planning Director Eisner advised the requests is for two additional signs each on the Best Western Motel and on Marie Callender's Restaurant. He advised that the overall signing falls within the scope of the Sign Ordinance and the signs themselves appear to be of good design quality. The location is on the sides of the buildings that face Oak Park Road or that face out towards the freeway. He noted that the application was reviesed by the Architectural Review Committee and there was not vote because of the lack of a quorum. However,- the members present recommended approval based on what they had seen. Commissioner Carr pointed out that the proposed sign for Marie Callender's will be covering up an architectural feature. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and carried with one "no" vote, Architectural Review Cases 85 -348 and 85 -349 were approved. Mr. Eisner advised that these two matters would go to the Qty Council. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 85 -351, PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 310 S. HALCYON ROAD. (SMITH AND COMPANY /ARROYO GRANDE MEDICAL GROUP). Planning Director Eisner advised the request is for Architectural Review to develop a 5 unit medical office complex at 310 So. Halcyon Road. The parcel of land is 120 ft. wide by 286 ft. deep. He noted that the project has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Cormittee and is submitted to the Commission with a list of recommended condition should the Commission choose to approve the application. He advised that the architects had called him this afternoon and advised that the top sheet of plan had been replaced, using the existing second sheets, and they had failed to redo the list of plants in the landscaping plans. He noted that the list of plant materials is in the file and will be submitted to the Parks and Recreation Director for his approval. Mr. Eisner advised that the parking meets all of the standards of the Qty in terms of parking lot design and in terns of the requirements of the Fire Department; it is a fairly straight forward project and does meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No. 85 -351 was approved subject to condition listed in the staff report, dated January 21, 1986, using Fence Detail 2.3 on the applicant's rendering. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 85 -353, REMODEL OF EXISTING BUILDING, 303 TRAFFIC WAY. (a RISTIANSON CHEVROLET). Planning Director Eisner advised the request is for a replacement of an existing trailer which is serving as an office and the replacement of a building which will look exactly the same as the one that is there now. He pointed out that the request was reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee and the condition listed in the staff report was a recommendation by the Public Works Department. Bob Christianson, co -owner of Christianson Chevrolet, stated the new building will look identical to the existing structure. He questioned the condition listed in the staff report to construct concrete sidewalks and replace driveway approaches along Poole Street. Mr. Eisner advised that the condition was from the Public Works Department; their reason being there are 3 or 4 separate buildings in a cannon ownership. Mr. Christianson commented that the proposed condition will increase the budget for the project by about 50 %. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Eisner stated that the Commission could delete the condition if they chose. After a brief discussion, Architectural Review Case No. 85 -353 was approved with no conditions, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and carried with one "no" vote. 241 242 Arroyo Grande Planing man, 1 -21 -86 -. Page :3 • ARCHITECI JRAL REVIEW CASE NO. 86 -355, REPLACE EXISTING SIGN, 100 TRAFFIC WAY. (SRI LEY'S CAMPER SALES). - • • Planning Director Eisner advised that Mr. Nelson, of Skilley's Camper Sales, is not present tonight, and requested the item be continued for two weeks. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 85 -352, OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE ADDITION; 1052 GRAND AVENUE. (BLANKENBURG BROS. INV.). , Planning Director Eisner advised the application for architectural review is for a building to be built in the "P-M" Planned Industrial District, fronting on Linda Drive. The building is 141 ft. long by 40 ft. wide to be constructed on a concrete slab. It is intended to be used as office and warehouse space. He stated the building. itself is consistent with the zoning. The building has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee, and there were some concerns by the staff. Those concerns were sent ' back to the applicants'.' design representatives, and they have corrected the drawings or have come to an agreement with the various departments.. Staff is now able to recommend approval of this project with the 7 conditions as set forth in the staff report. After considerable discussion, there was_ a - motion .to conditionally approve the • structure in terms of its architecture for the purposes of allowing plan check to begin, but sthat no : building permit would be issued :until the sparking lot plan Is returned to the Planning= Cbirimission for final approval. The Commission directed staff to place the matter back on the agenda for the next regular meeting. . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. by the Chairman.