PC Minutes 1985-02-05ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING O M4ISSICN
FEBRUARY 1985
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with
Chairman Gerrish presiding. Present are Commissioners Carr, Fischer, Moore,
Olsen, Soto and Boggess. Planning Director.Eisner is also in attendance.
l'aisUIE APPROVAL
Upon hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular
meeting of January 15, 1985 were approved as prepared on motion by
Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Carr, and unanimously carried.
0 T,°Et TI' AGEMA
Commissioner Olsen requested that Item a. be deleted from the Consent
Agenda. Commissioner Moore requested that Item b. be deleted from the Consent
Agenda
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE ISO. 84 -319 (RESUBMIITTAL) , 21 UNIT YDTEL, GRAND
AVENGE. (ALAN .RY NER1.
Planning Director Eisner ,advised that *this is a request for
architectural review under the provisions of our Ordinance. The
property is zoned Highway Service and, under that zoning, a motel is a
permitted use. The plan as originally submitted was reviewed by the
Architectural Review Committee and rejected. The applicant has resubmitted a
motel design which has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee and
recommended for approval subject to the six conditions in the staff report
dated February 5, 1985.
Chairman Gerrish commented that it looks more like an apartment
building than a motel. Planning Director Eisner pointed out that whether they
are complete units that include small kitchens or not, the provision is in the
Ordinance allowing a motel; there is nothing in the Ordinance that creates a
distinction between motels and motels with kitchens. Commissioner Olsen
inquired if the requir ements for a motel and apartment building are the same.
Mr. Eisner advised there are no restrictions in the Zoning Ordinance
prohibiting kitchens in motels in the Highway Service District.
Alan Ryzner, 1022 Fair Oaks Avenue, owner of the property, stated he
has had that property for a long time and he has been trying to figure out,
what could go back on that property, and he felt a motel would be appropriate
and it is zoned for that use. With regard to the kitchens, Mr. Ryzner noted
that a lot of people come over from the valley and stay for a week at a time.
He further stated there is a minimal amount of traffic that will be going back
in there.
Planning Director Eisner advised the Commission they have the option
to reject the application on the basis of the architecture and the applicants
would have to come back with a redesign. He noted that the Architectural
Review Committee has substantial responsibility for reviewing applications,
and rejection of their actions by the Planning Commission begins to undercut
the value of the Architectural Review Committee.
Commissioner Soto stated from what he has seen, there is a need for a
place like this and, in his opinion, if the Commission wants to make a change,
then it should be done in the Ordinance.
Planning Director Eisner noted that it is recognized that this is a
difficult piece of property to develop, and has been on record since the
original subdivision. The zoning has been on the property, to the best of his
knowledge, since at least 1966. If the applicants are able to meet the
development standards of the property in terms of providing the off - street
parking and the required lot coverage, then the only issue before the
Architectural Review Committee and the Commission is whether or not the style,
the architecture and its general design meets the City's criteria.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, February 5, 1985
Page 2
Commissioner Carr stated his concern is not what it is
going to be like the day it is built, but what it is going to be
like in 10 to 12 years and, in his opinion, it has a real
potential for being a bad use in that area. Commissioner Olsen
stated there is also a safety factory with the kitchens, etc.
After considerable discussion, the majority of the
Commission agreed that the architecture looked fine. A motion
was made by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Chairman Gerrish, to
approve Architectural Review Case No. 84 -319 subject to the 6
conditions listed in the staff report, and adding Condition No. 7
requiring a lighting plan be submitted for approval of both the
Planning Director and the Police Chief. The motion was lost by a
vote of 3 to 4. Chairman Gerrish inquired if the Commissioners
voting "no" could offer any_.guidance to the applicant on his
design. After several comments by the Commission, Chairman
Gerrish advised the applicant that it doesn't look like this
Commission is going to approve a 21 unit motel on that site. He
advised the applicants they can either resubmit, or appeal to the
City Council.
pUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO 8406, 116 SO RENA STREET
IN THE "R - 3" MULTIPLE FAMILY'RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT jKEITH
SPIEREING).
Planning Director Eisner advised the request is for a lot
split dividing Lot 107 into two parcels. Both parcels meet the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and - .Subdivision Ordinance,
and the two existing buildings are sited so as to meet the basic
requirements for structures in the "R -3" zone.
He advised that the proposed parcel map has been reviewed
by the Staff Advisory Committee and the Subdivision Review
Committee, and is recommended for approval subject to the 4
conditions noted in the staff report, dated February 5, 1985.
Upon being assured by the Planning Secretary that public
hearing for Lot Split Case No. 85 -406 had been duly published and
property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing
open.
Keith Spierling, applicant, spoke in favor the the Lot
Split. He stated he is in agreement with the conditions in the
staff report.
Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed
lot split, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed.
There being no discussion among the Commissioners, on
motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Moore,
and unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No. 85-406 was approved
subject to the 4 conditions listed in the staff report, dated
February 5, 1985.
PUBLIC HEARING = USE PERMIT CASE NQ 85_386, REQUEST FOR
TEMPORARY QFFICE (MOBILE UNIT) FOR TICOR TITLE CO y SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF GRAND AVENUE AND IUNIPER STREET IN THE "H -S" HIGHWAY
SERVICE DISTRICT. IGRAND AVENUE INVESTORS1
Planning Director Eisner advised that this application
has been withdrawn by the applicants, per letter from Kirby K.
Gordon, dated 2 -4 -85.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO 83 =322 , 8 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDIIN,C,
221 SPRUCE STREET. LTIM FISSORI) .
Planning Director Eisner reviewed the staff report dated
February 5, 1985, and referred to a colors and materials board
submitted by the applicant. Commissioner Moore commented that
there are only two empty parcels left on. Spruce Street and he
wasn't sure where this particular parcel was.
Mr. Fissori, applicant, stated the request is for an 8
unit apartment building at 211 Spruce Street, and the property is
located 3 lots south of Cedar Street.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission , .February 5, 1985 -
Page 3
Planning Director Eisner advised that the submittal meets
all of the setback requirements and is consistent with the
surrounding area. Commissioner Fischer commented that a question
was raised at the Architectural Review Committee meeting
regarding the parking. She stated that because of the coverage,
which is real tight, to back up using the handicapped space would
have been very difficult, so the applicants were to redo the
landscaping to have more room.
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner
Moore, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and unanimously carried,
Architectural Review Case No. 85 -322 was approved subject to the
3 conditions listed in the report dated February 5, 1985.
SUBMISSION FROM DOWNTOWN PARKING AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
ADVISORY BOARD REQUESTING REDEFINITION OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT.
Planning Director'Eisner referred to a letter from the
Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area Advisory Board,
dated January 18, 1985 addressed to the City Council, asking that
there be a review for possible expansion of the area defined as
"The Village ". He explained that the reasons behind the Board's
concern is two fold. First of all, the Board is concerned that
decisions are being made along Traffic Way that will affect The
Village, and extending the boundaries will assure that as
revitalization takes place and as the undergrounding project
comes to completion, the overall design criteria will be
consistent with the committments being made in the present
Village area. He stated that the second issue that brought this
matter to the concern of the Board is that the City is now in the
midst of redefining the area of Traffic Way and Bridge Street as
a part of the Underground Utility process. It is anticipated
that the construction will begin either late 1985 or early 1986.
The Board was concerned that the surface and above surface
improvements have the same design criteria of The Village.
Mr. Eisner advised that the City Council, after reviewing
the memo, directed it to the Planning Commission whose
responsibility it is to coordinate all'planning activities of the
City. He advised the Commission could accept the recommendations
of the Board, or take the matter under submission and direct
staff to prepare a study of the boundaries to make sure they are
consistent with the Planning Commission's thoughts in the matter.
He recommended, if the Commission changes the boundaries, that
they consider changing the zoning from Highway Service to Central
Business District. He noted, in looking at the recommendation of
the Board, there is the possibility of extending the C -B -D zoning
to include the P -M zoning which is now occupied by Loomis ez Sons.
Commissioner Olsen stated she would like to see the
Village area extended to at least Crown Hill and the P -M zoning
included in the Village area. Chairman Gerrish advised the
suggestion is to encompass the C -B -D zoning and the H -S zoning on
this side of the freeway. He commented, in his opinion, if we
are going to do that, we should encompass all of the commercial
zones. Planning Director Eisner pointed out that it is possible
to redesign the area designation for The Village without
necessarily changing the zoning. He noted, however, if the
Commission is looking at the area in terms of its future use, and
wish not only the architectural designs to be consistent but the
uses also to be consistent, then the Commission might consider
zone changes.
Planning Director Eisner advised that the Parking and
Business Improvement Advisory Board is very anxious for these
changes. The Commission could recommend to the City Council that
the Village boundaries be expanded, and they could make a motion
to change the General Plan and the Zoning.
the
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, February 5, 1985
After further discussion, on moti
Commissioner Fischer, and unanimously car
to the City Council to expand the boundar
all commercial zoning on the east side of
amended.
Planning Director Eisner inquired if
Resolution of Intention to examine a General
rezoning on that portion of property held as
the following action was taken:
AYES:
IDES:
ABSENT:
foregoing
Al'1EST: �!( 0 ..1,/,4rei
Secretary
on by Commiss
ried, that a
ies of The Vi
the freeway
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -1029
•
the Commission wants a separate
Plan amendment and associated
"P -M". After a brief discussion,
A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE PLANNING
02 MI SS ION OF 'THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
10 RE- EXAMINE THAT PORTION OF TIC
OCIwi IERCIAL AREA GN THE EAST SIDE OF THE
FREEWAY DESIGNATED AS "P M" FOR POSSIBLE
"C -B-D" DESIGNATION IN THE GENERAL PLAN AND
ZNING ORDINANCE.
Page 4
ioner Olsen, seconded by
recommendation be made
llage area, to include
as defined by the map as
On motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Soto, Fischer, Moore, Carr, Boggess
and Olsen
NOES: Chairman Gerrish-
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5th day of February 1985.
REVISION 10 RESOLUTION DEALING WITH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS.
Planning Director Eisner advised that the State planning law was
changed in a recent legislative session. One of the significant changes is
that the State law now makes reference to only 7 mandatory -- elements of the
General Plan rather than 9. He stated that the State legislature has combined
Public Safety and Seismic Safety into one element, and they have eliminated
the Scenic Highways Element. Another law that changed was that the State has
now allowed cities 4 opportunities a year to amend the General Plan rather
than the 3 previously allowed. He pointed out that the present resolution
allows General Plan amendments during the months of January, May and
September. Staff would like for the Commission to adopt a new resolution to
allow General Plan amendments in March, June and September, with the fourth to
be a floating one at the discretion of the Planning Cce, mission.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -1030
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CCMMISSICN OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DESIGNATING THE MNIHS
OF MARCH, JLNE, AND SEPTEMBER FOR GENERAL PLAN
AMEND ENTS, WITH CNE FLTJATING Magl 10 BE USED
W-EN REQJI RED .
On motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
Commissioners Soto, Fischer, Moore, Carr, Boggess,
Olsen and Chairman Gerrish
None
None
Resolution was adopted this 5th day of February 1985.
ADJCUIWENT
There being no further business before
adjourned by the Chairman at 9:00 P.M.
Chairman
t Commission, the meeting was