Loading...
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