Loading...
PC Minutes 1984-10-02ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION October 2, 1984 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Gerrish presiding. Present are Commissioners Carr, Fischer, Moore, and Moots. Commissioners Olsen and Soto are absent. Planning Director Eisner is also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL Upon hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meeting of September 18, 1984 were approved as prepared on motion by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and unanimously carried. TE A_RCH IC'IURAT. r1({ QM NO 84 -316 Aum Ezra =RE,. 951 OM AVENUE., (SERVICE =EL. Planning Director Eisner advised that this item has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee. There were three conditions recommended on the proposal, and all three have been either met or agreed to by the applicant. Mr. Eisner pointed out that the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning district and the proposed parking exceeds the basic requirements. There being no discussion, Architectural Review Case No. 84 -316 was approved on motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried, subject to submission of a drainage plan for the review and approval of the Public Works Director. PUBLIC MEMO - MZSZEM. fila NO. 84 -182, ZONE ORM LEO "RA -B2" RESIDE' AT AGRICLnMLIA® DISTRICT 22 "R-1 ". STNC�,�GLE FA II Y RESrDENZ AL DISTRICT. 225 TALLY -I�Q AD. (JEFFREY ('LBRIJfl1FRS _ AGED FOR PA_PR_TrTA BURY) . Planning Director Eisner advised the request is to change the zoning from RA B3 Residential Agricultural to R -1 Single Family Residential District. The General Plan shows this area to be low density residential, however, because of the size of the parcel, which is .77 of an acre, and the fact that the requested zone would create an isolated pocket of residential use at a higher density than the surrounding uses, it is the opinion of the staff that a change of zone as requested would constitute a spot zone. Planning Director Eisner stated the staff's recommendation to the Commission would be, after the public hearing, there be a motion for denial based on the fact that the zone change would create spot zoning. Staff would then recommend that there be a supporting action of denial on the lot split request. Upon being assured by Planning Director Eisner that public hearing for Rezoning Case No. 84 -182 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish dec_.__LC the hearing open. Ms. Patricia Lauthbury, applicant, stated the reason she is asking for rezoning and the lot split is so that she can sell off the unused portion of the property and remain independent in her residence of 35 years and to enable her to make improvements to the property. Mr. Jeff Carrithers, Agent, spoke in favor of the zone change. John Sprague, stated he lives across the street from the property in question, and he is in favor of the zone change. Sandy Fachetti, 248 Tally Ho Road, stated he has no objection to the zone change. Spence Thomas, 141 James Way, stated he is opposed to the zone change because it is inconsistent with the surrounding zoning. Mr. Sauer, 258 James Way, stated he is opposed to the "R -1" zoning and, in his opinion, that zoning would bring down the value of the property that is already existing, and also, the parcel in the rear could be granted the same zoning. Bill Weitkamp, 259 James Way, stated he could see making two lots out of that property, but no more and, under the present zoning, they couldn't even divide it into two lots. Chuck Fellows, 202 Canyon Way, stated he is opposed to the rezoning. He stated the area in question has country - type homes where people can have animals and, in his opinion, it would be inconsistent to rezone this parcel to "R -1 ". He further commented he doesn't think any more homes should be out there until the dangerous curve at LePoint Street and Tally Ho Road is straightened out. Upon hearing no further comments for or against the proposed zone change, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed. 131 132 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -2 -84 Page 2 Commissioner Moots stated the request amounts to spot zoning and he is opposed to the zone change; the Commission has to stay within the law. Commissioner Fischer stated she is against the "R -1" zoning. She further stated she wouldn't be against granting a Variance for smaller lots because of the small lots next to the property. Commissioner Moore commented that Tally Ho Road is in bad shape, and regarding drainage, this property is a natural retention pond and if someone builds on it, and if there are no curbs and gutters, there are going to be problems. He stated, in his opinion, this is clearly spot zoning; there are enough problems there already and until they are solved, he can't see any more homes being built out there. In answer to Chairman Gerrish's question if it is the Planning Director's opinion that there is no legal way this Commission can approve a zone change in that area, Mr. Eisner answered in the affirmative, noting that the zoning in the surrounding area is "RA -B2" and "RA -B3 ". He stated the only way they could get two lots is if the zoning was changed to R -A with 10,000 sq. ft. lots. NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: AYES: RESOLUTION NO. 84 -1014 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION NO. 84 -182, FILED BY JEFFREY CARRITHERS, AGENT FOR PATRICIA LAUTHBURY. On motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: Commissioners Carr, Fischer, Moore, Moots and Chairman Gerrish None Commissioners Olsen and Soto Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of October 1984. On motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No. 84 -401 was denied with the findings that it would be incoxsistent. with. the General Plan and zoning. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE PTO. 84-396.1012M 2M 514 IDIAY �F .. (SC_IMER_MEY c' 2 SOi�+ EP EYER, AGENTS F' ?$ D PALMER) . - - Planning Director Eisner advised that this is a request for a minor subdivision on May street. The applicant is asking for removal of existing lines and the creation of two legal sized lots. Mr. Eisner stated the matter has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee, and approval is recommended with the following conditions: 1. Extension of May Street to the western boundary of the property. Full street improvements, including curbs, gutter and sidewalk, shall be required. 2. Extension of water and sewer lines to serve the property. 3. A drainage plan, subject to the approval of the Public Works Director, shall be submitted prior to recordation of the final map. Upon being assured by Planning Director Eisner that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 84 - 396 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Bill Sommermeyer, Engineer for the applicant, stated he has some reservations about extending May Street on to the west because of the terrain; it will take some very severe filling to build the street in there, and if the street is built on Mrs. Palmer's side, he didn't know how the other half could be done. He stated perhaps a reduced section through there could be worked out between the applicant, the Planning Department and the. Public Works Department. Planning Director Eisner stated staff is at a disadvantage because Public Works Director Karp is not present. He recommended that the conditions be approved as submitted by the Public; Woks Director and if Mr. Sonutermeyer wishes, the matter could be appealed to the City Council and Mr. Karp would be present at that meeting. He noted that what we are dealing with here is City policy, and there is a procedure to deal with it before the City Council.. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -2 -84 Page 3 After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No. 84 -396 was approved subject to the three conditions as stated. PUBLIC: HF - jam' .TT CME. NO.. 84 -402, 495. 5a1. AM 509 CaRAND gam;, (DENTS LED ASSOC., AGENTS .EDE ROGER SNELLENBERGER) Planning Director Eisner advised the application is for a minor subdivision which would create three parcels by resubdividing two existing parcels. The property size is a little over 4 acres and is presently zoned Highway Service. He further advised that the matter has been reviewed by the Minor Subdivision Review Committee and Staff Advisory Committee. Approval is recommended subject to the 4 conditions listed in the staff report dated October 2, 1984. Mr. Eisner commented that this afternoon he met with the Public Works Director and the applicant regarding the conditions and, the applicant may be raising some issues relative to the recommended conditions, and staff is prepared to modify the language if the matter is addressed. Mr. Eisner pointed out the existing buildings to be removed, corunenting that if the lot split is approved by the Commission, staff would request that a condition be added requiring that the troublesome buildings be removed immediately and the property cleaned up. Upon being assured by Planning Director Eisner that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 84 -402 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Steve Shibely, representing the applicant, stated there were two of the recommended conditions that were in question; the first being the extension of Valley Road, and their basic concern was because of the way it was worded. He commented it is their feeling that Valley Road is something that will not be built in the near future in the area they are concerned about, and what they are planning to do is the property to the east has a 60 ft. frontage along Grand Avenue; it is a small flag area on about a 14 acre parcel, and it was their feeling that was the intended location for Valley Road. He commented he had spoke to Public Works Director Karp, and Mr. Karp's concern was that 60 ft. was not wide enough for that road. Mr. Shibely stated he spoke with his client and he concurred to give an additional 20 ft. of access, and it was their feeling it might be a good idea to go ahead and move the easement to the back of the property and make the access easement from Grand Avenue down to the back. He further stated that at this time they are not proposing any development on the site; they are merely trying to split the property to facilitate future use of the back area. Planning Director Eisner stated in discussing the matter with the Public Works Director, it was his opinion that while the Circulation Element does show the Valley Road extension, the City does not have an adopted plan line and staff would be a little hesitant to require a specific dedication of right of way. He further stated that staff could work out the wording to get the easement line and protect it until such time as a plan line is adopted, then the City's ability to extend Valley Road is protected. Mr. Shibely commented their only concern was the way the condition was worded and, basically, what Mr. Eisner is saying is that the wording can be worked out. Planning Director Eisner advised that this is one of the places where there is inconsistency between what we have in our General Plan and our ability to carry it out, and we need to look at our Circulation Element and go through and adopt some specific right of .way lines so that we can pick up the dedications..Ir. Shibely stated the other concern they had was the condition on drainage, and he had spoke to the Public works Director, who advised him that a drainage solution would be required. Mrs. Dunn stated she lives directly across the street from the property, and she would like to know what they intend to put in there. Mr. Shibely advised that there is no proposed development at this time; it is basically a split of the property. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed lot split, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion, Lot Split Case No. 84 -402 was approved on motion by Cor issioner Moots, seconded by Chairman Gerrish, and unanimously carried, subject to the conditions amended as follows: 1. A road reservation of 20 ft. be included for extension of Valley Ro=ad in accordance with the General Pien. 2. Omer shall locate all utilities on the property and establish easements, or relocate existing utilities as necessary. 133 134 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -2 -84 Page 4 ATTEST: 3. A drainage solution shall be submitted and approved by the Public Works Director. Owner shall make formal request to the Traffic Col:mi ssion to eliminate parking on Grand Avenue in front of the property. 5. Demolition of old structure on the property prior to recordation of final map. C T^UN1CATTONS Planning Director Eisner advised the Commission that at the time the Wildwood project was approved, there was a condition that they come back to the Conuoission for approval of a sign to be placed at the entrance of the subdivision. Mr. Eisner presented a sample of the sign to be used, stating it is consistent with the project. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried, the proposed sign for the entrance to Wildwood Ranch was approved. Planning Director Eisner referred to a letter, dated September 28, 1984 from Angela Cooper, requesting an interpretation that an aerobics exercise studio would be a permitted use on Bridge Street in the Central Business District. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and unanimously carried, a determination was made that an aerobics studio is consistent with other permitted uses in the Central Business District. Planning Director Eisner pointed out that about 10 months ago the Planning Commission conditionally approved a Use Permit for a Used Car Lot at 958 Grand Avenue. Included in that approval was a temporary use of a mobile unit for an office for a period of six months. The applicant has violated this temporary permit completely, and staff has notified him of this violation by mail giving him 30 days. If the violation has not been taken care of at the end of the thirty days, the matter will be placed on the Commission's agenda for review. ADJOILEMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 9:00 P.M.