PC Minutes 1984-04-0374
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 3, 1984
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with
Chairman Gerrish presiding. Present are Commissioners Benhardt, Carr, Moore,
Moots and Olsen. Commissioner Fischer is absent. Planning Director Eisner
is also in attendance.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 84 -307, OFFICE CONDOMINIUM, WEST BRANCH STREET
(COKER ELLSWORTH) .
Planning Director Eisner stated that this is a request for approval of a
2400 sq. ft. office complex to be located on East Branch Street between Poor
Richard's Press and the site of the proposed Production Credit Association
offices. The building is consistent with the "CBD zoning and meets all develop-
ment requirements of the City, including off - street parking. Mr. Eisner advised
that the project has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee, and
they have recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. That the creek area as defined by the Director of Public Works be
developed and landscaped in a manner consistent with plans previously
approved for the Production Credit Association building.
2. That the western style of architecture presented on the submitted
plans be fully carried out, including the window details and the
use of slump stone facing where architecturally appropriate.
3. That the sidewalk treatment be consistent, where applicable, with
that used throughout.,,the Village area.
Commissioner Olsen, Architectural Review Committee member, stated that
the Committee felt the proposal was an appropriate project for the area. There
being no discussion, on motion by Commissioner Olsen; seconded by Commissioner
Benhardt, motion carried with Commissioner Carr voting "no ", Architectural
Review Case No. 84 -307 was approved subject to-the three conditions noted above_
Commissioner Carr stated he voted "no" in protest to having the parking area - :in
the front.
PUBLIC HEARING (Continuation) - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
NO. 221 C.S.; OAK KNOLL DEVELOPMENT (FORMERLY "KNOLLWOOD ") , PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTHERLY OF SO. COUNTY REGIONAL CENTER. (OAK KNOLL VENTURES).
Planning Director Eisner pointed out some revisions to the drawings as
originally submitted. He explained that the applicants have had an opportunity
to take into consideration some of the comments expressed at the first public
hearing regarding the oak trees and Miller Way. Mr. Eisner advised that the .
new alignment of Miller Way has been reviewed by the Public Works Director and
has been found to be sufficient in terms of traffic safety, and meets criteria
established by both Planning and Public Works.
Eddie Ramseyer, Civil Engineer and Land Planner, representing the applicant,
stated he would like to re- emphasize his request made at the last meeting regard-
ing amendments to the recommended conditions; (1) to add a condition that a phasing
map be required by the development when they come in with a specific plan; (2) that
the condition requiring full width sidewalks on both sides be changed requiring
a walk plan be submitted for Planning Commission approval; and (3) the condition
requiring that a landscape plan be submitted be changed that the landscape plan
be submitted at a later time when the project gets into more design specifics and
an overall plan could be submitted at that time.
Pete Miller, 246 Miller Circle; John McGraw; 273 Miller Way; K. Henderschot,
333 Miller Way; Dick Sinclair, 276 Miller Way, Jane Lawrence, 226 Miller Way and
John Runnels, 213 Miller Way, stated they were opposed to Miller Way being a
through street because of increased traffic and the adverse affect it would have
with regard to safety for the people who live on Miller Way.
Howard Anderson spoke with regard to the oak tree grove, pointing out that
the original plan called for the grove to be maintained by the Homeowners' Assoc-
iation, however, the new plan as presented had the oak trees divided up among
individual owners with deed restrictions there to protect them. Mr. Anderson
stated there was some concern voiced at the last meeting about the possibility
of the public being able to enjoy them. He commented that any one of the three
ways would be acceptable to the developer, however,if they are going to be open
to the public, then the public should take the responsibility and maintain them.
Upon hearing no further comments for or against the proposed ordinance amend-
ment, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -3 -84
Chairman Gerrish stated he has a problem with the EIR addendum and he would
like to see something that compares with the prior approval rather than what has
been done in the report. Planning Director Eisner stated that under the require-
ments and provisions of CEQA, if an EIR is prepared for the most intense part of
a development, the only areas that would be reviewed if there is a change in the
project are those that are deemed to be more intense. He further stated that the
original EIR was prepared for a project of 412 units and, under the provisions of
CEQA, the only matters that are subject to review are those that were deemed to be
impacted by the revision of the project. Commissioner Moots stated he read the
addendum and all it tells him is that we have a big problem; traffic is not being
handled, land it doesn't address water, sewer or schools and, in his opinion, the
report is very inadequate.
After further discussion, Planning Director Eisner pointed out alternatives
available to the Commission: (1) denial on the face of the density, or (2)
continuation for a sufficient time for staff to prepare a comparison paper between
the 233 unit development and the projected 370 units, with recommendations to the
Commission for conditions over and above the standard subdivision conditions
which would serve as mitigations, and (3) direct the applicant to go back with
the consultant that put the document together and have the consultant get more
information. After'._a::brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded
by Commissioner Olsen, motion , .unanimously carried, to direct staff to prepare a
comparison between the proposal for 233 units and the document now before the
Commission to be presented to the Commission at their meeting of May 1, 1984.
On motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and unanimously
carried, Lot Split Case No. 84 -391 was continued to the meeting of May 1, 1984.
PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 84-366, 'PROPOSED 'RESTAURANT, EAST BRANCH
STREET. (OAK_ PARK'RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES).
Planning Director Eisner advised that this matter is submitted for specific
review of the. off-street parking requirements associated with the proposed
restaurant. The property is zoned "P -D" and, therefore, there are no precise
standards for development; the development standards are subject to recommendation
by the Planning Commission and final approval by the City Council.
Mr. Eisner reviewed that the applicant proposes a development standard of one
parking space• for three seats. The restaurant contains 320 seats and, therefore,
the applicant is providing 110 parking spaces. This standard is • consistent•with
generally accepted planning practice and generally conforms to standards adopted
throughout California. He commented that there is a substantial inconsistency
in the language.:ofpthe.Zoning Ordinance dealing with off - street parking as it
pertains to restaurants. He stated that this matter has been reviewed by the
Staff Advisory Committee and the Architectural Review Committee and is recommended
for approval as submitted. Mr. Eisner also noted that review of this Use Permit
application includes approval of architectural review as well.
Upon being assured by Planning Director Eisner that public hearing for Use
Permit Case. No. 84 -366 had been duly published and property owners notified,
Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open.
Tony Orefice, representing the applicant, briefly described the project,
stating he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have.
Upon hearing no further comments for or against the proposed use permit,
Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed.
Planning Director Eisner advised that a recommendation from the Parks and
Recreation Commission included a condition that the slope be hydro- seeded after
any work on the slope has been completed.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -981
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT,
CASE NO. 84 -366, APPLIED FOR BY OAK PARK RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A RESTAURANT ON
WEST BRANCH STREET IN THE HIGHWAY SERVICE DISTRICT.
On motion by Commissioner Benhardt, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Benhardt, Carr, Moore, Moots, Olsen and
Chairman Gerrish
75
Page 2
76
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -3 -84
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fischer
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 3rd day of April 1984.
Page 3
On motion by Commissioner Benhardt, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and
unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No. 84 -304 was approved subject
to the condition that the wall at the rear of the parking lot not exceed 3 ft.
in height without prior approval of the Planning Director.
Planning Director Eisner advised that the architectural review portion of
this hearing is final with the Planning Commission; however, the Use Permit
automatically will go to the City Council for final approval because it is in
the Planned Development zone.
PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 84 -365, SECOND RESIDENCE ON AN EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL LOT IN 'THE "R -1" DISTRICT, 114 BELL STREET. (JEFF SALSER).
Planning Director Eisner advised that this is a resubmission of an appli-
cation previously submitted and approved for Mr. Salser to add a second residential
unit on an R -1 lot. He reviewed that, as originally submitted in November of 1982
the applicant requested a Use Permit under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
that allows a second single family unit in the "R -1" zone where, prior to
January 1969, a single family dwelling exists on the rear half of a lot. He noted
that the Planning Commission approved the request, however, Mr. Salser has never
activated the permit and, under the provisions of Sec. 9- 4.3105, the permit
was rendered null and void after one year.
Mr. Eisner pointed out that the specific design is somewhat different than
originally submitted, however, the current application meets the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance in all ways. He advised that this matter has been reviewed
by the Staff Advisory Committee and is recommended for approval subject to the
standard conditions of the City of Arroyo Grande.
Upon being assured by Planning Director Eisner that public hearing for
Use Permit Case No. 84 -365 had been duly published and property owners notified,
Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Upon hearing no comments for or
against the proposed' Use Permit, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed.
After a brief the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -982
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A USE PERMIT,
CASE NO. 84 -365, APPLIED FOR BY JEFFREY SALSER
TO PERMIT A SECOND RESIDENCE IN THE "R -1" DISTRICT,
SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
On motion by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Benhardt, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Benhardt, Carr, Moore, Moots, Olsen and
Chairman Gerrish
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fischer
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 3rd day of April 1984.
PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 84 -393, 281 JAMES WAY IN THE "RA -B2" DISTRICT.
(CHARLES DAHLQUIST).
Planning Director Eisner advised that this matter has been reviewed by the
Staff Advisory Committee and Lot Split Committee, and is recommended for approval
subject to the standard conditions of the City of Arroyo Grande, and the special
conditions listed in the staff report, dated March 29, 1984. Commissioner Carr
requested that Condition 1.d be amended to read "Owner to provide sewer hookup
for Parcel "A" in conformance with rules, regulations and policies in force at
the time the hookups take place ".
Upon being assured by Planning Director Eisner that public hearing for Lot
Split Case No. 84 -393 had been duly published and property owners notified,
Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Charles Dahlquist, applicant, advised
that, to his knowledge, there are no other lots to be split on that street.
There being no further discussion for or against the proposed lot split, Chairman
Gerrish declared the hearing closed and, after a brief discussion, Lot Split Case
No. 84 -393 was approved, as amended, on motion by Commissioner Benhardt, seconded
by Commissioner Moore, and unanimously carried.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -3 -84 Page 4 77
PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #1187, 43 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION, STAGECOACH ROAD IN THE "R -1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
(JOE AND MARY ANN ZOGATA).
Planning Director Eisner advised the request is for approval of a tentative
tract map for a 43 lot subdivision on 15.56 acres fronting on Stagecoach Road.
He noted that the subdivision as submitted has been reviewed and all of the lots
comply with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Eisner stated that the
4pplicant has stipulated that there will be no access to the extension of Pearwood
Avenue or Oak Hill Road, however Lot 18 will have access off of the extension of
Pearwood Avenue. Commissioner Moore questioned where the water is going to go.
Planning Director Eisner stated that, to the best of his knowledge, the Public
Works Director has reviewed with the engineer of the project as to the disposition
of the water, and Mr. Karp indicated, and it was generally agreed by the Staff
Advisory Committee, that there would be no impact; all of the water would be taken
care of through facilities either already in place or designed for this purpose.
Upon being assured by Planning Director Eisner that public hearing for
Tentative Tract Map #1187 had been duly published and property owners notified,
Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open.
Mark Bell, Registered Civil Engineer with Garing, Taylor & Associates,
representing the applicant, explained the master drainage plan for the area.
As far as the road extension, Mr. Bell stated that because of the terrain and
because the sewer system is a gravity system, it has to drain downhill and the
ultimate location for sewer is to be down in Pearwood, therefore, they have to
locate the sewer down to Pearwood in a fashion that they believe is most
appropriate in the City right of way. He further stated that the same holds
true for water; it is preferable to have a loop system for fire flow, water
pressure and adequate supply and, at the same time, this extension of the road
provides good vehicular emergency access to both the Pearwood area and the new
subdivision. He-stated that full street improvements are proposed on the
developer's property and all internal streets with two - thirds improvements:
Mr. Bell pointed out that in the Standard Conditions of approval, Item No. 23
increases the width of corner lots to 75 ft. and the side yards to 20 ft., which
is in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance. Also Conditions 57 and 58 require
that landscaping and irrigation systems in the front yards be provided. He
requested that these two conditions be eliminated. Planning Director Eisner
advised that Condition 23 is a misprint, and it should be consistent with the
Zoning Ordinance. Conditions 57 and 58 have been reviewed and staff would
stipulate their deletion. Mr. Eisner further noted that Conditions 65, 66, 63
and 64 are repeats and should be deleted also.
Christine Phillips, 216 Pearwood Avenue, stated her concern that a
project of this magnitude will have an impact on the Pearwood Tract and, in
her opinion, all of the residents who live on Pearwood Avenue should be
notified of the public hearing. She inquired if there is any way that Oak
Hill Road could be used for emergency access only.
Upon hearing no further comments for or against the tentative tract map,
Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed.
Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, stated she agrees with Mrs. Phillips
that residents on Pearwood Avenue should be notified about the public hearing.
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by
Commissioner Benhardt, and unanimously carried, the matter was continued to
the meeting of May 1, 1984 pending notification of the public hearing to all
residents of Pearwood Avenue. Mark Bell, representing the applicant, stated
it is their feeling that the public hearing has been duly noticed as required,
and the continuation seems to put an additional burden on the applicant, however,
they can live with that decision.
PUBLIC HEARING — REZONING CASE NO. 84 -175, FROM "RA -B3" RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL
DISTRICT TO "R-1-PD" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY,
CHERRY AVENUE. (VICK PACE).
Planning Director Eisner noted that the Commission is dealing with Agenda
items 7 and 8. He recommended that the public hearing on both items be opened
and that the two public hearings be held concurrently and, at the conculusion
of the public hearing, the two matters can be discussed separately or together,
but should he two separate resolutions.
78
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -3 -84
Page 5
Mr. Eisner read the staff report on this matter, dated March 29, 1984.
Upon being assured by Planning Director Eisner that public hearing for
Rezoning Case No. 84 -175 and Tentative Subdivision Map for "Walnut View Estates"
had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared
the hearing open.
Mr. Fred Schott, Project Engineer, advised that the property sits on a
piece of land which is presently a walnut orchard on the flat areas;. basically,
it is a piece of land with 11 acres of level property and about 3 more acres of
fairly steep hillside. He commented they had previously submitted a proposal for
a single family residential tract about three years ago, but there was a con-
siderable amount of opposition primarily based on drainage problems and some
concern about the density of the development. He stated they approached the
Public Works Director and the Planning Director and discussed both single family
residential and innovative cluster type development and, as a result of those
discussions, the proposed plan was selected and he feels it is a happy medium
between the two. Mr. Schott reviewed the proposed drainage plan for the property,
stating that the amount of water that this property will contribute to the propert
to the west is substantially less than it does at the present time; it would
probably carry about a 20 year storm, which is the best that can be accomplished
within the easement.
Rod Gibson, 227 E. Cherry Avenue; Tom:03onds517 Launa Lane; . Ed Mortano,
440 Garden Stree.t;: Dave Hook, 504 Launa Lane; Richard Hill, 611 E. Cherry Avenue, and
•LeRoy Saruwatari, 512 Launa Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposed project due to
drainage concerns, increased traffic, and the project design. Cyrus Kurick; 603
Cherry Avenue, presented a petition signed by 183 concerned neighbors. He noted
that the petition is against the project. Mr. Kurick read the petition, pointing
out that their deepest concerns are Newsom Springs water, drainage of the project
and, in order to be fair to the existing homeowners, the new project should be of
no lesser quality than the existing homes now in the area. He further pointed out
they feel the zoning should be "RA -B3 ", but if it is changed, it should be changed
to "R -1 ". Tom Bonds, 517 Launa Lane, stated that three years ago a 39 lot'sub-
division was denied on this property and, in his opinion, this should be "R -1" with
single family homes. He also stated he is concerned about the drainage. Mr.
Saylors, 5Q6.__Launa Lane.,..referred to the hillside where the greenbelt is
shown, and. asked who is going to maintain that area against fire hazard. He
further stated he is concerned about the drainage..
In answer to the comments regarding traffic, Mr. Schott advised there was
an EIR prepared on 58 units, which is exactly the same number as currently being
proposed. With regard to density, he stated they are not asking for an increase
in the number of units. He stated that what they have traded from the 4,500 to
5,000 ft. up to 6,000; that difference has gone into the landscaped space along
the road to the north and to the east and into the park area.
Mr. Shipman, Bank of America, representing the Dixon property, spoke regarding
the culvert that goes underneath the road. He commented that they have a right to
use that culvert and they intend to use it.
Tony Marsalek, Executor of the estate of Fred Marsalek, 590 E. Cherry Avenue,
spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that the objective of this proposal has
been to meet the needs and concerns expressed by the City staff. He commented that
the cost of conversion of the land from walnuts to other agricultural uses is pro-
hibitive due to cost of new machinery, etc.
Albert Stilwell, 734 Myrtle Street, stated he is concerned about the drainage
ditch and, in his opinion, it should be paved. Mrs. Stillwell, 734 Myrtle Street,
stated that the ditch has to be maintained and the collector that would be built
to receive all of the water coming in would also have to be maintained. Lee
Wimbley, 607 E. Cherry Ave., stated he has no objections to the development, however,
he feels it should be the same type of development as the surrounding area. He
pointed out that 58 duplexes will bring in approximately 100 automobiles, and there
will be accidents.
Coker Ellsworth, 1521 Atlantic City Ave., Grover City, spoke in favor of the
proposed development. He stated, in his opinion, they have done everything within
their limits to try to solve the drainage problems the best way possible. He further
stated that as far as the duplex type units and cluster housing is concerned, if that
seems to be the problem with the people here tonight, this is something that can be
worked out and he feels they can design a project that the people will be proud of.
As far as the drainage is concerned, he commented that the project will only improve
the situation. He further commented if the project is denied, the drainage problem
still has to be solved somehow; and they are willing to bear the burden, at hugh costs,
to try to help out the people with the existing problem, and at the same time get their
project approved.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -3 -84 Page
Upon hearing no further comments for or against the proposed development,
Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed.
Commissioner Moore commented that, in his opinion, Mr. Schott has done a
good job, however, he is such a good engineer and he goes pretty fast and people
do not follow him very well, so there needs to be a little slowing down. He
stated there is a way to solve the drainage problem, and we need to re -group and
think about it.
Chairman Gerrish commented that he has been advised by the Planning Director
that if the Commission wishes to continue this item, that the agenda for the next
meeting is full and the matter would have to be continued to the meeting of May 1,
1984. He further commented that he would like to have the Public Works Director
at that meeting to answer some of the technical questions.
After further discussion, it was agreed that Rezoning Case No. 84 -175 and
Tentative Subdivision Map for "Walnut View Estates" be continued to the Planning
Commission meeting of May 1, 1984, and that Public Works Director Karp be requested
to attend that meeting.
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF USE
Planning Director Eisner referred to a written request from Rudy Veland for
an interpretation that Bed and Breakfast Inns are consistent with other uses
in the Highway-Service District. It is Mr. Veland's intent to develop a Bed and
Breakfast Inn at 407 El Camino Real, and the property is zoned Highway Service.
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner
Benhardt, and unanimously carried, the finding was made that a Bed and Breakfast
Inn is .consistent with other uses permitted in the Highway Service District.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was
adjourned by the Chairman at 11:15 P.M.
ATTEST:
441J � .14 A
Se cretary
79