Loading...
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