Loading...
PC Minutes 1983-10-04ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 1983 261 JAMES WAY: (HARRY VOAKES). 29 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Gerrish presiding. Present are Commissioners Benhardt, Carr, Fischer, Moore, Moots and Olsen. ,Planning Director Eisner is also in attendance. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION - PARCEL MAP AG 83"176 CASE NO. 81 -369, Planning Director Eisner referred to a letter dated September 19, 1983 from Harry Voakes requesting a time extension on Parcel Map AG -83 -176, Lot Split Case No. 81 -369. He stated it is his understanding that the final map is in the process of being approved, however, the applicants could not get everything ready in time for Council consideration. He further stated he felt a 90 day extension would be appropriate. There being no discussion, on motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Benhardt, and unanimously carried, a 90 day extension was granted for filing of final Parcel Map AG -83 -176. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 83 -292, 8 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX, SPRUCE ST. (KIRBY CONKLIN). Planning Director Eisner advised that this matter has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee and the Staff Advisory Committee. In their analysis, the Architectural Review Committee felt that the design of the project was satisfactory, however, they concurred with the staff in recom- mending the five conditions listed in the staff report dated October 4, 1983. He noted that, after reviewing the project, staff recommends approval in concurrence with the Architectural Review Committee, however, staff has determined that the land area is sufficient only for 7.78 units (7 units at construction). He advised if the Commission wishes, they could approve the architecture of the structure and the site plan at this time, however, the applicant will either have to apply for a variance to allow 8 units, or re- design the project to eliminate one unit. Chairman Gerrish commented he :would not be ,inclined to grant architectural approval on a project if one unit is going to be deleted. Planning Director Eisner advised that the applicant was quite insistant that this matter brought to the Commission's attention so that he could get some reading on the Commission's thoughts. Commissioner Fischer stated that in many cases where the Commission would make an exception in one particular case, every case thereafter comes in asking for the same exception and, in her opinion, the Commission should stick with the 7 units. The Commission indicated their concurrence with Commissioner Fischer's opinion. Chairman Gerrish stated that the Commission cannot preclude the applicant from applying for a Variance, however, it appears that the Commission would not be particularly interested in anything other than what the Ordinance allows. In view of the above discussion, Planning Director Eisner suggested that the matter be continued for 4 weeks and if there is no action by that time, the application will be administratively denied. Chairman Gerrish advised that Architectural Review Case No. 83 -292 would be continued to the regular meeting of November 1, 1983. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO: 83 =94, REQUEST 'FOR USE OF AN OFF -SITE WELL ON PROPERTY 'LOCATED SOUTHEASTERLY OF PRINTZ ROAD: (WILLIAM LACKEY & SON). Planning Director Eisner reviewed that this matter was originally before the Commission on September 6th and, at that time, it was determined that the application submitted was for Parcel 1 only, and not Parcels 2, 3 and 4. At that time the Commission suggested that Mr. Lackey re -file his application appropriately describing what it is he wants to do. Upon being assured by Planning Director Eisner that public hearing for Variance Case No. 83 -94 had been duly published and property owners noti- fied, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Upon hearing no comments from the audience for or against the proposed Variance, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed. In answer to Commissioner Moore's question if it is intended to form a water company, Mr. Lackey advised that it would be a community well. Commissioner Moore commented that, it seems that the City Council does not want wells like this starting up. Also, if you don't have a water meter, you 30 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -4 -83 Page 2 do not pay for Lopez bonds and if enough people do this, it could have some effect. He also commented that if the community well runs out of water, it would up to the city to supply the residents with water. Commissioner Carr stated he doesn't share Commissioner Moore's concern about having community wells, and as far as the City having to help the people if they run out of water, he didn't feel that was the City's problem and it would be up to the property owners to deal with it. In answer to Commissioner Olsen's question regarding the property owners exclusive rights to the water well, Planning Director Eisner advised that one of the conditions being recommended is that exclusive rights to the water be guaranteed in perpetuity. He suggested that, if the Commission saw fit, they could also condition the approval that the properties not be split beyond where they are now so that the density would be consistent with the zoning. Also, if the Commission shares Commissioner Moore's concerns, a condition could be made that the three lot owners pay the $66.00 per year as an "in lieu" fee for the Lopez bond. Mr. Lackey commented that he could not go along with not being able to split the property any further because it doesn't make sense not to be able to split the 12 acre parcel down to 2 -1/2 acres as permitted in the district. Planning Director Eisner suggested that approval could be conditioned that if the 11.5 acre parcel should be split in the future (1) that the lots will be served by City water, and (2) the lots will not be split smaller than 2 -1/2 acre parcels. Mr. Lackey commented that he wants to keep about 6 acres of that property to build his home on, so there is a possibility of having 7 parcels there, however, he is only asking for water for 4 of those parcels. After further discussion, the following action was taken: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PUBLIC HEARING 2 parcels; Parcel 6,780 sq. ft. He lots meet the minimum because this property and zoning, staff has the provisions of the RESOLUTION NO. 83 -957 V A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 83 -94 FILED BY WILLIAM E. LACKEY AND SON. On motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: Commissioners Carr, Fischer and Chairman Gerrish Commissioners Benhardt, Moore and Olsen Commissioner Moots None the foregoing Resolution was denied due to a split vote. Planning Director Eisner advised that this matter is final with the Planning Commission unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days. LOT SPLIT CASE NO. '83-387, 1310 SIERRA.DRIVE'(L: J.. FERRARI). Planning Director Eisner advised that the proposed lot split would create A would contain 16,812 sq. ft. and Parcel B would contain noted that the existing zoning is "R -1" and the proposed standards of 6,000 sq. ft. He further noted that and this request is consistent with the General Plan held that the proposal is categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act. Mf. Eisner advised that under the Subdivision Ordinance any lot containing a slope of over 7% requires that the minimum lot size jumps to 10,000 sq. ft. and, in reviewing this application, staff was unable to determine whether or not the present lot has a slope of 7 %. It is recommended that if the Commission should choose to approve the request, that a grading and slope plan be submitted for approval of the Public Works Director, and no slope shall exceed 7%. Upon being assured by Planning Director Eisner that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 83 -387 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Jim McGillis, Surveyor for San Luis Engineering, representing the applicant, stated that, in his opinion, the Commission has the right under Optional Design Standards to approve the request because there are extenuating circumstances. He pointed out that there won't be any grading because of a raised foundation; also, the lot is not real steep and they do not expect any dirt at all to be moved. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -4 -83 Page :3 Mr. McGillis pointed out that the profile of this road, as the City built it, caused a low spot here, and all of the water comes down through Mr. Ferrari's property. The parcel that he is creating would have a drainage channel on it. He also stated that the buildable area of the lot within the setback lines is well under the 7% slope, and is probably 5 %. Mr. Ferrari, applicant, spoke in favor of approval of the lot split. He advised when the City built the road through there, they piled a lot of dirt in that left hand corner and that is how that area was built up. Also, the City cut a "V" right in the center of his property so all the water coming down from Sierra comes through his property. He further stated the reason he is requesting the lot split is because his health does not permit him to maintain the property any longer. Upon hearing no further comments for or against the proposed lot split, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed. Chairman Gerrish commented that he doesn't have any problem with the division of the property but, in his opinion, a Variance would be required because of the slope. The other Commissioners indicated they were in agree- ment with Chairman Gerrish. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Benhardt, and unanimously carried, the matter was continued to the next regular meeting of October 18, 1983. PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 83 -352, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MOTEL CONSISTING OF 99 UNITS PLUS MANAGER'S QUARTERS, WEST BRANCH STREET AND CAMINO MERCADO. (LESLIE M. CROUCH/WILLIAM'S. BANNASCH). Planning Director Eisner explained this matter has been listed as a Use Permit as well as architectural review. He advised that the use as requested is not only consistent with the General Plan and Zoning, but it is also'consistent with Ordinance 140 C.S. However, because this is a Planned Development Zone, there was a question in everybody's mind as to whether or not it had to come through as a Use Permit. and, .afte.r staff review, it was determined that this would; be the procedure to follow. Chairman Gerrish stated he concurred that a Use Permit is the proper procedure in this case. Mr. Eisner pointed out that the site consists of approximately 2 acres. The request is for a 99 unit motel plus manager's quarters, the General Plan desig- nation is for commercial use, and the request is consistent with the Environ- mental Impact Report submitted and certified for the Oak Park Acres project. He noted that since the "P -D" zone has no development standards by itself, staff has used the basic standards of the Highway Service zone.. and, therefore, staff deems and recommends that the Commission find the proposal consistent with the standards of the "P -D" zone. He advised that the project has been reviewed by the Architectural Review andthe Staff Advisory Committee. The Architectural Review Committee suggested that on the railing, the closed portion be at least 50%. The Staff Advisory Committee recommends that in making findings, should the Commission choose to approve this, that the four conditions listed in the staff report, dated October 4, 1983.be included as part of the approval With regard to the requested sign, Planning Director Eisner advised that it falls within the requirements of the "H -S" District and, therefore, the Commission could approve it as a part of the Use Permit, or they could approve it as a separate action. Commissioner Moots pointed out that the other projects in the Oak Park Acres development were not allowed to have tall signs. Upon being assured by Planning Director Eisner that public hearing for Use Permit Case No. 83 -353 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Les Crouch, Del Mar, California, applicant, spoke in favor of the Use Permit being granted. He advised that the Ilse on, this. property was designated as highway Service on March 8, 1983 by the City Council, and the motel in question complies with the development standards of the entire shopping center and the surrounding area. He noted that the balcony configuration is going to be changed as recommended by the Architectural Review Committee. He further noted that the project complies totally with the requirements, and also with the spirit and intent of the designated use. Mr. Crouch advised the Commission that the requested sign is a matter of critical importance to them and a minimum height of 50 ft. is necessary to be seen from the freeway and, without a sign that people can see, they could not put a motel in that location. 31 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -4 -83 Page 4 Lou Caballero, engineer for the applicant, advised that the proposed sign would basically sit down in a cut that is probably 7 ft. adjacent to the cemetery, and from the road this will knock off 5 to 7 ft. Also, there are some pine trees along the westerly property line of the cemetery that are at least 30 ft. high. In answer to Commissioner Carr's question as to what percent of the lot is going to be landscaped, Mr. Crouch indicated it will be in excess of 5 %. Planning Director Eisner advised that a landscaping plan is to be sub- mitted by -the applicant. Mr. Ruben Kvidt, General Partner of Oak Park Acres, advised that they have requested the applicant to conform with the architectural scheme of the development and they have agreed to do that. Mr. Kvidt also addressed the concerns relative to drainage, erosion and grading, noting that the applicant has agreed to all of the conditions and also has agreed to accept the street design that is being required. He also stated that the lot has designed slopes from the cemetery into the street, and with additional devices being installed, there will be considerabl• less water coming down that street that there was last year. Upon hearing no further comments for or against the proposed Use Permit, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed. Chairman Gerrish commented that the issues before the Commission are the Use Permit, Architectural Review and the sign. After discussion, the follow- ing action was taken on the Use Permit. RESOLUTION NO. 83-.958 U RESOLUTIOii OF THE PLANNING COiiiiISSIOb1 OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOP- MENT PLAN SUBMITTED UNDER USE PERMIT CASE NO. 83 -352 FILED BY LESLIE M. CROUCH AND WILLIAM S.BANNASCH, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS On motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded. by Commissioner Benhardt, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Benhardt, Fischer, Moore, Moots and Chairman Gerrish NOES: Commissioners Carr and Olsen ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4th day of October 1983. Commissioner Carr commented he felt uneasy about the size and location of this building going up there, and he also felt that the coverage is too great. with regard to the sign, Commissioner Moots made reference to Denny's in Pismo Beach and the Pizza Hut on Grand Avenue, stating they are getting along with lower signs and, in his opinion, this project could do with less height on a sign and still be able to have a sign. He pointed out that Karl's Jr. came in with a request for a sign, and the Commission denied anything that had any height to it; that has been the criteria for that area and that we do not have pole signs. Mr. Crouch stated that if the Commission would be willing to continue the matter, he would be willing to hire a crane to come out to the site and set up a temporary sign for the Commission's review. Chairman Gerrish inquired if the Commission is going to allow the applicant's to have a sign in this basic location. Commissioner Carr stated he doesn't have a problem with placing a sign at that location; if it is acceptable to be lowered, then he would like to have it lower. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Benhardt, and unanimously carried, the matter of approval of the sign was continued pending submittal of information of re- design and height requirements. With regard to architectural approval, Planning Director Eisner advised that the Architectural Review Committee has looked at the project and, with the exception of the conditions that were originally set forth and matter of the railings, that has been addressed, staff recommends approval. Com- missioner Fischer commented that the landscaping will be very important because it is a very visible piece of property. On motion by Commissioner Benhardt, seconded by Commissioner Moore, motion carried with Commissioner Carr voting "No" approving Architectural Review Case No. 83- 291.subject to the recommended. conditions. • Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -4 -83 Page ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 83 -293, RUSTY SPUR, 138 E. BRANCH STREET. (MICHAEL SHANNON CONSTR.) Planning Director Eisner advised that the Staff Advisory Committee and Architectural Review Committee have reviewed this project, and recommended approval subject to the Standard Conditions. He stated that the only request from the Architectural Review Committee was that the applicant submit a parking lot layout. This layout has been received and it appears to be satisfactory. He noted that there are 3 full size and 2 compact car. spaces. He recommended that the Commission concur with the Architectural Review Com- mittee and approve the project as submitted. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Benhardt, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and unanimously Carried, Architectural Review Case No. 83 -293 was approved subject to the Standard Conditions. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION - MINI STORAGE FACILITY IN THE "H -S" HIGHWAY SERVICE DISTRICT. (ADDISON B. WOOD). Planning Director Eisner stated the Commission has been asked to determine if a mini - storage complex would be a compatible use in the Highway Service District. He referred to a previous resolution adopted by the Commission in June of 1982 wherein it was determined that this use would be compatible. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and unanimously carried, Planning Director Eisner was directed to inform the applicant to apply for ;a Use; Perrnit for the requested use. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 9:50 P.M. ATTEST: Secretary 33