Loading...
PC Minutes 1981-08-18• ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION .August 18, 1981 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chairperson Cole presiding. Present are Commissioners Moots, Pilkington, Saruwatari, Sebastian and Benhardt. Chairman Gerrish is absent. Planning.Director Hays is also in attendance. • MINUTE APPROVAL Upon hearing no additions or corrections, on motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the regular meeting of July 21, 1981 were approved as prepared. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 81 -239, 22 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, 1133 MAPLE ST. - REVIEW OF FINAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR RECREATION AREA. (WOOD). Planning Director Hays pointed out that sometime ago the Commission approved the subject project, and one of the conditions was that the applicant come back for final approval of the recreational area design. Commissioner Sebastian stated, in his opinion, the design looks good, however, he doesn't feel that two picnic tables and a barbecue pit is adequate to serve 22 families. Planning Director Hays pointed out that the idea is to provide an on -site recreational area to be used by the residents of the condominium, and we really do not have requirements for a specific size. Commissioner Pilkington stated he couldn't see. all 22 families out there trying to have a picnic at the same time and, in his opinion, the proposed recreation area would be adequate for the project. Commissioner Sebastian stated his concern about this is that the condominium concept that has developed in the past few years is a high density living environment and requires the necessary recreation and outdoor space to accommodate family living. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Saruwatari, motion carried with.. two "no" votes, final improvement: plans: for:Ithe..recreation area, Architectural Review Case No. 81-239, was denied based upon the inadequacy of numbers of recreational opportunities,and not the design.. CONTINUATION (PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED) - REZONING CASE NO. 81 -157, ZONE CHANGE FROM "A" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "R -1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, HUASNA_ ROAD. (IKEDA BROS`.) Planning Director Hays pointed out that at the last meeting the Planning Commission recommended favorably upon the General Plan Amendment from "A? Agri- cultural to Low-Density Residential designation, and the next step in the process is the request for a zone change from the "A" District to "R -1 ".. Commissioner Sebastian commented, in his opinion, this is going to be a real good use. of this . particular parcel. for the future., however, it is his feeling that we have a situation with water which we cannot resolve; the sewer situation can be dealt with and resolved based upon engineering and technology., He suggest- ed that the Commission consider this particular project, but withhold approval based upon our ability to provide water service to it in the future._ Vice. Chairperson Cole stated it is her feeling that the Commission should stay with. the.is.s.ue.here, which,. at this point, is the Request for Negative Declaration. on. this. particular piece. of property. She.reminded the' Commission that anything 1G. acres and under is not an,.e.conomical agricultural pursuit, and the. Commission has in the past based some of their decisions on that. Commissioner Sebastian stated he is saying any approval we have tonight be contingent upon our ability to provide water., Jim McGillis, Project Engineer, commented that this is a rezoning request and the Commission is not approving any lots_._Commissioner Sebastian stated he. agreed with.Mr.. McGillis, but a Negative Declaration is - based upon the ability to serve those needs.. • Planning Director Hays commented that the rezoning is one thing, but as you get into, the.actual subdivision, at that point time., we. will know exactly where. we stand and any conditions could -be placed on the project.at that stage, Commissioner Saruwatari pointed out that even if the "R -.1" zoning is approved, that does. not automatically guarantee. that they are going to put the subdivision in without approval., Planning Director Hays pointed out that if there is not water at that time, there is no project.. After further discussion, the following action was taken; Arroyo Grande, Planning Commission, 8 -18 -81 Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 81-850 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION. On motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, and by the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Moots, Pilkington, Saruwatari and Benhardt NOES: Commissioner Sebastian ABSENT: Chairman Gerrish the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of August 1981. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -851 Z RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMEND- MENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 4 ZONING, ARTICLE 32 OF SAID CODE. On motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Moots, Pilkington, Saruwatari, Sebastian and Benhardt NOES: None ABSENT:. Chairman Gerrish the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of August 1981. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 81 -365, 331 AND 321 TALLY HO ROAD. (LECHNER AND McLAUGHLIN) . Planning Director Hays noted that there are two separate properties in- volved in this request, and the rezoning took place with the knowledge that the applicants, were going to come back in with a map to create additional parcels on each of the existing lots. He further advised that the Lot Split Committee meeting was not held on this matter due to the lack of a quorum and, therefore, will be considered the Commission as a whole. He reviewed the list of 8 recdmmended conditions, noted in the staff report dated August 13, 1981. With regard to Conditions #1 and 2, Mr. Hays stated that the applicant has indicated he may have problems with underground service to the new units in the back because there is an existing overhead service already.. Mr. Hays requested, if possible, that this condition be worked out between the applicant, the Public Works. Director and himself. Commissioner Moots pointed out that the service is back there and everything has to come down the post and underground on the property. The applicant indicated his agreement to the undergrounding. With regard to Condition #2 requiring driveway paving be provided with the issuance of building permits, Mr. Hays advised that the applicant would like to do some work back there and pour some concrete prior to paving the driveway, and has requested that this: condition be re- worded.. Mr. Hays noted that he will still have to bond for the improvements. Mr. Lechner, applicant, stated he would like to put a red rock bed in there and leave it over one rainy season. Mr, Hays stated his feelings that this can be worked out to everyone "s satisfaction through . the bonding procedure.. The Commission indicated their agreement with. the appli- cant's request to amend Condition #2 and advised staff to work with the applicant on this item. Upon being ass.ured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for Lot Split Cas.e.No., 81 -365 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing open._ Mr. Vincent Lechner, 331 Tally Ho Road, applicant, spoke in favor of the proposed lot split, Mr. J. Connor, P. G. & E.., stated one consideration the. Commission might give is P. G. & E.'s ability to serve underground service.. He pointed out that sometimes getting the adequate level of voltage from two services to four services underground creates a problem and there are some conditions, as to distance. Upon hearing no further comments for or against the proposed lot split, Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing closed, 357 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 8 -18 -81 Page 3 After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No. 81 -365 was approved subject to the 8 conditions listed in the staff report, dated August 13, 1981, with the exception of Condition #2 to be amended wherein the driveway pav- ing be provided upon completion of the building. PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION REVIEW - TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, TRACT 1009, "MOUNTAIN VIEW CONDOMINIUMS ", 16 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, 830 HUASNA ROAD. (HSU /ADR CORP::). Planning Director Hays pointed out that the subdivision map being considered is the end result of the Commission's earlier approval of a Use Permit and subsequent architectural approval for the project. Mr. Hays noted that the Subdivision Review Board meeting was not held due to lack of a quorum and, there- fore, the matter is being considered by the Planning Commission as a whole. He breifly reviewed the 5 recommended conditions of approval, listed in the staff report dated August.13, 1981. Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for Tentative Subdivision Map for Tract 1009 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing open. Mr. Paul Hsu with ADR Corporation, applicant for the project, spoke in favor of the tentative subdivision map, and stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Burke, 947 Hausna Road, stated he feels we are kind of premature on this project, and stated he is concerned about the increased traffic on Huasna Road and there is too much congestion there now. Commissioner Sebastian stated that the architectural approval of the project required that the road be widened by 20: ft.' along the frontage of the project.. Mr. Tony Azevedo•stated he 'is representing his father who owns the adjacent property. and, as far as the condominium is concerned, they have no objection, however, they are concerned with the drainage off of that property. He stated they have a problem with the drainage ditch that runs off of his father's property and the City has chosen to side step their responsibility. He pointed / out that when Huasna Road was realigned, an equal amount of property should have been taken from both.s. des of the road, however, there was an error in placement of the homes on top of the. hill wherein•they were not set back to the existing setback of the homes that were there and, therefore, Huasna Road had to be shifted by about 10 or 15 ft.., Since; .:the: City received so much. flack from the property owners on the lower sidde-, they decided to do just half of the road and then transfer the monkey to the property owners' and,• therefore, we have taken all of the runoff from every- one. He further stated that the houses that were built on Clarence Avenue were allowed to be.bui.lt•without proper improvements such as curb and gutter._ He further stated he.doesn.'t think. it is the developer's problem and, in his opinion, it goes back to the City''s doorstep and it should not have been his problem as far as the drainage. is concerned. Planning Director Hays pointed out that a condition approved earlier indicated that a drainage plan and•drainage improvement plan be approved by the Public Works Director prior to issuance. of a building permit.. Upon hearing no further comments. for or against the proposed subdivision, Vice. Chairperson Cole declared the hearing closed, Commissioner Sebastian stated he thinks that the project as approved is a very good project and he suggested the. Commission consider the concerns of Mr. Azevedo and direct the City Engineer to look into this and try to come up with a solution. He stated if there is an easement on the property between the appli- cant's property and Mr., Azevedo's property then from a legal aspect, we wouldn't have any concern at this: time. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO, 81 -852 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, TRACT NO. 10.09, "MOUNTAIN VIEW CONDOMINIUMS ", AND REFERRAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. On motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, and by the following roll call vote, to wit; AYES: Commissioners Cole, Moots, Pilkington, Saruwatari, Sebastian . and Benhardt Arroyo Grande. Planning Commission, 8 -18 -81 Page 4 NOES: ABSENT: None Chairman Gerrish the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of August 1981. PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 81 -326, 6 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM•PROJECT, 290 SPRUCE STREET IN AN "R -G" GARDEN APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. (PECK /DeSCHANE). Planning Director Hays advised that the application is for a Use Permit for a 6 unit condominium project, and the site is designated by the General Plan for high density residential with a maximum of 20 units per acre. He further advised that the site is approximately 14,243 sq. ft. in size, with a density of approxi- mately 18 units per acre. He pointed out that it is proposed for this project to be a companion project to the Soto Terrace condominium project-approved by the Planning Commission last year. Mr. Hays pointed out that one item of importance is that the proposal as presented does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, in that the Ordinance provides for a maximum lot coverage of 60% and requires 40% for open space, and the proposed project has a 74b' lot coverage and only 26% open space. In addition, the guest parking spaces are located on Spruce Street, which is not in keeping with. the policy of the Commission relative to the .number and location of guest parking spaces. He noted, however, that last year the Commission approved the Soto Terrace condominium project, which is virtually identical to this project. Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for Use Permit Case No. 81 -326 had been duly published,' posted and property owners noti- fied, Vice. Chairperson Cole declared the hearing open. Marilee. Peck, applicant; stated :she would like the Commission to consider Optional Design and Improvement Standards for the variation allowed with "R -G" zoning for the additional 14% coverage, which she feels is mainly parking lot, and opened to the adjoining parking lot will create a wide open space look. Also, she pointed out that with a park being within a 100 ft. of this project, she feels it will compliment the area and it is a high design quality unit designed by the same. architect of the adjoining unit. Larry Desmond, 240 Spruce Street, stated he. owns the. 12 unit there. and, in his opinion, the idea of building a good sized City park. is to put the parkin an area where there is a little bit higher density providing recreation facilities for the people who live there. He further stated his experience is that people in that area do not use the park at all, and it would seem reasonable to him that those people living in these units would have more of an opportunity to use the park facilities. Mr. Bill McCann, 575 Crown Hill, spoke with. regard to accepting projects that are "close enough ", stating that what we run into pretty soon is that we have rules and regulations that do not mean anything, and, in his opinion; when we have a piece of property that can be developed properly but we are just trying to accommodate, someone so that they can get one extra unit in, he didn't feel we should compromise ourselves all of the time. Planning Director Hays pointed out that the applicant has requested consideration of the Optional Design Standards, which allows flexibility in coverage based upon some characteristics , of this project and, in his opinion, the uniqueness of the project lends itself for the Commission's consideration of the Optional Design Standards because of the way they are trying to tie in with the unit just approved to the south and also due to the proximity of the park.. Merilee Peck advised that with all the calculations that have been done, this property does allow 6:units, and-they-are not just trying to get an extra_unit. Richard Warthern, Bee Canyon Road, stated he is the husband of the applicant. He advised that the way the project is designed now and the way it will probably be built out will be as one, and by not giving us the special consideration and allowing the 14% coverage, would be eliminating a very nice effect which would compliment both projects. Upon hearing no further comments for or against the proposed Use Permit, Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing closed. After considerable discussion it was pointed out that the Optional Design Standards was intended more for a density transfer situation and not for use as in this particular case. On motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Benhardt, and unanimously carried, the matter was continued to allow the applicant to file for a Variance. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CASE NO. 81 -158, ZONE CHANGE FROM "A -D" AGRICULTURAL - DESIGN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO "R -S" RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN DISTRICT, PROPERTY LOCATED OFF OF BRANCH MILL ROAD AND FLORA ROAD. (POOLE). 359 4 O Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 8 -18 -81 Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for Rezoning Case No. 81 -158 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing open. Jim Garing, Garing, Taylor & Associates, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the rezoning. He reviewed some of the past history of the property and presented a map showing what was done originally in the subdivision, pointing out the several large lots that were created. He noted that there are 2 old structures on the property that haven't been used for quite some time. He stated that access to the property right now is by a 50 ft. wide easement off of Flora Road. He further advised that this property was farmed until late in 1978 and has not been farmed since then. He stated that the applicants believe that the "R -S" zoning with 2-1/2 acre minimum lot size will be an appropriate buffer between the 6,000. sq. ft. minimum lot sized residential development and what will probably turn out to be 2 -1/2 acre minimum lot sizes in the County. With regard to the concern of City resources, Mr. Garing pointed out that this particular proposal would not use City water or City disposal systems; in that all of the lots would qualify for individual wells and individual septic tanks, so there would not be any draw on the existing City resources as far as sewer and water. Page 5 Planning Director Hays advised that the application is for rezoning of approximately 11.62 acres from the "A -D" District to the "R -S" District, and the "A -D" zone requires a minimum lot size of 5 acres, and the "R -S" zone has a 2 -1/2 acre minimum lot size. He further advised that the Land Use Element of the General Plan designates this site as low density residential with a density of up to 4.5 dwelling units per acre, . and the proposed "R -S" zone would permit the creation of a maximum of four parcels. Mr. Hays noted that when the " -D" was placed on the property a few years ago, it referred to a lot size and in this case it was a 5 acre minimum lot size. He stated that the intent of the "R -S" District is to provide for single family residential development on estate size lots commensurate with the rural character and life style of adjoining County developments. The zoning on the adjoining property to the east in the County is "R -S" Residential Suburban with a one acre minimum lot size. Thom Head, 344 Santa Fe, Shell Beach, applicant, stated that the property is 11.62 acres and the only farmable flat land on that property is probably a little over 9. acres, and Commissioner Cole had made a comment earlier that the cutoff on prime agricultural land was 10 acres. Commissioner Cole stated that is just a guide line. the Commission goes by and is not a pat rule. Bill McCann, 575 Crown Hill, stated this request is opening up something that has . come up time and time again on rezoning this particular area of land just east of Greenwood Manor, and that he is very familiar with this whole parcel because he used to live in Greenwood Manor. He stated with regard to the "-D" Override on the Agricultural Zone, that this was a compromise type of situation designed to have basically 5 acre lot sizes, and the whole idea on this density was to retain that parcel in its entirety because of its prime agricultural situation. He stated at that time it was determined it was prime agricultural land and it was everybody's opinion that that particular piece of property should not be split up.. He further stated, in his opinion, it is very important that we maintain that because Arroyo Grande is an agricultural community; it is the only industry that we have here. M.r. Charles Grant, Branch Mill Road, stated he owns property adjacent to the property in question, and. he agreed with Mr., McCann that the parcel is prime land and should not be. split. R. D. McLean,. 1620 So. Elm Street, stated he owns the 10 acres that adjoins this property on the south.. He stated he feels that these gentlemen that own the property should be able to use it in a practical way, and if 2 -1/2 acre parcels will allow four families to go in there, then it should be rezoned. He stated it would be an ideal type residence for a retired person to use and really 1/2 acre parcels would be more practical, more useable and more desirable than what it is right now. Norma Regan, 492 Tanner, stated she could see no reason tor not putting 2 -1/2 acre parcels out there. She stated it looks bad out there now and why not beautify the area and use it for home sites. Larry Desmo, stated he recently moved up here from Orange Valley County and he has been looking for a 2 -1/2 acre parcel of good ground. He stated that property is pretty expensive up here and he can't afford anything more than 2 -1/2 acres. He further stated he is in favor of the rezoning because., in his opinion, anything larger than 2 -1/2 acres is going to require an exclusive area. He further commented if it is as good for farming as has. been indicated, he would be very interested because that is what he would want to have his family use it for. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 8 -18 -81 Upon hearing no further comments for or against the .proposed rezoning, Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing closed. 'Commissioner Moots stated he remembers, there was an understanding with the County that all of that land east of the City Limits of Arroyo Grande would be left in tact in the valley floor for agricultural purposes. Commissioner Saruwatari stated that about three years ago they were told that there was a gentlemen's agreement with the County that there would be no more development on the Valley floor without annexation to the City. Commissioner Pilkington stated it is his feeling that the applicants should be given some consideration and if they can't use the land and make any profit off of it, then they should be able to subdivide it and use it for something other than just a weed patch. Commissioner Moots stated that there is nothing except agricultural on that side of the creek on past Greenwood. He further stated that is useable land and, in his opinion, it is a zone that should be left exactly like it is. Commissioner Benhardt stated there is a lot of hillside land in the area and that, in his opinion, is where construction of homes should be considered more so than good productive agricultural property. Commissioner Saruwatari commented that, in her opinion, they divided the tract in this manner to preserve the agricultural land and if the property is split for construction purposes, • then you are defeating the purpose that was originally intended. She further stated that if the applicants knew the limitations of the property before they purchased it, then she can't see where they feel they are entitled to change to another zoning, and she. doesn't think the agricultural area should be allowed to be encroached upon more. Commissioner Sebastian stated he agreed with Commissioners Moots, Benhardt and Saruwatari. He pointed out that we have a lot of hillside areas that can be built on, and that's where our construction should be, and we should be preserving this land. There being no further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 81 -853 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION. On motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Benhardt, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES': Commissioners Cole, Saruwatari, Sebastian and Benhardt NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners Moots and Pilkington ABSENT: Chairman Gerrish the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of August 1981. (Finding for denial is that the property is prime agricultural land and must be preserved as such)_... RESOLUTION NO. 81 -854 Z RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN AMEND- MENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 4 ZONING, ARTICLE 32 OF SAID CODE. On motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Benhardt, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Saruwatari, Sebastian and Benhardt NOES None ABSTAIN: Commissioners Moots and Pilkington ABSENT: Chairman Gerrish. ' the. foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of August 1981. (Reason for denial: Request, for Rezoning cannot sustain a negative Declaration), COMMUNICATIONS 361 Page 6 Planning Director Hays advised that Bill Lackey has requested a time ex- tension on his parcel map on Printz Road that was approved one year ago., He noted that Mr. Lackey is in the final stages of the improvement plans for the development and the Ordinance allows for a one year extension subject to the Commission's approval. ? 62 Arroyo Grande.. Planning Commission, 8 -18 -81 On motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the request for a one year ex- tension on the parcel map. Commissioner Sebastian referred to the question of drainage between Oro Drive and Clarence Avenue on the south side of Huasna Road. On motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Benhardt, and unanimously carried, staff was directed to evaluate the impacts and alternative solutions to that drainage situation and report back to the Commission within six weeks. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by Vice Chairperson Cole at 10:20 P.M. ATTEST: Secretary Vice Chairperson Page 7