PC Minutes 1981-07-07338
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 7, 1981
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with
Commissioner Cole presiding as Acting Chairperson. Present are Commissioners
Moots, Saruwatari and Sebastian. Commissioners Pilkington and Gerrish are
absent. One vacancy exists on the Commission. Also in attendance are Planning
Director Hays and Public Works Director Karp.
MINUTE APPROVAL
Upon hearing no additions or corrections, on motion by Commissioner
Moots, seconded by Commissioner Sebastian, and unanimously carried, the
minutes of the regular meetings of May 19, 1981; June 2, 1981 and June 16, 1981
were approved as prepared.
REPORT FROM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR RE: STATUS OF SANITATION DISTRICT TREATMENT
PLANT.
Public Works Director Karp reviewed the current status of the treatment
plant in • Oceano. He advised that the plant is now at 92% to 93% capacity and
that Arroyo Grande and Oceano are currently using capacity reserved for Grover
City. He stated that at this time Grover City has not filed an injunction or
filed for arbitration, however, it is his understanding that they took action
at a meeting last night indicating their intentions to file for arbitration.
He further stated that a meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday night at
5:00 P.M. at the treatment plant to discuss their intentions. Mr. Karp noted that
at the last meeting, the Sanitation District authorized their engineer to complete
a study to be approved for expansion of the plant by 1/2 million gallons per day
for the overall average flow. The estimated cost for modifying the internals
of the plant, as well as the sewage drying capacity, is $315,000. Mr. Karp
suggested that the Commission, with lack of direction from the City Council or
the Sanitation District, caution those developers whose projects are approved,
that approval does not necessarily mean they will get a building permit, and
any approvals would be subject to the policy set forth down the line with .
respect to Sanitation District and City Council policy. After considerable
discussion, Mr. Karp advised he would be updating the Commission on a per meet-
ing basis.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 81 -77, REQUEST TO PERMIT INDIVIDUAL LOTS TO
BE SERVED FROM A COMMUNITY WELL SYSTEM IN THE "R -S" RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN
DISTRICT, PROPERTY LOCATED OFF OF :PRINTZ ROAD (APN 7- 781 -03). (LACKEY)_.
Planning Director Hays advised that the applicant has submitted an
application for a Variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow 4 lots to be
served from a community well system in the "R -S" District, instead of meeting
the ordinance requirement of :individual wells per lot.
Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for
Variance Case no. 81 -77 had been duly published, posted and property owners
notified, Acting Chairperson Cole declared the hearing open.
JoAnn Fenton, Attorney for the applicant, spoke in favor of the
Variance being granted. She stated that, as in this case, the State law pro-
vides that a Variance can be considered and granted where there are hardships
or practical difficulties relating to a particular property and, in this case,
we are talking about the water supply.,
Mr. Lane Stewart, representing a number of residents in the Printz
Road community, presented a letter signed by 22 neighbors adjacent to the area,
indicating their opposition to the Variance request, and to exporting water
from the water bearing strata in the Printz Road area to new regions. He
further stated that, in his opinion, the proposal is an effort to cut costs
and really is not consistent with the intent of the Ordinance.
Bill Lackey, 877 Todd Lane, applicant, spoke in favor of the Variance
being granted. He stated that he had drilled a well very recently right on
the property line and got 4 gallons per minute. He further stated he could
go ahead and develop the property on 4 gallons per minute wells, but the
people who wind up buying the homes are not going to be happy because it is
not adequate. He stated his well driller, Mr. John Nairn, estimates the proposed
well at 20'0 gallons per minute and it is not going to draw water from the
neighbors well. William Bales, Rt. 2, Box 736, Printz Road; F. J. Krikpatrick,
Printz Road, and Elmer Kirk, Printz Road, spoke in opposition to the Variance.
There being no further discussion, Acting Chairperson Cole declared the
hearing closed.
Arroyo Grande. planning Commission, 7 -7 -81 Page 2
Commissioner Sebastian stated he feels very strongly about community
water systems and, in his opinion, they do not work well unless they are in
a larger tract. He further noted that there was considerable discussion on
this subject when the "R -S" District was formed and Mr. Lackey was present
during those discussions. He stated he agrees with the letter from Public
Works Director Karp and cannot support the Variance. Commissioners Moots,
Cole and Saruwatari stated they were in agreement with Commissioner Sebastian's
comments, and the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -831 V
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING A VARIANCE, CASE NO.
81 -77.
On motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Moots,
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Moots, Saruwatari and Sebastian
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Pilkington and Gerrish
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7th day of July 1981.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 81 -78, VARIANCE TO REDUCE LOT WIDTH AND FOR
A 15 FT. ACCESS FLAG IN THE "R -1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, 338
WALNUT STREET. (JOHNSON).
Planning Director Hays advised that the applicant has submitted a lot
split application to create two parcels, and a requirement of the lot split
was to provide a flag access of 12 -1/2 ft. in width, and since the flag is
less than the 60 ft. required frontage for this zoning district, the appli-
cant is requesting a Variance to reduce the required front yard width from
60 ft. to 57 -1/2 ft. in order to proceed with his lot split. Also, for the
applicant to meet his side yard setback of 5 ft., he may need to have a
variance considered for that. Mr. Johnson stated he is within 6 inches of
meeting the side yard setback, so he may need a 6 inch variance._
Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for
Variance Case No. 81 -78 had been duly published, posted and property owners
notified, Acting Chairperson Cole declared the hearing open.
Mr. Wes Johnson, applicant, spoke in favor of the Variance being
granted. He pointed out that the lot is a very large lot and other lots in
the area have already been split, and he would not be going against any basic
trend.
Commissioner Sebastian stated, in all respect to the applicant, he
could not support the request and, in his opinion, it would be of benefit
to the applicant to have the matter continued in view of the fact that there
are only four Commissioners present. Planning Director Hays advised that
the agenda for the meeting of July 21st is already completely full. After
further discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Sebastian to deny
Variance Case No. 81 -78. Motion lost for lack of a second. On motion by
Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Saruwatari, and unanimously
carried, Variance Case No. 81 -78 was continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of August 4, 1981.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 81 -79, VARIANCE TO REDUCE REQUIRED LOT WIDTH
IN AN "H -S" HIGHWAY SERVICE DISTRICT, 1190 AND 1166 GRAND AVE. (HARRIS /COCKS/
HARRIS) .
Planning Director Hays advised that this is the first step of a three
step process. The applicants have submitted a Variance in order to create
three parcels out of a single parcel and, in order to create one of the parcels,
it will be less than the required length of 100 ft. In addition, Parcel 2
would technically be landlocked and a variance is also required i to allow access
across Parcel 1 and Parcel 3 to insure that Parcel 2 in back will have a
guaranteed access. He pointed out that essentially what the applicant wants
to do is construct an office condominium project.
Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that Variance Case No.
81 -79 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Acting
Chairperson Cole declared the hearing open.
339
0
Arroyo Grande planning Commission, 7 -7 -81
Mr. Ron Harris, one of the applicants, advised that there are three
existing buildings on the property and what they wish to accomplish is an
office condominium on the corner. He stated there are three parcels right
now and the applicants own all three of them and want to turn over Parcel
1 to the Condominium Owners Association, and the only thing it would do is
change the way the property is owned; the parking lots, the buildings and
everything will be exactly the same. The reason for this is simply for
ownership and for financing purposes. Mr. Harris further advised the
existing welding shop has no parking, and that shop will be eliminated.
U.ponhe no further comments, Acting Chairper - son Cole declared the
hearing closed and, after a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -832 V
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO.
81 -79.
On motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Moots,
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Moots, Saruwatari and Sebastian
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Gerrish and Pilkington
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7th day of July 1981.
Page 3
PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 81 -363, 1190 AND 1166 GRAND AVE. (HARRIS/
COCKS /HARRIS).
Planning Director Hays explained that technically, this is a lot line
adjustment. He stated that the Minor Subdivision Committee action was to
recommend approval subject to the 8 conditions listed in the report, dated
July 1, 1981.
Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that publi_c_hearing, for..
Lot Split Case No. - 81 -363 had been duly published, posted and property owners
notified, Acting Chairperson Cole declared the hearing open.
Ron Harris commented he would like to have Condition #2 changed so that
the shop is to be removed prior to a building permit being issued on Parcel 2
or 3. The Commission concurred with Mr. Harris' request.
There being no further comments for or against the proposed lot split,
Acting Chairperson Cole declared the hearing closed and, after discussion,
on motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and
unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No. 81 -363 was approved subject to the
conditions noted in Minor Subdivision Committee Report, dated 7 -1 -81, with
Condition #2 amended to read as follows: "Shop and unfinished warehouse to
be removed from Parcel 2 prior to a building permit being issued on Parcel
2 or Parcel 3, at the expense of either.
Architectural Review Case'No. 81 - 247, Office Building, 1190 Grand Ave..
Planning-Director. Hays. - advised that-the-Architectural. Review- Committee
had met . and..they -are - recommending -- approval subject .to .the 4-conditions listed
in their report- - After• a- brief- .d- iscussion.,..- on..motion by Commissioner Moots,
seconded by Commissioner Sebastian, and unanimously carried, Architectural
Review Case No. 81 -247 was approved subject to the four conditions noted in
Architectural Committee Action,. dated July 1, 1981 .
PUBLIC HEARING": USE PERMIT CASE NO. 81 -323, TO ALLOW FOR A MONTESSORI
PRESCHOOL /DAY CARE CENTER IN THE "RA -B3" RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT,
387 CORBETT CANYON ROAD. (MILLER).
Planning Director Hays stated that the applicant has submitted an
application for a Use Permit for a Day Care Center to be located in a
residence at 387 Corbett Canyon Road. He noted that the site is zoned
"RA -B3 ", and a Use Permit is required for this use. Also, the applicant is
requesting a facility to care for 15 -20 children in the 2 -1/2 to 6 year
age group. He further advised that this operation would be regulated by
certain requirements of the State of California. Mr. Hays referred to a
letter submitted to the Commission from Mr. and Mrs. Pearson, including
numerous names of residents in the area, which is a petition indicating
concerns relative to the requested use in that area.
Arroyo Grande. Planning Commission, 7 -7 -81 Page 4
Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for
Use Permit Case No. 81 -323 had been duly published, posted and property
owners notified, Acting Chairperson Cole declared the hearing open.
Mr. Michael Miller, Abilene, Texas, applicant for the Use Permit, spoke
in favor of the use being granted and briefly described the proposed operation.
Dixie DeChance, 315 Gularte Road; Donald DeChance, 315 Gularte Road;
Suzie Robertson, Corral Place; Gordon Shishido; Joyce Pearson, 365 Corbett
Canyon Road; Bill Clawson, 679 Corral Place; Cathy Dorsey; Susan Davies,
653 Corral- Place, and Kay Shishido spoke in opposition to the proposed use
expressing their concerns with regard to increased traffic, noise, lack of
available parking, having a commercial business in a residential agricultural
district, etc.
Upon hearing no further comments for or against the proposed Use .Permit,
Acting Chairperson Cole declared the hearing closed.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -833 U
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO.
81 -323.
On motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Saruwatari,
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Moots, Saruwatari and Sebastian
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Gerrish and Pilkington
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7th day of July 1981.
PUBLIC - LOT.SPLI,T CASE NO. 81 -364, 127 AND 141 S. ELM ST. (GARING AND
TAYLOR) .
Planning Director Hays advised that the application is to split a single
parcel into two parcels and there currently are two existing buildings on the
parcel and the property is zoned "H -S" Highway Service District. The applicant
is requesting Optional Design Standards. He stated the matter was reviewed by
the Minor Subdivision Committee, and they have recommended approval subject to
the 5 conditions listed in the report, dated July 1, 1981.
Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for
Lot Split Case No. 81 -364 had been duly published, posted and property owners
notified, Acting Chairperson Cole declared the hearing open.
Mr. Jim Garing, of Garing, Taylor & Associates, spoke in favor of the
lot split being approved.
There being no further comments either for or against the proposed lot
split, Acting Chairperson Cole declared the hearing closed. After a brief
discussion, on motion• by•. Commissioner• Sebastian •seconded• by• Commissioner• •
Saruwatari; and unanimously' carried -; • -L• of —Split—Case—No,-81-364 was •approved . -
subject to the 5 conditions listed••in- Minor-Subdvision- Committee Report,. • • ..•
dated July 1, 1981.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 81 -249, SANTA BARBARA SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOC.,
1199 GRAND AVENUE - ADDITION.
Planning Director Hays briefly described the proposed addition, stating
that, essentially they are asking for an additional lane for the drive -thru
service, and the request should not in any way affect the circulation pattern,
He pointed out that the addition of the canopy will cover both lanes and it
will architecturally blend in with the building. He further stated that the
Architectural Review Committee reviewed this application and recommended
approval with the one condition as noted in their report..
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded
by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No..
81 -249 was approved subject to the condition noted in Architectural Committee
Report, dated July 1, 1981.
LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 80 -341, 1038 FAIR OAKS AVENUE. (BAUR).
Planning Director Hays advised that a condition of approval of the
341
342
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 7 -7 -81 Page 5
Tentative Map was that an engineered map be referred back to the Planning
Commission for final approval. He further advised that the final map is in
conformance with the tentative map, and staff recommends that the Commission
approve the map as submitted so that Mr. Baur may record his final map.
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded
by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried, the final map for Lot Split
Case No. 80 -341 was approved as submitted.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 81 -244, 21 CONDOMINIUM UNITS IN THE "R-G" DISTRICT,
239 AND 247 SO. ELM STREET - RESUBMITTAL. (BIAFORA, WEINER, AND RANELLETTI).
Planning Director Hays advised that at the Commission's meeting of June
2, 1981, the Use Permit for a 21 unit condominium project on South Elm Street
was approved for the applicants. However, at that time the Commission did
not approve the architectural design of the proposal because they wanted a
revised plan showing a new circulation system and revised guest parking layout
for the project.
Mr. Hays noted that the applicant has submitted a revised plan without
the circular drive plan as requested by the Commission, and they feel that the
revised plan treats all of the concerns that the Commission had regarding the
parking situation. Mr. Hays advised that, in his review of the new submittal,
it appears that the guest parking is being counted in the open space coverage,
and the Commission needs to make a determination as to whether or not this is
appropriate. In addition, if the Commission should determine that the archi-
tectural design of the building is satisfactory, they should also approve the
conceptual plot plan as presented if it meets their approval.
Mr. Jim McGillis, San Luis Engineering, representing the applicants,
stated that at the last meeting there was discussion as to whether or not the
Commission wanted to count the six parking spaces on Elm Street as part of
the guest parking and, in the revised plan, the architect has provided all 11
guest parking spaces on site. He stated that as Planning Director Hays pointed
out, the lot coverage is 61.7 %, but the lot coverage without guest parking is
only 51.7 %. He further stated that the ordinance does not cover guest parking
and, in his opinion, the question for the Commission is if they continue to
insist on guest parking, then it should be defined in the Ordinance and,
basically, the units are laid out in about the most efficient manner, and the
applicants need an interpretation from the Commission on what they want to do
with guest parking.
Commissioner Sebastian stated he feels the guest parking is something
that has to be evaluated. He further stated when he first reviewed the
project, it was his feeling that the property was not large enough to get
21 units in there. He noted his concerns with the traffic patterns in there
and he doesn't feel this is a safe plot plan with regard to backing up. He
also expressed concern with regard to the trash receptable area. Commissioner
Moots stated he did not like the circulation at all.
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded
by Commissioner Moots, motion carried with one "no" vote, denying Architectural
Review Case. No. 81 -244 as presented, and that the applicant take into con-
sideration the comments that have been made.
REFERRAL FROM THE CITY COUNCIL - PREZONING CASE NO. 81 -155, STEM ANNEXATION ON
FARROLL AVENUE, RECOMMENDED PREZONING TO "A" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT INSTEAD OF.
"R -3" ZONING AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Planning Director Hays advised that the City Council, on June 23, 1981
considered this matter and felt that this area would be more appropriately
zoned "A" Agricultural, and the Zoning Ordinance requires that this amendment
be returned to the Planning Commission for a report and recommendation. In
addition, the two property owners in the area have been discussing this and
they are not in agreement with the "A" zoning, and they feel it might more
appropriately be zoned "P -D" Planned Development. The "P -D" zoning would
allow the City to control what does go into the area. Mr. Hays further
stated he would strongly recommend "P -D" zoning if the Commission's concern
is for future control of the property, in that it would be fair to the
property owners and it would allow the City ultimate control.
Commissioner Sebastian stated he would feel comfortable with the "P -D"
zoning and, in the spirit of economics, it is his feeling we could eliminate
one step of the process with the "P -D" Zoning.
After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by
Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried, it was recommended to send the
Stem Annexation prezoning back to the City Council as "P -D" Planned Development
District.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 7 -7 -81 Page 6
PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE 140 C.S. - TRACT 604. (OAK PARK ACRES)
Planning Director Hays advised that Ordinance 140 C.S. was adopted as
part of the approval process of the Oak Park Acres project. The ordinance
requires a 10 ft. sidewalk along the frontage road in front of the proposed
K -Mart. This requirement is in conflict with the Circulation Element of the
General Plan, which requires an 8 ft. sidewalk. He further stated that Los
Padres Engineers, Inc. have submitted a request to modify Ordinance 140 C.S.
to allow construction of an 8 ft. sidewalk as shown on the General Plan, which
was adopted after Ordinance 140 C.S. He noted that the Director of Public
Works indicated that this request does not present any problems from a
practical point of view, and staff is recommending approval of this request.
Mr. Hays stated he discussed this matter with Mr. Shipsey, and it was his
opinion that the best way to resolve this was through a Resolution finding
that the 8 ft. section would be in conformance with the General Plan.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -834
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMEND-
MENT TO ORDINANCE 140 C.S.
On motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Saruwatari,
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Moots, Saruwatari and Sebastian
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Gerrish and Pilkington
the. foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7th day of July 1981.
CONTINUATION OF AGENDA ITEMS
Acting Chairperson Cole announced that Agenda Items 12, 13, 14, 15 and
16 would be continued to the next regular meeting of July 21, 1981 as indicated
on the agenda.
COMMUNICATIONS.
Planning Director Hays advised there are two items of communication where-
in two individual parties have submitted a letter asking that the Commission find
that a Bed and Breakfast Inn be found to be similar in character to other uses
in the Central Business District. Mr. Hays pointed out that there is a question
about the use because it does not specifically come that close to the uses that
are listed in the Zoning Ordinance under the "CBD" District.
Commissioner Sebastian stated his concern is not knowing the conditions
that have to be met for this type of commercial facility. He suggested that
these items be held in abeyance and allow staff to do some follow -up work in
making sure we are not allowing a commercial enterprise to bloom and blossom
and then find out we are not meeting the accepted codes. Mr Hays stated he
would check with some other cities who are having the same type of situation
to find out what they are experiencing.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
ATTEST: /_.120 c; :''
Secretary
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -835
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DETERMINING THAT A BED AND BREAKFAST INN
IS SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO USES PERMITTED IN THE CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) SUBJECT TO USE PERMIT PROCEDURES.
On motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Moots, Saruwatari and Sebastian
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Gerrish and Pilkington
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7th day of July 1981.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by
Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Sebastian, and unanimously
carried, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M.
Acting Chairperson
3.4 3