Loading...
PC Minutes 1981-04-07?u6 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION April 7, 1981 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Gorsline presiding. Present are Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Gerrish, Moots, Pilkington and Sebastian. Planning Director Castro is also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the regular meeting of March 17, 1981 were approved as prepared. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS AND APPLICATION OF SB 1960. Planning Director Castro advised that the matter is being continued to the April 21st meeting. He advised that he hasn't heard from Mr. Shipsey as yet re- garding any concerns or recommendations he may have with regard to the application of the Bill. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and unanimously carried, review of SB 1960 was continued to the next regular meeting of April 21, 1981. CONTINUATION - PUBLIC HEARING, USE PERMIT CASE NO. 81 -315, CONSTRUCTION OF CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, 1133 MAPLE STREET. (WOOD). Planning Director Castro reviewed the proposed project and the recommended conditions of the Architectural Review Committee. He stated that, as noted in the past, the project will be an air space condominium project, and the densities are in conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. He further noted that the, parking requirements have been satisfied, and the recreational area has been substantially improved from the previous plan. Chairman Gorsline advised that the public hearing on Use Permit Case No. 81 -315 would now be continued. Upon hearing no comments for or against the pro- posed Use Permit, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Sebastian stated that the plan has changed somewhat since its original concept, and his biggest concern are the comments with respect to the concerns; of some of the citizens who are familiar with Mr. Wood's historical patterns in building projects in this community. Commissioner Sebastian stated, in his opinion, a project of this size does not need to be in any kind of phasing situation. He further stated he is concerned that there are no recreational facilities for the young people Commissioner Gerrish commented with regard to the phasing, that there are several existing parcels on the property now, and if Mr. Wood wanted to build three separate projects, there is nothing the Commission could do to stop him. He also pointed out that, as far as he is concerned, there is a master plan on the property and even though he doesn't particularly care for the phasing and the mixed use, he would have to go along with Mr. Castro's recommendation and approve the phasing concept. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 81 -809 U RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO. 81 -315. On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Pilkington and Chairman Gorsline NOES: Commissioners Fischer, Moots and Sebastian ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7th day of April 1981. Architectural Review Case No. 81 -239, 1133 Maple St. (Wood). After a brief discussion regarding the project plans, on motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and carried on a 4 to 3 vore, Architectural Review Case No. 81 -239 was denied as a phased project and because of the lack of a children's recreation area. 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -7 -81 Page 2 CONTINUATION - PUBLIC HEARING, PREZONING CASE NO. 81 -151, SHANNON RANCH, "P -M" PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AND "RA" RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL' DISTRICTS. Planning Director Castro stated that Mr. Tony Decker had called him the other day and indicated he was going to be out of town and wanted the matter to be continued to the April 21st meeting. He stated he had further information to present on the project and he also wanted to amend the plan. Mr. Castro advised, in his opinion, the Commission had three options; to continue the matter, to re- quest further environmental data; or deny or grant the application. In addition to the aforementioned options, they could adhere to their past policy indicating that they are opposed to any further annexation to the City. Mr. Castro noted that staff has not received any indications from the Council on resources plan- ning or addressing the annexation policy issue. In answer to Commissioner Pilkington's question as to how much of the II property is in agricultural preserve, Planning Director Castro advised it is his understanding that the entire ranch is in preserve. He further stated that he had discussed the matter with the County and it appears that if, at the time land is proposed for preserve, the City does not protest the preserve, then they lose their rights and the only people that could lift the preserve is the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Sebastian stated that the first step would be for the Board of Supervisors to lift the Agricultural Preserve before the Commission discusses the matter. He further stated he has two concerns at this point; (1) the concern regarding the Agricultural Preserve status of the property and, in his opinion, City Attorney Shipsey should give the Commission a recommendation on this partic- ular item as to what process they should follow; and (2) it is his feeling that a project of this magnitude is going to have such an impact on the future planning that he would recommend this item be continued until such time as the Commission is, advised by Mr. Shipsey as to what process they should be in at this time, and until such time as the City Council has made some decision about the future plan- ning process. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and unanimously carried, the matter was continued pend- ing receipt of a legal answer from the City Attorney, and until the Commission receives some sort of direction from the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 81 -316, CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH FACILITY IN THE "H -S" HIGHWAY SERVICE DISTRICT, 1198 GRAND AVE. (LACKEY). Planning Director Castro noted that there were concerns raised with regard to the noise factor, and also a letter was received from Mr. and Mrs. Paschall regarding the proximity of this use to his project, which is the condominium project the Commission approved for development behind the Jack -in -the Box Restaurant. Mr. Castro noted that in looking at the Noise Element, the 1981 figures indicate a reading of 60 -65 decibels and, in discussing the matter with Mr. Lackey, he advised that the specifications on the equipment indicate that the noise would be in a 60 -65 decibels range. Mr. Castro further stated that Mr. Lackey had advised him that the blower units will be installed underneath the ground, and that should decrease the noise level considerably. Mr. Castro noted that he had received a call from another party concerned about the recycling of the water. He advised the person calling that the City could police the recycling apparatus, but it is a matter of having the personnel to do so. He further pointed out that proper recycling of the water would be in the best interest of the applicant. Mr. Castro advised that other than the two above concerns, all other conditions would remain the same as previously recom- mended by the Architectural Review Committee. Upon being assured by Planning Director Castro that public hearing for Use Permit Case No. 81 -316 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing open. Bill Lackey, 877 Todd Lane, applicant for the Use Permit, briefly reviewed the proposed plans. He advised that the vacuum unit will be recessed into the ground, and if he runs the pipe underground in a concrete channel, it cuts the noise down about 7 or 8 decibels. Also, on the doors, he advised if they are cut down in size, the noise will be contained inside the building better, and the slump stone walls will absorb the noise inside the building itself. With regard to recycling the water, Mr. Lackey described the recycling apparatus, advising that the only new water that will be used will be the rinse water, and the rinse water is then used for wash water. 307 308 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -7 -81 Page 3 There being no further comments for or against the proposed Use Permit, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing closed, and the following action was taken: On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Gerrish, Moots, Pilkington, Sebastian and Chairman Gorsline NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7th day of April 1981. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 81 -74, REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM 90 FT. DEPTH REQUIREMENT IN AN "R -1" DISTRICT, 175 WALNUT STREET. (VAN BUSKIRK). Planning Director Castro advised that in accordance with the Commission's previous discussion, the Variance has been applied for, and staff recommends the granting of the Variance as depicted in the parcel map submitted by the applicant. Upon being assured by Planning Director Castro that Variance Case No. 81 -74 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing open. Mike Kington, 162 Walnut Street, stated he is concerned about the granting of the Variance and the addition of another dwelling back in there is going to increase the traffic, and he was also concerned about the additional noise the traffic will create. He requested that the Variance be denied. Bill Shear, 170 Walnut Street, and Bernice May, 154 Walnut Street, stated they were concerned about the congestion and increase in traffic, and were opposed to the Variance being granted. There being no further comments for or against the proposed Variance, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing closed. Planning Director Castro advised it is his understanding that there will be a document recorded stating that Mr. Van Buskirk does have the right to use the 30 ft. easement adjacent to the property. He further stated that the variation in depth is approximately 2.75 ft.; the Ordinance requirement is 90 ft. Commissioner Cole stated that the services are already existing and the approval will not require any additional services in the City, and one of the things the Commission has been talking about is utilizing what we already have in the City of Arroyo Grande. She commented also that this is not much of a variance and she feels that the land should be utilized. Commissioner Sebastian stated that one of the reasons the Variance procedure requires a public hearing is to allow the public a chance to speak, and tonight he has heard people speaking againstlthe Variance for various environmental reasons, therefore, he feels it is his duty to deny the Variance based on the fact that people are taking their due process by saying they do not want the ordinance violated. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: On motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RESOLUTION NO. 81 -810 U RESOLUTION OF. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO. 81 -316.. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -811 V RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 81 -74. Commissioners Fischer and Sebastian Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Moots, Pilkington and Chairman. Gorsline None the foregoing Resolution was defeated this 7th day of April 1981. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -7 -81 Page 4 After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 81 -812 V RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 81 -74. On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Moots, Pilkington and Chairman Gorsline NOES: Commissioners Fischer and Sebastian ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7th day of April 1981. Lot Split Case No. 81 -349, 175 Walnut Street. (Van Buskirk). Planning Director Castro reviewed the recommended conditions of approval. He noted that 'Mr. Van Buskirk had indicated he had two letters giving him approval for the easements, and that an, additional condition should be that those be re- corded prior to recordation of the final map. After a brief discussion with regard to the Request for Negative Dec- laration, the following action was taken: REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS: RESOLUTION NO. 81 -813 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION. On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Gerrish, Moots, Pilkington and Chairman Gorsline NOES: Commissioner Sebastian ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7th day of April 1981. After further discussion, Lot Split Case No. 81 -349 was approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, and the requirement that the ease- ment be recorded prior to recordation of the final map, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, and carried with two "no" votes. Lot Split Case No.. 80 -341, 1038 Fair Oaks Ave.. - Resubmittal. (Baur). Planning Director Castro advised that the Commission had previously reviewed the subject split and, since that time, they have adopted a policy of a 25 ft. roadway being capable of serving 4 lots. He .further advised that the plan has been reviewed by the Minor Subdivision Review Committee, and approval is recommended subject to the four conditions noted in the staff report. Commissioner Sebastian stated that it appears the residence is within 8 ft. of the garage, and the garage is now being served off of the street and, therefore, approximately 8 ft. would be coming off of that easement and that becomes the front yard unless it is changed. Planning Director Castro pointed out that one of the concerns the Commission had when the matter was discussed a few meetings ago was that none of the maps that were coming in were adequate for review. He pointed out also that when lot lines are created, the setback line requirements have to be met. Commissioner Sebastian also noted that it appears the 110 ft. line is going to have to be deeper because he has 18 ft. now and a 15 ft. garage, and the line will probably have to be moved further back to accomplish what the applicant wants to accomplish. Commissioner Gerrish suggested that the Commission either approve or disapprove the basic concept with the requirement that an engineered map be re- submitted and referred to the Planning Commission for final approval. After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and carried with one "no" vote, Lot Split Case 81 -341 was approved subject to the conditions noted in the staff report, and the requirement that an engineered map be referred to the Planning Commission for final approval. 304 0 RESOLUTION NO. 81 -814 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION. On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Gerrish, Moots, Pilkington, Sebastian and Chairman Gorsline NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7th day of April 1981. Lot Split Case No. 81 -351, Cherry Avenue - Lot Line Adjustment. (Pryor). Planning Director Castro briefly reviewed the proposed lot line adjust- ment. He noted that there is no problem with the actual lot size, and the set- backs will conform. He advised that staff is recommending approval of the proposal and there are no conditions being recommended on this lot line adjustment. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No. 81 -351 was approved.. as recommended. . Lot Split Case No. 81 -352, 271 Tally Ho Road. (Ped). Planning Director Castro reviewed the proposed split and the four con- ditions of approval recommended by the Subdivision Review Committee. He advised that the easement is already existing and, other than the four conditions, staff had no other concerns regarding the proposed split. After discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 81 -815 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION. Page 5 On motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Gerrish, Moots, Pilkington, Sebastian and Chairman Gorsline NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7th day of April 1981. There being no further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, and unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No. 81 -352 was approved subject to the four conditions noted in the staff report. Lot Split Case No. 81 - 355, Printz Road - Lot Line Adjustment.. (White) Planning Director Castro reviewed the proposed lot line adjustment, pointing out that Mr. White would like to erase a lot line and create the lot as shown because of view and the solar equipment he wants to add to the resi- dence. He further advised that, in talking to City Attorney Shipsey, he is opposed to the proposal because it does not conform to the "R -S" District. He. stated the only other alternative would be to ask the applicant to submit the. plan under the Optional Design Standards. This would allow Mr. White, subject to the approval of the Planning Commission, a lot area less than re- quired by the District, provided that the density does not exceed the require- ments: of that zoning category. Mr. White, applicant for the lot line adjustment, advised the Commission that they are trying to have the site where it would be most beneficial and most aesthetic. Commissioner Fischer commented that, in her opinion, this proposed adjustment does not change the intent that the Commission had when they granted the original lot split. 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -7 -81 Page 6 Mr. Castro stated that under the Optional Design Standards, the Commission can vary the lot sizes, but not increase the density. He further stated he wanted to get direction from the Commission first and then talk to Mr. Shipsey. After discussion, Chairman Gorsline advised that the matter would be continued pending further discussion between Mr. Castro and Mr. COMMUNICATIONS. Mr. Castro advised that Mr. Saruwatari has requested that the approval granted on Parcel Map No. AG 80 -38, lot line adjustment, be extended for a period of one year. On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried, granting a one year extension on Parcel Map No. AG 80 -38. Planning Director Castro referred addressed to the Planning Commission from extension on Tract No. 854, a condominium motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by carried, granting a one year extension on to a letter, dated April 1, 1981, Mr. Paul Sturges requesting a one year office project on Juniper Street. On Commissioner Fischer, and unanimously Tract No. 854. Mr. Castro referred to a letter from Mike and Gayle McClain, dated March 20:, 1981, requesting a Home Occupation Permit to groom dogs on a part time basis. He noted that the letter indicates the. applicants will pick up and deliver the dogs so there will not be any additional traffic to and from the residence at. 310. Allen Street. On motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, and unanimously carried, Mr. Castro was authorized to grant adminis- trative approval for a Home Occupation Permit as requested. With regard to the Payless Drug Store to be constructed in the shopping center at Courtland and Grand Avenue, Mr. Castro advised that one of the con- ditions of approval was that there be nomechanical equipment on the roof. When the plans came in for approval, it was noted by the building inspector that they are proposing a. screening device, which basically are panels that will be in- stalled around the unit so that when you look at it from the street side, you are going to see a finished side; however, from the apartment units, you would be able to see the units on top of the roof. Commissioner Sebastian suggested that the matter be brought back at the next meeting and have it superimposed on an elevation to find out what it is going to look like. Planning Director Castro referred to a drawing of a sign proposed for the Shoe Box on Branch Street. He stated he advised Santa Maria Neon that he is concerned with truck parking of any height and with a sign projecting into the public right of way, and he would prefer a flat sign. After discussion, the request for the described sign was denied. Mr. Castro read a letter from Mr. Rex Daniel, dated April 4, 1981 re- questing. permission to erect a prefabricated tool and storage shed to be placed 5 ft. from the rear property line. After discussion, the Commission granted approval o : =p1 e a= tbol=.arid= storage- sheds- 5 :.ft. from the rear property line at 305 Whiteley St. as per plot plan submitted. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 10.:00 P.M. ATTEST: Secretary Chairman 311