PC Minutes 1981-01-06282
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 6, 1981
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman
Gorsline presiding. Present are Commissioners Gerrish, Cole, Fischer, 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 December 16, 1980
were approved as prepared.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 80 -234, OFFICE COMPLEX, GRAND AVE. (BOB LACKEY).
Planning Director Castro advised that the Architectural Review Committee
found no serious objections to the proposal as submitted by Mr. Lackey and
recommended that the project be approved subject to the two conditions noted
in the staff report, dated January 2, 1981. He pointed out that the only
concern expressed by staff was the fact that there are specimen trees shown
within the parking area that should be noted on the plans to determine if they
can be saved and, if they happen to fall within the parking stalls, then he
would prefer to have the parking stall eliminated. Mr. Castro further advised
that he has discussed the matter with City Engineer Karp and he feels that if
the property can be drained on to Grand Avenue and on to Elm Street, then we
have no problems. If it doesn't drain in that direction, then ponding will be
required. He further noted that one of'the conditions of"approval.would..
tentative grading and drainage plans be submitted to the Public Works Department
for approval.
Commissioner Sebastian pointed out that in this case where the structures
are on the lot line, there is a potential conflict with the adjacent property.
He noted that the way this project is presented, they have the building structures
on lot line, so if they get elevation to create drainage to Grand Avenue, that
means that particular wall has to have a footing which goes on the adjacent
property line and, therefore, the plans as presented are going to. have to en-
croach on to the adjacent property. Planning Director Castro stated that the
options to the developer and the City are to either obtain an easement, raise
the property, or ponding. Commissioner Sebastian stated he would like a recom-
mendation through staff to make sure that no parking is allowed for at least
20 or 25 ft. on either side of the driveway because of the velocity of the
traffic coming off of Elm Street.
Marilyn Leek, representing Mr. Lackey, submitted a set of prints showing
the location of the trees. Commissioner Cole stated that since staff is aware
of the trees, it is her feeling that the matter can be handled administratively.
After considerable discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded
by Commissioner Gerrish, and carried on a 4 to 3 vote, Architectural Review
Case No. 80 -234 was approved subject to the two conditions listed in the staff
report, dated January 2, 1981, and the conditions noted below as follows:
1. That the specimen trees be given consideration and saved if
possible.
2. That grading and drainage plans be subject to Department of
Public Works approval.
3. That landscaping and irrigation plans be submitted for approval
by the Planning Department.
DISCUSSION REGARDING FLAG LOTS
Planning Director Castro briefly reviewed the staff report regarding flag
lots. He advised that he and City Engineer Karp had discussed the matter and
both had concluded that they would prefer flag lots wherever possible, but
separated rather than overlapped. He stated - i:t .iS: being'siiggested-that :the
area of the lot be included as part of the entire lot area rather than separated.
Mr. Castro advised that on a 3 lot split, staff would recommend separate
flag lots wherever possible, except where terrain warrants alternatives, or
where the City may request controlled access to the street; and where easements
are together, staff is recommending they overlap one another so that both
property owners have a common easement. He stated if the Commission wants to
make a condition where they are overlapped, and they are satisfied with 20 or
25 ft., that is up to the Commission.
On a four lot split, Mr. Castro advised that staff is suggesting. the
Commission require 15 ft. easements on the side to open the two lots in the
rear, and having the minimum street frontage to provide for two lots in the
front. He further advised that staff is suggesting that rather than combine
Arroyo Grande. Planning Commission, 1 -6 -81 Page 2
easements as has been done in the past, that the easements be separated to avoid
conflicts with either property owner, or improvements or fencing considerations.
Mr. Castro noted that the above proposals may not work all of the time, and that
is where the Commission might want to deviate from the standard policy and -grant
a Variance, which provides that flexibility in special cases. He advised the
Commission that staff would like to have their recommendation on some policy
statement that can be addressed to the City Council and included as part of the
Subdivision requirements.
Commissioner Sebastian stated he feels that 12 -1/2 ft. is acceptable,
but 15 ft. seems to be an extra 2 -1/2 ft. that, in his opinion, will cause a
lot of problems. He further stated he was thinking more of a policy that would
say something more like if we are going to serve two to four residences, there is
a minimum easement, and how it is divided becomes a legal question; whereas, staff
is saying they should be overlapping accesses. He stated it is his feeling that
if you have two or more single family residences served by one driveway, a 25 ft.
easement is adequate to serve up to four. In other words, we don't need any more
than two reasonable lanes to serve two or more residences.
Jim McGillisT, 1142 Sunset Drive, stated an alternative to what the staff
suggested is to make that an easement rather than a flag lot. He suggested that
anytime you have more than a single, a 20 ft. access to serve two, three or four
is plenty. As far as serving single family residences on a driveway situation,
he stated it is his opinion that 10 ft. is plenty.
Chairman Gorsline reviewed the staff recommendations are for 15 ft. ease-
ments and separate flags wherever possible, and that those flags be counted as
part of the lot area. The other suggestion has been that we have 12 -1/2 ft.
common easements, and that 25 ft. serve up to four lots.
After considerable discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish,
seconded by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, that the Commission accept
the staff's recommendations as a policy, with the exception that the 15 ft. flag
requirement be changed to read 12 -1/2 ft.; excluding the requirement that the
flag area be included in the determination of the minimum lot size; that a 25 ft.
easement be adequate to serve up to four lots, but that the developer provide some
method for maintaining that easement, whether through a Homeowners' Association
or some other instrument ; aiendinroad" improvements to read "driveway"
improvements.
LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 80 -341, 1038 FAIR OAKS AVENUE. (BAUR).
Commissioner Sebastian pointed out that there is a major discrepancy on
the tentative map as submitted, in that the 217.13 ft. on the left property line
must be an error by 100 ft. or more and, in his opinion, the map should be cleaned
up and re- submitted. Mr. Baur stated that the map was only preliminary to see if
it would be acceptable and he would have it re- drawn.
After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner
Cole, and unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No. 80 -341 was continued pending sub-
mittal of revised map.
LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 80 -334, SO. OF PRINTZ ROAD - REVIEW OF REALIGNMENT OF ACCESS
ROAD. (LACKEY).
Planning Director Castro advised that the Subdivision Review Committee met
on Mr. Lackey's realignment for the frontage road dividing the 18 acres off of
Printz Road, and found no objections to the proposal as submitted. He further
noted that the same conditions that applied to the original approval would apply
to the resubmittal.
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by
Commissioner Gerrish, and carried, approving the road realignment as submitted,
subject to the original conditions of Lot Split Case No. 80 -334.
CONTINUATION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 80 -337, TALLY HO ROAD. (LA VINE).
Planning Director Castro briefly reviewed the proposed split and the concerns
of the Planning Commission regarding the previous split into four lots, and whether
the property now being requested for a lot split is under the same ownership, or if
a transfer of ownership has been completed. There was also a concern regarding the
number of easements previously allowed on the original lot split.
Commissioner Sebastian stated, in view of the new policy just adopted by
the Planning Commission, the applicant may want to adjust the map.
283
284
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -6 -81 Page 3
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded
by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No. 80 -337 was
continued pending , submr . tta2 of a revised map.
CONTINUATION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 80 -340, FAIR OAKS AVENUE, BETWEEN WALNUT AND ELM
STREETS. (CONKLIN).
Planning Director Castro reviewed that staff still feels the cul -de -sac
is inadequate for fire protection and that a 40 ft. radius is necessary; also,
that the 60 ft. diameter is totally unacceptable. After discussion, the petitioner,
Mr. Conklin, requested that the matter be continued so that the map can be revised.
On motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and unanimously
carried, Lot Split Case No. 80 -340 was continued pending submittal of a revised map.
SUBDIVISION REVIEW - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 950, 1259 FARROLL AVENUE, 22 UNIT CONDO-
MINIUM PROJECT. (FULLER /DAVINO).
Planning Director Castro advised that the Subdivision Review had
met on the subject Tract Map for the Marlo West development. He briefly reviewed
the recommended conditions of approval noted in the staff report, dated January 2,
1981.
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by
Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, Tentative Tract Map No. 950 was ap-
proved subject to the recommended conditions listed in staff report, dated
January 2, 1981.
LETTER OF REQUEST FROM GROVER CITY RE: DEANNEXATION OF CORNER OF FRONTAGE ROAD
AND OAK PARK BOULEVARD FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A MOTEL.
Planning Director Castro recommended that this matter be continued and
that the City of Grover be instructed to provide the City with development plans
of the property. He stated that the staff's concerns are with the drainage and
circulation, and they would like to review the plan before making a recommendation
to the Commission.
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and
unanimously carried, the matter was continued pending receipt of plans of the
proposed project.
LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 80 -332, 299 MILLER - REVIEW OF DRAINAGE PLANS.
Planning Director Castro advised that when Commissioners Sebastian and
Moots were members of the Lot Split Committee, they had approved the realignment
of the subject lot split, and one of the concerns they had was the drainage taking
place from Lot B and the manner in which it would be drained through an easement.
He further advised that the applicant's engineer has provided the City with the
engineering data on it. He stated he has reviewed the data and is satisfied
with it, but would like to show it to the City Engineer for his review and
approval. Mr. Castro recommended that the lot line adjustment be approved subject
to City Engineer Karp's agreement with the drainage concept.
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by
Commissioner Sebastian, and unanimously carried, the revised tentative parcel map
was approved subject to the original conditions, and subject to City Engineer
Karp's agreement with the drainage concept.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION - TRACT NO. 824, OAK PARK ACRES. (LOS PADRES ENGINEERING)
Planning Director Castro advised that Los Padres Engineers have requested
a 12 month extension on Tract No. 824, which is Lot 11 of the Oak Park development.
He further advised that this is the last undeveloped portion on top of the. hill.
He stated that the map has not changed and the developers anticipate that the
improvements will probably be in this spring, and staff is recommending approval
of the extension subject to the original conditions.
After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded
Pilkington, and unanimously carried, granting a 12 month extension on
Lot 11 of Oak Park Acres.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the C ssion,
adjourned by the Chairman at 10:30 P.M.
ATTEST: / ,0 0 h,
Secretary
l v�t.4 f
4(PP_
by Commissioner
Tract No. 824,
eting was