Loading...
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