Loading...
PC Minutes 1980-08-19ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION August 19, 1980 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Gorsline presiding. Present are Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Moots, Pilkington and Sebastian. Commissioner Gerrish is absent. Planning Director Castro is also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL Upon hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meetings of July 1, 1980, July 15, 1980 and August 5, 1980 were approved as prepared on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, and unanimously carried. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 1980 -81. Chairman Gorsline advised that this matter would be continued to the next meeting when, hopefully, the full Commission will be present. ARCHITECTURAL . .BFVIEW CASE NO. 80 -230, COURTLAND AND GRAND AVENUE, CONSTRUCTION OF SAVINGS AND LOAN FACILITY. (FIDELITY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOC.) Planning Director Castro reviewed the final plans for the new Fidelity Savings and Loan office to be located in the new shopping center at Courtland and Grand Avenue. Mr. Castro noted that the Architectural Review Committee found no objections, and recommended approval subject to the conditions noted in the staff report, dated August 14, 1980. After a brief review, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Com- missioner Sebastian, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No. 80 -230 was approved, subject to the three conditions noted in the staff report dated August 14, 1980. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 80 -69, ENCROACHMENT AND RETENTION OF PATIO COVER, 826 CREEKSIDE DRIVE. (LEONARD). Planning Director Castro reviewed that a few months ago he had approached the Commission for authorization to administratively approve Mr. Leonard's en- croachment problem, and the Commission had granted that authority, provided there was harmony by the immediately affected neighbors. Mr. Castro pointed out the reason for the Variance being before the Commission is that there is one neighbor to the rear of Mr. Leonard's property that has objected to the patio cover as con- structed. Mr. Castro further pointed out that Mr. Leonard was advised that before any construction of the patio cover takes place that he should receive approval from the Planning Director's office and obtain a building permit. This, Mr. Leonard did not do, but proceeded with the improvements. Upon investigation, it was found that the patio was not in compliance with the 10 ft. setback requirements, and the Variance was suggested as a means of making Mr. Leonard's addition legal. He further stated that, regardless of whether the patio cover is in compliance with the setback requirements or not, the adjoining neighbor to the rear would be seeing the same detail of construction as currently built. He stated that the problem for the majority of these properties is the condition where the properties on Forest Glen are generally higher than those on Creekside Drive and, therefore, whatever is constructed on the lower elevation lots, there will be sight ob- structions and the views are not going to be the same as before. Upon being assured by Planning Director Castro that public hearing for Variance Case No. 80 -69 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing open. Mr. John Faulkner, 825 Forest Flen, stated he is the person that made the complaint on the structure. He stated when he built his home, he was told to stay 10 ft. from the fence; further, he paid good money for that lot and he doesn't want to look at that 40 ft. structure in front of him. Mr. Oliver Branch, 809 Forest Glen, stated, in his opinion, it seems a building code is not a great deal of protection for those who build their houses in conformance with it, when somebody else comes along and can apply for a Variance for some- thing that is built that does not conform to the code. Mr. Castro stated that anyone has a right to apply for a Variance; whether that Variance is granted or not is up to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Faulkner, 825 Forest Glen, stated that if one property owner can have a Variance, then another neighbor can have one too, and their concern is they don't want to see the neighborhood have just anything put up. Mr. Leonard, 826 Creekside Drive, stated that the hedge he has planted will outgrow :the damage that these people think he has done. He stated that Mr. Faulkner's deck is almost eye level with the top of his fence, and his hedge will be up above the arbor in probably 2 to 2 -1/2 years at the most and will be leveled off to where they won't see anything except the hedge. He 237 %38 Arroyo Grande. Planning Commission, 8 -19 -80 Page 2 further stated he likes his privacy; also, when the hedge gets up to its proper height, he will take out the part that the neighbors are objecting to. Upon hearing no further comments from the audience, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing closed. The general consensus of the Commission was that Mr. Leonard was wrong to proceed with the structure without obtaining a building permit. However, since the structure will be covered in a few years when the hedge is fully grown, and because the structure is not "rinky -dink" in looks, they were in support of the Variance. Commissioner Fischer stated she had a problem accepting something just because it has already been built. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 80 -761 V RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 80 -69. On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Sebastian, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Cole, Moots, Sebastian and Chairman Gorsline Commissioners Fischer and Pilkington Commissioner Gerrish the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of August 1980. PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUATION - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 80 -300, 28 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT IN THE "R -G" GARDEN APARTMENT DISTRICT, 1133 MAPLE STREET. (WOOD). Planning Director Castro recommended that this item be continued to the next meeting. He advised that the architect came in today with the revised plans and there were no changes. Further, he will contact the architect the first week in September to see if anything can be done about the plans to reflect the Commission's concerns. Chairman Gorsline advised that the matter would be con- tinued to the next Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 80 -302, AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP IN THE "H -S" HIGHWAY SERVICE DISTRICT, 1375 GRAND AVENUE. (KORANDA). .Planning Director.Castro advised that the Use Permit application of Mr. Koranda is to permit the operation of an automobile exchange business at 1375 Grand Avenue. He further advised that the existing facilities consist of an old house which has been converted to.an office facility, and parking has been provided adjacent to the office. He stated he would recommend that the number of cars be restricted.to not more than 7, as indicated on the plan. Upon being assured by Planning Director Castro that public hearing for Use Permit Case No. 80 -302 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing open. Mrs. Myrtle Berry, 1355 Grand Avenue, stated she has been at the same address a long time and, in her opinion, it is not necessary to have a parking lot right there. Planning Director Castro pointed out that the property is zoned for Commercial use and would be no different than the Commercial use that she has on her property. Mr. Craig Smith, Architect representing the applicant, stated.that the.parking lot is already an existing paved area, and that the entire project is a low key operation. He further stated, if nothing else, it will be a face lift to the existing eye sore. Mr. Kevin Koranda, applicant for the Use Permit, explained that the operation is primarily a wholesale outlet, where the turn over period for the cars is usually from one to three days. He further commented that the biggest thing that is being pursued here is the office space.. Upon hearing no further comments, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 80 -762 U RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO. 80 -302. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 8 -19 -80 Page 3 On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Moots, Pilkington, Sebastian and Chairman Gorsline NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Gerrish the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of August 1980. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 80 -68, REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN DRIVEWAY WIDTH, 222 MC'KINLEY STREET. (FULLER). Planning Director Castro advised that the applicant, Mr. Fuller, has re- quested that this matter be continued to the next meeting. The Commission granted Mr. Fuller's request for continuance of the Variance to the next meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - PREZONING CASE NO. 80 -138, PROPERTIES TO BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. (MESSERS. STERNBERGH, GARING AND FILER). Planning Director Castro briefly reviewed the three properties to be annexed to the City. He advised that at this time staff is considering "R -1" zoning for the Sternbergh property, and "R -G" zoning for the filer property. With regard to the Garing property,' Mr. Castro advised the applicants would like to proceed with a development comparable to Tiger Tail Drive, which is zoned "P -D ", and as he has previously indicated, that would require a 10 acre minimum; however, staff would suggest the "R -2" zoning if the Commission feels they would want the same type of project as in the Tiger Tail development. Mr. Castro pointed out that the Commission should keep in mind that some of the lots on Chilton are capable of being divided; they are roughly one acre in size, and with the "R -1" District, at least 3 to 4 building sites per acre could be created. 'Planning Director Castro advised that the notice of pre- zoning of these properties were published in the newspaper, posted and the affected property owners notified. However, if the Commission feels that the adjoining property owners should be notified of the action, then he suggested that the matter be continued to the next meeting. After discussion, it was the feeling of the Commission that they would like to have the property owners adjacent to each of the properties in question notified of the public hearing on these pre - zoning applications. Chairman Gorsline advised that the public hearing would be continued to the next meeting so that notices could be sent to all property owners within a 300 ft. radius of the affected properties. 'LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 80 -334, PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN NOYES ROAD AND TALLY HO ROAD, SOUTH PRINTZ ROAD. (LACKEY). Planning Director Castro advised that the map before the Commission proposes to divide the 18 acres into four lots, and that the zoning is consistent with the "R -S" District endorsed by the Commission several months ago. He further ad- vised that the City Engineer and himself reviewed the former requirements of the property where there were more lots involved and a Focus Report was recommended. Staff now feels that, due to the reduction in lots and the size of the lots now being proposed, that the Focus Report has no further bearing in this case. Mr. Castro stated the Subdivision Review Committee had reviewed the matter and re- commended approval, subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report dated August 14, 1980. In response to Commissioner Sebastian's concerns regarding the road improve- ment and drainage, Planning Director Castro advised that he and City Engineer Karp had discussed the requirements of the drainage plan and, in his opinion, Mr. Karp was of the opinion that when we look at that, we will be determining more the im- provements of the street. He stated that, in making the recommendations, they were merely trying to address the minimum width improvements of that road to be 28 ft., however, there will definitely be some requirements, and the drainage is something that we would like to see and bring back to the Commission to determine how these concerns can be worked out. Commissioner Sebastian stated he thinks the drainage plan is something that should be looked at, especially as to how it leaves the property. Another concern he had was that when the Commission looked at this when the petitioner wanted to put 28 lots in there, we were extremely concerned about the availability of water and, in his opinion, those items that the Commission was concerned about in the Focus Report for 28 units are no less important in the area of water and sanitation than for this particular layout. He stated he feels that these are real concerns, 239 ' 0 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 8 -19 -80 Page 4 and although he doesn't see a full blown Focus Report, he would like to see a test well be done. Also, if the developer is going to consider septic tanks, he should come in with an Engineering Soils Report now before it goes to the City Council. Chairman Gorsline stated he was in agreement with Commissioner Sebastian, noting that one of the stipulations when the District was approved was that there would be no community well systems. He stated that if the developer is going to develop the property, he has got to prove going into it that he can not only take care of the sewage, but prove that he is going to provide water for each and every one of those lots. Mr. Bill Langworthy, Printz Road, stated he would have no objections to the split, but he would share Commissioner Sebastian's comments, and that the water out there tends to be very good on the Printz Road side of the hill, quite plentiful, and rather sparce on the side of the ridge that this parcel of land is on. He suggested that one way to solve the problem might be to make issuance of the building permit conditioned on a successful test well and percolation test for each of the four lots. Planning Director Castro advised that this is what is being recommended. Mr. Castro stated he shares the concerns of Mr. Langworthy and Commissioner Sebastian, but he doesn't see the density factor, which was a real factor in the division of this property and the concerns we had with water and sewer. He further stated that staff has not changed their minds, in that they do not want a community well system, and Mr. Lackey still has to prove that there is water available for each lot, and the septic tank systems have to be engineered. He pointed out if these. concerns cannot be resolved, then Mr. Lackey would either have to connect to City services, or not develop the property. Commissioner Sebastian stated he would like to see that the concerns regarding water and sewer are resolved before the request is approved. Planning Director Castro advised that the Commission has no other alternative other than to approve the map subject to sewer and water requirements, and that the City Council are the only ones that can exempt the development from City services. After considerable discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 80 -763 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION. On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Moots, Pilkington, Sebastian and Chairman Gorsline NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Gerrish the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of August 1980. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, and unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No. 80 -334 was approved subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report, dated August 14, 1980, with Items 2 and 5 amended by the Planning Commission as follows: 2. That fire protection shall be subject to the approval of the Fire Chief, and that specific storage requirements for fire fighting purposes be based on the recommendation of the Fire Chief. 5. ADD LAST SENTENCE: "That all of those conditions noted above shall occur prior to final map approval." LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 80 -332, 299 MILLER WAY. (SAN LUIS ENGINEERING, AGENTS FOR 'HILLTOP ASSOCIATES.) Planning Director Castro advised that the only change from the original map was that the corner had been eliminated and is being cut on an angle. Mr. Castro briefly reviewed the recommended conditions of approval as noted in the staff report dated August 14, 1980. In reviewing the parcel map, Commissioner Sebastian stated, in his opinion, a major impact will result in getting a road around to the building site. Planning Director Castro advised that a drainage and grading plan is being required and, if the Commission is concerned as to Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 8 -19 -80 ' . _ Page 5 how the road is going to look cut into the side of that hill, they might want to ask for a cross section.' Mitch Walker', Engineer for the applicant, stated that the concerns could be resolved. depending on :how the is handled, and. suggested that landscaping and bank treatment plans be. added as a condition of approval prior'to the issuance of a building permit. After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington motion carried with Commissioner Sebastian voting' "no ", and Gorsline abstaining, approving Lot Split Case No. 80 -332,. subject to the conditions noted in the staff report dated August 14, 1980, amended by the Planning Commission by adding Condition #5 as follows: 5. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant or builder shall provide cross section and treatment plan for the access road to Parcel B. REVIEW OF HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL - PLAN. Planning Director Castro referred to copies of the Guidelines the . Department of Housing and Community Development, which he had forwarded to the Commission, and a letter from the Architectural Department at Cal Poly, making reference to the Flair Housing letter received by the City several weeks ago. He suggested that be discussed in a study session on the Housing Element of the General Plan. After a brief discussion, it was agreed by the Commission that a study session on the Housing Element be set for Tuesday; September 30th at P.M. Planning Director Castro advised that he would not be present for the next Commission meeting of September 2nd; and noted that perhaps some of the - Commissioners may also be absent because of the Labor Day holiday. After a brief . discussion, the regular Planning Commission meeting of September 2, 1980 was " cancelled, and a special study session set for Tuesday, September 30, 1980 at 7:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT 'There no further business the the was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. to a special study on Tuesday, September - 30, 1980. • _ Chairman 241