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