PC Minutes 1980-03-04ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 4, 1980
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman
Gorsline presiding. Present are Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Sebastian and Simmons.
Commissioners Carr and Moots are absent. Planning Director Castro is also in
attendance.
MINUTE APPROVAL
On motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and
unanimously carried, the minutes of the regular meetings of February 5, 1980 and
February 19, 1980 were approved as prepared.
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 80 -216, PROPOSED COMMUNITY
SHOPPING CENTER, FRONTING ON GRAND AVENUE AND EASTERLY OF COURTLAND STREET.
(CENTRAL COAST SHOPPING CENTERS, INC.).
Planning Director Castro advised that the Architectural Review Committee had
reviewed and endorsed the project, subject to the 12 conditions noted in the report
dated February 27, 1980. Mr. Bill Gerrish, petitioner for the project, was present
and briefly described the project and presented a color board for the Commission's
review. Planning Director Castro advised that there are street improvements to be
resolved; there are future widening and improvements on the easterly side of the
shopping area on Courtland Street and new curb openings may be required on Grand
Avenue, depending on the final development plan.
COMMISSIONER CARR ENTERED THE MEETING DURING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION.
Commissioner Sebastian advised he was present at the Architectural Review
Meeting. He stated that the fencing was discussed and the Committee felt it would
be best to leave the area open on the side and behind the drug store to facilitate
the flow of traffic out of the store area. In response to Mr. Langworthy's question
regarding the number of parking spaces, Planning Director Castro advised 469 spaces
are being provided, and that 451(spaces are required by the Ordinance.
In answer to Commissioner Carr's question if a Request for Negative
Declaration had been submitted on the project, Planning Director Castro advised
that the determination was resolved during the General Plan Amendment and Rezon-
ing of the property to Highway Service District.
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by
Commissioner Fischer, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No. 80-
216 was approved, subject to the 12 conditions as noted in Architectural Review
Committee Action, dated February 27, 1980.
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 80 -217, PROPOSED ADDITION
TO APEX SAW SHOP, BELL STREET. (PANELLA CONSTRUCTION).
Planning Director Castro advised this matter is to be continued pending the
submittal of a Variance request by the applicant because of the inadequate parking.
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 80 -328, PLATINO LANE, TRACT 538,
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. (GRANT).
Planning Director Castro reviewed the conditions listed in the Minor Sub-
division Committee Action, dated February 27, 1980. Commissioner Fischer in-
quired if there is a way to verify that both property owners involved in the lot
line adjustment are in agreement with the action. Planning Director Castro advised
that Mr. and Mrs. Ron Grant are owners of Lot #1 and Coker Ellsworth is the owner
of Lot #2, and Messers. Grant and Ellsworth were in partnership in the development
of the tract.
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by
Commissioner Carr, and unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No. 80 -328 was con-
tinued pending verification that both property owners are in agreement with the
proposed lot line adjustment.
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS - CONTINUATION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 80 -324, 217 AND 215
PEARWOOD AVENUE, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. (LEMON).
Planning Director Castro referred to the map submitted by Mr. Lemon showing
the topography of the subject property. He also noted that the Commissioner's had
received in their packets copies of the previous approvals granted to Mr. Lemon.
Mr. Castro further referred to the Inventory and Evaluation Report, prepared by
Mr. Clark Moore, dated 11- 14 -75, stating "...the two housing sites proposed in the
low north corner joining Pearwood Lane may also be constructed during the winter
season with proper precautions..." Mr. Castro stated he didn't see any restriction
or condition that would prohibit the development of that property subject to proper
grading, permits, and plan review at that time.
189
S Q
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -4 -80 Page 2
Commissioner Sebastian stated that at the Minor Subdivision Review Com-
mittee Meeting when this matter was reviewed, it was requested that the signature
of both property owners appear on the map. Planning Director Castro stated, in
his opinion, the signatures would be required at the time the final map is pre-
pared. Mr. Castro stated, with regard to Item #2 of the Minor Subdivision Com-
mittee Action, dated February 13, 1980, that staff was merely trying to make the
Commission aware that if the lot line adjustment is allowed, which is a legal lot,
there should be recognition that there will be some grading needed for the develop-
ment of that lot.
Mr. Clark Moore stated he had prepared the Inventory & Evaluation Report,
dated November 14, 1975 at the request of Mr. Glen Felmlee, City Construction
Inspector, to point out the hazards of that hill. Mr. Moore briefly reviewed
the report for the Commission, commenting that the building site at the bottom
of the hill, as far as they were concerned, wouldn't do much damage to anything,
however, they were concerned about the steep slopes and any fill or cut areas
on those slopes and, as indicated in his report, it could be built on in the
winter time with the proper precautions, which included a lot of things that most
people don't want to do. Mr. Moore further stated that before a large earth
moving operation is taken on that hill, that a lab like the one in San Luis
Obispo should come in and bore some deep holes and evaluate. He noted it is a
difficult place to be built, but it can be done.
Commissioner Sebastian stated, after looking at this matter very care-
fully, in his opinion, he believes that since Page 2 is a part of Page 1 of Lot
Split Case #75 -227, of Lot Split Committee Action, dated December 22, 1975, and
the Inventory and Evaluation Report was incorporated with the conditions at that
time, he feels there would be no problems with the lot line adjustment so long
as the conditions are maintained as determined on December 22, 1975.
Commissioner Cole stated she was one of the members on the Committee at
the time the lot split was considered and there were a lot of things going on
and a lot of audience participation. She stated it was very involved at that
time. She further stated, in her opinion, that if the Inventory and Evaluation
that was requested by Mr. Felmlee can be made a part of the conditions of the
lot line adjustment, .then the concern is pretty well covered. Planning Director
Castro pointed out that a grading plan will have to be submitted prior to the
issuance of a building permit, and the City Engineer will have to come back - to
the original conditions of that split.
Mr. Lemon, applicant, stated that the purpose of this meeting is a lot
line adjustment on Pearwood. He stated it is relatively flat and he doesn't
understand what all the discussion is about; it is only a minor lot line adjust-
ment between two "R -1" properties on Pearwood. Commissioner Simmons stated, in
her opinion, it is not the lot line adjustment the Commission is objecting to;
they are objecting to Item #2 of the Lot Split Committee Action as a condition.
Commissioner Sebastian stated that he feels O.K. with that; now he understands
what the conditions are, and the fact that the Soils Conservation Report is a
part of the conditions, therefore, he has no qualms with the lot line adjustment
so long as those conditions are still maintained. He further pointed out that a
house can be constructed there; there will be excavation and it will be approved
by the Public Works Department, but all of that excavation will be removed from
the site, and the existing slopes will be maintained by some sort of a structure.
Commissioner Carr suggested the possibility of adding a condition that the
final plans be brought back to the Commission for review and approval of the
structure to be built; also a condition to require a soils report if the structure
is going to be placed on top of the hill instead of the bottom.
After further discussion, Commissioner Carr moved to delete Item #2 from
Minor Subdivision Committee Action, dated February 13, 1980, and include a
condition that a soils report be provided if a structure is to be built on top
of the hill on Parcel 4; and include a condition that the final grading plan and
final building plans be brought to the Commission for approval. Motion lost for
lack of a second.
Commissioner Sebastian moved that Lot Split Case No. 80 -324 be approved
and that the original conditions of Lot Split Case No. 75 -227, dated December
22, 1975 be included as part of that approval. Motion seconded by Commissioner
Cole. Approval of Lot Split Case No. 80 -324 was denied on a split vote of 3 -3.
Mr. Lemon was advised by the Chairman that he has the right to appeal the matter
to the City Council.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -4 -80 Page 3
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 80 -290, 1161, 1153 AND 1141
ASH AVENUE, 23 UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT IN AN "R -G" GARDEN APARTMENT DISTRICT.
(NEWDOLL).
Planning Director Castro advised it is his understanding from Mr. Newdoll
that the proposed project should be defined as a townhouse project and not condo-
miniums and, therefore, the Use Permit no longer applies, and the public hearing
is not necessary. The action required by the Commission is review and approval
of the conditions recommended by the Architectural Committee Action, dated February
27, 1980.
Mr. Castro advised he has checked the total buildable area, and finds it
meets the ordinance requirements with respect to building, paving and total land-
scaping. He further advised that the parking stalls are not in accordance with
the code, in that they need to be 10' x 20' and they are not. The applicant may
have to do some shifting around, or may lose a unit.
In answer to Commissioner Fischer's question as to what the recreation
facilities will be, Planning Director Castro referred to the revised plan of
the recreation facilities and suggested "Tot Lot" equipment to be incorporated
in the recreation area. With regard to the parking stalls, Mr. Castro recom-
mended that Condition #14 be added to Architectural Committee Action, that park-
ing shall meet the City's minimum standards.
After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner
Simmons, and unanimously carried, approving Architectural Review Case No. 80 -215,
with the 13 conditions as noted in Architectural Committee Action, dated February
27, 1980, with the addition of Items 14 and 15 as follows: #14. That parking
shall meet the City's minimum standards. #15. That playground equipment be
included as per Exhibit 9.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CASE NO. 79 -130, ZONE CHANGE FROM "A"
DISTRICT TO "P -D" DISTRICT - KNOLLWOOD DEVELOPMENT. (URBAN SCIENCES, INC., AGENTS
FOR BAMOD CO.).
Planning Director Castro advised that at this time staff has no further
comments. He commented that Mr. Bruce Dodson has presented to each Commissioner .
a complete packet in accordance with the Commission's request of several weeks ago.
Mr. Dodson briefly reviewed the revised circulation system and the proposed
development of the project and how it would be placed on the site. He reviewed
that the packets forwarded to the Commissioners includes example floor plans
addressing costs. Also, for the Commission's consideration are example findings
and conditions that are normally written and carried out in projects of this size.
Mr. Dodson reviewed each site area and the type and number of units proposed for
same.
Mr. Campbell, of Tri Cities Engineering, briefly reviewed the controls being
suggested to eliminate some of the concerns with regard to erosion and drainage.
Ms. Mary Relf, Urban Sciences, Inc., briefly reviewed the areas for controls
of landscaping. She commented that the vehicle that the Commission has is to
simply require a landscaping plan, and in that landscaping plan, such conditions
would be included that would cover the preservation of the Oak trees on the site,
and a landscaping maintenance program to be carried out by the Homeowners'
Association.
Mr. Dodson commented that the type of approvals the petitioner is seeking are
minimal; they are asking for a "P -D" zone and, secondly, they feel they have a
circulation system that has essentially be approved, and a plan that Mr. Castro has
said that he would not be embarrased by, and what the petitioner is asking for
tonight is a vote and an approval to take to the City Council a master plan for
their consideration, and the matter would then come back to the Commission as a
phased project.
Mr. Richard Lafeschi, Miller Way, stated that at the last meeting, four of the
six Planning Commissioners said they would like to see the Miller Way issue addressed
and, in his opinion, it has not been addressed. Commissioner Sebastian stated that
the matter was addressed a little bit in the conditions stating there would be no
construction vehicles whatsoever on Miller Way. Mr. Blair Barnett, Miller Way,
commented that Mr. Karp had said it was all decided that Miller Way would go through,
and, in his opinion this is not being done in an above board public way; it seems
it was done without informing the people who are very involved in this.
In response to Mr. Barnett's comment, Mr. Castro stated that staff has
never endorsed the idea that the Commission should not address the concerns of
the people on Miller Way. He further stated that staff has made their feelings
known as to why they believe Miller Way should go through.
191
'.S2
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -4 -80 Page 4
Mr. Dodson commented, in his opinion, they have addressed all of the
issues that the Commission had requested and now, after six months of public
hearings, they would like to exercise their rights to request a vote.
The majority of Commissioners felt they had not had enough time to review
all of the material that was included in their packets on the project. They
also felt that the density concern and the Miller Way circulation concern should
be resolved. Commissioner Sebastian moved, seconded by Commissioner Cole, that the
matter be continued for two weeks to give the Commission adequate time to review
the materials included in their packets and presented to them tonight. In answer
to Chairman Gorsline's question regarding Mr. Dodson's request for a vote, Planning
Director Castro stated the Commission would be required to vote on the project
tonight as requested by the petitioner. Mr. Howard Anderson, one of the developers
of the project, requested that the matter be continued for two weeks. Councilman
deLeon was present and commented that this is a Rezoning Case from "A" District
to "P -D" District.
Commissioners Carr and Cole commented that they don't have any problem in
approving the zoning and, in their opinion, we are trying to do specific planning
when we should be doing master planning.
There being no further comments, Chairman Gorsline declared the tearing
closed, and advised the Commission that a motion has been made and seconded to
continue the matter to the next meeting and called for a Vote. Motion carried
with one "no" vote.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CASE NO. 80 -136, OAK PARK ACRES TRACT #604, MODIFYING
CURRENT HIGHWAY SERVICE DISTRICT AND PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ZONING.
(LOS PADRES ENGINEERING, AGENTS FOR OAK PARK ACRES).
Planning Director Castro advised that a copy of Ordinance 140 C.S. had
been forwarded to the Commission as requested. He pointed out that there are
several actions being considered tonight; one is the rezoning to modify the
original lot lines, and in conjunction with that, you have the lot line adjustment.
As previously pointed out, the Commission can act on the zoning tonight, refer that
to the City Council, and then proceed with the lot line adjustment; or act on the
zoning and the lot split, making the lot split subject to certification of the
zoning.
Mr. Lou Caballero, Project Engineer, pointed out with regard to the lot
line adjustment that Lot 14, which is the open space lot, is not being decreased
in size; the net acreage will remain the same. He further pointed out that the
proposed modification would preserve more of the wooded area and reduce the amount
of grading by over 100,000 yards on Parcels 2 and 3. Also, Lot 14 is still the y
same acreage it was under the old plan, but it is a different configuration. Mr.
Caballero stated the petitioner is requesting approval or denial of the lot line
adjustment map and the two parcel maps. A soils report was done by Central Coast
Labs and San Luis Engineering to substantiate the grading plan that has been
developed, and also a slope treatment plan has been submitted. Also there have
been three hydrology studies done, not including the Corps of Engineers study.
Peggy Langworthy, Printz Road, stated the thing that bothers her is that
image that this is going to project and, basically in her opinion, it is a
question of how you want to start that side of the freeway in your development.
She stated she would not want to see another Five Cities Shopping Center, with
a sea of vacant parking spaces up close to the road. Also, she thinks it is
unfair to the condominiums to have to look at the trash behind the super market.
She further pointed out that if this is supposed to be a neighborhood shopping
center, it doesn't seem that there has been any access provided for either bike
or foot traffic, and somewhere along the way there should be some sort of
pedestrian access; an interior type thing. Mr. Warren Tish, Hodges Road, stated
he doesn't share Mrs. Langworthy's concern, in that he doesn't want to look down
on all of those cars and, in his opinion, the building backed up as proposed
gives the condominiums more privacy. Mr. Marty Strausser, Grieb Drive, resident
of one of the townhouses, spoke in favor of the proposed plan. Betty Richards
stated she lives in the project, and Mr. Kvidt has made it possible for them to
be considered in these plans, and the residents there are very much in favor of
the plans.
Bill Langworthy, Printz Road, stated that Lot 1 is the crucial visual lot
for any passerby on Highway 101 and it would be a shame to put that flat shop-
ping center back as far as it is. He further stated he really doesn't like this
project where it is.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -4 -80 Page 5
Mr. Bob Haman, Laguna Beach, California, Shopping Center Consultant,
stated that anything other than a convenience center must include approximately
650 ft.depth for the size and the marketing potential that this project has, with
parking available at the front or side.
Mr. Joe Meyer, resident of Oak Park Leisure Gardens, stated he is con-
cerned about moving the shopping center where you would have parking on both
sides, in that it would be a hazard for the older people walking across the
parking lot. Doris Addison, Oak Park Acres, spoke in favor of the proposed
plan.
There being no further comments for or against the proposed rezoning,
Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing closed.
Commissioner Sebastian pointed out that one of the goals for the Oak
Park Acres development was to provide shopping and service facilities to
support the majority of the needs of the community and, in his opinion, the
original land that was set aside was inadequate to accomplish that sort of
goal. He further stated that the proposal in the parking lot and with the
number of trees there, some larger trees could be generated in the center of
the parking lot, which would tend to break up that sea of asphalt. He com-
mented that he feels this particular presentation, and through future refinements,
is going to result in a very good addition to Arroyo Grande and Oak Park Acres.
Chairman Gorsline stated his concern initially was that the residents of
the townhouses be aware of this proposal, and that has been proven to his satis-
faction, and that he too would like to see some sort of pathway across the
project to the shopping center.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -730 Z
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMEND-
MENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 4, ZONING, ARTICLE
32 OF SAID CODE.
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Sebastian, Simmons and
Chairman Gorsline
NOES: Commissioner Carr
ABSENT: Commissioner Moots
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4th day of March 1980.
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and
carried with one "no" vote,. Lot Split Case No. 79 -321, Lots 1, 2 & 3 of Tract
#604, Lot Line Adjustment, Oak Park Acres, was approved pending certification
of the zone change.
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and
carried with one "no" vote, Lot Split Case No. 79 -322, Lot 2 of Tract, 604, Oak
Park Acres, was approved pending certification of the zone change.
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and
carried with one "no" vote, Lot Split Case No. 79 -323, Lot 3 of Tract 604, Oak
Park Acres, was approved pending certification of the zone change.
ZONING CONSIDERATION - ANNEXATION REQUEST FROM ROBERT S. GARING. (PROPERTY
CONTAINING .989 ACRES LYING NORTHERLY OF THE LOS BERROS CREEK).
Planning Director Castro referred to the three alternatives presented by
Mr. Garing on 'the possible interim zoning on Los Berros Creek. He further ad-
vised that the lots would have to be 6,000 square feet minimum. With regard to
density, Mr. Castro advised that the density requested by the petitioner might
be achieved under the "R -2" zoning classification, but not "R -1 ".
Commissioner Sebastian stated, in looking at the alternatives and in
looking at the site, the 8 unit single family dwellings in there with the common
area could probably be accommodated in the "R -2" zoning.
193
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -4 -80 Page 6
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by
Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, recommending an "R -2" interim zoning
classification in connection with the requested annexation for the Council's
consideration.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Planning Director Castro advised that the City Council, in reviewing the
Uniform Fire Code, suggested it be presented to the Planning Commission for their
thoughts and recommendations, in that it does make reference to some of the zoning
districts.
After a brief review of the proposed ordinance, it was suggested that Fire
Chief Marsalek be requested to attend the next meeting to answer some of the
Commissioners' questions regarding same.
Mr. Castro pointed out to the Commission that the Council, in reviewing
the height limitations for residences, felt that in conjunction with that
revision the control of the height of trees would also come under that revision,
and the Council has requested that the Commission study this possibility. He
further noted that a report would be made to the Commission at the next meeting
on this matter.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commissio the meeting was
adjourned by the Chairman at 11:40 P.M.
ATTEST: y0119 fh J_
2_
Secretary
air