Loading...
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