PC Minutes 1980-02-19182
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 19, 1980
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman
Gorsline presiding. Present are Commissioners Carr, Fischer, Moots and Sebastian.
Commissioners Cole and Simmons are absent. Planning Director Castro is also in
attendance.
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 80 -324, 217 AND 215 PEARWOOD AVE.,
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. (LEMON).
Planning Director Castro advised that the Lot Split Committee had re-
quested that Mr. Lemon submit the lot line adjustment on a standard map as re-
quired by the City, noting utilities, topography, etc. He further advised that
the map has not yet been received and requested that the matter be continued until
such time as the proper map is submitted.
Commissioner Sebastian pointed out that at the Lot Split Committee meeting
it was determined that Mr. Lemon was not the sole owner of the property and,
therefore, the Committee requested both owner's signatures on the map.
Mrs. Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, presented information to the Com-
mission for consideration. She advised that on October 28, 1975 Mr. Lemon asked
for the original lot split. At that time the Planning. Commission and Council were
very concerned because .the lot is very small, about 25 ft. wide, and they were
afraid they would cut into the hill. At that time, Mr. Paul Sturges, representing
Mr. Lemon, reviewed that the two lots now being considered for rezoning were a
compromise from a larger area applied for rezoning, and also that there was no
intention to cut back into the hill for development. Mrs. Honeycutt also presented
a picture of the hill and the inventory that was applied to the hill. She further
stated that for him to come in now and ask permission to cut back into that hill
really upsets her.
After further discussion, the Planning Commission continued the matter
until Mr. Lemon submits the proper documents•.
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 80 -326, 1340 SIERRA DRIVE. (ENGLE).
Planning Director Castro referred to a memo from City Engineer Paul Karp,
dated February 19, 1980,, regarding the improvements for Robles. Road, which is
self - explanatory. Planning Director Castro further reviewed prior action, in
that there was a Variance before the Planning Commission, which was denied.
The matter was appealed toithe City Council, and the Variance was granted.
Commissioner Sebastian advised that his original concern on the lot split was
the cross slope and that at the Subdivision Review Committee meeting, Mr. Engle's
engineer presented a proposal which included a retaining structure and proposed
grading of the lot, which was a proposal showing an alternative to developing
the lot without creating a problem to the house below.
Planning Director Castro noted that a retaining wall may or may not be re-
quired depending on design of the home, and it is the Engineering Department's
responsibility to review the grading plan and determine what is needed.
With regard to the Request for Negative Declaration, Mr. Castro advised
he had noted in his report that he did not necessarily agree with some of the
answers given by the applicant, however, he would recommend that a Negative
Declaration be granted. After a brief discussion, the following action was
taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -726 EIR
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT DECLARATION.
On motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Carr, Fischer, Moots, Sebastian and Chairman
Gorsline
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Cole and Simmons
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of February 1980.
Mr. Mitch Walker, Engineer representing Mr. Engle, requested clarification
of the third sentence, second paragraph of Mr. Karp's memo, requiring that a
final grading plan shall be required for review and approval by the Department
of Public Works for any development of Lot No. 4. Mr. Walker inquired if that
occurs prior to recording the map or prior to pulling a building permit on the
lot? He suggested that the condition be "prior to issuance of a building permit ".
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -19 -80
Page 2
After considerable discussion, Item No. 2 of the Minor Subdivision
Committee Action, dated February 13, 1980 was amended to read as follows:
"That prior to the issuance of a building permit on Lots 2 and 4, a grading plan
shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department ". On motion by
Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Sebastian, and unanimously carried,
Minor Subdivision Committee Action, dated February 13, 1980 was approved with
the amendment to Condition No. 2 as noted above.
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 80 -327, PRINTZ ROAD. (WHITE).
Planning Director Castro read the recommended conditions of the Minor
Subdivision Committee Action, dated February 13, 1980 pertaining 'to Mr. White's
lot split. With regard to the Request for Negative Declaration, Mr. Castro
recommended that the request be approved. After discussion, the following action
was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -727 EIR
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
DECLARATION.
On motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Carr, Fischer, Moots, Sebastian and Chairman
Gorsline
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Cole and Simmons
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of February 1980.
After further discussion, Minor Subdivision Committee Action, dated
February 13, 1980 was approved on motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by
Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried.
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).
Chairman Gorsline advised the audience that this matter would be continued
to the next regular meeting of March 4, 1980 pending re- submittal of plans by the
petitioner.
CONTINUATION -OF PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CASE NO. 79 -130, ZONE CHANGE FROM "A"
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "P -D" PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - KNOLLWOOD DEVELOPMENT.
(URBAN SCIENCES, INC., AGENTS FOR BAMOD CO.).
Chairman Gorsline announced that the petitioners for the Knollwood Develop-
ment have. asked for a continuance to allow time to prepare the full package for
review in accordance with the Commission's instructions.
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 explained that there were several items scheduled
on this matter; one being the zone change, and the other being the lot line adjust-
ments. Since there is concern by some of the Planning Commission members regarding
the procedure, Mr. Castro advised that the'Commission could go ahead and act on
the zoning first, refer that to the City Council for their recommendation, and
then proceed with the lot split or the lot line adjustment. Mr. Castro referred
to a map describing the original zoning of the Oak Park Acres development, and
the proposed zone changes and lot line adjustments being considered tonight. He
advised that, primarily, what is taking place is they are taking most of the tree
line which exists there away from the future development of Lot 3. The greenbelt
area was considerably wider than what is being proposed on this particular plan,
and included in the revised plan is a cross section of the relationship between
the townhouses, the drainage area and the commercial area.
Mr. Castro referred to the staff report, dated February 14, 1980, comment-
ing that, in his opinion, the major question is really what kind of development the
City is looking for; and if you stay with this kind of lot definition, the depth
will hinder the kind of commercial development that is proposed for the City. In
order to obtain the type of stores that are being shown on the plan, the site will
need to be expanded. In other words, whatever plan is chosen will dictate a greater
depth from the frontage into the greenbelt area.
In answer to Commissioner Carr's question regarding the zone change and lot
line adjustment being considered concurrently, Planning Director Castro advised it
183
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -19 -80 Page 3
really doesn't make much difference whether the Commission acts on one matter or
the other tonight, or both at the same time, because the City Council still has
the final approval. He further stated that the zoning is the primary action that
the Commission and Council will have to take, and if that is not approved, then
the development plan and map will die automatically; in other words, the lot line
adjustment would be subject to the certification of the zoning.
Upon being assured by Planning Director Castro that public hearing for
Rezoning Case No. 80- 136 had been duly published, posted and property owners noti-
fied, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing open.
Mr. Lou Caballero, Los Padres Engineering, project engineer for the
petitioner, spoke in favor of the zone change. He read the third paragraph of
Mr. Castro's memo, dated February 14, 1980, stating that was their basis for the
redevelopment plan and also the basic lot line adjustment and development plan;
and also to conform with Ordinance 140 C. S. approving the project. Mr. Caballero
read several items from Ordinance 140 C. S. pertaining to the Oak Park Acres
Development. He noted that there are three developments out there, which is one
of the reasons they are trying to get their commercial on the line so that they
can serve the people in the development according to the mitigation measures in
the Environmental Impact Report, by providing services to the residences.
Mr. Caballero read the "Goals" of the Development Plan in Ordinance 140 C.S.
as follows:
1. Assure retention of its natural beauty.
2. Provide affordable residences for senior citizens in pleasant and
quiet surroundings with on -site facilities to meet most of their
physical, social, and health needs.
3. Provide rental units for middle income people, keeping adult and
family units in separated areas.
4. Provide single family residences with larger than average lots with
a rural atmosphere oriented to equestrian and ranchette type
activities.
5. Provide shopping and service facilities to support the majority of
the needs of the community.
6. Control building design, landscaping, and site layout to insure
preservation and improvement of the environment of the community.
He pointed out that the goals are clearly defined; the commercia;:Parcel 5 and Unit ,1 or
2 were required to be developed in connection with the first two residential
projects. He stated that, in order to provide those services to meet the needs
of the entire development it was felt, as Mr. Castro felt, that Parcel 1 was
woefully inadequate, therefore, based on the development plan to provide these
services, a new lot line and rezone line was established to create a buildable
commercial site in a buildable area. He stated there is no way, with the proposed
super market going in there, that the original lot line would work out unless the
City wants a small convenience center. As far as the open space is concerned,
Lot 14, the existing acreage is 34.83 acres; the proposed acreage is 34.84 acres,
so technically the greenbelt has been enlarged. He stated the reason they are
here tonight is to fulfill the requirements of Ordinance 140 C.S. as dictated
by the EIR mitigation measures; to present to the Commission a map that does this
legally with boundaries; and to ultimately provide the City with a development plan,
which they are really not here to discuss, although it is necessary to look at all
three because they are related to one another.
Mr. Caballero introduced Mr. Tony Refechetti of Ruiz, Mason, Orefice
Architectural Associates, Pismo Beach, who spoke on the treatment and the land-
scaping of the channel and the relationship between it, the townhouses and the
commercial area.
Commissioner Sebastian pointed out that the existing oak trees between
the present and proposed lot line would have to be removed. Mr. Caballero veri-
fied that the area referred to by Commissioner Sebastian would have to be re-
vegetated. Mr. Sebastian further pointed out that the existing townhouses are
all on fill and that if the lot line adjustment is approved, that fill will have
to be extended to within 100 ft. of those townhouses. In other words, the whole
thing is going to be man made on Lot No. 1, so whatever is done, the quality is
going to be dependent upon the plan and the architectural rendition of it.
Mrs. Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, stated that for months and months
people sat through the original EIR hearings and that was all supposed to be kept
in open space, and tonight she has learned that we are losing that open space and
it is going to be all man made, and you are taking the open space in an area where
you are congesting people. Also, she questioned why have these people sit through
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -19 -80 Page 4
all of those hearings and then change the plan and, in her opinion, there is
public trust involved here. Also, back during those public hearings, the trees
were supposed to stay.
Mr. Reuben Kvidt, 1035 Acorn Drive, petitioner for the zone change, stated
it was their intent and goal to give the City more of what they were asking for,
and that is to give up some of the land that is naturally endowed with oak trees
and is hilly, and adding that to the greenbelt, and taking land that is barren
and doesn't have any oak trees on it or any vegetation and is relatively flat
and far more buildable than the land they are putting back into greenbelt, which
should certainly be an advantageous move to both the City and the residents of
the area.
Commissioner Moots pointed out that the ordinance pretty well spells out
the concerns at the time, and suggested that perhaps all of the Commissioners
should have a copy of Ordinance 140 C. S. for review.
Planning Director Castro pointed out that, in his opinion, it is unfortunate
due to the topography, that any development will affect the trees and will require
extensive grading. It was felt that maybe by reducing and expanding where possible,
and maybe developing in a man made manner, that this is probably the best way to
expand if there is to be an expansion at all.
In answer to Commissioner Carr's question as to what other configurations
were considered, Mr. Kvidt advised that the configuration we have now was done
after an expensive study by a soils and hydraulic engineer and they went over the
ground very carefully. Also, in talking with the various stores going in to
determine their requirements, the configuration we have for Parcel 1 especially
is more or less what they are demanding if we are to provide a site for them.
After considerable discussion, on motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by
Commissioner Fischer, and unanimously carried, the public hearing on this matter
was continued to the next regular meeting of March 4, 1980.
Commissioner Sebastian commented that he would like to share some of his
thoughts on this matter with the rest of the Commission. He stated, in his
opinion, in a lot line adjustment of this nature with a change in zoning, it was
paramount for him to have the developer show what he had in mind, so that we could
see what the potential conflicts were, and he felt the conflicts of distance between
the townhouses and the commercial structures at this particular point is probably
the biggest one, and he had asked at the Architectural Review meeting that Mr.
Kvidt's architect show us alternatives as to how they could treat the buffer zone
between the commercial facility and the townhouses. They have done this in the
cross sections.
Commissioner Sebastian suggested that perhaps one of the things that the
applicant could respond to at the next meeting is the possibility of moving the
store facility more towards the freeway and having parking behind and on both
sides. That would tend to re- establish a greenbelt, even though it would entail
some parking, it would actually soften it having the structure closer to the
freeway. He further stated it is his feeling that when you are endeavoring to
save those oak trees on the edge of it and then going into a definitely plain cut,
it is going to be difficult for the architect to come up_with a planned process
to re- establish a feeling of natural open space, and, in his opinion, that can be
handled very easily through contour cuts and could allow revegetation even of the
oak trees, and eventually that area could revegetate itself so that it could look
natural. Also, with Mr. Castro's reference to what kind of a commercial facility
does the community want, he stated that Mr. Kvidt has looked at what the oppor-
tunities are for leasing the facilities out and he has a group of people who will
be leasing these facilities, andL.:that is what this proposal is. He stated that
he personally is not in a position to pass judgement on whether that is what the
City needs or wants. He further stated he would like to be able to review Ordinance
140 C.S. and would like to hear from the local Chamber of Commerce.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR WILDWOOD
RANCH DEVELOPMENT, 220 CORBETT CANYON ROAD. (TEMPUS).
Planning Director Castro advised that tonight the Commission would be making
a recommendation to the Council of items to be included in the contract with Mr.
Tempus. He stated that City Attorney Shipsey indicated to the City Council his
feelings were that the entire list of conditions should be part of that agreement,
and now it is his understanding that they do not want the conditions as part of
the agreement. He stated the two items being recommended to be included in the
agreement are as follows:
1. That the project shall not exceed 65 units as noted on the conceptual
development plan.
185
6 6
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -19 -80 Page 5
2. That the open space as proposed shall remain in perpetuity.
In regard to the letter from Mr. Richmond, dated February 1, 1980, re-
garding certain conditions of approval, Mr. Castro reviewed the various concerns
and recommendations as noted in his memo to the Planning Commission, dated
February 15, 1980.
Upon being assured by Planning Director Castro that public hearing for
consideration of contractual agreement for the Wildwood Ranch Development had
been 'duly published, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing open.
Mr. Rob Rossi, architect for the project, referred to proposed Condition
#43 regarding driveway lengths. He stated the 24 ft. driveway requirement would
be acceptable with the exception of Lots 38 and 35 and, in their opinion, those
driveways should be kept at a minimum; otherwise, the conditions of approval as
recommended would be satisfactory to them.
There being no further discussion from the audience, Chairman Gorsline
declared the hearing closed.
After discussion regarding the agreement between the City and Mr. Tempus,
it was agreed that the two items noted in Mr. Castro's memo be recommended for
inclusion in that agreement, and the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -728
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE
OF THE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT ON THE WILDWOOD
RANCH DEVELOPMENT.
On motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Carr, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Carr, Fischer, Moots, Sebastian and Chairman
Gorsline
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Cole and Simmons
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of February 1980.
After considerable discussion regarding "Public Works and Planning Depart-
ment Recommendations for Approval of Wildwood Ranch Development ", listed_in Mr.
Castro's memo dated October 29, 1979, the following changes were made:
No. 2 Amended to Read:
"That concrete curb be installed between paved and landscaped areas,
subject to approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Depart-
ment."
No. 21 - Delete.
No. 34 - Reword as follows:
"Corbett Canyon Road - dedication and improvements may be necessary,
but not limited to conformity with the City's General Plan, and Cal
Trans Encroachment Permit."
No. 42 - Add as follows:
"That all driveways shall have a minimum length of 24 ft., with the
exception of Lots 35 and 38."
No. 43 - Add as follows:
"That the applicant shall present a comprehensive landscaping plan,
noting plants and materials, treatment of graded areas and irrigation
system for the Commission's review and approval prior to the issuance
of a building permit."
No. 44 - Add as follows:
"That final development plans depicting the final locations of buildings
and final architectural exterior considerations be presented to the
Planning Commission for review and information prior to the issuance
of a building permit."
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -19 -80 Page 6
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -729
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL, AS AMENDED, FOR THE WILDWOOD RANCH DEVELOP -.
MENT.
On motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Carr, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Carr, Fischer, Moots, Sebastian and Chairman
Gorsline
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Cole and Simmons
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of February 1980.
REFERRAL FROM THE CITY COUNCIL - REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION FROM ROBERT S. GARING.
(PROPERTY CONTAINING .989 ACRES LYING NORTHERLY OF THE LOS BERROS CREEK).
Planning Director Castro referred to the map enclosed in the Commissioners'
packets depicting the annexation proposed, which is the triangular area adjacent
to the southerly City Limits on Valley Road, which is noted in the General Plan as
a Low Density Area of 4.5 dwelling units per acre for the adjacent areas. Mr.
Castro stated that last year the staff, in working with the County, recommended
that the Council recognize three irregular shaped islands as part of the City and
to include them in the Sphere of Influence. He stated that the recommendation
was completely rejected by the Council and they, in turn, revised the boundaries
to the north of the City. He further stated he, personally, has no problem with
bringing this property into the City, however, he cannot agree on the procedure,
in that he feels we are piece mealing the annexation process.
With reference to the zoning, Mr. Castro stated that the petitioner had
indicated something to the Council regarding condominiums. He further stated he
has no objections to condominiums based on the 4.5 d.u.'s per acre, which is
consistent with the area. He stated if the 4.5 d.u.'s or low density is not
acceptable, then we may have to wait on the annexation because that would require
a General Plan amendment, which could not take place until May.
Mr. Jim Garing, Route 1, Box 418, Arroyo Grande, reviewed some of the
history of the property. He stated that in 1960 the County realigned Los Berros
Creek and at that time they condemned quite a large area across the land, and by
doing that, this particular piece was cut down to one acre in size. He noted
they have had the property for three years and it isn't working out as farm land
because of the shape and the problem of getting the farming equipment to it. He
further stated that there would be an advantage to the City to annex the parcel
because it would round out the City boundary in that area. He stated the zoning
and the density they are requesting is an extension of the zoning to the north of
the property to allow the same type of affordable housing.
Commissioner Sebastian stated his biggest concern about that particular
triangle is that right now we have an aesthetic buffer zone to that particular
type of housing, and to extend the housing on down will give a totally different
impression of that housing, and to extend that to the edge of the stream channel
at that density is going to be a tremendous impact.
With regard to zoning, Planning Director Castro advised that the Commission
could recommend the "R -2" District with a density of about 11 units per acre.
He further noted that the "P -D" zoning could not be considered because the parcel
does not meet the minimum acreage requirements.
After considerable discussion, Commissioner Carr stated it seems logical
that the property should be annexed to the City, but in his opinion, it should all
be done at once and not piece meal. Commissioner Sebastian stated he has no
problems with annexing that particular piece, and he doesn't feel that it would
be piece mealing, however, he would like to go out and take a look at the
aesthetic impact by extending the same type of zoning now existing to the north.
After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by
Commissioner Moots, motion carried with one "no" vote, recommending to the City
Council annexation of this particular triangular parcel of land. The Commission
further agreed to hold the annexation recommendation as it is, pending further
zoning consideration at the next meeting.
187
jp8
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -19 -80
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commi
adjourned by the Chairman at 10:10 P.M.
ATTEST: n
..Q(4J?1
Secretary
Page 7
the meeting was
l
40 ,7
40
a /