Loading...
PC Minutes 1979-02-20ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION February 20, 1979 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chairman Gorsline presiding. Present are Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Moots, Simmons and Vandeveer. Chairman Harris is absent. Also in attendance are Planning Director Castro and Planner Sullivan. CHAIRMAN HARRIS ENTERED THE MEETING AND ASSUMED THE CHAIR ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA Planning Director Castro advised that staff is requesting continuance of Lot Split.CaseTiio. 70 -304 (Baldwin) and Architectural Review Case No. 79 -186, (VIP Future Corp..). There being no comments from either the applicants or Commissioners, the above agenda items were continued for two weeks. TRACT NO. 689, OAK PARK VILLAS - GRADING PLAN Planner Sullivan reviewed the final improvement plans for Tract No. 689. Planning Director Castro advised that the plans have been designed with both the Planning Commission and City Council's approval, so the plans being pre- sented are merely the final product of that condition, and the City Engineer has seen and approved these plans, however, he would not sign them pending approval of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Simmons stated that the parking was to be moved from Meadowlark Drive to Robin Circle, and this is not reflected on the plans. Planning Director Castro agreed with Commissioner Simmons and advised that would have to be changed on the plans. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Simmons, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, accepting grading plans for Tract No. 689 with the parking being changed from Meadowlark Drive to Robin Circle as previously approved. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CASE NO. 79 -123, 1122 AND 1160 EL CAMINO REAL - "A" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "P -D" PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (GIFFORD AND FAGAN). Planning Director Castro advised that this application concerns the two properties previously reviewed by the Commission, noting that the properties are zoned "A" and they both have frontage along the Frontage Road. Staff finds that . the application is in accordance with the direction they would like to take for that general area. Mr. Castro pointed out that the Planning Commission had pre- viously approved this rezoning and the City Council, in turn, denied the appli- cation without prejudice based on the requirement that the Council wanted to condition the project for commercial purposes. At that point in time, both Messrs. Gifford and Fagan found the condition objectionable and did not wish to proceed with the rezoning. He stated it was his understanding now that they have reviewed the situation and the action taken by the City, and they are re- ceptive to the commercial conditioning of the property. He further advised that staff is again recommending the change to the "P -D" District. Upon being assured by Planning Director Castro that Rezoning Case No. 79 -123 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Harris de- clared the hearing open. Mr. Pat Gifford, 367 Ortego Ridge, Montecito, stated he agreed basically with what Mr. Castro said and that they had some reservations at the time the commercial conditioning was placed on the matter, however, they now wish to go through with it. Elizabeth Jackson, 204 Fair View Drive, stated she was neither for or against the rezoning, however, she wanted to be sure that the City is going to have a firm control on all of the roads out there in respect to how they are going to tie in with the residential district and the proposed shopping district. Planning Direct- or Castro advised, in his opinion, there isn't any question that the City will have the control that they need out there. There being no further discussion for or against the proposed rezoning, Chairman Harris declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion by the Commission, the following action was taken: 065 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -20 -79 Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 79 -652 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT 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 Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gorsline, Simmons, Vandeveer and Chairman Harris NOES: Commissioners Fischer Moots ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of February 1979. PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 79 -279, CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT ADMINIS- TRATIVE OFFICES, ORCHARD AVE. AND PILGRIM WAY (LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT). Planning Director Castro advised the Commission that since the writing of the staff report, he had received several communications. One was a letter dated February 12th from Mr. Gearing, owner of the property, addressed to Dr. Hoagland, indicating that he was reluctant to go ahead with the project in view of the fact that he had no definite answer from the City regarding his project, Grande Highlands and he also recognized that there were some flooding problems that needed to•be addressed. He stated on February 16th he had received a call from Mr. Gearing wherein he stated that he had agreed to donate one acre of land adjacent to the school property, however, he could not advise me of any definite boundaries. Mr. Castro further advised that he had received a telegram, this date, from Mr.Gearing to Dr. Hoagland, confirming his offer to donate a maximum of one acre of property defined as approximately Orchard Avenue and Pilgrim Way. With reference to the Request for Negative Declaration, Mr. Castro pointed out that staff's concerns are primarily related to the drainage and are recommending that the entire water shed area be studied and a drainage plan be developed and adopted. He advised that several projects have been discussed in the general area; the Marsalek property, the Williams property and, of course, the Grande Highlands project. Mr. Castro briefly reviewed the drainage.problems and advised that the Commission should be aware of the problem and determine whether they wanted to pro- ceed in a "band -aid" approach, which the staff does not recommend. Planner Sullivan reviewed the building plans, advising that architecturally it is low profile, typical roof pattern, and there is nothing spectacular about the architecture. Mr. Castro further advised that the City Engineer had indicated that the Corps of Engineers should review the proposed final pad elevations for the prop- erty in question. He further suggested that the drainage be solved prior to issuance of a building permit, and was totally dissatisfied with the fact that this drainage plan was not prepared by a civil engineer, and he would like to have that as a con- dition of the Use Permit. Mr. Brian Hall, Architect, for the School District, advised they do have a description of the property and outlined the area for the Commission. He noted with regard to the time element, that the District is being forced to vacate their present facilities this summer, and it was the decision of the Board that because of this pending land trade, that this was their best alternative for a new building. They also felt that the construction . of the building by their Building Technology class would save the taxpayers' money and also give the class valuable experience. He stated, he did not feel the development of this portion of property should be contingent upon a look at this whole drainage area. Planning Director Castro stated that the concern in regards to thislparcelaof land is that if you take a look at this drainage condition, unless the water from Newsom Springs is diverted from that point, the channel that will be required to take that volume of water may be greater than the proposed Tally Ho improvement plans. Mr. Bob Garing, Garing, Taylor and Associates, advised as a matter of information, he did make a drainage report covering this side. He reviewed this report, and advised that their design was to provide a 20 ft. wide channel on the bottom to carry 1,000 DFS through here. The channel, as it passed the school, would probably be about 4 ft. deep. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -20 -79 Page 3 Mr. Bob Hoagland, Superintendent of Schools, urged the Commission to consider the problem of the School District. It is not the District Offices the Board has long coveted, it is merely a small building, relatively speaking, which when placed together geographically with a series of other buildings will make a complex of District offices.. He further advised that due to their financial resources and in- ability to construct a permanent facility, and the fact that the City of Pismo Beach has told them they must vacate their present offices, the Board has chosen this as the best alternative available. With regard to the flooding problem that Mr. Castro referred to, Mr. Hoagland advised that the School District is aware of the problem of the flood plain because they have suffered with it for years and years, however, it is the District's feeling that the small project they are proposing is not going to add one bit to the problem that is already there and,in fact, would help resolve a portion of the problem, which is the biggest problem to the School District, and that is the flooding that comes out of Pilgrim Way which is the water that tends to flood the campus. He further stated he was told by both Mr. Gearing and the School District's architect that the situation of the proposed facility and the design would help alleviate the problem of flooding of the campus and would not aggravate the total problem. Keith Rapp, President of the Lucia Mar School District Board; Doug Hitchen, High School Principle, Bob Hughes, Teacher at Arroyo Grande High School, spoke in favor of the Use Permit being granted. A member of the audience remarked that she had lived in this area for over 50 years and as long as she can remember as a child, that opening going down to the creek from Newsom Springs was never a problem until the City allowed building in the area across from the Marsalek property, and in her'opinion, it is very bad for the City to not even consider letting the School District use this property for their offices, which would be beneficial to both the taxpayers and the children in the area, for something that the school has no control over. There being noffurther comments, Chairman Harris declared the hearing closed and restricted further discussion to the Planning Commission. In answer to Commissioner Simmons' question as to how long it would take to do a drainage study in that area, Planning Director Castro advised that Grande Highlands has acquired the services of another engineering firm and right now they are in the process of studying what solutions Grande Highlands can offer in regards to the solution of the drainage of that area. The problem is that we have a Con- cern as to whether to ask the developers to spend that kind of engineering money when, in fact, they have no direction from the City as to what densities or what kind of'development they are going to be allowed. What the staff has, more or less, decided to do is ask the developers to submit their zoning change with a: proposed development plan to depict the type of development they are proposing. If we could get some .positive answer from the Council, then they would know whether �r not to proceed to spend any more dollars on engineering. Planning Director Castro advised that if a Use Permit is granted,.it could be conditioned with: (1) that the split of that parcel be subject to certification by the City; (2) that pad elevations be determined by the Corps of Engineers; and (3) that engineered drainage plans be prepared not only for the channelization of the water, but also for the street improvements. After considerable discussion, it was the consensus of opinion of the Commis- sion that more information is needed on the drainage problems. Chairman Harris requested that the City'Engineer report on the problems brought up and that he have a chance to comment on the exhibits that Mr. Hall presented here tonight, which apparently he has not yet seen, and the information presented by Mr. Garing and others. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer, and carried, that Use Permit Case No. 79 -279 be continued for a period of two weeks pending receipt of drainage plans and a report from the City Engineer. Mr. Hoagland stated in view of the time frame involved, he has no alternative but to recommend to the School Board that they go to another option. REFERRALS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ITEMS NUMBERED 28 AND 40 OF THE LAND USE /ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW. Planner Sullivan reviewed the action regarding Item 28, the designation on the Grandmothers' Mobilehome Park as retaining a high density classification, and a medium high density designation on the Fuller /Davino parcel. Mr. Roger Fuller advised that the City Council had unanimously approved his property as medium high density, and that he could live with this if it is agreeable to the Commission. 067 068 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -20 -79 Page 4 Mrs. Evelyn C. Tallman, 532 Carol Place, advised she had conducted a survey among some of the residents and read some of their comments to the Planning Com- mission indicating opposition to the proposed condominium project. She also read a petition signed by 23 people requesting denial of Mr. Fuller's zone change re- quest to the high density designation and condominium project at 1219 Farroll Avenue. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and carried, accepting the high density designation for the Grandmothers' Mobilehome Park, and the medium high density designation on the Fuller /Davino parcel at 1219 Farroll Avenue, recommending modification of the zoning to "R -G -D" Garden Apartment District with•a " -D" Override. With regard to Item 40, Planner Sullivan reviewed the area that is being recommended for "P -M" District. Mr. Gene Mintz, representing Roy Burke of Burke and Pace Lumber, 917 Bennett Avenue, advised they are in agreement with the recommendations of the City Council, and would request the Planning Commission to uphold their previous decision with regard to the lumber yard and telephone build- ing After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commis- sioner Cole, and carried with Commissioner Gorsline abstaining, that the "P -M" District recommended by the City Council be approved. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - CLASS II BICYCLE PATHWAY ON JAMES WAY. Planning Director Castro referred to the reports from Mr. John Keisler, Parks and Recreation Director, outlining the recommendation, the report from City Engineer Paul Karp, dated January 2, 1979, and his memo to the Commission dated February 15, 1979 agreeing with Mr. Karp on the deletion of a Class II bicycle pathway on James Way. Mr. Joe Moore, 200 Nelson, stated he is a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, and that in 1973 and 1974 they submitted a bicycle plan to the Planning Commission and City Council and at that time they approved a Class II bicycle sys- tem, which is nothing but a sign on the side of the road that says "Bike Route ". He pointed out that every street in the City is a bike route because there is noth- ing to prevent riding a bicycle on any street, so it is a waste of money to put up a sign that says "Bike Route ". He further advised that the Commission feels there should be a stripe along the side of the street since James Way is a very wide street, with a stencil of a picture of a bicycle indicating it is a bike route. Planning Director Castro stated, if he understands Mr. Keisler's recommenda- tion, James Way right now is designed with two parking and two travel lanes, and what Parks and Recreation is saying is take away the parking and substitute the bicycle lane. Mr. Moore referred to Mr. Karp's memo dated January 2, 1979, stat- ing "Parking on James Way will be minimal. The planning of the large development along James Way has thus far precluded driveway access onto James Way ". Planning Director Castro referred to his report, dated February 15th, wherein he expressed concerns about the parking requirements that have been alloted for the Oak Park Acres development and it is not conceivable that a large amount of parking is going to take place on those private streets, or on the rural street sections. He stated he felt the Commission should be aware of additional parking needs there and the bike lane would eliminate that possibility, and that'with all the development taking place in the area, staff envisions James Way is going to be carrying a volume of traffic. Mr. Bob Garing, Garing, Taylor and Associates, pointed out that each City receives money from Senate Bill SB 325, of which some of it should be designated for bicycle paths. Chairman Harris requested staff to find out if there are such funds beingal alloted for this purpose, and also report on the approximate cost of signs and o for striping. After a brief discussion, the matter was continued to the next meet- ing so that the requested information could be reviewed by the Commission. INTERPRETATION REGARDING RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES - PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY FRONTING ON HALCYON ROAD, TODD LANE AND OLIVE STREET. (GARING, TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES, AGENTS FOR BILL LACKEY). Planning Director Castro referred to two letters to Garing and Taylor, basic- ally stating the same concerns regarding the dedication of street rights of way that had been previously dedicated for purposes of density computation. He further advised Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -20 -79 Page 5 that a letter had been received from Bob Garing on the matter, dated February 16th, and that the Planning Commission has not yet received copies of the letter. In his letter, Mr. Garing addresses himself to Section 9.3 -403 of the Subdivision Ordinance that states minimum lots of 7,000 square feet for corner lots and 6,000 square feet for interior lots. Mr. Castro stated that the State law now requires that you shall conform to the General Plan density of 4.5 dwelling units or families per acre. When you divide the 4.5 into an acre, it means that the average lot would be about 9,800 square feet. What the Ordinance is saying is that you can achieve a variation of lots, with the minimum.,being 6,000 for an interior lot or 7,000 for an corner lot, but yet the overall number of lots cannot exceed 4.5 dwelling units. He advised that he has checked prior lot splits and in no instance has the City allowed any portion of the streets that have been previously dedicated for purposes comput- ing density, nor has the City allowed any of that to occur on subdivisions, and that he maintains in the case being addressed that a portion of the street has already been dedicated and approved; and the portion on Halcyon Rd. has not been dedicated and, therefore, if we are taking that much land away from this property owner, he thinks we should rightfully allow that much land to be computed to the density, but to include a portion of land that has been previously dedicated for re- dedication purposes is not a valid consideration. Mr. Castro advised that Mr. Garing had submitted a very extensive report on the matter and if the Commission would like to have copies, they could continue the matter until the next meeting. Mr. Garing outlined information contained in the report and advised the Commission he would be agreeable to continuing the matter until the next meeting. He did point out that the General Plan density standards are policies that encompass large areas and Zoning is a specific regulation of lot size, shape, land use and set backs. If the zoning is consistent with the General Plan, which it is in this area, then the specific regulations apply so, therefore, you go to the specifics, which is the Zoning Ordinance. He advised that his letter states that the subdivision sets forth the minimum size and that this particular tract that they propose conforms exactly to the Zoning Ordinance. The Tentative Map conforms strictly to the Land Use Element whereby there are no more than 4.5 families per acre. In his opinion, the gross area for the subdivision is computed from the center line of the adjoining street, which is the accepted practice of determining density per acre. Mr. Castro advised that it has been the practice to only include that portion that has not been dedicated to the City, or is being asked to be dedicated to the City; but in no case have we gone to the center line of that dedicated street. After considerable discussion, it was the consensus of the Commissioners that they would like to have more information on the matter before reaching a decision, and the matter was continued to the next regular meeting. REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 79 -302, 324 WALNUT ST. (HOBBS). It was pointed out to the Commission that due to lack of a quorum, the Lot Split Committee did not consider this matter and, therefore, approval of this re- quest should involve the Commission as a whole. Planner Sullivan described the proposed split, stating it is on Walnut Street between Ash and Fair Oaks Avenue. Parcel 1 would be a little over 8,000 square feet, and Parcel 2 would be over 12,000 square feet. There were some concerns on this lot split with regard to drainage which have been resolved and will be noted on the final parcel map. Mr. Sullivan stated that in addition to the conditions listed on Mr. Castro's report, dated February 15, 1979, staff would recommend that street tree fees and park fees be required and that a mylar copy of the final map be furnished to the City Sam Taylor, Jr., engineer for the applicant, inquired as to the additional requirements. Planner Sullivan advised that street trees are $15.00 per tree in increments of 50 ft., and park fees are $100.00 per lot. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried, that Lot Split Case No.79 -302 be approved subject to the four conditions listed in staff report dated February 15, 1979, plus the three additional requirements as follows: (1) Street tree fees, (2) Park fees, and (3) Mylar copy of recorded map to be furnished to the City. REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 79 -302, 324 WALNUT ST. ( HOBBS). There being no comments either from the Commission or audience regarding the Request for Negative Declaration, the following action was taken: 0,6 270 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -20 -79 Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. 79 -653 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE EN- VIRONMENTAL IMPACT DECLARATION. On motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Gorsline, Moots, Simmons, Vandeveer and Chairman Harris NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of February 1979. REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS - CONTINUATION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 79 -303, LOT 5, TRACT 600, BRANCH MILL ROAD (POOLE /HEAD). Blanning Director Castro advised that the minutes and other action pertain- ing to the Greenwood Subdivision had been reproduced and included in the Commis- sioners' Agenda packets. He felt that, after reviewing the action, it was the intent to allow the division of that land to occur in 5 acres and not to permit anything smaller than that. Chairman Harris stated that after reading the mater- ial over very carefully, the intent apparently was to restrict division to 5 acre minimum lots; there was no restriction, as reflected in previous discussion, to restrict the split of the subject property. Commissioner Moots stated it was his recollection that when the Greenwood Subdivision was finally divided up, that was to be the last division of that land and even though it says "5 acres ", he did not think that was the intent of the action. Mr. Bill Gerrish, 823 Plata Road, advised he was on the Commission at the time this matter was considered, and it was his recollection also that once the land was divided, there was to be no more additional splits. After considerable discussion, Chairman Harris stated that in light of the opinions expressed on what individuals thought they were voting for, he would be inclined to vote against the lot split. Commissioner Vandeveer stated he didn't think the Commission can legally rule that it may not be split, and that he would be in favor of accepting the apparent past judgement of the Commission and denying it based on past decisions and let the City Council resolve the matter. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gorsline, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and carried, with one abstention, that Lot Split Case No. 79 -303 be denied based upon the Commission's understanding of a restriction placed upon that property by the " -D" Override when the City Council approved Tract No.600. LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 79 -306, 1350 AND 1354 GRAND AVE., LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (GERRISH). Planning Director Castro reviewed the preliminary parcel map describing the enlargement of the parcel that is being traded for the adjacent parcel in the im- mediate area. He advised that the enlargement of the lot will bring it into con- formance. The fact that the line is bisecting an existing structure, in staff's opinion does not present any problems since the split is being conditioned on the requirement that if it isn't demolished within 12 months, the City will demolish it at the expense of the property owner. However, the building will probably be removed when the shopping center is finally designed and put together. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commis- sioner Vandeveer, and unanimously carried, that Lot Split Case No.79 -306 be approved with the condition that the one story building that is being bisected by the new lot line be removed within a period of 12 months. Should the applicant fail to comply with the requirement, the structure will be removed by the City at the property owner's expense. WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE Planning Director Castro advised he had received a request from Red Carpet Realty for an interpretation of the C -N District concerning chiropractic offices in the Sunrise Shopping Center. Chairman Harris stated he would like to read the ordinance and have a recommendation at the next meeting. A gentleman in the audience stated he was representing the owners and the manager of that particular property, and that they have a young chiropractor who wants to go in there and they have been informed that a chiropractor's office could not go in there. This Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -20 -79 Page 7 leaves them not knowing where they stand with the lessee. Mr. Castro advised that both he and Mr. Sullivan are of the opinion that medical facilities and chiropractic facilities are not specifically listed in the ordinance. Mr. Castro advised that Dr. Bianci, the chiropractor Mr. Martin is referring to, has acquired a separate location on Grand- Avenue for his office. He was ad- vised by our office that chiropractic offices in the C -N District was not a permitted use and would have to come before the Planning Commission for an interpretation. Staff is of the opinion that a C -N Neighborhood Commercial facility should not extend itself into medical facilities of any sort. The parking ratios are not designed for that type of use. Chairman Harris advised Mr. Martin that in view of the fact that staff is recommending against this use, it would probably be to his best interest to continue the matter to the next meeting in order to give the Commission an opportunity to review the Zoning Ordinance. Continuance of the matter was agreeable with the Commission and Mr. Martin. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Planning Director Castro advised the Commission that he had attended the South Coast Central Regional Commission meeting in Santa Barbara on February 15th, and what they are proposing is to include parts of the City of Arroyo Grande in the Coastal Zone. He briefly reviewed the meeting and pointed out the proposed boundaries on the map. He advised that public hearings will be held in Santa Barbara on the matter and that the City has until the second Friday in March to submit a protest. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned on a motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried, at 11 :05 P.M. ATTEST: Secretary Chairman 071