Loading...
PC Minutes 1979-01-02Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 2, 1979 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Harris presiding. Present are Commissioners Gorsline, Cole, Moots, Simmons and Vandeveer. Commissioner Fischer is absent. Planner Sullivan is also in attend- ance. COMMISSIONER FISCHER ENTERED THE MEETING AND IS NOW PRESENT MINUTE APPROVAL There being no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meeting of December 19, 1978 were approved by the Chairman as submitted. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA With regard to agenda items to be continued, Planner Sullivan advised that a request had been received from Mr. Lemon for a continuance on the Request for Clarification of Zoning Ordinance; staff is requesting a continuation of the Public Hearing regarding Use Permit Case No. 78 -278 for an open storage yard; and Architectural Review Case No. 78 -183 was continued by the Architectural Review Committee. Chairman Harris inquired if anyone in the audience would like to speak tonight on any of the above items who would not be able to attend the next meeting. Mr. Bob Mason stated he lives in the County area and he would like to speak in Mr. Lemon's behalf. He stated he feels that Mr. Lemon is being dis- criminated against in that there are numerous people within the City that have built homes, have driveways, with building permit dates under the ordinance that Mr. Lemon's comes under, and they have never been required to pave their driveway. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that the above noted agenda items would be continued to the next regular meeting of January 16, 1979. REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 78 -184, 21 UNIT APT. COMPLEX, "OAK VILLAGE ", 241 AND 251 ASPEN STREET; 'AND 240,'250 AND 260 SO. ELM STREET (CAL COAST DEVELOPMENT /VICK'PACE'CONSTR.. CO). Planner Sullivan advised that the proposed Oak Village Apartment complex property runs between Elm Street and Aspen Street in the Garden Apartment zoned district of the City. The coverage, the number of units, and the density all conform to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Sullivan described the project, pointing out that there is a great deal of open space, and the parking being provided exceeds the requirements. He noted that the Architectural Review Committee approved the project subject to the 11 conditions as listed in the Architectural Review Committee Report dated December 27, 1978. Mr. Alan Thomas, Cal Coast Development, questioned Item #2 of the con- ditions, which requires that all curbing within the project shall be 6" concrete headers. Commissioner Vandeveer pointed out that asphalt will not hold up, and in his opinion, the City is requiring concrete because it is more endurable and will hold up. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Committee Action, dated December 27, 1978, was approved with the conditions as submitted. Planner Sullivan advised the applicants that if they were strongly opposed to any of the conditions of approval that were attached to the project, they have the right to appeal to the City Council. Commissioner Cole stated that since the City Code does not require any kind of soundproofing for apartment buildings, she would like this Commission to think about the possibility of pushing an ordinance as part of our Building Code that would require soundproofing of all multiple family units. Planner Sullivan advised he could contact the League of California Cities to see if any cities have model ordinances and have dealt with this problem before. LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 78 -300, PRINTZ ROAD (KIRKPATRICK) Planner Sullivan explained that the proposed lot split is dividing a 9.6 acre parcel into one 6.8 acre parcel and one 3 acre parcel off of Printz Road. The case was reviewed by the Lot Split Committee and approved subject to the 4 conditions listed on the report dated December 27, 1978. With regard to requirement #2, Planner Sullivan pointed out that, in his opinion, the staff, the Commission, and Lot Split Review Committee have no choice but to request that the Covenant be put on the land, or require that the project be denied. He further pointed out that the only body that can grant Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -2 -79 Page 2 development on parcels that do not have City water and sewer is the City Council, and that there is an appeal period wherein the applicant can appeal the matter to the City Council. He advised that this is the same covenant that was required on the Lackey lot split on Printz Road. Mr. Kirkpatrick, applicant for the lot split, advised that there is plenty of good water in there for a well, and septic tanks are no problem. Mr. Kirk- patrick further advised there was no opposition from his neighbors regarding the lot split and, in fact, they had even offered to write letters in his behalf. He stated that the road is already in there and there would be no grading to speak of. Chairman Harris pointed out that from the City's point of view, this recorded covenant would protect future buyers from buying the property and then not being able to obtain a building permit, which could result in considerable hardship for someone. He further pointed out that the proper course of action would be, if this lot split is approved, that the applicant should appeal to the City Council for special circumstances to be allowed to be able to put in a well. Planner Sullivan pointed out that since Mr. Kirkpatrick's property is not within 250 feet of a sewer line, he could be permitted to have a septic tank system providing he meets the percolation requirements of the County Health De- partment. After considerable discussion, on motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, that Lot Split Case No. 78 -300 be approved with the conditions as noted in Minor Subdivision Committee Action, dated December 27, 1978. On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council allow a private well on the lot being created by this lot split, and that such well and septic tank be subject to the City Council and County Health Department approval. REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 78 -300, PRINTZ ROAD (KIRKPATRICK). There being no discussion on the Request for Negative Declaration, the following action was taken: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing RESOLUTION NO. 79 -649 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DECLARATION. On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: Commissioners Gorsline, Cole, Fischer, Moots, Simmons, Vandeveer and Chairman Harris None None Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of January 1979. REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR INSTALLING STREET IMPROVEMENTS - PARCEL MAP AG 77 -382, LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 77 -267, 1385 BRIGHTON AVENUE (SEVERN). Planner Sullivan advised that this request has been recommended for approval by the staff, subject to the bonds being adjusted to reflect the current in- flation costs. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer, and unanimously carried, that a one year ex- tension be granted for completion of street improvements on Parcel Map AG 77 -382, Lot Split Case 77 -267, 1385 Brighton Avenue, subject to the condition that the bond be updated to reflect inflationary costs to the approval of the City Engineer REFERRALS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL - LAND USE /ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW Planner Sullivan reviewed that the City Council, at their last meeting in November or first meeting in December, acted on some 50 items to amend the Land Use Map in the City. He pointed out the various changes on the map and reviewed the 5 items that have been referred back to the Commission for action. Mr. Sullivan further pointed out that if the Commission does not take action on these items within 40 days of the Council action, the Council action is confirmed. Mr. Roger Fuller, 271 So. Alpine Street, commented on General Plan Item #54 which deals with the property on Farroll Avenue and the Grandmothers' Mobilehome Park, stating he would like to have the Planning Commission reaffirm their origi- nal decision. For the benefit of the Commissioners, Mr. Fuller reviewed some of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -2 -79 Page 3 the background of the property, stating along with the Grandmothers' Mobilehome Park there is an additional 2 acres on the northeast corner that is currently zoned R -1, and what is proposed to the Planning Commission and City Council is to zone that along with the same zoning as the mobilehome park, which is R -3, with a " -D" Override. He further stated they are asking for approval to put a maximum of 30 condominium units in there, and that originally, almost a year ago, there was a unanimous vote by the Planning Commission, and approval from staff on the proposal. The City Council felt this should come back to the Planning Commission to look at it again with the Grandmothers' Mobilehome Park. Right now, neither the mobilehome park nor the property he personally owns is in conformance with the General Plan. Commissioner Vandeveer stated he would like to study the items again, and inquired if it would be possible for staff to prepare a package for the Commission on what action they took and what action the Council took on the 5 items for their review at the next meeting. Chairman Harris stated that there is a good possibility that he will not be here at the next meeting and he would like to state that, with the exception of possibly #17, he is in agreement with the original recommendations; he felt that the Commission made good recommendations and there should not be any variations in them. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue discus- sion on the General Plan items to the next meeting. WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE Planner Sullivan pointed out that the Commissioners have received copies of the Scenic Routes Element of the General Plan, and that study sessions and hearing dates will be set after the Commissioners have had a chance to review the element. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Harris stated, with regard to Commission /Council liais.on. starting at the next meeting he would like the Commissioner assigned to attend Council meetings report back to the Commission at the end of the meeting, a quick synopsis on the items covered by the City Council which affect this body, particularly, how they handled items which were recommended by the Commission. Planner Sullivan advised this item could be added as an Agenda item. Chairman Harris further stated he has been curious as to what the situation is regarding a new fire station, and he would like to have a status report and recommendations of staff on the location and timing for the acquisition and con- struction of a new fire station. Planner Sullivan stated, with regard to Commissioner Vandeveer's request at the last meeting about the Phelan Feed Lot south of town, that he had con- tacted the County Planner and found out that it is a non - conforming use and has been expanded over the years without any specific approvals from anybody. He further stated that if anyone feels strongly enough about it, they could make their feelings known to the County government structure, or if this body feels strongly enough about it, they could make a recommendation to the City Council, and the Council go on record as the odor being a public nuisance. Planner Sullivan advised that with regard to the Lemon matter, the Com- mission asked for a definition on what a dust free surface was and, in dis- cussing the matter with Public Works Director Anderson, he was advised that it is a surface that is penetrated with oil and annually maintained, and that it is not only dust free, but also weatherproofing was part of the old require- ment, which was a continual maintenance item, and that is one of the reasons why the ordinance was changed to require either A.C. or concrete. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M. on a motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried. Planner Chairman 055