PC Minutes 1978-01-03t13
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
January 3, 1978 .
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman
Gerrish presiding. Present are Commissioners Cole, Harris, Moots, Ries and
Vandeveer. One vacancy exists on the Commission. Also in attendance are Plan-
ning Director Castro, Planner Sullivan and City Engineer Karp,
PROPOSED STREET NAMES FOR TRACT NOS. 674 AND 675, "THE COASTAL OAKS ",
Planning Director Castro referred to the memo dated December 30, 1977 en-
dorsing the suggested street names for Tract 674 and 675. Commissioner Vandeveer
advised that two of the proposed names were suggested by the Historical Society.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -581
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING PROPOSED STREET NAMES
FOR TRACT NO, 674 AND TRACT NO. 675,
On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
Commissioners Cole, Harris, Moots, Ries, Vandeveer and
Chairman Gerrish,
None
None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 3rd day of January 1978,
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO, 77 -58, 268 ALDER STREET, REDUCTION OF RE-
QUIRED MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE IN AN "R -1" DISTRICT (ROBERTSON).
Planning Director Castro reviewed the past history regarding this property.
He advised that the Minor Subdivision Committee Action on October 16, 1975 did
specify that due to the shape and size of the property, the Committee did ap-
prove division into three parcels; the two front parcels to contain 6,000i sq, ft.
with 52% foot frontage. He further advised that there are provisions in the
ordinance where if it can be established that there is a hardship involved due
to shape, size or topography of the land, a Variance can be granted. He stated
that staff is still endorsing the action previously taken by the Committee and
the Commission. He pointed out that Mr, Robertson completed all of the required
conditions of Lot Split Case No. 75 -226, however, the effective time period
of approval had expired before the map could be recorded, and that Mr. Robertson
was granted one six month extension; that extension also expired before the map
could be recorded. Mr. Robertson then re -filed an application for a lot split
and, as a condition of approval, Mr, Robertson was required to request a Variance
of the minimum lot width requirement. Mr. Castro further advised that all three
of the proposed lots meet or exceed lot area requirements.
Upon being assured by Planning Director Castro that public hearing for
Variance Case No. 77 -58 had been duly published, posted and property owners noti-
fied, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open.
Elizabeth Jackson, 208 Fair View Drive, spoke in opposition to granting
the Variance, stating she would hate to see a precedence set where we could have
one size lot here and one size lot there, and spoil a very nice looking neigh-
borhood.
Mr, John Robertson, petitioner for the Variance, stated he applied for
this split sometime ago and there was a misunderstanding on the improvements
required on the lot split, and the recording of the map was . one day late. He
further advised that some of the older lots on that street are wider and some
are narrower than what he is requesting. Planning Director Castro pointed
out that the minimum lot on the street is about 40 feet, and the property is
zoned "R -1" which does permit 6,000 sq, ft. minimum lots.
There being no further discussion for or against the proposed Variance,
Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed,
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -3 -78 Page 2
Commissioners Moots, Ries and Cole expressed their feelings that since the
lots meet the minimum requirements of 6,000 sq. ft. or better, they would have
no objections to granting the Variance. Commissioner Harris stated that under
the State Government Code, a Variance requires certain circumstances in order to
be granted legally; (1) under special circumstances, the property has to have
certain unique qualities that are different than other lots similarly situated
in the same zone; and (2) there has to be unnecessary hardship compared to sur-
rounding property, and the hardship cannot be self induced; also the Variance, if
it is granted, cannot grant special privileges to the lot it is granted to; the
lot cannot be treated differently than any other lots in the same area. He pointed
out that what we have here is cutting down the minimum frontage size from 60 ft.
to 52 ft.; the Commission does not have the power to change the Zoning Ordinance,
only the power to grant a Variance under special circumstances as listed. He
stated he can see no special circumstances or unnecessary hardship in this partic-
ular case. He pointed out that this property can be split into two lots and still
meet the minimum lot frontage, and he cannot see where the Commission has the
power to grant the Variance under the State Government Code.
Commissioner Vandeveer stated that when this matter was discussed a few weeks
ago, he advised at that time that he is opposed to variances on lot frontages and
he would like to adhere to at least the minimum size. He stated he understands
Mr. Robertson's case, and he still finds it hard to grant a Variance and that he
has mixed feelings in the matter, Chairman Gerrish pointed out that the Commis-
sion has essentially, by their actions in the past, approved it once already.
After further discussion, Commissioner Cole moved that the Variance be granted to
reduce the required minimum lot frontage because of the special circumstances that
the Commission has already acted on this, and because of the situation on Mr. John
Robertson's part, it did not get accepted. Motion died for lack of a second.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 77 -582 V
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING VARIANCE CASE
NO. 77 -58.
On motion by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Harris, Ries and Vandeveer
NOES: Commissioners Cole, Moots and Chairman Gerrish.
ABSENT: None.
the foregoing Resolution was lost due to a tie vote.
Commissioner Moots stated he felt a clarification was needed, and on motion
by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and unanimously carried, it
was recommended that Variance Case No. 77 -58 be forwarded to the City Council for
a decision.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CASE NO. 77 -115, FROM "R -G" GARDEN APARTMENT DISTRICT
TO "R - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LE POINT AND CROWN HILL AREAS (CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE).
Upon being assured by Planning Director Castro that public hearing for Rezon-
ing Case No. 77 -115 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified,
Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open,
Planning Director Castro advised that the zoning process before the Commis-
sion is to bring about the conformance between the General Plan Amendment adopted
by the Planning Commission and the Zoning Ordinance of the City, The action the
Commission will be taking is to rezone those properties fronting on the westerly
end of Wesley Avenue along Le Point Street and at the terminus of the "R -G"
District, and also the area on Crown Hill which includes the properties fronting
on East Branch up to Crown Street and then north of Crown Street following the
same boundary line as shown on the boundary map,
Chairman Gerrish pointed out that the General Plan has already been changed
in these areas, and this change in zoning is to conform those areas with the General
-Plan.
437
438
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -3 -78 Page 3
Barbara McCoy, Crown Street; Bill McCann, 428 Tanner Lane; Ruth Paulding,
551 Crown Street; B'Ann Smith, 548 Crown Hill; Jim Porter, 544 Crown; Elizabeth
Jackson, 208 Fair View Drive; and Barbara Carlson, 328 Longden Court, spoke in
favor of the zone change.:
Art Garey, 124 W. Branch Street, stated he had no quarrel with the rezoning
on Crown Hill, but he did object to the rezoning on the property that he owns
because he feels that the present zoning is appropriate to U.Ri[vwildL higher density,
Tom Norcross, Arroyo Grande Realty, 101 W. Branch St,, stated he is speaking on
behalf of his client, and one of the properties in contention here is in escrow
and the buyers are not interested in "R -G" necessarily, but they do,plan to put in
ttwo duplexes and they both plan to reside each in one of them and rent the other
one out. He stated he felt zoning it all the way down to "R -1" is creating a
hardship on them., Jan Guidotti, Rt 3, Box 165, San Luis Obispo, stated she owns
the old Catholic Church property which is the westerly end of the block between
Wesley and Nevada and that the back end of this property is involved in this re-
zoning. She advised that the front of the property is zoned Highway Service and
there is a small shopping center planned for it., In her opinion, it would seem
that "R-1" so closely related to commercial usage would be a little bit undesirable:.
She stated that on this one particular block between Wesley and Nevada, there are
many factors to consider, and it seems like the eai;'i'ing zoning is more appropriate
than the proposed zoning, and that it would be better to have a little bit of a
buffer like the "R -G" District between the commercial usage and the "R -1" usage.
There being no further discussion for or against the proposed rezoning,
Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed,
Commissioner Harris stated he felt the rezoning should be approved as recom-
mended and if there are individual cases where they should perhaps be in another
zone and the General Plan should indicate their ultimate use as being different,
when the whole City is looked at this coming year, obviously the staff would then
look at these individual cases at that time
After a brief discussion, thefollowing action. was taken:
RESOLUTION. NO, 78 -583 Z
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 Cole, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cole, Harris, Moots, Ries, Vandeveer and Chairman
Gerrish.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 3rd day of January 1978.
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF USE - RESTAURANT IN A "C -N" NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT, SUNRISE SHOPPING CENTER ON VALLEY ROAD (HAHLBECK
Planning Director Castro referred to his memo dated December 30,1977 pointing
out that the Planning Department has reviewed the purpose of the Neighborhood Com-
mercial District vs. the intent of a Central Business District classification, and
finds that the "C -N" District is designed to provide convenience facilities within
specific neighborhood areas. Although the "C -N" District does not permit restaru-
ants, the Commission has the prerogative to consider the request and make an inter-
pretation as to whether the use is in accordance with the intent of that zoning
district, and it depends on how flexible the Commission wants to be, He pointed
out that the Williams Brothers Shopping Center does have a restaurant facility,,
Mr. Hahlbeck was in the audience ana advised the Commission that basically
the facility is going to be a sit -down family type restaurant with a seating capa-
city of 35 to 40 people, with very limited "take -out" service.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -3 -78 Page 4
Chairman Gerrish pointed out that the q4 > sAon before the Commission is whether
the use is permitted in the building now being erected. Commissioner Cole commented
she hoped that the Parking Commission will look into the traffic situation there and
suggested that maybe a turn -out or something similar is needed for that area Barbara
Carlson, 328 Longden Court, stated she was also concerned about the traffic on Vality
Road, and she was not speaking just of the restaurant, but of the shopping center it-
self.
Chairman Gerrish pointed out that the Commercial Center that was approved would
have to have adequate parking for the entire facility, and Planning Director Castro
commented that the parking lot is adjacent to the building Commissioner Cole r%-.-
quested that the City Engineer take a look at the traffic situation in this area
It was the feeling of the Commission that a family type restaurant completely
contained within a building as described by Mr. Hahlbeck would he an appropriate use
for the District and, after discussion, the following action was taken
RESOLUTION NO, 78-584
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DETERMINING THAT t, FAMILY
TYPE RESTAURANT COMPLETELY ENCLOSED WITHIN A
BUILDING IS SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO USES PERMIT -
ED - 'IN A "C -N NEIGHBORHOOD C(-llRCIAL DISTRICT.
On motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit
AYES. Commissioners Cole, Harris Moots, Ries, Vandeveer and Chairman
Gerrish.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 3rd day of January 1978
PROPOSED STREET NAME FGR TRACTS 636 and 679 "BEECH PLACE ", (PHILLIPS AND NICHOLS).
Planning Director Castro requested that this matter be continued to the regular
meeting of January 17, 1978.
REVIEW OF OPEN SPACE AND EQUESTRIAN DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE OAK PARK ACRES DEVELOP-
MENT..
Planning Director Castro requested that this m•.tter be continued to the next
regular meeting of January 17, 1978:
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 77 -156 GRANT STORE, BRANCH
STREET (RON GRANT).
Planner Sullivan reviewed the plans for the Commission, stating the proposai
is to build a second story office complex with a first story parking facility, and
the parking requirements are to be worked out with the Downtcwn Parking and Business
Improvement Area Advisory Board. Planning Director Castro advised that there is
also an additional office building being added in back of the Village Art Shop area
projecting over the creek area, The style is proposed to be early California char-
acter. He further advised that the Committee met on this matter and decided that
the parking that currently exists on the parcel was adequate enough to satisfy the
parking requirements for the hardware store, the office building and the interior
decorating shop, However, with the addition, Mr, Grant will be needing a total of
36 parking spaces, and this meets with the approval of the Parking Assessment Dis-
trict. He advised that. one of the things they have been working out with Mr. Grant
was some kind of schedule, and he' read the conditions of approval of the
Architectural Committee Action, dated December 28, 1971, Mr, Castro stated that
staff recommends approval of the project and feels it would be a fine addition to
the downtown area After a brief discussion, Architectural. Committee Action, dated
December 28, 1977 was approved as submited.
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO., 77- 160_,_ASPEN STREET, TWO
4 UNIT APARTMENT STRUCTURES (PACE).
Planning Director Castro reviewed the conditions of approval set forth by
the Architectural Review Committee. After a brief discussion, Architectural Com-
mittee Action, datc;d December 28, 1977 was approved as submitted._
439
440
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -3• -78 Page 5
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 77 -161, 211 SPRUCE STREET
8 UNIT APARTMENT (CONKLINL
Planning Director Castro reviewed the conditions of approval set forth by the
Architectural Review Committee: Commissioner Ries pointed out that the Committee
had requested that the roof 'line be broken up tc take away from the dormitory effect,
and this request has been satisfied by the designer. After a brief discussion,
Architectural Committee Action, dated December 28, 1977 was approved as submitted,
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO, 77.162 227 LE POINT ST
1 UNIT APT. ADDITION CALHOON AND KNUTSONL.
Planning Director Castro requested that this matter bE carried over pending
receipt of revised plans with a little more detail.
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 77.150 TENTATIVE TRACT
NO. 672, "OAK PARK LEISURE GARDENS " O'NEAL AND KVIDTL
Planning Director Castro advised that a complete set of landscaping plans
have been submitted for the townhcuse project, and staff finds the plans to to
satisfactory He further advised that the irrigation piar...s were submitted today
and staff has not had a chance to check them over, however, if the Commission
wants to go ahead and approve them, if.there are any problems, they will be brought
back before the Commission. Commissioner Ries commented that the Committee was not
satisfied with the plan, as originally submitted, and Mr. Kvidt did work with the
staff which is appreciated all the way around- After a brief discussion, final
landscaping plans and irrigation plans were approved as. submitted subject to Fan-
ning Department approval.
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION - .ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 77 -163, 1.054 GRAND AVENUE,
COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE (FIVE CITIES TIMES PRESS RECORDERI:
Planning Director Castro read the conditions of approval by the Architectural
Review Committee.. Commissioner Cole commented that the Committee made reference
to the parking in front of the facility and they felt it should be reviewed because
of the sight limitation coming out of the driveway: Planning Director Castro stated
the matter would be discussed with the Pubic Works Department and the City Engineer
to see if there are any soiuticns to that problem
After discussion, Architectural Committee Action, dated December 28, 1.977 was
approved as submitted,
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 77 -283 CUESTA PLACE, LOT LINE ADJUST-
MENT, (HAROLD LEE /GARING TAYLOR & : \SSOCIATESL
Planner Sullivan explained that this is technically a ict line adjustment: The
existing house was intruding soma 4 feet or so onto the other lots_
After discussion - Subdiviisior. Committee Action, dated December 28, 1977
was approved as submitted -.
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO 77 -284 PRINTZ ROAD LLACKEYl.
Planning Director Castro advised that this matter was denied by the Minor Sub-
division Committee pending information from Mr. Anderson Pubiic Works- Director. He
advised that the Commission had received a copy of a iet_°er from Mr.. A:::.derson to
night, dated January 3, 1978, setting forth their recommendations, He stated the
City's position on this matter in the past has been not to endorse a project unless
the water and sewer services can be extended to the parcels in question.
Mr. Bill Lackey, petitioner for. the Lot Split, advised that all he is asking
for is one additional house, He stated he can put two houses on the lot now with-
out having to do anything, and he did not see where one more house makes it more
or less undesirable., Mr, Lackey requested a continuation on this matter until a
percolation test on the property can be made to see whether a septic system would
work. City Engineer Karp stated he did not think that would change the water sit-
uation at all; even if it dots per_:olate into the ground water, : +.t makes it worse
Mr. Lackey stated that the wells in the area are 300 ft. deep Chairman Gerrish
reviewed that the recommendation cf the Minor Subdivision Committee was that the
application be denied without Prejudice He further reviewed the memo from Mr:
Anderson:
1. The quality aru quantity cf well water is questionable in the area Also,
when lots develop with private water and sewer systems, it is very diffi-
cult and expensive tc convert to Cl.ty services whir. available.
2, Close proximity of wells and septic tanks are a possible source of ecn-
tamination.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -3 -78 Page 6
3, Property could be considered for development at the present time with
private well and septic system, and a split at a later date when City
water is available to this area,
Commissioner Harris staged that, based upon staff's recommendation, he would
disagree with the Committee's recommendation that the lot split be denied without
prejudice, He felt that in view of Mr, Anderson's recommendation and the other
staff, that the request be denied with prejudice. Commissioner Ries stated he
would agree with Commissioner Harris and that at the. time the Committee made the
recommendation, they did not have Mr. Anderson's report After discussion, on
motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously car-
ried, that Lot Split Case No. 77 -284 be amended to read "denied" instead of
"denied without prejudice ",
REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 77 -285 PILGRIM WAY (WILLIAMS).
Planning Director Castro read the recommendations of the Lot Split Com-
mittee, and advised that the lot split conforms to the lot size of the zoned
district and the General Plan,
After a brief discussion, Minor Subdivision Committee Action, dated December
28, 1977 was approved as submitted
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - EIR FOR RANCHO GRANDE - PROPERTIES
Mr Rudolph. Ortega, Architect for the project, made a brief slide presenta-
tion stating they were prepared to show some of the design aspects to convey from
a conceptual standpoint what the developers' intentions are for the development
of the project. After the film presentation, Mr. Ortega stated, in conclusion,
they have created a project that produces and provides a very diversified base of
housing types,. design considerations will be varied, and will lend themselves to
create a very varied project and homogenious project through the C. C. & R.'s,
and through the diversified housing "'case they are able to address themselves to
many segments of the market within the community..
Mr., Ortega then introduced Mr. Stan Abbott, 1226 Anacapa Street, Santa Bar-
bara, Attorney, who was involved in the preparation of the C. C & R 's..
Mr. Abbott referred to the C C. & R 's stating that they were patterned
after the Mission Viejo covenants with the permission of their Council The whole
concept is that there is a master homeowner's association that is going to admini-
ster and police the development as it grows over the years, and make sure that if
there are any violations of the conditions, that they be remedied. He pointed out
that everyone that owns a lot, house, condominium, or apartment house, or whatever
it.may be, automatically becomes a member of the Association, Mr,. Abbott outlined
some of the specific provisions contained in the C. C. & R;'s and spoke to the
means of enforcing these provisions-
Mr, Robert Flowers, 233 E. Carrillo Street, Santa Barbara, Project Engineer,
stated the development plan, in his opinion, has been very adequately explained
as to what is proposed for the development He advised they have re -filed an
amended tentative parcel map that coincides with the development plan as presented,
and the density allocation plan, which indicates the open space areas, He pointed
out that along with the plans submitted, plus the development plan, he feels they
have made a complete presentation that mitigates a lot of the problems that were
pointed out in the EIR report, We have also developed and explained the phasing
as to how the project will be developed,. He further stated they have also pre-
sented a master plan for the sewage collection system and the water supply, in-
cluding a proposed upper pressure zone for the City, which would supply this pro-
ject as well as higher areas outside of the project, and would enable the City to
take advantage, through free storage availability, of their Lopez Lake appropria-
tion. Mr. Flowers briefly outlined the proposed phasing of the project, which in-
cluded:public improvements and the development itself.,
Mr.. Ed Comport, Landscape Architect for the project, of Earthplan, 3938 State
Street, Santa Barbara, stated that the EIR addressed itself to three areas that
fall into his field of endeavors, which are tree preservation and maintenance,
erosion control, and the introduction of plant species that are either native or
non - native to the site He spoke briefly to these three concerns:
Planning Director Castro recommended that the public hearing be continued tc
Wednesday, January 11th wherein the entire evening could be devoted to public in-
put, and also that the public hearing then be continued co the next regular F_,an--
ning Commission meeting of January 17th., After a brief discussion, Chairman
Gerrish continued the public hearing to a special meeting on Wednesday,Js-uory
441
442
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -3 -78 Page 7
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Planning Director Castro advised that at the last meeting, Mrs. Honeycutt
requested a written communication from the City Attorney regarding a possible
conflict of interest of Mrs: Cole with regard to the Rancho Grange property,. He
advised he had received a call from Mr. Shipsey indicating that this letter
would be forthcoming in two days and that he has checked the City Code on Con-
flict of Interest and also the State Code, and that he can find no problem with
Mrs. Cole participating in the discussion of the Rancho Grande EIR and develop-
ment plan.
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT
Chairman Gerrish advised that in view of Commissioner Hitchen's resignation
from the Planning Commission, a member is needed to serve on the Lot Split/Archi-
tectural Review Committee; After a brief discussion, Commissioner Vandeveer was
appointed to serve on this Committee,
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission,
sioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and nanimous
ing was adjourned at 10:25 P „M.
ATTEST: `
SECRETARY
motion by Comis-
rr , the meet.-
1
1