Loading...
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