Loading...
PC R 05-1966RESOLUTION NO. 05-1966 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-004, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 05-008 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-008 (Lot 4 only); 135 WHITELEY; APPLIED FOR BY PACE BROTHER'S CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Plot Plan Review 05-004, Architectural Review 05-008 and Viewshed Review 05-008 (Lot 4 only) filed by Pace Brother's Construction, to construct a two story, single family house; and WHEREAS, on April 19, 2005, the Planning Commission requested a public hearing in accordance with the City Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on these application in accordance with the City Municipal Code on May 17, 2005 and June 21, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that this project is not consistent with the General Plan and the environmental documents associated therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration cannot be adopted; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, that all findings of approval cannot be made, specifically: Findinqs of Denial: Recommend Denial of the project on the followinq basis (outlined by Commissioner Parker) 1. Requirement: The proposed project is inconsistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General P/an including imp/ementing policies: Finding: The project is inconsistent with conservation and open space element policies of the General Plan: C/OS2-1.1 and C/OS2-1.3, nor does it provide for accessibility of the area to the public. The project also removes scenic resources that are unique to the City and contribute to the character of the neighborhood as well as the City. The project provides creek and bank dedication, but then takes it away by building a fence along the bank. 2. Requirement: C/OS2 Safeguard important environmenta/ and sensitive biological resources contributing to hea/thy functioning ecosystem. Designate all sfreams and riparian corridors as Conservation Open Space. Shall include buffer area corresponding at least to natural vegetation and or creek bank. RESOLUTION NO. 05-1966 PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-004, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 05-008 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-008 (LOT 4 ONLY) PAGE 2 Finding: The proposed project does not conform with applicable performance standards and will be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare since the project does not satisfy all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code including development standards of the single-family Zoning district. 3. Requirement: C/OS2-1.3 - Where feasible, mainfain a grading and building setback of 25 feet from top of stream bank. Locate buildings and structures outside setback. Finding: The house can be redesigned to fit into the area, with a smaller degree of compromise that would lesson impacts to the environment and safety of the area. The developer needs to present a plan that more closely follows the General Plan and Development Code regarding the 25-foot setback (e.g. an alternative providing an additional 5 feet, which removes the corners of this plan, making the buffer 16 feet from the edge of the bank, the footprint would be reduced by only 370 sf. The footprint would then be 1040 square feet. The developer is proposing 1480, and a 2800 sf home. By allowing a second story, as well as a 16 ft buffer, the square footage would be 2080, plus the garage. 4. Requirement: C/OS2-1.4: Creekside trails may be designed within stream and riparian corridors. Finding: Although this states "May be designed", this project does not provide for use of a creek side trail as stated both in this section and in the Parks and Rec Element. 5. Requirement: The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Finding: According to surrounding neighboring homes, this project proposes a much larger home than the surrounding neighborhood, making it incompatible. 6. Requirement for Historic Overlay District: The construction of any building or structure enhances, to the maximum extent feasible and does not interfere with, detract from or degrade the historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological resource values of the district. Finding: The use proposed for a building, structure, or parcel of land is incompatible with the uses predominating in the designated area since the proposed single-family house is not similar to neighboring residences. The house footprint is large. A standard home in area is between 1,100 and 2,000 square feet. This home is 2,250 square feet plus garage. The established scale of the existing neighborhood is much smaller and unique in character. 7. Requirement: The proposa/ will not be detrimental to the health, safely, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of RESOLUTION NO. 05-1966 PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-004, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 05-008 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-008 (LOT 4 ONLY) PAGE 3 the proposed project. Finding: As per the General Plan, the project is too close to the creek bank which could be or easily become unstable, and possibly erode into the federally protected creek below. 8. Requirement for Viewshed Review: Section 16.16.130 of the Municipa/ Code: purpose and intent: to preserve the existing scope and character of established single family neighborhoods and to protect views and aesthetics and other property values in such neighborhoods in a manner that is compatible with reasonable expansion on exisfing developed /ots. Finding: Character and scale of neighborhood is, as previously stated, much smaller in size and scale. This structure if built within the scale and character of the neighborhood will fit into the restraints of the property as well. The unique character of the property along the creek will be hindered with this project. 9. Requirement related to the Safety Element of the General Plan: SE-1 Limit development density in areas that may be subject to significant geologic and other safety hazards. The risk of loss of life and property can be minimized. One of the purposes of the Open Space Element is to preserve open space for public health and safety, including areas thaf require specia/ management and regu/ation because of hazardous or special conditions (eg. earthquake, fault zones, flood plains, unstable soil conditions). 10. Requirement: SE-2 Land Use Planning: Future development should a/ways be planned with careful consideration toward reducing the threat of property and environmental loss. While many considerations are involved in development, safety shou/d be paramount. Make land use decisions that minimize the potential loss of life, injury, and property damage from natural and human-caused hazards, it is necessary to have an understanding of fhe causes and potential effects of the hazards that may affect the City of Arroyo Grande. Finding for 9 and 10: This is a hazardous risk that can be averted while still achieving the individual or public objective. 11. Requirement related to the Parks and Recreation Element of fhe General Plan: Implementation Measure PR2-1.2 Confinue creek dedication required by Subdivision Ordinance. Implementation Measure PR4-1.2 A regional trail should be established along A G Creek greenbelt from Strother Park to the Ocean. Finding: The proposed project is inconsistent with these policies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande denies Plot Plan Review 05-004, Architectural Review 05-008 and RESOLUTION NO. 05-1966 PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-004, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 05-008 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-008 (LOT 4 ONLI� PAGE 4 Viewshed Review 05-008 (Lot 4 only) to construct a finro story, single family house located at 135 Whiteley Street with the above findings. On motion by Commissioner Parker, seconded by Commissioner Fellows, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Fellows and Chair Brown NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Keen and Tait the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21 S� day of June 2005. RESOLUTION NO. 05-1966 PLOT PLAN REVIEW 05-004, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 05-008 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 05-008 (LOT 4 ONLY) PAGE 5 ATTEST: � KATHY M � DOZA, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION TO COP�€NT: _� :�- ;.'_ TIM B OWN, CHAIR RO� 3�TRONG, - " COMMUNITY DEVELOPM NT DIRECTOR