Loading...
PC Minutes 2001-07-191 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HEARING July 19, 2001 PAGE 1 Chair Costello called the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL X Commissioner Brown X Commissioner Fowler X Commissioner Guthrie X Vice -Chair Keen X Chair Costello I. STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. Technical Report on circulation by Higgens & Associates. The traffic study dealt with major streets such as freeways, arterials, highways, minor arterials, collectors, ramps and zone connectors. The city is divided up into Traffic Analysis Zones when it is studied. Forecasts are then given for the Traffic Analysis Zones based on future land use in those areas. First studied were the existing conditions of the streets. The traffic in the Grand Ave. corridor has gone up roughly five to ten percent, and the traffic on Highway 101 has gone up about four percent per year, which is much higher then state averages. The Brisco and Halcyon interchange has operational problems, as well as Grand Ave. near Highway 101. There are a few intersections that need signals such as Corbett Canyon and Wasna, as well as the Valley Rd. and Fair Oaks Rd. intersection. We look at year 2020 for our future forecasts using the same zone structure and new land uses. There are a few networks, or planning options, we looked at for the future as well. The first network is a no build network which is basically the existing street network with a couple of road improvements that are already programmed. Another alternative shown is Highway 101 widened to six lanes. Then we have modifications on the Brisco and Grand Ave. interchange, a diamond interchange at El Campo with the Arroyo Linda development, and then we have a hook ramp interchange at El Campo with and without the Arroyo Linda development. The SLOCOG data shows build out in 2010 at 18,676 people, but other data shows buildout at 20,000 people. There is a slight difference between the numbers because the SLOCOG numbers are external and do not have an electronic back up, so the 18,000 number was generated internally from data given by SLOCOG. Leval of service "C" is the allowable volume and is what we use for the capacity in the model. In parts of Highway 101 we are probably using level "D" service. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HEARING July 19, 2001 PAGE 2 All the changes and improvements made within the report are independent of one another, we did not show combinations of changes. Regional growth is shown and impacts numbers in Arroyo Grande. B. Technical report on Land Use Areas. The EIR identifies areas of change: Area one is the church complex at James Way and Noyes Rd. It is currently Planned Development (PD) on the 1990 General Plan, and it is to be a community facility with this new General Plan update. Area two is a 56 acre parcel that is undeveloped and designated PD area at the Northwest end of the city adjacent to Equestrian and Noyes Rd. Residential subdivisions exist to the east and the south, and the city limits exist to the west and the north. It is currently PD and is proposed to have a conservation /open space perimeter with a PD not to exceed thirty -five units max within the center. It is subject to an EIR as well. Area three is a 26.6 acre property in the Rancho Grande PD area. It is proposed to be conservation /open space with one unit per five acres. There is a pending vesting tentative map there now. Area four is the western portion of the Royal Oak Estates in between the Rancho Grande PD and the Royal Oaks PD. It is allowed institutional uses with a specific approval and can have one home per parcel. It is suggested as a Single Family (SF) low density PD on the western portion with conservation /open space on the eastern portion. Area five is a large area north of the city within the county and city's sphere of influence. The current designation is non existant on the 1990 plan, but it is zoned within the County as Residential, one to three acre lots. The proposal is to exclude it from the sphere of influence. Also we would request that the county make the area have a minimum lot size of two acres. We may keep a 35 acre parcel that is along Highway 227 within the sphere, which is recommended within the EIR as well. The 35 acre parcel is proposed to be residential with low density having one parcel for every acre, but public response to this shows more people would like to see two acre parcels. Area six is Camino Mercado which is currently within a PD on the 1990 plan. It is proposed to be a mixed use area ranging from hotel to office uses. Area seven is divided into sub areas. Seven west is a SF residential area but is proposed to be Village Commercial (VC) in the new General Plan. Seven north is ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HEARING July 19, 2001 PAGE 3 along Tally Ho Rd. at the north edge of the Village and is suggested to stay single family residential. Seven south is a combination of the highway and general commercial in the 1990 plan and is proposed to be mixed use in the update. This section also includes the Dorfman property on Cherry which is zoned Agriculture (AG) and is proposed to stay AG in the new update. The Milton Hays property is also AG in the 1990 plan and is proposed to be SF low density in the 2001 update. Seven "E" is south of Arroyo Grande Creek and North of Cherry and is around twenty two acres. Seven "E" has had a lot of public comment. The village commercial district near the vacant Loomis lot includes single family homes and it is proposed to be changed to multi - family medium -low density from village core. The area to the south in seven "E" adjacent to Mason St. involves a change from office to single family residential. Area eight is divided into three parts. One part includes the Fredricks ALC property north of Traffic way up to the city limits, is residential hillside and rural residential, and is proposed to be a specific plan area with no specific designation. The area within the sphere is shown separately as a specific plan reserve and is not a part of the city's 1990 plan, it is currently zoned by the county as AG. There is an addition of 200 acres known as the Williams property, and is proposed to become part of the sphere of influence in the 2001 General Plan subject to LAFCO. Area nine is the Valley Road Agriculture area, and its not shown in the city's 1990 plan because it is out of the city's limits. It is currently AG and is proposed to be included within the city's sphere as AG. Area ten is a ten acre vacant property, Farroll Ave, used as AG sandwiched between single and multi family areas. It is currently zoned residential suburban and would take a specific plan with a maximum of 25 units for development. The proposal is to classify this land as PD and not require a specific plan for development. Area eleven is the surrounding area to the MU corridor proposed along Grand Ave. involving Sunset and Alder St. These are recommended as single family which is not a change from the current zoning. Area twelve is the remainder of the corridor from Oak Park down to Grand Ave. along El Camino Real. There are six classifications from the 1990 plan and they are recommended to all be mixed use in the new 2001 plan. We have the names and addresses of property owners that have requested designations in the seven area. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HEARING July 19, 2001 PAGE 4 For Agricultural buffers a minimum of 200 feet is requested, but larger would be better. Question by Joe Costello: Are there qualifiers for LOS? Higgens: Yes there are qualifiers and each city sets its criteria for the LOS. II. PUBLIC TESTOMONY 1. Ed Dorfman: Farming is a business and not a hobby. Quoted AG sections and gave opinions. Inclusionary zoning does not work. In lieu fees should be optional. We need more housing . 2. Rural Estes, 811 East Cherry: We all want 4.5 or greater density in 7 E area. The farm buffers should be taken away from the farm land. Cherry is 16 feet wide. 3. Tony Janowitz: 447 Lirely Ln.: I think the area should be zoned 4.5 density. 4. Wayne King: I apologize for giving wrong address for the Van DerVeen property last Tuesday; the correct address is 1273 Branch Mill Road. Last evening you heard a lot about agriculture and soils so I'II not repeat what has been discussed; except to say the Van DerVeen property is about the only parcel being considered wherein all the design engineers, planners, and former city councils intended the Greenwood Street, Tract 256, to be continued eastward, to serve homesites. Tonight I formally and respectfully request this parcel be included and the property designation changed to residential, medium density with lot sizes minimum of 7500 sq. ft. And please consider the following facts. Bruce has been denied the opportunity to drill a well; required him to purchase City water to supply his residence even though City services were located more than 400 feet away from his homesite. He also was denied a septic system commonly found on agriculture land. His home is now hooked up to the City sewer system presently in Greenwood Drive. Consequently, the legal limitations imposed by our society and his moral obligations to the neighbors imposes a financial hardship on Bruce Van DerVeen. 5. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle: Speaking for the Williams, they feel that the City is for no growth. Things that should determine what happens with 7E area are water and drainage. This town has a major problem getting traffic to Lopez. I object to the presentation on the traffic study and the study should have been viewed by the public for a review period. 6. Mike Titus 404 Lirely Ln: 7E does need to be rezoned for residential. The density of the area to the west should be 2.5 unit /ac and the property to the east should be 1 unit /ac. The AG setback, drainage, and the expansion of Lirely Ln all need to be taken into consideration. 7. Karen Cross - Harmon: The wording of the plan should be looked at. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HEARING July 19, 2001 PAGE 5 8. Cvndi Oberq 613 Grove Ct: Living near Cherry Ln. I am concerned about widening Cherry Ln. Water issues should also be looked at. 9. Ann Nichols 592 Hillside Ct: Worried about residential area she lives in and does not want it changed from residential. III. CONCLUSIONS AND QUESTIONS OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ON MAP Conclusions on the twelve land use study areas and subareas. The following all had consensus: Area one: Consensus was on alternative "C" which is to reclassify from Planned Development to Community Facility reflecting the existing church, related school and off - street parking. Area three Rancho Grande/ La Canada: to reclassify from Planned Development to Conservation /Open Space and Planned Development combining designation (C /OS- PD), allowing one dwelling per five acres (enabling up to five units subject to a PD approval) Area six Camino Mercado: reclassify the frontage of Camino Mercado from Planned Development to Mixed Use with Planned Development, combining designation except the cemetery that would be classified as Community Facility. Area eight Fredrick /ALC and Williams Properties: Inside and Outside of City Limits and Sphere of Influence: • Reclassify the portion of the Fredrick /ALC property within the City from Residential Rural and Residential Hillside, the latter requiring Specific Plan to a "Specific Plan" classification without underlying land uses prescribed. (A mapping error unintentionally excluding a 2 acres portion of this ownership southwest of South Traffic Way extension should be corrected prior to LUE adoption). • Classify the 185 acres adjoining Frederick /ALC property outside the city limits but within the LAFCO approved SOI as Specific Plan Reserve, and • Classify the 201 acre separate "Williams Property" as Specific Plan Reserve subject to LAFCO approval to include this property as part of the City's SOI Area nine Valley Road Agriculture: These County, unincorporated area properties surrounded by City limits should remain outside the City's sphere of influence, and classified County Agriculture and nearby high school owned property within the City limits should be reclassified from Agriculture to Community Facility to reflect its public agency ownership. Area ten Farroll Ave: The ten acre unsubdivided, agricultural use property classified as Residential Suburban with a Specific Plan required, should be reclassified as ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HEARING July 19, 2001 PAGE 6 Single Family Residential Low Medium Density, with a Planned Development combining designation to encourage cluster residential planned development of approximately 25 du and including possible expansion of Soto Sports Complex or private park and recreation /ponding basin potential. Area eleven East Grand Ave Mixed Use Corridor Boundaries (and adjoining residential area density determinations) To retain the single family residential, medium density classification for the subdivided, developed areas north and south of the east Grand Ave. mixed use (former General Commercial classified properties), except Alderhouse and two adjoining lots on Alder St. The site specific exception would be reclassified from Senior Housing and Single Family Residential to Multiple Family Residential, very high density with a Planned Development combining designation (the exception being a refinement evolving from FEIR response to comments) The Planning Commission recommendations on the remainder of the Land Use Study Areas 2,4,5,7 and 12 were accomplished by separate roll call votes for each of the following areas and subareas: Area two Rancho Grande at Noyes Road: The 53 +/- acres composed of two parcels should be reclassified from Planned Development to Conservation /OpenSpace ( allowing 1 du per parcel rather then with Planned Development combining designation allowing up to 35 du maximum. Vote 3 -2: With Brown Guthrie and Costello for and Fowler and Keen opposed. Area four Royal Oak Estates: Reclassify from Planned Development to SFR -LD -PD and C /OS, single family residential low density with planned development combining designation allowing a maximum of 20 du at one du per 1.4 acre, exclusive of the tree preservation easement area shown as C /OS. Vote 3 -2: with Fowler, Keen and Guthrie for and Brown and Costello opposed. Area five Prinz, Noyes and Oak Park Roads- Northern Sphere of Influence (S01): Exclude entire SOI area outside current city limits from city's urban reserve and request county referral to city council of all development proposals, subject to county LUE amendment to require minimum parcel size of 2.5 acres per dwelling unit. Revised the prior proposal to retain this as 35 acres within SOI adjoining Highway 227 for potential Single Family residential, low density planned development subject to annexation. Vote: 5 -0 Guthrie, Brown Keen, Fowler, and Costello for, none opposed. Area seven Village Mixed Use Boundaries and Uses: This Land Use Study Area was discussed by geographic sub -areas and includes several controversial property owner requests for reclassification: ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HEARING July 19, 2001 PAGE 7 7Sa: Traffic Way Highway and General Commercial: Reclassify the General Commercial classified and GC and HC zoned area south of the Village Core area (generally south of Poole St.) to mixed use. Unanimous consensus. 7Sb: South of East Cherry Ave, East of Traffic Way- frontage (Dorfman and Japanese Welfare Assoc.): Retain the current Agriculture classification unless and until mitigation for conversion is provided consistent with the proposed General Plan policies. (See Ag 1 -4.2 and Ag 3 -14). Vote 3 -2 Guthrie, Brown, and Costello for and Fowler and Keen opposed. 7W: Single Family Residential Subdivision West of the Village: Retain SFR - MD subdivided area along Larchmont, Wilton, and West Branch between Wesly and Vernon Ave. as Single Family Residential Medium Density. Unanimous consensus. 7N: Single Family Residential North Side of Le Point North of the Village: Retain as SFR -LD the residential rural zoned and developed lots on the hillside slopes north of Le Point St. Unanimous Consensus 7Ea: South Side of East Branch Adjoining Arroyo Grande Creek at East Edge of Village: Reclassify from Village Commercial to SFR -MD and Village Core the properties east of junction of Crown Terrace and East Branch St. Unanimous Consensus at the July 25, 2001 continued Meeting. 7Eb: East Myrtle, East Cherry and East Cherry Extension East of Noguera Place South of Arroyo Grande Creek, Include Lierly Lane: Reclassify from residential rural to single family residential, medium density (SFR -MD) the entire 22 acre area subject to a neighborhood development plan including infrastructure improvements (streets, water, sewer, drainage, parks etc.) providing for agriculture buffer to southeast and commercial /open space along Arroyo Grande Creek to north and east. Vote 4 -1 Keen, Fowler, Guthrie and Costello for and Brown opposed. 7Ec: Nelson Green area East of Mason and South of Nelson St. South of Arroyo Grande Creek: Reclassify from Village Commercial and Office, the south side of Nelson Street and east side of Mason St. to single family residential medium density. Unanimous consensus in response to public comment. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HEARING July 19, 2001 PAGE 8 Area twelve El Camino Real: Reclassify from residential suburban multiple family office, general commercial and industrial the area along El Camino Real to Mixed Use with the clarification that the former industrial classification would continue to be allowed or conditionally permit light industrial/ industrial manufacturing uses. Unanimous Consensus. A vote was made with all in favor to continue the meeting, motion was made by Commissioner Brown and seconded by Commissioner Guthrie. Meeting Will Be continued on July 25, 2001 at 6:30 pm in the City Hall. Public comments for the Planning Commission is now closed. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Costello at 11:30 p.m. ATTEST: Ryan Hostetter, Acting Commission Clerk AS TO CONT Kerry McCants NT: Communi D elopment Director ph ostello, Chair 1