Loading...
PC Minutes 1994-05-171 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Soto, Reilly, Deviny, and Keen. Absent are Commissioners Tappan and Hatchett. Current Planner Scott Spierling is in attendance. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94 -518, 900 WEST BRANCH STREET, APPLICANT IS ST. PATRICK'S SCHOOL Commissioner Deviny explained that he and Commissioner Reilly abstained on this item at the last meeting because of potential conflicts of interest. However, they have checked with both the City Attorney and the Fair Political Practices Committee and, because they have no real nor financial interest in this project, were advised they could hear this item tonight. Current Planner Spierling gave a brief summation of this item to the Commissioners. He pointed out a possible issue that may arise regarding the requirement for constructing curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, stating that the City Council allowed St. Patrick's to postpone this requirement on the Conditional Use Permit last year for the modular classroom by entering into a written agreement requiring installation at a later date. Current Planner Spierling went on to say however that that action by the Council has no affect on the item being presented this evening. Therefore, if the school wishes to have the curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirements postponed again, they will need to appeal Conditions 9 and 10 to the City Council. He pointed out that the major difference between this application and the previous application is that approval of this application will increase the number of students attending the school. He concluded by stating Staff recommended approval of this resolution. Chairman Carr opened the public hearing. Raymond Burnell, Principal of St. Commissioners and Staff, which he Commission waive Conditions 9 and sidewalks. Mr. Burnell went on to say and felt they should not be required to Patrick's School, gave copies of an appeal to the then read. This appeal requested that the Planning 10, which involve installation of curbs, gutters, and that they had a written agreement from the City Council pay an additional $95.00 for this appeal. Mr. Burnell asked for clarification of Condition 13, stating that it was his understanding that the Fire Chief said that this might be a need, rather than the verbiage which stated it was to be done. Mr. Burnell called Greg Soto, the project architect, from the audience to clarify this item. Mr. Soto stated that his understanding from talking with the Fire Chief at the Staff Meeting was that, at present time, the school did meet the standards. However, if a certain amount of students are added, according to Article 14, then it would trigger a possible need to upgrade the rest of the school. Chairman Carr asked if this had only to do with the alarm system and Mr. Soto answered in the affirmative. Chairman Carr then suggested adding verbiage at the end of Condition #13 to read: "to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief ". Therefore, if doing nothing satisfies him and also Article 14, that would be his determination. Chairman Carr then inquired if the other Commissioners were in agreement with this verbiage being added and they concurred. Mr. Burnell was also asked if this clarified Condition #13 for him and he answered in the affirmative, further stating they would always want to comply with anything regarding the safety of the children. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 May 17, 1994 Responding to the appeal to the City Council regarding Conditions #9 and #10, Current Planner Spierling was asked why this was necessary and he responded that if the requirement was waived the Development Code requires the applicant to post a cash bond. Therefore, he continued, to modify the City Code, the City Attorney felt most comfortable with the Council making that type of determination. Commissioner Keen advised Mr. Burnell that he could also ask the City Council to waive the $95.00 charge and Chairman Carr added that he could ask that the Planning Commission recommend the waiving of the $95.00 fee. Mr. Burnell did so. With no further comments from the audience, Chairman Carr closed the public hearing. During. the discussion by the Commission, Commissioner Soto Commission did recommend approval, they should also recommend the $95.00 be waived because there is already an agreement Commissioners concurred. The following action was taken adding to the end of Condition #13, Fire Chief ": AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chairman Carr opened the public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 94 -1471 said he felt that if the that if it is appealed, that in affect and the other "to the satisfaction of the A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94 -518, AT 900 WEST BRANCH STREET; APPLIED FOR BY SAINT PATRICK'S SCHOOL; ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INSTRUCTION THAT THE SECRETARY FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION. On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: • Commissioners Soto, Reilly, Deviny, Keen and Chairman Carr None Commissioners Tappan and Hatchett the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 17th day of May 1994. Commissioner Soto then made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and unanimously carried, that if Conditions #9 and #10 be appealed by St. Patrick's School that the Planning Commission recommends that the $95.00 filing fee be waived. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94 -520, 801 HUASNA ROAD, APPLICANTS ARE JAMES AND EVADENE DOTSON Current Planner Spierling gave a report to the Commission, pointing out pertinent information on this project. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 May 17, 1994 James Dotson, applicant, spoke briefly and requested approval, stating that he agreed to all the conditions. Ile responded to a letter from Henry Sullivan concerned with heavy equipment on his property. Mr. Dotson said he had eight and a half acres and occasionally he has a tractor to mow the weeds. Ron Olson of 640 Cerro Vista Circle, then spoke stating that his property is northeast of the Dotson property and adjacent to it. Mr. Olson said he backed Mr. Dotson's request for approval. With no further comments from the audience, Chairman Carr closed the public hearing. Commissioner Reilly questioned Mr. Dotson regarding the equipment mentioned in Mr. Sullivan's letter, asking him if he was running a business on the property. Mr. Dotson responded in the negative, saying the only equipment he had on his property was to take care of his eight and a half acres and it was there only occasionally. After a discussion by the Commissioners, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 94 -1472 A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94 -520, AT 801 HUASNA ROAD; APPLIED FOR BY JAMES AND EVADENE DOTSON; ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INSTRUCTION THAT THE SECRETARY FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION. On motion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Reilly, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Soto, Reilly, Deviny, Keen and Chairman Carr NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Tappan and Hatchett the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 17th day of May 1994. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94 -521 AT 700 WHITE COURT, APPLICANTS ARE RICHARD AND PATRICIA SHAFFER Current Planner Spierling presented the staff report using the overhead projector to point out various aspects on this project. He ended his report by stating that approval was recommended. Commissioner Soto asked why, if the present structure was legally built in 1991, was it necessary to issue a Conditional Use Permit, to which Current Planner Spierling responded that, when constructed, it was just a big, open room, but if the application were approved it would now become a legal dwelling unit. Commissioner Keen asked if there was a bath and kitchen presently in this unit and Mr. Spierling responded in the negative. Chairman Carr opened the public hearing. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 May 17, 1994 Richard Shaffer, the applicant, answered no in response to Commissioner Soto's question if he was the property owner in 1991. He stated the building in question has never been occupied since he has been the owner. In response to Commissioner Keen's question if he intended to use it personally or rent it out, Mr. Shaffer stated his intent is to rent it out. After a discussion by the Commissioners, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 94 -1473 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 94 -521, AT 700 WHITE COURT; APPLIED FOR BY RICHARD AND PATRICIA SHAFFER; ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INSTRUCTION TIHAT THE SECRETARY FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION. On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Soto, Reilly, Deviny, Keen and Chairman Carr NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Tappan and Hatchett the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 17th day of May 1994. PUBLIC HEARING - CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REGARDING AMENDMENT TO TITLE 6, CHAPTER 5 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING RECREATIONAL VEHICLES Chairman Carr stated that before the staff report was given, he wanted to provide some ground rules. After the report was given, this item will be opened up to the public. He stated that the intent was to receive public testimony, discuss the ordinance, provide direction to Staff, and then continue this item to a future date. At the next hearing with any amendments made by Staff, it would hopefully then be acted upon by the Planning Commission. Current Planner Spierling began his report by stating that the reason this item was being presented is because of concerns regarding the use and storage of recreation vehicles within the City, thereby requiring the Staff to update this chapter, originally entitled House Trailers and adopted in 1954. Since public concerns were brought to the attention of the City, Staff revised this ordinance which is being presented this evening. Mr. Spierling stated that the main concerns were about RVs being stored on public streets and by them being used illegally as living quarters. Current Planner Spierling pointed out other items considered in these amendments, ending by stating that after public testimony, Staff would like to receive comments from the Commission regarding revisions they would like on this first draft. He also recommended this item be continued. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Conunission Page 5 May 17, 1994 Mr. Spierling then instructed the audience that, 'after the meeting, those who would like to receive personal notice of future meetings on this subject, should write their names and addresses on a sheet that he would provide in the foyer. Chairman Carr opened the public hearing. David Duceshi of 681 Garfield Place was the first to speak, reading a letter that he afterward gave to the Clerk. In the letter he stated that the need to update this ordinance was apparent, but he felt that it was too restrictive in that it was necessary to hook up to utilities and to do maintenance. Mr. Duceshi further said that when not in use his trailer is in a storage lot, but when they need to do maintenance or prepare for a trip, it was necessary to park it on the street. Chairman Carr mentioned that letters had been received from Larry and Nancy Anderson, Arthur and Joan Coplin, Dick Franks, and Dean and Mary Ann Shaw. Carolyn Knute, 326 Noguera Place, agreed with Mr. Duceshi's comment regarding connecting the RV to utilities, stating she was on a cul -de -sac and could not park the RV anywhere but in her driveway. She ended her comments by requesting that a reasonable time be allowed to connect to house electricity, as well as cleaning, packing and unpacking. Chairman Carr asked if she had to run her cable across a public sidewalk when she was plugged in. Ms. Knute responded that the whole unit was across the sidewalk because she has a 29 foot unit. She did state that in the past there were complaints, but not any more. She ended by stating that her RV is in storage when not in use or being prepared for use, and that she felt 72 hours was sufficient for those purposes. Bruce Steude, 840 Quail Court, stated he had a large RV parked in his yard, though occasionally he did park it on the street when coming and going. Mr. Steude stated that his concern is parking his own RV off the street and in his yard in back of the 20 foot front yard setback. He stated he has built three houses in the tract where he lives and all three have a 10 foot side yard intended for parking RVs. He went on to say that this tract is off Oak Park Road, that there are 80 homes in this tract. Mr. Steude said that in the early 80's when they were built, only a 5 foot side yard setback was required. Mr. Steude then continued with a concern about the screening requirement, inquiring if they would accept a 12 foot fence at the property line and asked what kind of a door would they put in. Chairman Carr asked Current Planner Spierling if that was taken out to which Mr. Spierling answered that it was not and Staff would like to have both the public and the Commission respond to this issue. Mr. Spierling said that when the Staff Advisory Committee looked at the proposed ordinance, it said that an RV parked in a side yard could not be visible from a public right of way. The Staff Advisory Committee felt that was too restrictive and recommended that they should be screened from the public right of way. Mr. Steude then pointed out that if the fence had to be a certain height, then the gate would have to be the same height. He said at the time the homes were built, they were acceptable for RV parking and to now rescind it would be a hardship on the homeowners. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 May 17, 1994 Mr. Steude said he had no objection to a 72 hour limit for on- street parking. He said that several times his neighbor has complained about not being able to see out of her yard because of his vehicle being parked in the yard. He said he had built prior to her moving in and had the vehicle there and did not feel she was justified in her complaints. Mr. Steude then said that he has had the Police Department come out for a disturbing the peace complaint. He stated the Police responded that it wasn't noise but rather the odor of the engine running. Mr. Steude said he was ordered to turn off the engine and was told he could run it on the City street, because it was a licensed vehicle but that he could not run it in his yard. Mr. Steude again mentioned the three houses he allowed ten foot setbacks from the property line, which is eight feet for an RV and two feet for walkways. Chairman Carr asked him if he had reviewed the setback in the proposed ordinance to which Mr. Steude responded that he had not; only what was in the newspaper. Mr. Steude went on to explain that ten feet from a neighbor's house to the RV with only a five foot setback from the neighbors, means that anyone building a house within five feet of the property line would require an additional five feet -- and you can't do it. If you've already got ten feet there, you can't go back fifteen feet. Chairman Carr again wanted to clarify that the purpose was not to inquire about those violating an existing or potential future code, but attempted to find out what is going to work regarding RVs in the community of Arroyo Grande. Chairman Carr then asked Current Planner Spierling to explain the setback requirements. Mr. Spierling stated that there were a couple of setback requirements, based upon whether the unit is occupied or not. He went on to say that if someone is simply storing the unit on private property, Section 6 -5.07: "Recreational vehicles may be parked on private property within any residential zone in the City, if not used for human habitation as follows: (a) On designated residential driveways where vehicular access to the garage is not obscured, provided the recreational vehicle is located at least ten (10) feet from the nearest structure on adjoining property; and (b) In side or rear yards, so long as the recreational vehicle is screened from a public street or right -of -way. Chairman Carr asked if "human habitation" meant sleeping in it to which Mr. Spierling responded in the affirmative. Current Planner Spierling then said that if it is being used for sleep quarters or guest quarters, Section 6 -5.02, (b) would apply, which states that it cannot be placed nearer then ten feet from the occupied dwelling on the premises nor shall it be located less than ten feet from any other building or living quarters, nor shall it be located less than five feet from a lot or boundary line. Chairman Carr summarized that the RV could be stored closer to the dwelling unit on the premises, but it would have to be a little further away than the minimum if it was going to be slept in overnight. Current Planner Spierling responded that that was correct. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 May 17, 1994 Commissioner Reilly asked for clarification on a point. She questioned whether a person parking an RV in their driveway, and not obscuring the garage, would have to screen it, cover it, and if they keep the RV in their yard, they would also have to screen it. Current Planner Spierling responded that that was the way the ordinance was currently written. Duane Marquardt, 420 Walnut Street, asked if an RV was parked on the side of a garage out of clear view of the public, is it all right to put a screen over it? He said he had a leak in his and had to cover it whenever it rains. He then stated he bought the property because it had RV facilities. He also said that he wanted to be able to hook it up when he needed to and on occasion sleep in it if he had a lot of overnight visitors using his home. Chairman Carr asked him if he had reviewed the ordinance and did he think it would prevent him from storing his RV on his property. Mr. Marquardt responded that his RV was rather close to his block wall. Bob Bowen, 1033 Acorn Drive, said he went through a similar situation in a community near Yosemite, and when they tried to hide motor homes they really had problems. He said that they screened them with bright orange colors and within six months it looked terrible and they repealed the ordinance. He felt that trying to hide a motor home and make it look good was not feasible. Mr. Bowen said the way they did it in that community was to allow an RV to be parked on the side of one's home. If any complaints arose, he continued, they were handled on a one by one basis. Mr. Bowen stated he felt that those who oppose RVs have property rights, but those who own RVs also have property rights. Henry Spence, 222 Oro Drive, stated that he just found out about the meeting today and did not feel it was publicized enough, like perhaps on a local radio station. He therefore felt he was not fully prepared, but would mention a few items for consideration. Mr. Spence said for years he lived near San Pedro where many people had RVs and it was rare that anyone complained. He indicated that he saw no reason for tliis ordinance. Mr. Spence said he had a pad next to his house where he parked his RV with four feet of space between the house and the RV. However, it wasn't screened, but you would have to be within 25 to 30 feet of the home to see it. He also said he didn't quite understand the 72 hour law, but felt it was restrictive, in that if he wants to go out of town for a week he cannot leave his RV parked in front of his home and felt that was wrong. Cleo Silva, 195 Fairview Drive, stated they had a fifth wheel in their driveway and not having a sidewalk, they did not block a sidewalk. She also stated they did not run cords out into the street because it sat back in the driveway. Her only question was if it is in the driveway would they have to screen it or put it into storage. Chairman Carr responded that she would not have to screen it in the driveway, but it cannot be obscuring the garage door. Commissioner Soto advised her that if it was parked anywhere else on her property than the driveway that was visible from a public right -of -way or the street, it would have to be screened. She questioned if we had the manpower on the Police Department to patrol and measure the parking of RVs. Chairman Carr responded that they would respond to complaints received regarding violations rather than search for violations. Ms. Silva ended by stating she was opposed to paying someone to store her vehicle and felt she should be able to park her RV on her own property. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission ' Page 8 May 17, 1994 Gary Bailey, 503 Launa Lane, said he had never seen any ugly RVs but he has seen ugly blue tarps and that the Planning Commission should consider how the screening process would work; i.e. canopies built, garages built, big fences, or ugly blue tarps. Dick Franks, 879 Fair Oaks, began by saying he did not dislike RVs, stating he owned a 1965 4 by 4 which is not large, but very ugly and he parks it in front of his home. He then read a letter he had previously submitted to the Planning Commission. He stated he was concerned about the health hazard, fire hazard, misuses and illegal uses of RVs, giving several examples of these. One of these examples involved releasing of grey water into the City sewer. Mr. Franks said there was nothing that could be done locally and had to resort to the County Health Department, who were called. Mr. Franks also responded to Commissioner Reilly's question about an example he had mentioned on the 500 block of south Halcyon that it was on the street and they were there from 5 to 7 days. He stated that the 72 hours is when the police come by and mark the tire, after a complaint, and that's when the 72 hours begins, which may be two days after it has been parked on the street. He further stated they can move it five feet and then begin all over again. He ended by stating he felt this ordinance needed to be rewritten and that these issues and the appearance of our City should be considered. Mel Lusardi, 530 Los Olivos Lane, said that he is currently and has served the community of Arroyo Grande as a volunteer fireman for 19 years. He stated he has never found a motor vehicle or an RV that has obstructed his accessibility into a side yard. Mr. Lusardi went on to say that he has come across fences, shrubbery, trees, and animals that have restricted his entry into side yards, back yards, and other peoples yards. He ended by saying that he did not feel RVs would limit the accessibility of the firemen. Commissioner Keen asked Mr. Lusardi if he had ever received a call for an RV on fire in the side yard and he responded that he had not. Bill Nappier, 524 East Cherry Avenue, stated that he put 14 years on the Fire Department in Arroyo Grande and did not feel that vehicles parked on the side of a house were a problem. Kevin Hunstad, 743 Scenic Circle, felt that if there were any health problems, they should be taken care of. He stated that there were areas in the City were RVs could not be parked at all unless they were enclosed in a garage and if someone had objections to them, they live in that type of subdivision. He felt 72 hours on the street was a good policy. Mr. Hunstad also said he had no objection to putting them on side yards and screening them with a 6 foot fence, stating it did not completely screen them, but it was a good compromise. Current Planner Spierling said that he had received a phone call today from Ed Dorfman who has a subdivision that does have CC &R's that regulate RVs somewhat and requested that Mr. Dorfman describe how his subdivision deals with RV storage. 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 9 May 17, 1994 Ed Dorfman, 224 La Cresta, said that this subdivision is Oak Crest Estates off Stagecoach Road and that it involves 90 to 93 units. He stated that what they have essentially said was that recreational vehicles, boats, and so forth cannot be parked on the street at Oak Crest and they cannot be parked on a driveway pad, but they may be in side yards behind six foot gates. Mr. Dorfman went on to say that he has never had a complaint. He believed there were over seventy occupied houses and perhaps 15% of the lots have the capacity for storing an RV. He further stated that when people go on their trips they park them in front for a day or two without any complaints. Mr. Dorfman said as he understood the ordinance, that if you have it in a side yard and are not occupying the RV, it still has to be ten feet from a neighboring building. Then, he continued, if you have a side yard that's ten feet and the vehicle is eight feet wide and you have it so it's ten feet from the fence to the building and eight feet, you have a foot on each side, and the other building should it be five feet off the line. He said that would make it seven or eight feet to the building and they wouldn't be able to store their vehicle there and felt we would not gain anything from that and would be retroactively hurting a lot of people who already have their set up. Commissioner Keen pointed out that regarding the ten foot setback, normally the setback is to the building not to the roof overhang, and most RVs are higher than the overhang, therefore you don't have ten feet to park it in unless you have a two story house. Therefore a ten foot setback is not adequate to park a normal RV in it. Art Coplin, 856 Farroll, commented about the RV parked on Halcyon which Mr. Franks had mentioned. He said that it is almost impossible to pull out onto Halcyon with that RV parked there. Mr. Coplin then questioned if the 1954 rules said anything about RV storage alongside your house. He stated they have a situation where their neighbor had an RV which was parked less than four feet from their house and blocked their side windows totally. Mr. Coplin asked if this was legal according to the old rules. He went on to say that it was a shame that they could not even look out of their windows and see sky, but all they see is a big, ugly corrugated RV. Chairman Carr stated he believe that under the current ordinance that there is nothing to prohibit that from happening and Current Planner Spierling stated his assumption was correct. Bruce Steude returned to the podium saying it was unclear how far an unoccupied RV had to be from the adjacent house. Commissioner Deviny read from Section 6- 5.07(a) and (b), stating that he did not see any setback for the side yard. Current Planner Spierling stated there was none proposed for parking in the side yard at this time. Mr. Steude asked where the side yard started and the driveway stopped. Chairman Carr stated that he did not feel that they could define in this ordinance a driveway versus a 'side yard, but would have to be on a case by case basis. Mr. Steude retorted that as far as the 10 foot from an adjacent structure, when you build off property line and then the other house is built five feet off property line, he did not see how a ten foot setback from a neighbor could be enforced. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 10 May 17, 1994 Joan Coplin, 856 Farroll, read from Section 6- 5.02(b). She then said that the way she interpreted this was that if you did not occupy the RV, you can park it right cuddled up to your building, but the minute someone sleeps in it you have to move it ten feet away. Ms. Coplin then said it seemed if someone was going to use it for sleeping purposes, they would have to have that amount of land available. Dick Frank returned to the podium, stating he needed to clarify his position in that he did not object to people parking their RVs on private property. His concern was the illegal use of plugging them in, leveling them, and using them for axillary living quarters. With no further comments from the audience, Chairman Carr closed the public hearing. Commissioner Soto summed up his thoughts by stating we did not have a clear ordinance for protecting visibility at intersections. He said that RVs can legally park near a stop sign when it is not red curbed, but it does block the view. The other concern he mentioned was the safety problem of utilities across a public right -of -ways and that some ordinance should be in force for the protection of the residents. Commissioner Soto said it was a problem if people are illegally using them for living quarters. He felt that for safety purposes and protection of an RV, it would be a good idea to screen it, but it should be at and for the owner's convenience. Commissioner Keen stated he was concerned with cords and water lines going across the sidewalks and long RVs that block sidewalks. Another concern he said was the RVs parked on the street even for short periods of time that block sight distance so the neighbors can't get safely out of their driveways and living in the RVs. Commissioner Keen was concerned about writing 30 days a year into the ordinance, but did not see how it could ever be enforced. He stated he was not in favor of people living in them and they should not be parked on the street for more than 72 hours. He ended by saying he was not concerned with the setback issues, as he did not feel it was being abused. Commissioner Deviny stated that if someone sleeps overnight in front of his house, he did not feel that was a problem. Commissioner Deviny then addressed cords and water for pre -trip maintenance, saying that was acceptable, but when finished, these pieces of equipment should not be left overnight unattended. Regarding the screening issue, he said he felt the six foot fences helped, but did not advocate ten foot fences or blue tarps. He went on to say that the proposed ordinance is more restrictive than necessary, but unsafe conditions or living in RVs should not be allowed. Commissioner Reilly stated she drove around in the Village area and was shocked by how many large RVs she saw, but they were not hooked up. She said she then went to Poole Street between Mason and Short and there were two dumpy little trailers that were rather obviously lived in, as they were hooked up across the sidewalk to the houses and felt these abuses should be addressed. Commissioner Reilly stated she felt those in the audience are responsible RV owners and the complaints are not levied at this type of people. She further said she agreed with the other Commissioners that the draft is rather restrictive. Ms. Reilly went on to say that setbacks should be from neighbor's property, but not so restrictive as to what you want to do on your own property, noting that the two firemen who spoke did not feel they were a problem. She ended by stating people's property rights should be considered, but consideration should also be extended to their neighbors, and that the abuses be stopped. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 11 May 17, 1994 Chairman Carr then summed up his input by saying that he did not feel screening was an issue. He then referred to Section 6- 05.02(a) where it discussed utilizing an RV for overnight purposes. People who come to visit should be allowed to park overnight and stay in it and should be made clearer. He then said that in (c) of the same section needs to be clarified regarding the Temporary Use Requirements as to whether that applies in a mobile home park and assumed in that instance it would not apply. Regarding the setbacks, Chairman Carr felt concern for those who do not have an RV, though he realized existing conditions at this time would be a problem to solve. He also said that the public and City liability needed to be considered regarding cords and hoses across public right -of -way. Mr. Carr also addressed sanitation in the ordinance and have some grey water and sewer prohibitions for when people are parking their RV either on their property or in the street. He then mentioned his concern about parking RVs as well as other large vehicles near corners. At this point someone from the audience mentioned that in Atascadero there were signs prohibiting large vehicles from parking within 20 feet of certain corners. Chairman Carr then asked Current Planner Spierling if there is any record regarding complaints about RVs over the past year. Mr. Spierling said he did not feel we were getting any more or any less complaints within the last couple years and actually felt that the most complaints occurred in the late 80's. He further responded that because different departments received input, he did not know if he would be able to obtain an accurate record of the number of actual complains received over the past few years. Further discussion was then made by the Commissioners regarding the stringing of cords and hoses across public sidewalks. Current Planner Spierling then poled the audience regarding how many used these, how often and for how long. Current Planner Spierling said he felt Staff had been given direction, which was what they needed. He also said they would be contacting Atascadero regarding the parking restrictions that were mentioned. Current Planner Spierling said when they were ready to come back to the Commission they would re- advertise it and send out notices. A motion was made by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Soto and unanimously carried to receive letters from Mr. Franks, the Shaws, the Andersons, the Coplins, and David Duceshi into the records. A motion was made by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Deviny and unanimously carried to continue this item to a future date. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS Commissioner Soto then requested the Commission take Item B under item V, as he would need to leave Chambers shortly. This was a request for a Planning Commission workshop with the City Attorney and Planning Staff on planning issues that this be scheduled. On a motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Reilly, and unanimously carried to have a workshop after Commissioner Reilly's replacement is on board. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 12 May 17, 1994 NON - PUBLIC HEARING - M.I.C.O., INC. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW FOR 305 ALDER STREET, APPLICANT IS KEVIN HUNSTAD Current Planner Spierling gave an overview of this item to the Commissioners. Kevin Hunstad then spoke with the Planning Commission discussing this project addressing issues such as the driveway placement, trash enclosure, Fire Department turn around, open space, guest parking, possible neighboring property owner concerns, and so on. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS Regarding the joint City and County meeting, the next available date proposed by the County was September 22, 1994. Those present were agreeable to this date. Commissioner Keen asked what was going to be done with Union 76 station and Current Planner Spierling responded that a gas station and mini - market was being considered. Commissioner Keen then asked about the situation at K -Mart using the parking lot for landscaping items and being in violation of using parking area for this. Commissioner Reilly then inquired if Von's had requesting a building permit yet. Current Planner Spierling responded that they had not but had been assured that they would be doing so. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner Reilly seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. ATTEST: ommission Clerk Robert W. Carr, Chairman 1 1 1