Loading...
PC Minutes 1982-02-16ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION February 16, 1982 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Gerrish presiding. Present are Commissioners Benhardt, Cole, Moots, Saruwatari and Sebastian. Commissioner Pilkington is absent. Planning Director Hays is also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL Upon hearing no meeting of February 2, Sebastian, seconded by additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular 1982 were approved as prepared on motion by Commissioner Commissioner Benhardt, and unanimously carried. 90 3 REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR FILING FINAL MAP - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 81-348, 1078 MAPLE STREET. (ORIGINAL OWNER: R. & J. LEON. CURRENT OWNER: C. ELLSWORTH). ' Planning Director Hays advised that on March 3, 1981 the Planning Commission approved the subject parcel map creating 3 parcels on Maple Street. He further stated that the applicant's engineer is requesting a one year ex- tension of time in which to file the final map. He noted that the Commission is allowed to grant an extension up to one year, and he could see no problem with the request and would recommend that the Commission grant the extension. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried, a_one_y_ear extension.was granted on Parcel Map AG 81 -53, Lot Split Case No. 81 -348. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 82 -373, LOT 5, TRACT NO. 600, PROPERTY LOCATED OFF OF FLORA ROAD AND BRANCH MILL ROAD. (THOM HEAD AND MARTIN POOLE). Planning Director Hays advised that the applicants are requesting a two lot parcel map of approximately 11.62 acres located off of Branch Mill Road. The site is zoned "A" with a " -D" override, which, from the record, indicates it is a 5 acre minimum lot size. He pointed out that last year the Planning Commission denied a zoning change request to the "R -S" Residential Suburban District, and one of the Commission's major concerns was the loss of prime agricultural land. The applicants are now proposing somewhat of a "trade off ". They are willing to leave Parcel 1 as a single economically farmable unit if they can create a smaller parcel, slightly over 1 -1/2 acres, for a future homesite. He stated, in his opinion, this is a reasonable request, in that the applicants are trying to leave the best land intact as a single parcel that could _not be further divided under the present zoning. Mr. Hays noted that he has.researched the.records more extensively and throughout the discussions, it appears that the " -D" override was for a 5 acre minimum lot size, however, there was considerable discussion as to whether or not this large parcel, which the applicants own, should be split. Also, a request for a lot split on this particular property was denied by the Commission a few years ago, and the denial was appealed to the City Council, and the denial was upheld by the City Council. The_ Council, at that time, directed the Planning Director to bring the matter.back to the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to resolve once and for all the issue of the " -D" Override, and their suggestion was that the " -D ", in this particular case,.meant the property was not to be further split. In researching the records, it appears that nothing further was ever done on the matter. Planning Director Hays referred to a letter received from William G. McCann, dated February 15, 1982, opposing the proposed split and relating to past history of the Greenwood subdivision and the subject property. Mrs. Elizabeth Jackson, 208 Fair. View Drive, read the letter . aloud for the benefit of the Commission and the audience. Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 82 -373 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Thom Head, 344 Santa Fe Avenue, Shell Beach, applicant, spoke in favor of the Lot Split being granted. Mr. Head stated under Ordinance 153 C. S. the property is zoned for 5 acre minimum parcel size. He stated that in prior attempts to split the property or have the zoning changed, he has learned that the people of Arroyo Grande and Planning Commission feel that agricultural land should be preserved within the City Limits of Arroyo Grande. He stated that under the present zoning they are requesting Optional Design Standards to preserve the majority of that piece of property in agricultural use. He pointed out that the 9.99 acres left in agriculture could not be split further under the present 5 acre minimum parcel size. s:. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -16 -82 Elizabeth Jackson, 208 Fair View Drive; William Eman, 1275 Branch Mill Road, and Mrs. Silva, 1155 Flora Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed lot split. In response to Mrs. Silva's comment about kids riding up and down the drainage ditch to get to Strother Park, Martin Poole, applicant, advised they will be granting an easement to the park. Mr. H. E. Bean, stated he owns the two 5 acre parcels adjacent to the property in question, and spoke in favor of the lot split being granted. Upon hearing no further comments for or against the proposed Lot Split, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Moots recalled that the original map was 5 parcels and was recorded that way on purpose, and the " -D" was put on there to preserve those 5 parcels. Commissioner Cole stated she is in favor of maintaining economically feasible farm land. She stated she does not know the legality of the " -D ", but she is willing to see what they are trying to do in order to keep a parcel of land that could hopefully be economically used in agriculture. She commented if this proposal would be a detriment to ever subdividing that parcel, she would be in favor of it. Commissioner Benhardt stated that very little of the 1.63 acres can be farmed because of the slope, and since the applicants are retaining as much of the farm land as possible, he is in favor of the proposed split. Chairman Gerrish commented that he was on the Commission when the initial subdivision was submitted on this property, and what was ultimately approved was the map we have now that shows 5 parcels, and it is very clear in his mind that the 11 acre parcel was to stay 11 acres. Commissioner Saruwatari stated that a..10:acre parcel of flat land is more economical in terms of commercial producing for agriculture because of the fact that most farmers do have to transport machinery from one area to the other and if you start getting parcels that are smaller than 10 acres, you have a harder time getting people to lease that parcel of land. Commissioner Sebastian stated, that_.. after = hearing the other CommissLoners and_Mr. Hays:' interpretation of what the minutes were, in his opinion, it is clear that the intent was that the 11.62 acres remain in agricultural land. Planning Director Hays read a portion of Ordinance 153 C.S, pointing out that no where in the ordinance does it indicate that the property should not be further split and there is no stipulation on the Tract Map to that affect. Ordinance 153 C.S. reads "Said property is zoned from "A" to "A -D" to provide a 5 acre minimum parcel size. Bill McCann submitted to the Chairman a letter from Mr. Greenwood in 1977 addressed to Mr. Sturges stating Mr. Greenwood's intent on the rezoning. Chairman Gerrish read the letter. from Mr. Greenwood, dated March 17, 1977. After considerable discussion, on motion by Commissioner Sebastian, seconded by Commissioner Saruwatari, motion carried with_two "no" votes and one abstintion, denying Lot Split Case No. 82 -373 on the basis of the original intent of the rezoning and tract approval. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 9:00 P. M. ATTEST Page 2 1