Loading...
PC Minutes 1978-04-18490 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission April 18, 1978 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chair- person Cole presiding, Present were Commissioners Moots, Ries, Simmons and Vandeveer. Chairman Gerrish and Commissioner Harris were absent. Planning Director Castro and Planner Sullivan were also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL There being no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meeting of April 4, 1978 were approved by Vice Chairperson Cole as submitted. REQUEST FOR ZONING ORDINANCE CLARIFICATION (DR. FREITAS). Planning Director Castro advised the Commission that he had received a call from Steven Cool, Attorney for Dr. Freitas, requesting that the matter be continued to the next regular meeting. On motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried, the matter was continued to the next regular meeting of May 2, 1978. STUDY SESSION - SIGN ORDINANCE Planning Director Castro advised that in view of the lengthy items on the agenda, staff would request that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting of May 2, 1978. PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 78 -276, FREE STANDING SIGN, 1192 GRAND AVE., (SANTA MARIA NEON FOR WES JOHNSON). Upon being assured by Planning Director Castro that public hearing for Use Permit Case No. 78 -276 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing open. Planning Director Castro referred to the site plan noting the location of the proposed sign. He further referred to the sign elevation, stating the total height requested is 24' 10" above grade, and that 50 ft. is the maximum height subject to obtaining a Use Permit; also the square footage allowed is 300 sq. ft. and in this case the applicant is proposing 298 sq. ft. Mr. Castro recommended that the public hearing be opened and continued to the next meeting to allow the staff time to work with the applicant as it is staff's feeling that the sign in its present form is in excess of what is needed. He displayed some photographs of the area, pointing out staff's concerns of the unsightliness of Grand Avenue as it is right now. He further requested that if the Commission is not disposed to grant the continuance of the public hearing, then staff would recommend denial of this Use Permit. Mr. Gene Laird, Santa Maria Neon, stated the existing sign that is there now is larger than the one they are proposing; it is 168 ft. on one side and they are proposing roughtly 149 square feet. He further pointed out that the applicant wanted to move the sign over to the westerly side of the property to get away from the driveway. Mr. Wes Johnson, 1344 Capistrano, Shell Beach, petitioner for the sign, stated that the sign is a clean sign, it looks good, and they have had many comments on the appearance of the sign compared to what is existing there right now, and he felt the square footage was necessary; they. are a small business and they are trying to grow with the community. Mr. Johnson stated that turning them down at this point is going to create somewhat of a hardship on the business, in that they are presently moving and will be out of their old location by May 1st, and hopefully will be having their grand opening a week or two after May 1st. He further stated that what they are asking for is well underneath the height limit, they are under the maximum limit of the size of the sign and he couldn't see any real problem with it. Planning Director Castro stated that when he had talked to Mr. Johnson regard- ing the sign, Mr. Johnson was told that the sign would be subject to review. He pointed out that there are a number of items that staff has to review in a specific time, and that staff is now reviewing the sign ordinance with regard to height, size and the total effect of signs on Grand Avenue. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued to the next regu- lar meeting of May 2, 1978 to give the staff and petitioner a chance to further review the proposed sign; Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -18 -78 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CASE NO 78 -117, STAGE COACH ROAD, "RA -B3" TO' "R -1" DISTRICT (ZOGATA); Upon being assured by Planning Director Castro that public hearing for Rezoning Case No, 78 -117 had been duly posted, published and property owners notified, Vice Chairperson Cole declared the hearing open. Page 2 Planning Director Castro advised that staff has met with Mr. Zogata, the property owner, and have expressed to him some of the concerns regarding the low density classi- fication that he is requesting, primarily due to the amount of grading it could entail, and because of the rolling terrain of the property. Mr. Zogata has concurred with staff that the matter be continued for two weeks so that staff can meet with Mr. Zogata and his engineer to review what tentative plans they may have for the property. Mr.• Zogata was present and stated he agreed that the matter be continued. Vice Chairperson Cole advised that public hearing for Rezoning Case Noe 78 -117 would be continued to the May 2nd meeting, and that the Request for Negative Declaration would also be considered at that time PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP, Planning Director Castro advised that staff would recommend that the public hearing on the matter of the General Plan and the Zoning Map be opened this evening and con- tinued for the reason that the Negative Declarations were not advertised, which is necessary before the Commission can take any action on the General Plan or Zoning Map. He further advised that in discussing the matter with City Attorney Shipsey, the General Plan Map has to be reviewed first, and than a two week delay is required before the zoning map is considered. Staff proposes to review the first phase of zoning on May 16th, and the second phase of the zoning matter is scheduled to be reviewed on June 6th, Mr. Castro displayed the zoning map and stated he would advise the Commission of some of the comments received for their information at this point in time, however, staff is recommending that the Commission open and continue the public hearing. Mr. Castro advised that petitions have been received, but that staff has not yet had time to review them and make copies for the Commission. There is a petition with 54 signatures of the residents and owners of Western Addition presently zoned "R -1 ", and they are opposed to the "R -2" zoning. There is also a letter from Mr. Glenn Peters requesting that the property at El Camino Real and Oak Park Boulevard remain "H -S" instead of the recommended change to "P -C" District. Mr. Castro advised that_the only significant distinction between the two districts is that a service station would not be permitted in the "P -C" District. Planning Director Castro referred to the zoning map which was published in the paper, stating staff has received numerous calls within the two week period and have reconsidered some of the recommendations, not necessarily because of public reaction, . but because of what exists on the property. Staff is recommending that the "P -D" District suggested for the Halcyon Hills, Rancho Grande, the property that fronts on Printz Road, the "P -D" on the Grande Highlands project, and the Planned Development suggested along Branch Mill Road be reverted back to an "A" District. He stated that, basically, what they were trying to accomplish here was not necessarily to give any- body any zoning or density consideration, but to protect the development of the land, and staff feels that the "P -D" offers more protection than the "A" District would. Mr. Castro stated staff has also considered some of the concerns of the citizens of the community; that is to say phasing, density controls, orderly development, and building on the hillsides and let the low level grounds remain in the open space or agricultural use, and we are trying to accomplish a lot of that policing and pro- tection through the "P -D" District. Mr. Castro further stated he feels that the controls we are looking for in terms of phasing and zoning are not to be found in the District that you give the land, but in the Ordinance prepared for phasing and density. Mr. Castro advised that staff is recommending that some of the "C -N" and "P -M" that fronts on Grand Avenue be considered for "H -S ", in that staff feels it is a more reasonable use because it doesn't have as many restrictions on the sizes of the buildings as opposed to the "C -N" District, and staff also feels that the develop- ment on Grand Avenue would be . enhanced by the Highway Service rather than the Planned Manufacturing zone, He pointed out that the strawberry fields have been suggested for Planned Manufacturing by the General Plan for some years, but the zoning was never changed, and this is one of the conflicts that we have. Both documents have to be brought into conformance as required by the State Law. If, for some reason, there is.a dispute or disagreement as to what the General Plan is saying, then you. have to change the zoning or change the General Plano 491 492 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -18 -78 Page 3 Planning Director Castro referred to the rezoning application pending on Farroll Avenue, stating it is a reasonable review because of the application before the Commission. He stated with regard to the multiple zoning on Elm Street and possibly Linda Drive, staff is suggesting that be reverted back to the "R -3" zoning. We would be creating more problems with the non- conforming uses than we would accomplish by re- vising the map. Also, with regard to the properties on Brighton Avenue that were sug- gested for "R -2" zoning, we are going to leave as "R -3" because of the condominiums that are there now. Again, it is a question of whether you want the non - conforming use, or whether you want the property to remain in conformance. With regard to Western Addition, Planning Director Castro advised this is noted in the General Plan as a medium density or multiple type development, and what we were trying to do was to bring the zoning into conformance with that, but if the Commission is disposed in keeping that "R -1 ", then we should change the General Plan to low density. With regard to the "R -G" on Rena Street, we are leaving as "R -3 ", and the propertiesat the extreme end, which is Dodson Way, we are leaving as "R -2 ", again because of the non- conformance, it wouldn't pay to change the zoning at this time. Mr. Castro stated we are continuing with the "A" District for the agricultural lands which are either Prime I, II, III or IV classification. The "P -M" which is in the high school area is not intended for that area; the arrow points to the property over on East Cherry, east of Traffic Way. The City Council and the Chamber of Commerce has expressed concern for a need for industrial land within the City, and we are recommending that location as one possibility if that is where the City wants to locate industrial development. Planning Director Castro pointed out that on the "R -3 ", there have been a lot of calls on the property on Allen Street, between Allen and East Cherry, and to retain that in "R -1" is of no concern to staff at this time; staff was merely trying to bring a compatible use with what is north of Allen Street and to buffer the Traffic Way Highway Service District. Regardless of whether you retain that in "R -1" or whatever, you still have a problem with the Highway Service. definition here. The Highway Service in the General Plan extends further into those properties on Allen Street, between Allen and Cherry, so there will have to be some cleaning up there. The Professional Office bordering on Nelson abutting the Central Business District staff is recommending that as a reasonable use to bring in professional people, traffic and employment into that area. Staff is trying to re- define the C -B -D as to when you enter the downtown area at what point does it begin, and we are merely suggesting that the entrance of Branch and Traffic Way be the beginning point which is now zoned for Highway Service. Again, there is very little distinction between Highway Service and C -B -D, except that C -B -D is a better classification for downtown development. With regard to the Loomis property, Mr. Castro advised they are trying to clean it up a little bit; they have four zonings right now. They have multiple, C -B -D, Professional Commercial and Planned Manufacturing, so we are trying to clean up the property and bring it into conformance. He stated that, basically, there are very few problems in the area on the north side of the City. A gentleman in the audience inquired why the parcel of property on Farroll Avenue next to the mobilehome park is being proposed for "R -3" when it is residential. Mr. Castro advised that the City was approached by the people that bought the property and they indicated they had an interest for multiple use. We have been looking at that property for sometime and trying to anticipate what kind of a use would be a better buffer between the mobilehcme park and the single family residences on Carmella Street, and we suggested to the applicant that we would entertain an application for some multiple development. The density they are proposing is not as great as the "R -3" would be; they are quite large units being proposed and they are more of a family type facility. Mr. Bill Galentine, 703 Cornwall Ave., stated he brought in the petition with 54 signatures of residents of the Western Addition area. Mr. Galentine stated that most of the residents have lived there for a long time and that they do wish the zoning to remain as "R -1" District and not be changed to "R -2 Elizabeth Jackson, 208 Fair View Drive, stated she is pleased that this City is going to be operating legally by bringing. the General Plan and Zoning Map into conformance. She stated, however, she has toured the entire area and, in her opinion, the proposed rezonings to apartments, duplexes, etc., will devalue the neighborhoods on the west side of the freeway. Planning Director Castro advised that staff is not Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -18 -78 Page 4 requesting any multiple zoning; the multiple zoning is already existing with the exception of the proposed zone change on Farroll Road. Mr. Carl Hogan, 1255 Poplar Street, referred to the area which was zoned "R -3" ten years ago, and the City rezoned it to "C -N" for Williams Bros. shopping center, and now they want to rezone it back to "R -1 ". Planning Director Castro advised, as he had discussed with Mr. Hogan previously, one of the concerns that staff had was the "C -N" District fronting on the residential neighborhood. And, as Mr. Hogan advised him at that time, he had no intentions of redeveloping the property at this time. Mr. Castro further pointed out he has no quarrel with the "R -3" zoning, and the "R -1" was merely a suggestion as a holding zone until Mr. Hogan is ready to develop the property. Mr. Roy Burke, 917 Bennett Avenue, stated he has the building supply yard on Bennett Avenue, and requested clarification to the proposal to rezone the area to Highway Service District; would this make the building supply yard a non - conforming use? Planning Director Castro advised that the Highway Service District requires that the type of usage Mr. Burke has be within an enclosed building and, in fact, the "P -M" District that is there now also has the same requirement, so the usage is basically a non - conforming use now. Evelyn Tallman, 532 Carol Place, stated they were concerned about the traffic problem in that area, advising that the 4 -way Stop at Farroll and Elm Street is a hazard and if 30 more units go in on Farroll, this will add about 60 or more cars. She further stated they would like to keep the multiple units on the other side of the street if possible. Planning Director Castro advised that the traffic concern would be reviewed. Mr. Grieb, of the Grieb Estate, spoke with regard to the property on Fair Oaks Avenue zoned as "A" District, stating it is crazy to try to farm in the City and pay the taxes they have to pay now. Planning Director Castro advised that the text of the General Plan has to be changed if the City wants to reclassify those lands. After further discussion, Vice Chairperson Cole continued the public hearing on the first phase of the zoning map to the Planning Commission meeting of May 16th, and advised that the public hearing on the second phase of the zoning map would be scheduled for June 6th. She further advised that the public hearing on the General Plan would be held at the regular Planning Commission meeting of May 2, 1978. REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 78 -292, 141 SO. ELM ST. (GARING AND TAYLOR). Planner Sullivan advised that Lot Split Case No. 78 -292 had been denied due to lot size and dimensions. Commissioner Vandeveer stated he was present at the meeting, and that the applicant had agreed with the denial. SUBDIVISION REVIEW - TRACT NO, 555 "OAK CREST ESTATES ", After further discussion, the following action was taken: 493 HUASNA ROAD. Planner Sullivan advised the Commission that this matter was presented a few months ago wherein the Negative Declaration was denied and a Focus Report was re- quired. The applicant is re- filing for the entire tract at this time. There are 91 lots involved; the zoning is "R -1 ", and the General Plan allows a density of 405 dwelling units per acre, and this development proposes 3.8 units per acre. Also, the development is proposed to be built in four. phases. Mr. Sullivan re- viewed the conditions of the Subdivision Review Board, dated April 13, 1978. There was some discussion with regard to Chief Clark's memo, dated April 17, 1978, pointing out that some of the proposed street names for the tract would be in conflict or similar to other street names in the area. Planning Director Castro advised that any changes of street names would have to come before the Commission for approval. Commissioner Simmons pointed out concern that the houses on the ridge could have their view blocked by neighboring houses. Planning Director Castro advised that the only height control which is permitted in the Ordinance is 30 ft. for single family residences, however, the Commission could condition the approval of the tract subject to review of the development plans for these properties. 494 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -18 -78 Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 78 -606 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 555 "OAK CREST ESTATES ", AND REFERRAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, On motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and by the 'following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Moots, Ries, Simmons, Vandeveer and Vice Chairperson Cole NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Harris and Chairman Gerrish the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of April 1978. REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - TRACT NO. 555 "OAK CREST ESTATES ", HUASNA ROAD Planner Sullivan pointed out that there is a small area approximately 3 or 4 acres of Class I soil, and that Item 3 on the second page is conditioning and amend- ing the Negative Declaration by the addition of the Focus Study, and the mitigations developed in that report will become requirements. There being no further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 78 -607 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DECLARATION AS AMENDED. On motion by Commissioner Simmons, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Moots, Ries, Simmons, Vandeveer and Vice Chairperson Cole NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Harris and Chairman Gerrish the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of April 1978. SAN LUIS BAY PLAN Planning Director Castro /advised that the Planning Commission has held two study sessions on this matter, which was continued to allow staff time to determine the net acreages being referred to within the Sphere of Influences He noted there are 371 acres being considered within the /Sphere of Influence of the City, and that 26 acres along Printz Road be left out -in the County, with a net yield of 345. Mr. Castro further pointed out this is 'not implying that this property has to be brought into the City at this in time, but merely identifying to LAFCO that the city does have an interest in those properties with regard to drainage, cir- culation and possible service areas in the future. In answer to Commissioner Ries' question regarding de- annexation, Planning Director Castro advised that staff has looked at the question as to the benefits to the City in continuing with the little island on Printz Road. Staff has looked at the utility systems and have been advised by the Public Works Department that it would be necessary to bring utilities from 227 on to Printz Road to serve these properties, and that in so doing you are, in fact, encouraging possible annexation growth in this area, which is primarily County in character, and to serve this area with police and fire services with just that single piece of land is certainly not in the best interests of the City. Staff felt that the recommended common boundary line is a logical extension of the city limits for the time being, and that the 82 acres can be served through the extension of James Way, and utilities could be ex- tended without necessarily going beyond into County areas. Peggy Langworthy, Printz Road, commented with regard to the /Loundary, stating that it follows the ridge top and, in her opinion, it seems to be more sensible to pick this particular boundary at that location simply because it is a geographical land division, and not just a road on a map. 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -18 -78 Page 6 Commissioner Ries stated that the boundary line represents a short term growth period for 10 years, and expressed concern that once it is adopted, future extensions would not be allowed unless the Land Use Element of the General Plan is changed. He stated that if someone comes in with a problem with water and wants to annex to the City, he wanted to be sure that such annexation could be considered. Planning Director Castro advised there is nothing to prevent the petitioning of a property for annexation to the City, however, you may first have to modify or change the General Plan in terms of land use. With regard to drainage and siltation, Planning. Director Castro pointed out that staff has also made the suggestion that a surcharge be considered by the County for drainage purposes. Commissioner Vandeveer suggested that the staff report be amended by including that remedial action be taken to ensure appropriate grading /drainage control in the fringe area, and to preclude undue scarring of hillsides, etc., per SLB Page 46 of the Plano After discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 78 -608 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE OF THE COUNTY'S SAN LUIS BAY PLAN, AS AMENDED. On motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Moots, Ries, Simmons, Vandeveer and Vice Chairperson Cole NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Harris and Chairman Gerrish the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of April 1978. TREE ORDINANCE Planning Director Castro read a petition received on April 13th from residents of Printz Road requesting a Tree and Site Preparation Ordinance. Planning Director Castro stated that, as previously pointed out, the only area where we don't have any protection of trees is on private land being developed by the owner, and in previous discussions the Commission indicated they felt that the current ordinance was adequate. He further stated that this problem is covered under the lot split, subdivision and architectural review process, but that where you have a private piece of land consis- ting of 5 or 10 acres, there is no control, and that is what the petition is address- ing itself too After discussion, it was agreed that the matter would again be considered at the next regular meeting of May 2, 1978. POLICY FOR AGRICULTURAL LANDS Planning Director Castro referred to the matter of the suggested policy on agri- cultural lands which was reviewed by the City Council at their. March 28th meeting, and it was the Council's opinion that the recommendations from the Agricultural Committee be dispensed with in view of the fact that the farmers expressed no interest in the proposal. It was recommended by the City Council that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for further review and study. More specifically, Mayor Millis requested that the matter of the City's Land Use Element and the General Plan text be brought into confromance, which is basically Page 14 of the document, which says that any Prime I or II land, if any development shall occur, it shall be in five acre minimum. The Council suggests that prior to any re- zoning of any agri- cultural land, the application should first /be reviewed by the City Council, and that by a four -fifths majority vote, if they approve, the applicant is then authorized to proceed with some other type of zoning. Mr. Castro advised that what we are basically saying is that the 5 acre minimum would be lifted and any type of land use could be considered then for the property, This, of course, would be subject to a.finding that the land is no longer economically viable. The only other suggestion staff is 495 Commissioner Moots pointed out that on all developments reviewed by the Lot Split/ Architectural Review Committee, almost every tree is very carefully noted and the large ones are all saved. 496 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -18 -78 Page 7 offering is that in addition to determining whether or not the lands are still economically viable agricultural units, that an additional finding be added, and that finding should be that there shall be no physical adverse affect by the pro- posed development on the adjoining agricultural lands. After discussion, Planning Director Castro suggested that the matter be delayed for two weeks until the Negative Declaration to amend the General Plan text has been published to insert that type of language in the text. After dis- cussion, it was agreed that the policy for agricultural lands would be considered at the next meeting of May 2, 1978. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P,M. ATTEST: Vice Chairperson