Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 1976-02-17204 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission February 17, 1976 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Calhoon presiding. Present were Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Moots, Ries, and Sandoval. Also present were City Administrator Butch, Planning Director Gallop, and Councilman de Leon. MINUTE APPROVAL The minutes of the regular meeting of February 3, 1976 were approved by the Chairman, as prepared, after hearing no additions or corrections. REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS: LOT SPLIT CASE NOS. 76 -236, 555 TRAFFIC WAY (SCHMITT); 76 -238, CORBETT CANYON (DUNLAP); 76 -239, 324 WALNUT (HOBBS); 76 -241, 851 TODD LANE (BACA) Director Gallop briefly reviewed each of the Committee actions for the Commission. He noted that Mr. Schmitt, 555 Traffic Way, wished to have his lot split continued to the next meeting as he wished to appeal one condition of the lot split. After a brief discussion of each of the lot splits, Chairman Calhoon ordered the reports filed. SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 453, RANCHO LA BARRANCA, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TALLY HO ESTATES), TALLY HO ROAD The Planning Director displayed a map of the proposed tract, noting that a zone change on the property was previously before the Council for its first reading, and that the Council would not hold the second reading until the Tract Map had been approved by the Planning Commission. The reason for this was that the rezoning would be to "RA- B2 -D ", with the " -D" override to indicate a maximum of 39 lots, with a density transfer. The Director reviewed all of the Subdivision Review Board's recommendations on the tract, which the Commission then discussed. Commissioner Moots asked about consideration of an extension of a cul -de -sac to James Way, stating he believed this would be a good idea. The Director stated this would be a Public Works Department determination, unless the Commission felt it necessary and made it a condition of the Tract Map. He noted that there was no access to James Way at this time, as the property owners did not own the prop- erty facing James Way; if an extension was a condition, they would have to put in a dead -end street until such a time as this adjacent property was developed. Chairman Calhoon inquired as to curb, gutter, and sidewalks. The Planning Director replied that rural road section would be used, with paving on 60 ft. right of way, building set back to 30 ft. from property line; there would be no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 76 -429 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TRACT NO. 453, "RANCHO LA BARRANCA", AND REFERRAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. On motion by Commissioner Mathews, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Moots, Ries, Sandoval, and Chairman Calhoon None None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17th day of February 1976. The Planning Director stated that there was an approved Negative Environ- mental Statement on file as it pertained to the original zone change and sub- division application. He stated that since there had been several changes, both in zoning and development of the property, he would request the developers to present a new request which would be before the Commission at its next regular meeting. Arroyo Grande_ Planning Commission, 2 -17 -76 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CASE NO 76 -93, EAST CHERRY EXTENSION AND BRANCH MILL ROAD, FROM "A" AGRICULTURAL ZONED DISTRICT TO "A -P" AGRICULTURAL. ZONED DISTRICT WITH " -P" AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE COMBINING DISTRICT (DIXON',. Director Gallop pointed out the property on the Land Use Map, noting that the property is Class 1 soil and does qualify under the City's criteria for Agricultural Preserve status. He added that the property is not in the Sewer Assessment Districts Upon being assured by Director Gallop that public hearing for the proposed rezoning had been duly published, posted, and property owners notified, Chairman Calhoon declared the public hearing opened, Bill McCann, 428 Tanner Lane, stated he was in favor of the proposed one change, There being no other persons present for or against the proposed zone hange, Chairman Calhoon declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Sandoval, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Moots, Ries, Sandoval, and Chairman Calhoon, NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 76-430 Z RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 4 ZONING, ARTICLE 32 OF SAID CODE. the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17th day of February 1976. CONTINUATION - REZONNING CASE NO. 76 -92. SOUTH OF BRIGHTON EAST OF COURTLAND. FROM "C -N" NEIGHBORHOOD- COMMERCIAL ZONED DISTRICT TO "R -3" MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONED DISTRICT (LOVETT -WOOD, BADEN).. COMMISSIONER MATHEWS WAS EXCUSED DUE TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, Director Gallop reviewed the previous 'part of the public hearing for the benefit of the Commissioners who were absent at the Last meeting. He .noted that by continuing the public hearing to get additional input, those Commissioners who were absent at the last meeting would be allowed to participate in the rezoning decision„ He also noted that a petition had been received at the last meeting, ontaining 71 signatures, objecting to the proposed zone change, due to the mpact on the Lucia Mar School system, inadequate roads to circulate the traffic, nd that all the surrounding area is "R -1 ", Sigfried Baden, 1385 Brighton, owner of the easterly portion of the property, stated he believed that this was a legal request for rezoning, and that refusing the rezoning would deny him the right to develop his property. He noted that of the 40 addresses notified of the proposed zone change, only 24 persons had signed the petition opposing the zone change, and in many cases these represented two or more persons from the same address. He added that his property was zoned "R: -3" on the first Zoning Map, adopted in 1961. The tract adjacent to him was started in 1961 and completed in 1963, and he felt that all the property owners should have been aware of this "R. -3" zoning, He then referred to the petition which had been presented opposing the zone change, stating that since the petitioners had presented no solutions to the problems they mentioned with the Lucia Mar School District, access roads were available to the east, west, north, and south of the property, and since all the surrounding area is not "R-1 ", he felt that the entire petition was a "red herring ". He also felt that by opposing the zone change, the petitioners were going to create a tax trap for them' selves, a shortage of homes would push prices up and therefore taxes; 205 296 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2-17-76 Page 3 Lee Lovett, 127 South Mason, part owner of the western portion of the property, stated he was in favor of the rezoning. Buzz Richards, 265 Oak Park Boulevard, from Bonanza Realty, said he did not feel apartments would have much effect on the school district, as apartments normally aren't rented by people with children. Lloyd Beecher, 228 Courtland, said he did not oppose growth; however, he did like reasonable growth; He felt that "R -3" was not reasonable; it should be "R -2" as a transition between the commercial area on Grand Avenue, and the resi- dential to the north. He also felt that "R -3" zoning would detract from his own property, and would depreciate it when he wished to sell, He did not believe that Courtland was going to give access, and that all the traffic would be heading north to the freeway. He felt Mr., Baden could not assume Courtland would be com- pleted to provide through access. He also felt that if this rezoning was granted, there could be no way to deny others south to Grand Avenue„ Thurman Higdon, 183 Fairview, said he was strongly opposed to apartments adjacent to his property, and that he felt they would deflate the value of his property. He also felt there was no guarantee Courtland would ever be completed. Madelyn Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, read a statement from Elizabeth Jackson, 208 Fairview, who stated she did not believe the requested rezoning was in conformity with the surrounding land use, and it seemed like spot zoning to her. She said she would support "R -1" zoning on this property, if that were requested. Mrs. Jackson also gave some figures which she had asked about at the last Com- mission meeting: Vacant "R -1" lots 137 Potential lot•splits 150 Potential multiple dwelling sites and maximum density 1087 Tentative tracts and maximum number of lots 268 Tracts recorded from 1960 -1969 422 Tracts recorded from 1970 -1975 431 Dorothy Rector, 545 Le Point Street, said she felt that all these zone changes were confusing to the public, Afton Hogan, 350 Courtland, felt that apartments would decrease the value of his property, as well as bringing in more people and traffic. He also felt apartments brought in .a lot of transients who did not care about the neighborhood. He stated he would agree to "R -2" or-"R-1" Zoning. Florence Rose, 1305 Brighton, stated she was also opposed to the rezoning for the reasons given by Mr, Hogan. Erma Swan, 1304 Brighton, was also in op- position to the requested rezoning. Kay Carmichael, 433 South Halcyon, said she believed both Mr. Baden and the petitioners were concerned over the value of their property. She also felt that Arroyo Grande needed more housing for the young couples who could not afford to buy a house. Fred Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, stated he did not believe the property should be rezoned until such a time as all the access roads are in. Madelyn Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, said she was against the proposed rezon- ing because they could not be assured that Courtland would not be blocked off in the future., There being no further persons appearing for or against the proposed zone change, Chairman Calhoon declared the public hearing closed. Chairman Calhoon inquired as to which zone was more restrictive, "C -N" or "R -3 ". Planning Director replied that "R -3" was. Commissioner Gerrish asked how many units would be involved. The Planning Director replied that there could be a maximum of about 60 units, under ideal. conditions. There could be one unit for every 1500 sq. ft, of property. Commissioner Sandoval asked if apartments could be built on the existing "R-3" property, with the off- street parking for those apartments on the "C -N" property, Director Gallop replied that it could. Commissioner Moots asked Mr. Baden if he had considered rezoning to "R -1 "; and he answered that he had not, nor had he considered "R -2" zoning. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -17 -76 Page 4 Commissioner Cole said that she believed that Arroyo Grande did need housing for the younger•people in the area, and that She was in favor of•"R -3" •zoning. After further discussion, the following action was taken: On motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Sandoval, d by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Moots, Ries, Sandoval, and Chairman Calhoon NOES: Commissioners Cole and Gerrish ABSENT: Commissioner Mathews the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17th day of February 1976, COMMISSIONER MATHEWS IS NOW PRESENT. CONTINUATION - LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. FOR THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Director Gallop briefly reviewed the Commission's options regarding the Land Use Element: they could readopt the Plan as it stands now, without any changes, and recommend it to the City Council, who would hold a public hearing and make any changes they felt were needed, then refer it back to the Commission before readop- tion; or the Commission could make any changes they felt were needed before refer- ring it to the Council. Commissioner Gerrish moved that the Commission consider, item by item, the suggestions for changes noted in the memo, dated February 17, from the Planning Director, which was a summary of suggestions from the public and himself for changes to the Plan. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ries, and carried, with Chairman Calhoon opposed. South Traffic Way Extension - The Planning Director explained that this was a problem created by the denial of a requested zone change to "P -M". According to.a court decision, either the Land Use designation or the zoning for the property would have to be changed so that both are in conformance. On motion by Commissioner Mathews, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, the Commission recommended leaving the land use designation on this property as it now exists. Administrator Butch recommended that the Commission refer this matter to the City Council, and wait until some later date to make a decision on the various other tiers, in order to expedite a decision on the Lawler court case; the court had set date for a decision of March 15, On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and by the flowing roll call vote, the Commission decided to consider all items of concern: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RESOLUTION NO. 76-431 Z RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 32, OF SAID CODE. Commissioners Gerrish, Moots, Ries, and Sandoval Commissioners Cole, Mathews, and Chairman Calhoon None Neighborhood °Commercial Use Area Oak Park Boulevard and Noes Road - Director Gallop explained that this designation on the map was not an exact location for the Neighborhood - Commercial area. All it designated was the predicted need for this type of use somewhere in the vicinity in the future. The area designated is in the :County; however, it is within the City's sphere of influence, and the County nor- mally accepts what the City recommends in such matters. Therefore, if someone petitioned the County to put in a Neighborhood - Commercial center, the City could recommend that it be denied, and the County would probably accept the City's recom- mendation. If the Commission decided to change the location of the designation, 2.07 208 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -17 -76 Page 5 someone could still petition for "C -N" on that original location, as this is a land use designation for the general area, not a specific location. Commissioner Gerrish said he felt that Neighborhood- Commercial was unnecessary in that area. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Ries, - seconded by Com- missioner Gerrish, and by the following roll call vote, the Commission recommended deleting the Neighborhood - Commercial area from that particular corner, and re- wording the text of the Land Use Plan to say that the three hillside parcels in that general area must be developed under the "P -D" zoning concept, and with recog- nized commercial uses attendent upon Highway Zone services, and that Neighborhood - Commercial services need be noted on the interior of one of those parcels: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Moots, Ries, and Sandoval Commissioner Mathews and Chairman Calhoon None Strawberry Fields on the West Side of the City - The Planning Director explained that the Commission could change the land use density if they wished on this property He said it was not good agricultural land except for straw- berries. The original light-industrial land use designation had been used to break up the long stream of commercial on Grand Avenue, Commissioner Ries said he was not in favor of changing the Land Use Plan with regard to this area; he felt the City was holding the line on the flat lands. On motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Sandoval, and by the following roll call vote, the Commission recommended leaving the land use desig- nation (Light - Industrial) on the strawberry fields on the west end of town as it is presently indicated in the Land Use Plan: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Ries, Sandoval, and Chairman Calhoon Commissioner Moots None L :ht- ndus rial Area Ad "acen to and West of Hi_hwa 101 at Arro o Grande Creek - Director Gallop stated this area was composed of approximately 20 acres, all under one ownership, and that the owners had discussed Agricultural Preserve but had not proceeded, as yet. Commissioner Moots stated he would like to see this land revert to agricultural. On motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Ries, that this area be changed to agricultural designation on the Land Use Plan. The motion was defeated by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Moots, Ries, and Sandoval Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, and Chairman Calhoon None Area Between Huasna Road and Arro o Grande Creek W =sterl of Coach Road r Director Gallop stated that there had been no interest expressed by the owners of the property to change the zoning on this property from its present "A" zoning. It is presently being used for flower seed farming, Commissioner Ries stated he felt medium density was suitable for this property. On motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and by the following roll call vote, the Commission recommended leaving the property as medium density: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Moots, Ries, Sandoval, and Chairman Calhoon None None Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -17-76 Page 6 Medium Densi Area on Either Side of Tally Ho Road, Westerly From James Way - The Planning Director explained that the two new approved tracts in this area should be the determining factor; since they were already approved, the density should be changed to reflect them. After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Sandoval, and by the following roll call vote, the Commission recom- mended that this property be changed to low dEnsity designation in the Land Use Plan, to be in keeping with the Loomis Heights and La Barranca tracts: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Moots, Ries, Sandoval, and Chairman Calhoon NOES: None ABSENT: None Request to Divide Light Residential ;Into Smaller Ca e ories - Director Gallop said that there had been a suggestion from the public to ivide the light residential land use designation into smaller categories. Commissioner Mathews said he felt that the Zoning Map already did this, with "R- A-B -3 ", "R -1" etc. On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and by the following roll call vote, the Com- mission recommended keeping the light residential land use designation as it presently exists in the Land Use Plan: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Moots, Ries, Sandoval, and Chairman Calhoon NOES: None ABSENT: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: None Existing Spot Zoning - The Planning Director noted that there were several small areas of zoning that did not agree with the Land Use Map, but that preexisted the Map„ He added that when the Land Use Plan was originally developed the City had tried to change the zoning to conform with the areas, but was unable to. On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and by the follow- ing roll call vote, the Commission recommended making a general comment in the Land Use Plan text, recognizing that these non - conforming areas exist, but,not pin - pointing them: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Moots, Ries, Sandoval and Chairman Calhoon `None None New Industrial Park Area - The Planning Director stated he would like to recommend the area northeast of the freeway, west of Valley View School, and east of the Catholic School. He said he felt this would be an acceptable land use desig- I 1. _ i tion; the property is across from commercial, with very few houses in the area would be affected. He said he believed the area could be made compatible with y other development abutting it, and that protective measures would be taken to otect the schools. He added that this area be approximately 40 acres. The Planning Director stated that he had communicated indirectly with Father O'Sullivan concerning the Catholic School property, with relation to the suggested land use change, and that the Church had indicated there would be somebody in the audience that night to hear the presentation. Director Gallop suggested that, if the Commission approves, the text of the Land Use .Plan state that development must be a subdivision, and that all concerns and considerations of a subdivision be required, in terms of concern for the abut - ting developments, so that the developer is aware there could be problems if not treated properly. Commissioner Ries stated he would like to a'specific notice sent to the property owners and neighbors involved when the Council considers this. On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and the follow- ing roll call vote, the Commission recommended that the General Plan be:changed to 209 210 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -17 -76 Page 7 adopt this particular property as heavy commercial -light industrial, and that the text indicate .. that this is to be an industrial park subdivision: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: "C -B -D" Area Between Nelson and Poole Streets - The Planning Director stated that there had been a request to delete this area as "C-B -D" from the Land Use Plan until such a time as it was needed, Commissioner Ries stated he believed this was a logical land use designation for that area. The Planning Director explained that this designation was originally placed on the area as a possible method of rejuvenating it. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, the Commission recommended leaving the "C -B -D" designation on this property. REZONING APPEAL ON GREENWOOD The Planning Director stated that the rezoning appeal of Mr. Greenwood had been referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council in light of new evidence. He added that he had recommended to Mr. Greenwood that he redescribe and refile fora zone change; and asked the Commission for its recognition to proceed with anew hearing and zoning request, based on a new description. On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and by the follow- ing roll call vote, the Commission agreed to accept a new application: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, and Chairman Calhoon NOES: Commissioners Ries and Sandoval ABSENT: None ABSTAINING: Commissioners Mathewand._Moots ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Mathews, and unanimously carried, the Commission adjourned at 10:15 P.M. ATTEST: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Moots, Ries, Sandoval, and Chairman Calhoon None None Secretary Chairman