Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 1975-09-16Arroyo Grande Planning Commission. September 16, 1975 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Calhoon presiding., Present.are Commissioners Gerrish, Mathews, Moots, Ries and Sandoval Absent is Commissioner Cole. Also in attendence are City Administrator Butch, Planning Director Gallop, Public Works Director Anderson, City Engineer Garcia, and Councilman Millis, ' MUTE APPROVAL The minutes of the regular meeting of September 2, 1975 were corrected by Chairman Calhoon on Page. 2, 1st paragraph, to read "He did not feel that the traffic generated by this development would be a problem„" Upon hearing no further additions or corrections, Chairman.Caih.00n approved the minutesas amended, NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - FOUR LOT DIVISION PARCEL MAP N0, AG -75 -279, FARROLL ROAD HERBP_HILLIPS . Director Gallop reviewed the negative report as prepared by the developer's engineer, noting that this lot could normally produce eight to ten "R -1" lots; however, the developer is only dividing it into four lots. After a brief dis- cussion, the following action. was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 75 -402 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION, On motion by Commissioner. Ries, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and by the following roil call vote, to'wit: AYES: Commissioners Gerrish, Mathews, Moots, Ries, Sandoval and Chairman Calhoon: NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cole the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of September 1975. PUBLIC HARING - REZONING CASE NO.. 75 -85, HUASNA ROAD, FROM "R- A -B -1" RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL TO "R -l" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION) COMMISSIONER GERRISH WAS EXCUSED BECAUSE OF A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND IS NOW ABSENT, Director Gallop reviewed •the rezoning case, noting•that it had been , discussed at the last meeting, at which time - the Commission passed a resolution expressing intention to initiate this zone change. He stated that the seven lots in question. are surrounded by "R -1.' zoning on the east,. west and north sides, and this zone change would pu.t.them in conformance.with these surrounding areas. He said that he had received. written agreement to the proposed zone change from four of''the seven owners and verbal agreement from another,. Upon being assured by the Planning.Director that public hearing for Rezoning Case No, 7.5 -85 had been duly published, posted, and property owners notified, Chairman Calhoon declared the public hearing open. There being no discussion for or against the proposed zone change, Chairman Calhoon declared the hearing closed, After a brie. f_ d: iscuss :ion,.the,following.action:was taken: • RESOLUTION NO, 75 -403'Z RESOLUTION OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY •OF, . ARROYO GRANDE RECOKRENDINC APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TIiR' MUN'ICIPA'L CODE OF THE 'CITY:OF ARROYO :GRANDE AS PROVIDED CHAPTE ARTICLE 32, OF SAID.CODE, On motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Sandoval, 161 162 ee Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 9-16-75 Page 2 and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners-Mathews, Moots, Ries, Sandoval, and Chairman Calhoon NOES:. None ABSENT: C., Cole and Gerrish the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of September 1975, COMMISSIONER GERRISH IS' NOW PRESENT, STUDY SESSION ON AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE Director Gallop stated that it had been requested that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow an Agricultural. Preserve, under the Williamson Act, He suggested the Commission meet in a study session on October 1, at 7:30 PM„ in the Council Chambers.., The Commission agreed to adjourn'to the study session, PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO 75 -55 TO ALLOW FOR CONVE& ON OF EXISTING RETAINING WALLS TO A SINGLE CAR GARAGE LOCATED W THIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND WAIVING ONF- STREET PARKING SPACE, 508 & 512 LE POINT STREET (STICKLER1 Director Gallop clarified the Staff Report by stating that it was the City Attorney's opinion that it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to determine if the new variance request is substantially different from the original request. He then read the two requests to the Commission for their review. He -noted that any previous action on the original request/was irrelevant; the Commission was to only consider the two:requests to see if they were substantially different, After a discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commis- sioner Mathews, and on the following roll call vote, the Commission declared the second variance request to be substantially different from the first: AYES: Commissioners Gerrish, Mathews, Moots, and Chairman Calhoon NOES: Commissioners Ries and Sandoval ABSENT: • Commissioner Cole the foregoing motion was passed: Director Gallop then reviewed the new variance request, noting that there are three retaining walls in place on the property which. were originally planned as d double garage; The original problem was that the two houses on the property were built three feet higher than they should. have been, This made it almost imp possible for a normal car to drive up the driveway to the homes, Le Point Street has a seventy foot right of way,.whereas most streets only have a sixty foot right of way., Therefore, Mr, Stickler was given an encroachment permit to allow him to build the garages within the public right of way, providing everything else was correct. • He was also given a building permit at that time., He proceeded to build the retainirig at which time a complaint was lodged and work was stopped A public hearing was held and continued through three meetings, at which time the Planning Commission granted Mr. Stickler a var;an.ce which would allow him to con- vert the walls into single car garages (Planning Commission Resolution No 75 -381 V) with stairways inside the garages leading to the homes, required him to landscape the hillside, and also requested that a red zone be considered by the Parking and Traffic Commission on either side of the driveways, This Variance was appealed to the City Council; and as a result of the Council action, the variance was changed in such a manner that, in the opinion. of the City Attorney, it was actually denied,, The Director reviewed the Zoning Ordinance in regard to granting a variance, stating that the Commission must find reason to grant the permit, rather than reasons to deny it. These reasons must be on the basis of topography, errors created by other than the owner, geography, or shape of property; but could not be on the basis of financial hardship to the owner.., Upon being assured by Director Gallop that public hearing for Variance Case No 75 -55 had been duly published, posted, and property owners notified, Chain Calhoon declared the public hs .r.i.ng open. 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 9 -16 -75 Page 3 , Mike Miner, 538 Le Point, presented a petition to the Commission which had twenty -five signatures, and which stated that they wished to see the carports com- pleted as double garages, with doors, with the stairways to :the: homes on the out - side'of the garages, the hillside planted and landscaped, and the existing carports be enclosed. ,Of the petitioners, four were present, I4rs: Darrell Stinson, 562 Le Point, also presented a petition to the Plan- ning commission.. This petition stated that those signing it were asking for a denial of the variance request because it was not substantially different from the original request, it would create a traffic and safety problem, the majority of the building is on City property and not located within the front yard setback and that this would III set a precedence for other property, The petition contained 15 signatures; of those . icing, five were present. Robert Bashaw, 115 McKinley, stated that he also was against the requested. variance.. Jack English, 521 Le Point, asked that the Commission uphold the City Council decision and give him thirty days to comply. Mary Margaret Curzon, 123 E. Branch, stated that she was against both of the requested variances, Mel de la Mot.te, the attorney representing Mr_ Stickler, stated that he be- lieved that the Commission should look at the merits of the case as to whether it is within the requirements of the Code as to granting a variance. He said that he did not believe that it would be a special privilege to grant the variance, He . stated that Mr. Stickler had letters from various lenders stating that they would not loan on a home that did not have a usable carport or garage. He also showed a chart prepared that showed there was no sight problem involved, He added that he believed the property met all of the requirements for granting a variance; Marvin Mundy, Route 3 Box 239B, San Luis Obispo, said he thought that the garages should be moved if they were in the public right of way. Sharon Bashaw, 115 McKinley, stated that she'did not believe that denying the tba,iance would be depriving Mr, Stickler, Dorothy Rector, 545 Le Point, stated that she did not have enough room on bet own' property for a garage, and did not feel'that Mr. Stickler should be given a variance just because he had problems'with his lot:. There being no further discussion for or against the proposed use permit, Chairman Calhoon declared the hearing closed, Commissioner Mathews asked if the encroachment permit allowed Mr, Stickler to use the property as if it is his own.. .Director Gallop stated that the permit allows him to use the property until the Gity decides to revoke the permit and re- quires the structure removed, and Mr., Stickler is aware that the City may do so at any time. Commissioner Mathews moved the Commission have the Police Department's safety experts check into the safety aspects and make a formal report to the Commission,, The motion died for lack of a second,. Commissioner Gerrish moved that the variance be granted as requested. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Ries stated that he believed the petition submitted by Mr, Miner posed the best solution. After discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO., 75-404 V RESOLUTION OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING .A VARIANCE, CASE NO, 75 -55. On motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and by the 163 164 A*mouyo Grande Planning Commission, 9 -16 -75 Page 4 following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Gerrish, Mathews, Ries, Sandoval, and Chairman Calhoon NOES: Commissioner Moots ABSENT: Commissioner Cole the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of September 1975, Bill McCann, 428 Tanner Lane, questioned if this action was legal, as the Commission was not granting what the petitioner was requesting, On motion by Commissioner Mathews, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and unanimously carried, above Resolution 75 -404 V effective date to be held in abeyance subject to a_ decision from the City Attorney, Doris Olson, representing the Santa Maria Times, inquired about the reasons for granting the variance„ After discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO, 75 -405 V RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING RESOLUTION NO,_ 75 -404 V, VARIANCE CASE NO, 75 -55, On motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Gerrish, Mathews, Ries, Sandoval and Chairman Calhoon NOES: Commissioner Moots ABSENT: Commissioner Cole the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of September 1975, PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CASE NO.. 75 -84 OAK PARK ACRES FROM "A" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "P -D" PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AND PREZONING FROM COUNTY ZONED "R -A" TO "P -D" ELANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRIC(KVIDTZ Director Gallop displayed a map of the area, noting that the map being considered is a plan map, not a subdivision map at this time4 He added that the Planned Development Zoned District requires that the land use be predetermined He also recommended that the Commission recommend a more restrictive zoning on three of the parcels Upon being assured by Director Gallop that public hearing for Rezoning Case No, 75 -84 had been duly published, posted, and property owners notified, Chairman Calhoon declared the public hearing open_. • Reuben Kyl,dt, general partner in the development, referred to the map of the development'stating that there were seventeen parcels proposed, all planned with various uses, He reviewed the uses planned for each of the parcels, stating that the CCRs for the development set standards which are above what the City rem quires and these CCRs are binding on future development,. Dc;nnis Johnson, Printz Road, stated he was against the proposed rezoning, as the development would be creating a miniature city and would double the population of the area,. He said he wouldn't mind five or six acre lots, but could not agree with what was presently proposed. Caroline Moffatt, Noyes Road, stated that her main concern was how the school district was going to handle the increased load, as the taxpayers were not willing to support the schools as they were now Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 9-'16-75 Page 5 Bart Stryker, Tustin, California, engineer for the development, was present and stated that out of 288 acres, only 276 dwelling units are proposed, which would be less than one per acre. Marvin Ormonde, Oak Park Canyon, asked if the drainage problems had been looked into Director Gallop stated that the problems were recognized and the de- velopers would have to resolve them to the satisfaction of the City and the Depart- ment of Transportation The developers would be required to bond to guarantee Per- formance to meet the requirements. Jane Wiley, Noyes Road, said that she would like to see the Commission require an Environmental Impact Report before it made its decision, to see what this develop- ! ment would do to the area. Carol Hiron, Oak. Park Road, said that many of the people in that area had built rural lifestyles for themselves, and that a development of this sort would raise :the property taxes so as to make their lifestyle prohibitively expensive.' Fred Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, stated he also was against this development, primarily putting "H -S" businesses in the area. Bill McCann, 428 Tanner Lane, said that the citizens had told the City Council and Planning Commission in the past that; they did not want to grow like this. Terry Simons, Noyes Road, stated that he felt that all zoning changes should be initiated by the Planning Commission, rather than by developers. Director Gallop stated that the current zoning of "A" as set up, in the Land Use Element was intended as. a__,k ?l. im. to on,ly,; ' ,,developers were only asking for one- quarter of the density they could ask for in this area. Beverly Pepperdine, Printz and Noyes Roads, said that she thought there was a problem with the definition of high density; the phrase obviously meant different things to different people. She asked the Commission to consider 22 acre lots, Peggy Langworthy, Printz Road, asked that the Commission consider the water problems, Elroy Correll, Oak Park Road,, also questioned where the necessary water would come from. Director Gallop replied that there was ample domestic water; when plan- ning for future water needs, that area had been planned for four times the proposed density, He stated the sewer capacity was also there. Claude Oldham, Oak Park Road, asked what would. happen to the water level when the green belt was developed -. Mr, Bart Stryker rep -lied that there were no plans to put a channel thr.ough.that area and that they were not planning on building on the flood plane. If and when a golf course went into that area, the problem could be handled through a series of lakes and retardation, if necessary,. Betty Oldham, Oak:Park Road, asked about a similar plan a few years ago on the poko property, Director Gallop stated that the plan had not been turned down at taus time;: it was withdrawn and would be coming back in the future for reconsider ation. Roger Bunch, Oak Park Road, stated that he was in complete agreement with the others„ He said he was a teacher at the high school and it was crowded now. Wallace Helmuth, a realtor, stated that when a community adopts a no- growth policy, it is condemning its children to leave that community as there are no jobs and no homes for them, Madeleine Steele, 1598 Hilicrest, stated that she also was against the pro- posed rezoning and development. Pat Wright, Noyes Road, asked if the developers would be required to widen all of Noyes Road. Director Gallop said that the developers would be required to widen :'the street adjacent to their property, Bill Langworthy, Printz Road, stated that the concept of density is subjective. He said that he Was opposed to "strip development ". 165 ': 166 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 9 -16 -75 Page 6 - -_re being no further discussion for .or against the proposed rezoning, Chairman Calhoon declared the public hearing closed, Commissioner Ries stated that this was the first time he had seen the plans; as they were so complex, he would need more time to consider the request. Commissioner Moots asked what the area of each dwelling in the "R -G" District would be; Mr. Kvidt replied that they would be a minimum of 600 sq. ft. for a one - bedroom dwelling. Commissioner Moots then inquired about the school situation. The Planning Director replied that the School District had been notified of the proposal and they had not asked for a school site on the property, Commissioner Moots also asked about the sewer and water capacity. Administrator Butch said that the City had adequate water to use until 1989, when it would have to go to pumping ground water. He also stated that sewer plant capacity was for 2i million gallons per day; it is now running at 1.1 million gallons Commissioner Ries said that he would like to see an Environmental Impact Report on the development, including a study on how it would affect the City Fire Department, Police Department, etc. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commis -, sioner Moots, and by the following roll call vote,' mmission requested an Environ- mental Impact Report be prepared on the development and a staff report on the effect of the44 _ zi1 to include fire and police departments, as well as the school system; . AYES: Commissioners Gerrish, Mathews, Moots, Ries, and Sandoval NOES: _rman Calhoon ABSENT: Commissioner Cole the foregoing motion was passed. The matter was tabled until the report is submitted to the Commission for their review, ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by Commissioner Sandoval, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and unanimously carried, the meeting was ad- journed at 10:25 P.M. ATTEST: Secretary Chairman i 1