Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 1974-05-07Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 7, 1974 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Pope presiding. Present are Commissioners Calhoon, Goulart, Mathews, Moots and Ries. Commissioner Sandoval is absent. Also in attendance are City Administrator Butch, Councilman Spierling and Planning Director Gallop. MINUTE APPROVAL The minutes of the regular meeting of April 16, 1974 were approved by the Chairman as prepared upon hearing no additions or corrections. REVIEW - ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ACTION Architectural Committee reports on the Family Restaurant in the Williams Bros. Shopping Center, and Medical Suites on Fair Oaks Avenue were briefly discussed and after discussion, the reports were ordered filed. REVIEW - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 73-216 - USED CAR LOT. 109 FAIR OAKS AVE. MASSEY Commissioner Goulart advised he was a member of the Architectural Review Committee at the time the subject use was first considered and the petitioner had already erected the wire picket fence. It was determined by the Committee that this was not a permanent type fence, but since it was already installed, the Committee agreed to let the business continue for a six months period for Mr. Massey to determine if the business was going to continue. It was the feeling of the Architectural Review Committee that the fence was not a permanent type fence and that a more decorative type fence would be desirable.. After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Goulart, seconded by Commissioner Calhoon, and unanimously carried, that Mr. Massey submit ideas for a more perman- ent, decorative type fence to the Architectural Review Committee for their approval. REFERRAL FROM CITY COUNCIL - REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION - 20 ACRE PARCEL ADJACENT TO VALLEY GARDENS SUBDIVISION MILDRED PRINCE Director Gallop informed the Commission that annexations to the City have to be initiated with the City Council, however, they cannot continue proceedings until such time that there is a recommendation from the Planning Commission as to whether the annexation is reasonable with regard to the Land Use Plan and annex- ation policy. Director Gallop described the property to be annexed, stating it is a 20 acre parcel immediately northerly of Valley Gardens Subdivision, and ad- vised that legally under LAFCO policy, this property can be annexed to the City as it does fall within the pocket area of the City. The property is now planted with walnut trees and there is one single family home on it. Director Gallop stated in view of the above facts, he felt the annexation would be a reasonable action. In answer to Chairman Pope's question, Director Gallop advised if the annex- ation is approved, the automatic zoning on the property would be "A" Agricultural, however, if the annexation commences, then the owner can request pre - zoning of R -1, etc. and upon annexation, the approved zoning would automatically go on the prop- erty. Director Gallop further indicated that full services are available in the street in front of the property, such as water, sewer, gas, etc. Commissioner Goulart stated,one problem he felt was important, was that this is prime farm land, and there might be a problem where we may be pushing farming right out of business. He stated it was his feeling that once you start building houses right next to a farming area, you are pushing the farmer out. He further stated he is not against the annexation, but he is considering feelings of other people in the area that could be adversely affected by the development. Commissioner Goulart added that if the property is developed, he hopes the de- veloper will retain as many trees on the property as possible. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO-. 74 -331 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF VALLEY ROAD ANNEXATION NO. 30 On motion by Commissioner Mathews, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: 65 66 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 5/7/74 Page 2 AYES: Commissioners Calhoon, Mathews, Moots, Ries and Chairman Pope NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Goulart ABSENT: Commissioner Sandoval The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7th day of May 1974, PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 74 -223 - CONSTRUCTION OF CHURCH, SUNDAY SCHOOL AND OPERATION OF DAY CARE CENTER - FARROLL AVE, (UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH). Director Gallop advised that the property under consideration is a 3+ acre parcel south of Farroll Avenue and just westerly of Gaynfair, and almost directly south of Pecan Street. The property is relatively flat and is zoned R -1 Single Family Residential. He explained, for the benefit of the new members, that a Use Permit differs from a permissive use in any zoned district only to the extent that it is of some effect on the general area, and special consideration should be given to its development; in other words, it is a permissive use, and the only way you can deny granting a Use Permit is to find reasonable doubt or reason why the area and the particular property are not compatible to the proposed use. He further advised that the Church itself carries a requirement for a Use Permit, and the operation of a day care center also requires a Use Permit. He indicated the Commission could consider the day care center separately from the request to construct the Church and Sunday School. He advised the property is being purchased subject to approval of the Use Permit and, therefore, the petitioners have not spent any money for design at this point. It was recommended that if the Use Permit is granted, complete development plans be submitted to the Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. Director Gallop read the recommended conditions as listed in the staff report dated May 2, 1974, and indicated there may be other conditions and require- ments imposed by the Architectural Review Committee after reviewing the plans. Upon being assured by Director Gallop thatPublicHearing for Use Permit Case No. 74 -223 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Pope declared the hearing open. Billy W. Fulguim, 143 So.. Rena St., stated he was the Pastor of the Church and spoke in favor of the Use Permit being granted. He advised if the Use Permit is granted, they will use the church facilities for the day care center, and the outside play area will be towards the back of the Church. He advised they felt the development would enhance the neighborhood and will be equal to, or surpass, any designs in the area at this time; that there will be adequate or more than adequate off - street parking; and as far as the traffic on Farroll Avenue, the pro- perty is close to Halcyon and close to Elm Street, so the traffic should be equally divided to both areas. He further advised they propose 24 children for the Day Care Center; they will landscape the property and will work fully with the City Planning Architectural Review Committee in meeting all the requirements the City desires. He pointed out they will have adequate drainage and, if necessary, will fence the entire area with redwood fence, and will leave access in the back on each side to make sure there is no water run-off, Mrs. JoAnn Smith, 1978 Newport Street, advised the property will be accepting a considerable amount of water from other properties because the back portion will be landscaped. She further stated that since the back of the Church property is not going to be developed in buildings, at some future date when the adjacent two acre parcel and the three acre parcel are developed, there might be a possibility of an easement through there for a pipeline. Mr. George McDonald, 811 Fresno Street, Pismo Beach, advised he holds the First Trust Deed on the two acres to the west of the property in question, and his reasons for objecting to the proposed use is economic. He stated he felt that the land value of the undeveloped property adjacent to this property would not be enhanced by a Church and the activities that necessarily attend the functions of a Church. He stated he was also concerned that there are no plans shown to indicate how the development is going to affect adjacent properties. Mrs. Elizabeth Jackson, 208 Fairview Drive, stated she is definitely in favor of all Churches, but it was her feeling that a comiuunity should have a better plan in locating Churches in one area. She stated people buy R -1 property and expect Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 5 /7/74 Page 3 that property to remain R -1, and not have the traffic, noise and lack of privacy which may be created by this use. Rev. Fulguim'stated as far as the rear of the property is concerned, there is approximately 80' to 100' that will not be built upon. The area will be:1andscaped and will also serve as a ponding area, and he felt this is more of a buffer zone than most people get from neighbors, etc,, plus parking area of 300' to 350' from where the Day Care children will be. He pointed out that schools are allowed in the same district, and their proposed 24 children in the Day Care center is rela- tively small compared to a school. Also with the buffer zone described, he didn't feel there would be any problem as far as noise is concerned. He further advised that the Church is prepared to do away with the Day Care Center, if necessary, and that they are primarily interested in constructing.a Church. In response to Mrs. Jackson's statement, Mrs. Smith advised that she sells real estate, and it was her feeling that an open space area is most desirable, and the proposed development will only be covering a very small portion of the property. There being no further discussion for or against the proposed Use Permit, 3 Chairman Pope declared the hearing closed. After discussion among the Commission members, it was felt that the Day Care Center use would be considered at a later date by the Commission, after plans have been submitted and approved by the Architectural Review Committee for the construction of the Church and Sunday School unit. RESOLUTION 74 -332 U RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRAN A USE PERMIT, CASE NO. 74 -223. On motion by Commissioner Goulart, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Calhoon, Goulart, Mathews, Moots, Ries and Chairman Pope NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Sandoval The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7th day of May, 1974. PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 74 -224 - USED CAR LOT - 1119 GRAND AVENUE (MARVIN K. HARTWIG) Director Gallop advised the property in question is just the Kentucky Fried Chicken property and west of Hawthorne Market, and that the property was formerly occupied by the temporary mobile office of San Luis Obispo Savings & Loan. He noted that the planter which was required in 'connection with that office is still on the property, and that the use being requested is only a portion ,of the total ownership whichis about 175' frontage, and they are asking for 50' frontage; the property to be used is 125' deep, and the total ownership is 216' deep. He pointed out the location of an older house, and indicated that there is a barn.located in the back which divides the rear of the property being used and the residential property which faces on Sunset Drive. Director Gallop further advised that the land has been improved with surfacing.in the past, and recommended that it be swept and a penetrating coat be applied to seal it. He recommended that some sort of a division, which may be a rope, chain or 4 X 4 fence, be put along the west side of the used car lot to divide it from the house on the west side. He fur- ther recommended that the planter in the front be_rehabed, and the landscaping in it be replaced and brought up to some standard . of - acceptance, and the old stairs and sign removed. Upon being assured by Director Gallop that public hearing for Use Permit Case No. 74 -224 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Pope declared the hearing open. Mr. Marvin Hartwig, 923 Farroll Avenue, owner of the property, commented on Item No. 1 of the staff recommendations dated May 2, 1974. He reported he had inspected the asphalt base, and advised when it was originally put in it was a 67 68 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 5/7/74 Page 4 good job with good cover and gravel on top, and because of the lack of useage, it appeared that the present base and the present cover is adequate, and he suggested that Item No. 1 be eliminated. With regard to Item No. 5 of the staff recommendations, Mr. Hartwig requested clarification, stating it seemed to him that they should be able to obtain a business_ license without waiting for approval of the Architectural Review Committee. Mr. Jim Jesse, 845 Turquoise Drive, stated he was the proposed operator and the only exception he would take is the same as Mr. Hartwig, in that the lot, as . it exists now is in much better condition than some of the existing areas with comparable uses. He felt to coat it with oil would make a mess of it, and this was an unfair recommendation on the City's part. There being no further discussion for or against the proposed Use Permit, Chairman Pope declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Goulart advised, with regard to the A.C. paving, it was his feeling that if the pavement has been covered for some time and with no traffic being on it, that a coat of penetrating oil will help to salvage and rejuvinate the existing. paving. He added this will give the A.C. longer life and is a very nice surface. Commissioner Mathews stated it was his feeling that if there is a valid argument as to whether the surface is good or bad, that the City Engineer should inspect the paving and make a recommendation to the Architectural Review Committee. In answer to Mr. Jesse's question as to what the Architectural Review Committee consists of and how much time it takes to get approval, Director Gallop advised that when the plans for skirting of the trailer, landscaping, fence, etc., are presented for consideration, the Committee meets "on call" and probably a week later the business license could be issued. After discussion the following action was taken: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RESOLUTION NO, 74 -333 U RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO. 74 -224. On motion by Commissioner Goulart, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and on the following roll call vote, to wit: Commissioners Calhoon, Goulart, Mathews, Moots, Ries and Chairman Pope None Commissioner Sandoval The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7th day of May 1974. After Commission discussion, on motion by Commissioner Mathews, seconded by Commissioner Calhoon, and unanimously carried that Resolution No. 74 -333 U, Item 1, be amended, in that the requirement for sweeping and new penetrating oil coat be subject to a recommendation from the City Engineer to the Architectural Review Committee. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Calhoon, seconded by Commissioner Goulart, and unanimously carried, the following Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Reports were approved and accepted as presented by staff: a. Park Acquisition b. Ruth Ann Way Assessment District Improvements c. Public Works Project - Elm Street Widening and Improvements d, Public Works Project - Cherry Ave. Widening and Improvements e. Public Works Project - Halcyon Rd. Widening and Improvements 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 5/7/74 Page : 5 REVIEW - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 73 -216 - USED CAR LOT, 109 FAIR OAKS AVE, (MASSEY) It was noted that Mr. Massey, operator of the Used Car Lot at 109 Fair Oaks Avenue, was now in the audience, and since Mr. Massey was not present during the review of his Use Permit, the secretary was requested to read that part of the minutes pertaining to same. Mr. Massey was also reminded that the surfacing of the property would be reviewed by the Commission in another six months. GENERAL PLAN REVIEW AND GENERAL DISCUSSION Director Gallop requested that - during the next regular meeting of the Commission, if the Agenda is not too long, that an hour be devoted to General Plan review and general discussion. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissinner Calhoon, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 P.M. ATTEST: LfLecli Secretary Chairm 69