PC Minutes 1991-01-10Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
January 10, 1991
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in a special session at 7:00 P.M.
with Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Moore, Souza, Gallagher
and Brandy. Commissioners Soto and Boggess are absent. Also in attendance are
Long Range Planner Sandra Bierdzinski, City Attorney Judy Skousen and Planning
Intern Cathy Graves.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE /SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE)
Chairman Carr referred to the agenda for the Development Code Discussion
Items, stating that Items 6 and 7 regarding letters and comments from Mr. and
Mrs. Johnson, and a request from Mrs. Stilwell will be taken out of order and
discussed first.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson's Letters /Comments. Chairman Carr stated he had talked with
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson and they are concerned about the designation and zoning of
mobilehome park only for the property on South Traffic Way. Another concern is
the building site that is indicated in the tables shows 7200 sq. ft. as a
building site and in the text under "Mobilehome Parks" 3600 sq. ft. is shown.
Ms. Bierdzinski referred to the footnote on Page 142 indicating that the minimum
parcel size can be reduced to 3600 sq. ft. under certain conditions. She pointed
out that if it were a mobilehome subdivision where individuals own their own
lots, then the parcel size could go down to 3600 sq. ft. Chairman Carr commented
it was his understanding that a minimum building site of 5 acres is required.
Ms. Bierdzinski stated he is correct and there is an inconsistency. She stated
the table should say 5 acres as a minimum building site; and Footnote H should
indicate that a mobilehome subdivision requires a minimum of 3600 square feet for
each unit.
Chairman Carr advised that the site in question is approximately 3 -1/2
acres in size, which is less than the 5 acre minimum. He asked what the
implications would be if something happened to the mobile home park. Ms.
Bierdzinski advised that generally the non - conforming use provisions apply to
setbacks, site lot coverage, etc. The lot area width or depth cannot be changed.
Staff is recommending that a provision be added under "Mobile home parks
standards" stating that existing mobile home parks as of the date of the adoption
of the ordinance would not have to comply with the standards. She stated that
basically the standards would apply to the enlargement or expansion of a mobile
home park.
Chairman Carr stated one of the concerns is that this piece of property is
below the minimum size of a mobile home park, and the City is locking them into
amobile home park use. Ms. Bierdzinski stated that the alternative is a General
Plan change and rezoning. Another option is to add other uses to the mobile home
park category if the Commission feels they are consistent with the General Plan.
Commissioner Gallagher stated at least now they are consistent with the existing
use, and he would be inclined to stay with the existing use, and then when a
better idea comes sometime in the future, the Commission could look at it at that
time. Commissioner Brandy stated he agreed with Commissioner Gallagher because
they are consistent with the general plan now, and he would be receptive to a
change in the future.
Mr. Johnson stated it is his contention that it is an old park and does not
comply with the standards and, therefore, to designate it as a mobile home park
is going to discourage anyone with a better idea from buying this piece of
property. Commissioner Souza stated, in his opinion, the designation should stay
as it is until someone comes along with a good idea of what they want to do
there.
After considerable discussion, Chairman Carr asked for an informal poll as
to how many Commissioners want to leave the general plan and zoning as it is.
Four Commissioners voted to leave it as it is; Chairman Carr voted "no ".
Mrs. Stilwell's Request. Long Range Planner Bierdzinski pointed out the property
in question on the map. Mrs. Stilwell addressed the Commission and asked that
they consider her request for RR (Rural Residential) zoning. It was originally
proposed for RR zoning and when it went to the City Council for adoption, and,
in a hurried decision, she requested it be changed to Single Family. She feels
it should be RR; the property on the south side of the street is RR. She stated
she really wants to keep that piece by the creek as open space, and she is
concerned about a tax change if the zoning is changed to Single Family. She
further stated she wants to keep as much of the land in open space as possible,
and if she does have to sell it, she would be satisfied with the Rural
Residential designation.
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -10 -91 Page 2
After a brief discussion, the Commission unanimously agreed on the RR
designation. Ms. Bierdzinski stated that the RR zoning will require a change in
the General Plan designation, and this process will take probably 6 to 8 months.
SETBACKS
Residential Districts - Ms. Bierdzinski reviewed the changes made to the
original draft document on setbacks. She referred to the SF -and MF-zones on page
2 of the staff report. Staff recommends that the rear yard setback be 10 feet
for one story buildings and 15 feet for two story-buildings in the SF District.
On Multiple Family Districts, staff is recommending side yard setbacks of 10 feet
for the MF, MFA and SR zones, are recommending a street -side -yard setback of
10 feet, and a rear yard setback of an average of 15 feet-for one story buildings
and an average of 20 feet for two story buildings. -The average would be
calculated by including all buildings along the rear property line.
•
Commercial Districts - -: Ms. Bierdzinski pointed out that staff is
recommending a change in the lot area for the General Commercial and Highway
Commercial Districts from 20,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. For the
interior side building setback, staff is recommending for the General Commercial,
Office and Highway Commercial Zones that -it -be zero feet-; however, a footnote
references the fact- that larger setbacks may be required based on special
requirements that- are listed -in- Section 9- 07- .040b, -which lists special
regulations for the commercial district. .Larger -setbacks may also be required
to be with the surrounding development or building code regulations.
Staff is also:recommending that the rear building setbacks for the general
commercial, office also-be zero-feet with that same footnote.
- After a brief discussion; the Planning Commission was in agreement with the
changes made by staff with regard to setbacks -in the various -districts.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Ms. Bierdzinski introduced Cathy Graves, Student Intern from Cal Poly, to
give a slide presentation Planned -Unit.Development Standards, stating that
she will be reviewing Attachment "C" to -the December 18 -staff report, and she
will be showing slides -e PUD's: to give the Commission- a feel of how
that relates :to what is - contained in the staff report-.- - -
Ms. Graves stated when she the slides ;. her-primary purpose was to try
to illustrate the difference -- between the gross-densities, the landscaping
requirements - and the open space. • ---- -
After the slide presentation, Ms. Bierdzinski stated that staff is
suggesting 6 to 8 units as being the maximum density on PUD's, however, the
Commission has the option to look -at it as . a- design issue an .a case by case
basis.
Mark Vasquez stated ; -in his , opinion,-when you are talking about PUD
projects, you . are- - talking about- a-development that is in- the maximum density, and
the more flexibility a-designer is allowed, the better the design is going to be
and the- better it- is going -ta be for the City. • - He pointed out that the sites
that are left are very small sites and specific things are needed for that site
to work. There are always constraints-due to topography, - trees- you have to work
around, etc..; - and the-more flexibility the - -designer - -has the better the
development to be. He further-stated that - he feels-the-real thing to
keep in mind is that - typi cal-1 y: PUD' s are : starter- homes and- a certain amount of
flexibility has-to-be be allowed -to make them. affordable, and each project has to
be looked on its own merits.-- Each site has its own specific - problems which
need - flexibility to deal- with- them- instead of processing variances -.- Another
concern expressed by Mr. Vasquez was the 4;000 square foot minimum-.lot size. He
stated. -the other restrictions such as lot coverage and the-density-are going to
restrict how much coverage can be obtained from that - site.- -
- - Mr: Vasquez further stated he doesn't feel the -answer is to provide 25% of
common open space, - and that-• it should be dealt- with as a whole. It was his
feeling - that the - private usable yard space is going to be more valuable to the
residents of the development. He stated- -he agrees -that driveways should not be
included space =and he was not real sure-. that the. small lot development
is necessarily the-wrong-thing to do:. He-felt that. providing: 20' x 20' private
yard space would be used more than a common area down at the end of the
development. -The developments -need- to - --be designed and - not - -just placed on the
site, and if the designer is allowed the flexibility that is- being proposed here,
that can be done, and the fewer units you get on a site, the higher the cost.
He recommended looking at each project individually with regard to density, and
239
240
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -10 -91 Page 3
that the word "common" concerns him. He suggested just giving an open space
figure as a requirement, saying you are going to have 25% open space, excluding
those areas such as driveways, drainage ponds, etc.
Pete Muscaralla, 1112 Oak Park Road, stated he supports Mr. Vasquez'
comments and he is also concerned about the word "common" open space and feels
that private open space would be more valuable for the property owners.
Chairman Carr stated he doesn't feel the need to further restrict the
density because the Performance. Standards should handle that. He stated he would
like to see something that would allow 25% as common open space or a provision
of "blanck percentage" of common /private open space. He requested that staff
come back to the Commission with an answer on what that second number will be.
Also, Chairman Carr stated he is a little concerned about the minimum lot size,
and would like to look at varying minimum lot size. Ms. Bierdzinski suggested
not putting a maximum density on a PUD project and looking at it on a case by
case basis and by design. She stated that she would make the refinements to the
PUD District and place the item on the agenda for the February 19, 1991 meeting.
CREEK AREAS
Long Range Planner Bierdzinski referred to the staff report regarding the
creek areas. She referred to letter #16 wherein the Fish and Game Department
requested that the City consider increasing setbacks and dedications along the
creek areas. Staff feels that until the master trails plan and environmental
study is completed, the City does not have the evidence necessary to require
dedications. The existing and proposed Development Code requires that a
subdivider dedicate to the City all area included in the stream bed and ten feet
back of the stream bank. She stated staff is recommending that until the master
creek plan is completed, that all discretionary projects along the creek require
a biological resources report to determine if there are any environmental
impacts. This report would be a requirement of the City's CEQA review. Also,
staff recommends that Section 9- 14.060 R be revised to read as follows:
"Creek Dedications. For any subdivision or parcel map
or development project requiring discretional review
abutting the Arroyo Grande Creek or its tributaries, the
subdivider or developer shall dedicate to the City all
the area that includes the stream bed and ten feet back
of the stream bank, areas designated as environmentally
sensitive based on a biology report prepared by a
qualified biologist, or other appropriate areas mutually
acceptable for the purposes of open space or green
belt."
She further advised that the City can also review the discretionary
projects on a case -by -case basis for necessary trail improvements, however, the
applicant cannot be conditioned to provide the improvements.
Ms. Bierdzinski stated it is staff's feeling that the best way to resolve
Fish and Game's concerns is to prepare the master creek plan as soon as possible.
She noted that this item is an implementation measure of the City's Parks and
Recreation Element, however, due to lack of funding has not yet been completed.
Commissioner Moore spoke regarding the cleaning of the creek areas and
setbacks. Ms. Bierdzinski stated that at the present time we require 10 ft.
setback. Chairman Carr inquired if possibly 10 feet is inadequate to protect the
biological resource? He further inquired if there is any possibility that the
Department of Fish and Game sharing the cost of the study. Commissioner
Gallagher asked, if when a development proposal comes through, if the maximum
setback can be increased. Ms. Bierdzinski advised that the amount of setback the
ordinance requires is not being changed, but a biological report would be
necessary to increase the setback. City Attorney Skousen advised that the
maximum the City can require is 10 feet based on flood control requirements,
however, anytime we have the evidence and appropriate findings, we can increase
the minim m. She advised that if the Commissioners feel that there is sufficient
evidence to support 15 feet or maybe 20 feet, and that is sufficient without
having the studies to back it up, they could go ahead and recommend it.
Commissioner Brandy stated that the minimum necessary to protect the habitat is
25 feet from the top of the bank on each side of the creek. Commissioner Moore
stated that 25 feet is also needed for adequate flood control.
After further discussion, the Commission agreed that a 25 foot setback from
the top of the creek bank on both sides should be the required minimum.
NEON SIGNS/SIGNS
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -10 -91
Long Range Planner Bierdzinski advised that the Development Code proposes
that neon tubing be allowed as a sign material to the extent that it composes 20%
or less of the total allowable sign area for the use. She pointed out that this
provision would not allow neon beer signs, unless an owner wanted one of his two
allowable signs to be a beer sign. She stated that an alternative the Planning
Commission may wish to consider is to add "accessory signs" as a new category of
signs. Accessory signs could be limited to signs advertising products sold on
the premises. She further stated there would be no limit on the number or size
of these signs, other than restricting to 20% or less of window area and
requiring review and approval by the Architectural Advisory Committee. She noted
that accessory signs would be reviewed as part of an Administrative Sign Permit
or Planned Sign Program.
Charles Doster, 320 E. Branch Street, stated first of all he would like to
speak for Hadley Davis who could not be present tonight, and Mr. Davis would like
to have this discussion: continued. He also would like to see a little more neon
in Arroyo Grande; - he feels the.new Development Code is keeping neon to a minimum.
Speaking for himself, Mr. Doster stated with reference to his business at 320 E.
Branch Street, he has agreed with the City Council to request a Variance and, in
the meantime., the Council .has agreed to _let than keep their neon signs pending
issuance: of a variance. He - - stated they are trying to work out a program for
their building that will be in character with the Village_ and something that will
work for them also, .and neon is traditional with - their type of business. He
further stated that if the sign ordinance amended, .there will: be an abatement
program necessary.- and a- sign inventory.will. be required. He suggested that the
sign inventory be taken before the sign ordinance is implemented. He referred
to a similar action by another., city and_ they. found that after 6 months of
implementing the program;._•70 % - .of those businesses: that were brought into
conformance went out: of business He stated he feels that the • issue _ needs a
little. more work and perhaps _it would be._good to : do .a: quick survey and send a
letter .to .those . who :have :signs . are -_non- conforming and _ask for their
comments. _ _ _ _
Ms. Bierdzinski advised - that the Architectural. Advisory _Committee would
look at the sign. application to make -the decision whether it is compatible with
the surrounding area and if _they find it is :appropriate for _that .building.
Chairman Carr stated his opinion that there should be some limit .on. the number
of neon signs; perhaps. .3 or 4. Commissioner Gallagher suggested a lot less than
20 %. Ms. Bierdzinski suggested .that- instead of limiting _the nuinber of signs, to
let the decision be :handled :by. the. Architectural. Advisory Committee.
After considerable discussion, it was agreed that no limit be placed on the
number of accessory signs, and that the decision.-be made by the Architectural
Advisory Committee._- -
REDUCED FEES FOR SIGN PERMITS. :
Ms. Bierdzinski reviewed the staff report dated January 10, 1991, advising
that this would - onl:y apply..to signs. that are non - conforming. and were legal at the
time they were erected;: but the' .passage_ of .the :new :ordinance, they become non-
conforming.. _ No action -or :decision_ was. :required by. the - .Cwtmission _ on this
subject:.
MINOR EXCEPTION NOTIFICATION.:
Ms. Bierdzinski reviewed the paragraph in the staff report regarding Minor
Exception Notification. The Commission agreed with staff 's recommendation that
at the time a :Exception is approved, notices _will be: sent to: property
owners within 150_ feet of _the' project :. -_
STAFF RESPONSES TO LETTERS 2, 18 - 20 AND COMMENTS U, W, X, AND AA ON THE
DEVELOPMENT CODE. _ ; .
Ms. Bierdzinski stated that regarding letters 18. and 20, staff did go
through the table _of the: uses in the commercial zones and made several
recommended changes, which are shown in Attachment C starting on Page 4.
A gentleman representing Mr. R. Strauss stated they are pleased with the
changes, commenting that the _only thing where there -might be .a problem was the
differentiation between the veterinary and that type of a service, and a dental
or medical type of facility.
Ms. Bierdzinski advised that Mr. Strauss requested that medical offices be
allowed in the Highway Service Commercial Zone. Ms. Bierdzinski stated that Mr.
Strauss requested that medical offices be allowed in the highway commercial zone.
Staff's recommendation was that they do not provide a service to the traveling
public. The recommended changes are that veterinary or dental offices would not
241:
Page 4
242
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -10 -91 Page 5
be a permitted use in the Highway Commercial District, the Commission agreed
with those recommendations.
Mr. Strauss' representative stated it was his understanding that the zoning
was being changed from commercial to highway commercial. Ms. Bierdzinski advised
that the zoning of this property is highway commercial and is not going to be
changed at all, but some of the allowable uses will be changed in that zone.
Ms. Bierdzinski pointed out one correction needed to the Table on Page 5
under Antique Stores, Itean C2, where it shows "NP" and should be changed to "C ".
The Commission suggested. that cleaning and pressing establishments not be
permitted in the "0" zone.
NON CONPUMING USES
Service Stations - Ms. Bierdzinski advised that this matter was discussed with
the Planning Commission on Deceamber 18, 1990 and, as a result, staff has revised
Section 9- 110.100 to allow nonconforming service stations that dispense gasoline
to expand or enlarge subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
Residential Uses - Ms. Bierdzinski stated that with regard to the concern that
existing single family homes that are destroyed more than 50% in the SF or VR
Zones would not be able to be rebuilt to their previous size because of the floor
area ratios, and staff doesn't feel this is going to be a problem because the
floor area ratios generally provide for fairly good size homes; a 6,000 sq. ft.
lot will provide for a 2400 sq. ft. house, excluding garages. If the owners did
wish a larger floor area ratio, they could apply for a variance.
With regard to a single family home in the multi - family zone, Ms.
Bierdzinski pointed out that a single family home would be non - conforming unless
it is on a small lot (less than 10,000 sq. ft). In the case of a single family
home on a larger lot being destroyed more than 50 %, it is a non conforming use
and they would not be able to rebuild a single family home, but only those uses
that are allowed for that zone. She noted that the purpose of the multi- family
zones is to provide higher density housing. However, allowing single family
homes to be built on those lots that could support higher densities can change
the character of the neighborhood. The Commission expressed concern about
displacement of property owners that have lived on property for many years. Ms.
Bierdzinski stated, if the Commission feels there is a concern, the nonconforming
use section can be revised to allow existing single family homes in multi - family
zones to rebuild in case of damage. The Commission agreed that if a single
family home is more than 50% destroyed in the Multiple Family zone, it should be
allowed to be rebuilt.
SENIOR ADVISORY COMMIirm. CATS
Ms. Bierdzinski advised that she attended a Senior Advisory Committee
meeting to provide them with information on the development code, and talked at
length about senior housing. They asked that she mention to the Planning
Commission to consider three story buildings for senior housing. She advised the
Committee that during the General Plan update, some key issues were addressed
early in that process, and one of those issues was that three story buildings
were not in character with the rural small town image that the City wanted to
project. Chairman Carr stated his opinion that the areas designated for senior
housing are not appropriate for three story structures. After discussion, the
Ccarmission agreed to keep the present height standards of two stories or 30 feet.
STAFF RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE
Ms. Bierdzinski reviewed Attachment C to the staff report regarding
recommended changes to the development code. A brief discussion was held, but
no changes were made by the Commission.
There were no further questions or comments on the development code, and
staff was directed to return at the regular meeting of February 19, 1991 with
resolutions recommending adoption of the Development Code to the City Council.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and
unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Secretary / Chairman
/W-E,11//44,1.,