PC Minutes 1985-04-02170 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 2, 1985
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chairran Carr
presiding. Present are Commissioners Moore, Olsen and Boggess. Commissioners Fischer, Soto
and Chairman Gerrish are absent. Planning Director Eisner is also in attendance.
PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF ORDINANCE 140 C.S. - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
WITH OAK PARK ACRES.
Planning Director Eisner reviewed that the Planning Commission requested this item be
set on the agenda for discussion relative to density provisions and a general review of the
Ordinance. There was also a request for a resources update, however, the Public Works Director
has been out due to illness and, therefore, staff was unable to obtain the information.
Commissioner Olsen commented the Commission is interested in the water and sewer situation, and
also traffic generation figures. Mr. Eisner advised he has requested the consultant who is
working with the City on a couple of projects to submit some generation factors based on the
ITE Standards. He noted that the residential factors have been submitted, however, staff is
still waiting for the commercial factors.
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner
Boggess, and unanimously carried, the matter was continued to the next regular meeting of April
16, 1985.
CONTINUATION- (PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED) - USh PERMIT CASE NO. 85 -387, ELDERLY
PROJECT INCLUDING REST HOME, GROUP HOME, CONVALESCENT HOME AND MEDICAL
OFFICES, LOT 3, PARCELS B, C AND D, OAK PARK ACRES, IN THE "P -D PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. (DR. AND MRS. FULBRIGHT). -
Vice Chairman Carr pointed out that this matter was continued pending review of
Ordinance 140 C.S. and, because of that continuation, Use Permit Case No. 85 -387 will also be
continued to the meeting of April 16, 1985.
PUBLIC HEARING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1186, A SIX LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION DPI THE "R -1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, NORTHEAST
CORNER OF WHITELEY AND NELSON STREETS. (GARING, TAYLOR & ASSOC., INC.,
AGENTS FOR MERILEE PECK).
Planning Director Eisner advised that the property in question was acquired from the
County by the City of Arroyo Grande, and has recently been sold. He pointed out that the
property is located on the northeast corner of Whiteley and Nelson Streets, containing
approximately 80,000 sq. ft. The request is to divide the property into six lots of approximately
6,000 sq. ft. each, with the exception of the corner lot which will be 7,000 sq. ft. as required
by Ordinance. The proposed subdivision has been reviewed by the Subdivision Review Board
and the Staff Advisory Committee, and is recoiunended for approval subject to the 9 conditions
listed in the staff report dated April 2, 1985.
Upon being assured by the Planning Secretary that public hearing for Tentative Tract
No. 1186 had been duly published and property owners notified, Vice Chairman Carr declared
the he aring open.
Merilee Peck, applicant, advised that the escrow on the property is due to close
tomorrow morning at 8:00 A.M. With regard to the historical stone wall located on the
property, Ms. Peck advised that the wall is beautiful and she does not intend to take it down.
Mr. Weaver stated he lives adjacent to the property and was concerned about the
drainage. Planning Director Eisner advised that the drainage will be to the streets and then to
the creek. Mr. Weaver commented that the way the roofs are situated, with a good rain, that
water will ahnost go over the curb. Planning Director Eisner stated that a grading and drainage
plan must be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to
issuance of a building or grading permit.
Ms. Peck advised that a drainage plan is being prepared. Vice Chairman Carr stated
that possibly some consideration could be given to draining some of the houses to the creek
rather than to the street.
Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed subdivision map, Vice
Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed.
Commissioner Boggess stated he doesn't see where drainage is going to be any problem
at all with this development. Commissioner Moore stated, in his opinion, the drainage can be
solved if it is taken care of from the beginning of the planning. Vice Chairman Carr suggested
an additional condition be considered as follows: "That no additional pipes be placed across
the creek." He also disputed the way flag lots are done and, in his opinion, it is not
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -2 -85 Page 2
appropriate to include the driveway into the net size of the lots because this results with actual
buildable area of less than 6,000 sq. ft. Planning Director Eisner pointed out that both lots in
question appear to be 6,000 sq. ft. in size exclusive of the flag.
There being no further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -1034
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 1186 SUBMITTED BY MERILEE PECK,
AND REFERRAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR INFOR-
MATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.
On motion by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: 'Commissioners Boggess, Olsen, Moore and Vice. Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Fischer, Soto and Chairman Gerrish
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of April 1985.
PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY TREE ORDINANCE
Planning Director Eisner advised that the proposed ordinance has been reviewed at the
staff level and it appears to deal with some of the questions that were raised with the last
draft ordinance reviewed by the Commission.
Commissioner Boggess commented the proposed ordinance seems to be standardized with most city
tree ordinances. He questioned Item (g) under "Street Trees" relative to maintenance and
irrigation of street trees on undeveloped land, stating it seems like that would be putting a
burden on the owner of vacant land if there is no water there. Vice Chairman Carr stated, in
his opinion, there would be very few cases where street trees would be planted on undeveloped
parcels. Planning Director Eisner pointed out that usually street trees are planted at the time
of development.
Upon being assured by the Planning Secretary that public hearing for the proposed
Community Tree Ordinance had been duly published and posted, Vice Chairman Carr declared the
hearing open.
Elmer Kirk and F. J. Kirkpatrick, Printz Road, spoke regarding their concerns with
wording and some of the definitions listed in the proposed ordinance. Marie Cattoir, 195 Orchid
Lane, stated the re- evaluation of the tree ordinance came about because of citizens' complaints
and because of the Planned Development enforcement not being made, such as in the Oak Park
Acres development. She stated, in her opinion, the proposed ordinance is totally unnecessary
because it is like "big brother" or government coming into your backyard. She further stated
that one thing that really concerns her is that the world may close in around you but at least
when you go home; your home is your castle and it is a person's discretion to do as they please
within their property, and now with this proposed ordinance, the City is removing every last
vestage of that right. She stated she is appauled that the City would go this far; and she feels
this is an encroachment on everybody's right to pursue their veiw of the enviornment as they
see it. She commented that most people are doing a good job in this town and have an
incentive to make it beautiful and they want to retain some right of choice of their own. She
pointed out that the problem that the ordinance was re- written to correct was not done; and
that is placing enforcement on Planned Developments.
Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed ordinance, Vice Chairman
Carr declared the hearing closed.
Commissioner Moore stated what we need is a good information and education program.
With regard to "Penalties" on Page 4, Commissioner Moore stated he doubts if the Parks and
Recreation Director is going to be a judge and determine what the penalties will be, and that
the same Parks and Recreation Director is going to police all of these trees. With regard to
Page 6, Item (f) regarding "inventory ", he stated that would be a lot of work to keep all of
that information up to date. He also stated he agrees with Marie Cattoir that this proposed
ordinance was brought up because of the failure of Arroyo Grande to enforce their Planned
Development. He commented that, in its present condition, the ordinance is not ready for
adoption. Commissioner Olsen stated she agrees with Commissioner Moore and Mrs. Cattoir.
Corrgnissioner Boggess stated he doesn't feel the ordinance is meant to dictate to the
public what they can and can't do but, in his opinion, the ordinance is something to turn to as a
guide. He further stated he does have some problems with the ordinance in some places, but
generally he is in favor of a good tree ordinance for the protection of the community.
Commissioner Olsen stated she doesn't feel this ordinance is going to protect the community, and
most of the complaints about trees was the destruction of oak trees and other trees by
development. Vice Chairman Carr stated he agrees that enforcement of the Planned
Development has been too lax and suggested that any recommendation sent on to the City
Council regarding the ordinance should speak to that concern regarding enforcement in the
Planned Development districts.
171
172 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 4 -2 -85
Page 3
Commissioner Moore stated he feels the proposed ordinance is not complete; he feels a
public information and education program should be a part of the ordinance.
After considerable discussion on changes to the ordinance, Vice Chairman Carr stated
the Corarission could either send it back for additional work, or send it on to the City Council
with a recommendation for approval or denial. Planning Director Eisner suggested that since
the matter goes on to the City Council for final adoption, the Coui,ission could take a
conditional action to approve the ordinance subject to the recommended changes.
After further discussion, on motion by Vice Chairman Carr, seconded by Commissioner
Olsen, and carried with Commissioner Moore voting "no ", that the proposed Ordinance be
recoisa,ended to the City Council for approval, subject to changes as follows:
Sections 10- 3.03(f), 10- 3.03(a), (c) and (g) - revised and clarified.
"Street Trees ", subsection (m) - a time limit be added whereby if the
Director has not taken action by a specified time, the property
owner may deem the permit granted.
Section 10 -3.03, Subsection (n), Para. 2 - revised and clarified.
Section 10 -3.06 "Landmark Trees ", Subsection (b), last sentence -
Amend to read as follows: "The Director shall sign as owners for
all City -owned landmark trees."
Commissioner Olsen stated her feelings that the Planning Commission should make it
dear that enforcement of the ordinance in the Planned Development should have priority.
Planning Director Eisner pointed. out that the Wildwood tree removal portion of the plan was
reviewed by the Planning Cocimxission and the City Council and, in fact, the developer took out
less trees than they were permitted to do.
REVIEW - ORDINANCE REVISIONS TO COMMERCIAL ZONES - MOTELS AND GENERAL
COMMERCIAL.
Planning Director Eisner briefly reviewed the proposed ordinances. He noted that the
City Council passed an emergency ordinance on motel permits for a period of 45 days.
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner
Olsen, and unanimously carried, a public hearing on the proposed "Motel" ordinance amendment
was set for April 16, 1985.
After discussion regarding the General Commercial zones, on motion by Commissioner
Moore, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and unanimously carried, a public hearing on the
proposed Highway Commercial zones was set for May 7, 1985.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
the Vice Chairman at 9:30 P.M.
AVIEST:
Secretary Vice Chairman
R eAt z./4,„,_