Loading...
PC Minutes 1979-06-05Arroyo Grande Planning Commission June 5, 1979 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chairman Gorsline presiding. Present are Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Moots and Vandeveer. Chairman Harris and Commissioner Simmons are absent. Also in attend- ance are Planning Director Castro and Planner Sullivan. MINUTE APPROVAL Upon hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meeting of May 15, 1979 were approved by the Vice Chairman as submitted. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA Planning Director Castro requested that Use Permit Case No. 79 -282 to allow for a coin operated amusement center at 1009 Grand Avenue, be added to the agenda for further review. He reviewed that the matter was before the Planning Commission on April 17, 1979 and, at that meeting, the Commission expressed concern with re- gard to access to the area, hours of operation, paving of parking spaces, and that the use be subject to review in six months. He further advised that both he and the petitioner, Mr. Gibbs, had misunderstood the Commission's action, in that the Resolution approving the Use Permit was defeated because of a 3 to 3 vote of the Commission. Mr. Castro advised that Mr. Gibbs had obtained a letter from the property owner granting access for the proposed business and, because of the mis- understanding by both he and Mr. Gibbs as previously described, a business license has been issued to Mr. Gibbs. After considerable discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that the Use Permit was denied and it would be necessary for Mr. Gibbs to resubmit a Use Permit application and obtain Commission approval before a business license can be issued. Mr. Gibbs indicated that he would resubmit a Use Permit applica- tion. REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 79 -192, PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING COMPLEX, NO. HALCYON ROAD. (VICK PACE). Planning Director Castro reviewed the plans for the proposed office complex. He advised that the Architectural Review Committee had met and Commissioner Moots expressed concern over the sameness of the exterior material extending on to the facia, which is a false facia on top of the building. The Committee suggested that perhaps using some other material and some painting might resolve this con- cern. There was also some concern as to the quality of the project and the fact that it is on one of the principal streets coming into the City. Mr. Castro stated he had discussed the concerns with Mr. Glen Felmlee and suggested a re- design of the project, and the plan was resubmitted by the architect. When the plans were resubmitted the facia treatment was different, but basically the design remained the same. He talked to Mr. Felmlee again, and they came back and pre- sented the elevations which are now before the Commission. Mr. Castro reviewed the plans, stating they are depicting a solid type of material, rather than the board and bat; they are using a different stain to punch out the canopy; and are treating the roof line differently. He further pointed out that the roof line and the canopy are only addressing themselves to the front of the building, and the landscaping is satisfactory. The general comments by the Commission were that the proposed project gave the impression of a temporary development, that the western look of the buildings were not in keeping with the area, and they would like to see more breaking up of the lines. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and unanimously carried, that Architectural Review Case No. 79 -192 be denied at this time, and that plans be resubmitted depicting a more appropriate design for the area. REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 79 -193, TWO - SIX UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS, ASH AND SPRUCE STREETS. (VICK PACE). Planning Director Castro briefly reviewed the plans for the development and conditions of approval by the Architectural' Review Committee, dated May'30, 1979. He further noted that he has received a revised landscaping: plan showing an ex- tensive amount of trees and ground cover, and that the plan meets the approval of the Planning Department. He requested that the requirement for an automatic irri- gation system be added to the conditions of approval. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, that Architectural Review Case No. 79- 193 be approved with the addition of Item # #11 - "Landscaping' materials shall be as plans presented with the proper automatic irrigation system." 111 .1 12 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -5 -79 Page 2 REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 79 -194, PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ADJACENT TO RUTHERFORD'S JEWELERS ON EAST BRANCH ST, (RON GOULD). Planning Director Castro advised that this project was reviewed by the Park- ing and Business Improvement Area Advisory Board, who concern themselves with what is taking place in the Village area. The Board was pleased with the project and recommended approval, subject to the condition that the parking assessment for the development be paid on or before January 1, 1980. He further noted that a total of $6,000.00 will be provided to the parking fund of the downtown area. Planning Director Castro recommended that the project be approved as per plans on file, subject to approval of landscaping plans and subject to the approval of grading and drainage plans by the City Engineer. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer, and unanimously carried, that Architectural Review Case No. 79 -194 be approved as per plans on file; that a grading and drainage plan be submitted subject to the approval of the City Engineer; that a landscaping plan be resubmitted subject to the approval of the Planning Department depicting plans and materials; that all landscaped areas shall have an automatic irrigation system; and that parking assessment fees in the amount of $6,000.00 be paid no later than January 1, 1980. REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 79 -195, PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF JUNIPER STREET, APPROXIMATELY 200 FP. SOUTH OF GRAND AVENUE. (R. L. VELAND). Mr. Castro reviewed that the proposed complex is two stories in height; that all of the parking requirements have been met; and that the plans show extensive landscaping surrounding the development. The building suggests all of the offices will be exposed to a central courtyard on the front. He advised the elevation' depicts stucco with mission tile; a lot of wood, and heavy beams exposed along the roof lines. He further advised that the Architectural Review Committee was very pleased with the project and recommended approval subject to the five conditions noted in the report dated May 30, 1979. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Committee action, dated May 30, 1979, was accepted as recom- mended. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. Planning Director Castro reviewed that the proposed amendments would provide a greater flexibility in the manner in which the "P -D" District is applied, and also addresses the senior citizens project that was reviewed by the Commission a few months ago. He advised that, in his opinion, the proposed amendments should allow both the Commission and the Council the flexibility to look at any land con- dition with regard to size and /or topography and allow a diversification in a good quality development. He pointed out that he went through the ordinance section by section noting what areas needed to be clarified or changed, and the reasons for the changes. In the first section, Page 377, he noted that the question here is the acreage; whether the 10 acres should be retained or consideration given to some other acreage In looking at different ordinances, Mr. Castro stated he found that most cities are now going to less than 10 acres; they are getting down to the one acre minimum on a good buildable site and can allow some diversification under the Planned Develop- ment. Staff is recommending that the 10 acres be reduced to 1 acre minimum site. Mr. Castro stated that the other modification, which was not included in his report, was regarding density. Right now the General Plan states that there shall be so many units per acre; how do we work with the Planned Development. He stated he discussed the matter with Jerry Shipsey and suggested to him that on the second sentence of Page 377, we add "The purpose of such district is to grant or require diversification in the density =and location of structures and other site elements which would be appropriately compatible, while insuring adequate standards relat- ing to the public health, safety, welfare, comfort, and convenience ", with the in- sertion being the work "density ". He advised that both he and Jerry Shipsey felt that by inserting that word in there, you could fluctuate without being in conflict with the General Plan. In other words, we are saying that the District itself is not permissive; it is something that you have to approve, and it is that difference that we are considering if it is to have any meaning or any flexibility, then it needs to have flexibility also in the density requirements. He further advised that the density will fluctuate in every project, but the approval and control still be- longs to the City, subject to a plan that is approved by you, and may be approved by the City Council if they so wish. With regard to the question that was raised as to eliminating an influx of applications, Mr. Castro suggested readdressing the Housing Element and develop a policy and a program that would state just how many Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -5 -79 Page 3 units you wish to develop within the time frames of the City's growth. In answer to Commissioner'Moots' question regarding the density, Planning Director Castro advised there are two things that can happen; (1) You can retain the General Plan and require conformance to that density requirement, or (2) you can say that the density shall be as per approved plan. There is no way you are going to be able to get away from the density without either creating a district or creating the flexibility of the Planned Development to permit certain types of developments subject to the Commission's review and approval. He pointed out that the Commission has the control in the Planned Development District; the developer needs to submit plans that describe the entire project and, if you want to achieve housing for senior citizens and that type of development, the density problem will have to be addressed. Mr. Castro commented that the amendments being proposed to the Planned Development District, in his opinion, are not only cleaning up the Ordinance,but is adding the flexibility that is needed to con- sider the senior citizens project. Commissioner Moots expressed concern that by inserting the. word "density" would be opening every "P -D" up to that same inter- pretation of how much density is in effect, and every piece of land would have to be reviewed piece by piece, and the way it is now we have some guidance as to what density is allowed by law. Commissioner Cole stated that we have people of all ages in our community and we need to start facing some facts and provide hous- ing for all ages, and provide flexibility to meet the needs of the people in this community. Planning Director Castro reviewed the other proposed amendments as noted in his report to the Commission, dated June 1, 1979. Upon being assured by Planning Director Castro that public hearing for Pro - posed Amendments to the Planned Development District had been duly published, Vice Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing open.` Peggy Langworthy, Printz Road, pointed out that in her opinion, if you had a special district approach, it would be easier to continue to provide the kind of housing for senior citizens, etc. She further stated if you allow less park- ing spaces, what happens when the natural improvements and the value of the prop- erty increases and the development is 'sold, how are you going to guarantee that it is going to be resold as another senior citizens project. She referred to a condition where someone comes along and buys low income housing, improves it, and then sells it at a higher price, taking it out of the low income category. Planning Director Castro stated, in his opinion, the original conditions of ap- proval should make very clear the intent the Commission is approving, or for how long of a period of time that would have to be adhered to. He further stated that the Federal Government also has certain requirements on the time element. Mr. Monroe Weiner, one of the developers of the proposed senior citizens' pro- ject, advised that the agreement they make with the Federal Government is that they will maintain the project for 20 years as a senior citizens' project; and in some cases the agreement is for 30 years. Planner Sullivan also pointed out that when the Commission and the City Council approve such a project in the Ordi- nance and in the conditions of approval, it would state that a particular project is for senior citizens' housing, and for that to ever be changed would require a public hearing before the Commission and City Council. Mr. Mitch Walker, Planning Consultant for the applicant, stated that general= ly you would think in terms of "P -D" as a large rural piece of property. Eventu- ally the City is going to be forced with more difficult smaller pieces of property' needing to be developed within the City and, in his opinion, the City will need to have the flexibility of "P -D" on small parcels too, and designers certainly can use it in terms of coming up with solutions that need to be viewed on a one by one basis. He further stated he feels the proposal being presented goes a little bit further than addressing the senior citizens' project, in that it does address a general need that the City is to be faced with in the future. There being-no further comments from the audience, 'Vice Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 79 -675 After considerable discussion by the Commission, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION OF THE. PLANNING COMMISSION OF'THE CITY: OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OF ZONING ORDI- NANCE 24 C.S., AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ITS ACTION AND ADOPTION. 113 A Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -5 -79 Page 4 On motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Gorsline and Vandeveer. Commissioner Moots. Chairman Harris and Commissioner Simmons: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5th day of June 1979. PUBLIC HEARING — PROPOSED LAND USE AND /OR ZONING RECLASSIFICATION - BUENA VISTA TERRACE DEVELOPMENT AND BADEN PROPERTY. Planning Director Castro reviewed that the re -study of the Buena Vista Ter- race property stems from a letter that the Council received some weeks ago con- cerning the Buena Vista Terrace apartments, and the Commission felt they wanted to look at the Baden property again. He advised that staff's findings are sub- stantially the same as were previously addressed to the Commission some months ago, with the added comment that he would not recommend that the Baden property be split into two districts. It should be either "R -3" or "R -1 ", or any other district the Commission may wish to apply to it. Upon being assured by Planning Director Castro that public hearing for the Proposed Land Use and /or Zoning Reclassification for the Buena Vista Terrace De- velopment and the Baden Property had been duly published,posted and property owners notified, Vice Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing open. Mr. Don Haymaker,.President of the Buena Vista Terrace Homeowners' Associa- tion, stated their deepest concern is to protect the investments of the people who have bought into the condominiummassociation, and that by downgrading the zon- ing, they would be running the risk of not being able to rebuild in case of some sort of disaster. Also, they would not be able to purchase insurance coverage properly, and they would not be able to have any security for their investments. In light of these concerns, Mr. Haymaker requested that the "R -3" zoning remain on the Buena Vista Terrace development. Mr. Richard DeBlauw, property owner in the Buena Vista Terrace condominium project, stated he feels the same way that Mr. Haymaker does, and advised that the 16 homeowners want to see it left in the "R -3" zoning rather than have it downgraded. With regard to the Baden property, Mr. Paul Geihs, Attorney for Mr. Baden, stated his clients were in agreement with Mr. Castro's recommendation in his re- port, dated May 23, 1979, wherein he stated: "In again reviewing this application, I would reaffirm to the Planning Commission my previous recommendation that the Buena Vista Terrace property be retained in the "R -3" multiple category. Further, that the Baden property also be labelled for that same use. My reason for suggest- ing that the Baden property be classified as multi - family would be that the class - ification would be consistent with the extension of existing multiple development along the same side of the street. With the previous action that we took along the abutting commercial area, it would appear that single family uses would not be desirable ". Mr. Geihs reviewed that back in February, the Baden parcel was approved for a lot split. He referred to the parcel map showing the split into Parcels A and B, with "R -3" zone on the north side and the VC-N" zone on the south side. He requested that whatever zone the Baden property becomes, it should be the same zoning and not split. He pointed out that, as previously indicated, to down zone the Buena Vista property would create a non - conforming use, and to down zone the Baden property would create a situation that would not allow that piece of ground to utilize its highest and best use, which would be "R-3". He further stated that it is also a logical buffer zone between the "R -1" use on the north of the Highway Service or Commercial on the south. He noted that when the Plan- ning Commission considered the Land Use on this in May of 1978, the staff recom- mended that the property be increased from low to high density, and the Commission vote on the matter was split, therefore, there was no action taken. Then, at the time the Commission met on the zoning, the staff recommended that the "C -N' portion be zoned to "R -3" to be consistent with the other "R -3" portion of the property, and at that meeting the recommendation was accepted by the Commission. When it was considered by the City Council, it failed by a 3 to 2 vote. He pointed out that it can be a close question, but stressed to the Commission that if they rely on the professionals fromaa planning point of view, it makes sense to leave the Baden property as "R -3" to serve as a buffer, and allow the highest and best use of the property. He requested that the Commission recommend that the "R -3" zone on the upper portion remain, and that the "C -N" portion be changed to "R -3" Dis- trict. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -5 -79 Page 5 Mr. Siegfred Baden, 1385 Brighton Avenue, pointed out that on the 1962 official zoning map, the property was zoned "R -3 ", and on the 1972 zoning map you see the same zoning. He statedhhe bought this property about 10 years ago, and this zoning existed before any houses were built in that block. He further stated that the original planners that gave us Grand Avenue were the ones that put the "R -3" zoning on there and, in his opinion, it should remain as such. Mr. Kirby Gordon, 405 Indio Drive, Pismo Beach, stated he had recently been involved in some litigation experience with respect to a non - conforming use. He pointed out that a homeowner is really at a disadvantage in this situation and to create a non - conforming use is asking for further complications to the individual home- owner. He further stated he would support the views of the two gentlemen from the Buena Vista Terrace project. Mrs. Helen Dosey, Newport Ave., stated it was her opinion that Mr. Baden's property was zoned "R -1 ", and now there seems to be -a question about it. She further advised that she also heard that Buena Vista Terrace had been "R -1" not too long ago, and inquired about the property above Mr. Baden's and if, in order to keep it into conformity, apartments would be built there. She pointed out that since Brighton Avenue doesn't go through, traffic is really getting congested. She stated that the people that live on Fair View and on Brighton on the other side were not in favor of the apartments, and if the Commission goes ahead with Mr. Baden's "R -3", she hoped they wouldn't go above and change that to "R -3 ". Mr. Baden stated that the property right across from his property has always been zoned "R -3" and it is his understanding there is an "R -1" development going in there. There being no further comments from the audience, Vice Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing closed. After .a brief discussion among the Commissioners, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 79 -676 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 01' THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING THE PROPOSED LAND USE AND /OR ZONING RECLASSIFICATION CHANGE FOR THE BUENA VISTA TERRACE DEVELOPMENT AND BADEN PROPERTY AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ITS ACTION AND ADOPTION. On motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gorsline, Moots. and Vandeveer NOES: Commissioner Fischer ABSENT: Chairman Harris and Commissioner Simmons.. the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5th day of June 1979. PUBLIC.HEARING - PROPOSED. ORDINANCE TO PERMIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS. Planning-Director Castro advised that the proposed ordinance is the one that was presented to the Commission some weeks ago, and that the_Noise Resistance requirement has been added. The ordinance.still addresses to a of the vacancy ratio-of apartments within the City and it is.still tied to the Housing Element. Staff feels it.should.be in that form.if we.are to protect the rental housing. As far as the numbers are concerned, he pointed out that the Housing Element now states that 30% of your total housing stock should be for rental pur- poses, and the City will never•be able to accomplish that goal because we don't have the land resources to do it. He advised that he has been trying to work out some number that. will achieve some developments between what will. need to have and what may be desirable to.have so that we will have some conversion allowances within. the City. He pointed out another problem is that the new construction may never catch up to the goal that.the City wants and still allow the 3% vacancy ratio that we allow in the plan. 1.15 Mr. Castro briefly reviewed the . proposed ordinance, noting that the Noise Section could either be added as, Items (k) . and (1) on Page 2 under "Application for Conversion", or it could be added on Page 3 under the required conditions. With regard to the 3% vacancy factor, Commissioner.. Moots commented, in his . opinion, that was low and there should be more available units before conversion is per- mitted. Planning Director Castro advised the vacancy factor could be ,adjusted if the Commission so desired. Commissioner Moots stated that under "Tenants Right to Purchase ", in his opinion, if a tenant has been living there for a long period 116 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -5 -79 Page 6 of time he should be given a special purchase price. He further stated that there are several places now where special treatment is given to long term resi- dents and older senior citizens in apartment complexes that are bing converted. Commissioner Fischer mentioned that a suggestion had been made before that there would be a certain percentage that would be deed restricted to low income cate - gories. Planner Sullivan advised that when the City adopts and accepts the allow cations of the different income and age categories of housing needs, we would come up with a number at that time, and rather than putting in a fixed percentage now, we could just say "consistent with the housing allocation needs of the City ". • Upon being assured by Planning Director Castro that public hearing for Pro - posed Ordinance to Permit Condominium Conversions had been duly published, Vice Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing open. Mr. Kirby Gordon, 405 Indio Drive, Pismo Beach, stated with regard to the proposal that 25% of the project be designated for low cost housing, that from a practical standpoint, he could see very little reason why a developer would take 25% of his project and donate it to low cost housing because 25% is his profit margin on conversions. He stated he feels this would be unfair unless that is being done with all the rest of the subdivisions in the City; a condo- minium conversion is nothing more than a subdivision of air space of an existing project. He suggested that the City could require the developer to retain a percentage of the units as rentals. With the relocation assistance, he stated he feels the ordinance is adequate as it is written. Mr. Gordon noted some of the benefits of conversions are that you are promoting home ownership, you are providing moderate cost housing, and you are providing a higher tax base for the City. He further noted that there will be less deterioration of the neighbor- hood because of the budget requirements of the Homeowners' Association, which normally amount to $35.00 to $40.00 per month per each unit, and that normally a Homeowners Association will keep up a condominium better than apartment 'owners. He noted some of the detriments as being displacement of tenants, higher rent for units leased due to higher mortgages, and reduction of the rental stock. He stated he feels that every project should be considered on a case by case basis, and he neither supports wholesale conversions nor total prohibition of conver- sions. Mr. Gordon further stated with regard to the suggested 25% being desig- nated for low cost housing, if the City is going to restrict the price of those units with a permanent deed restriction, who is going to pick up the tab for the Homeowners' Association. Planning Director Castro stated he did not know whether the 25% figure is really cutting into the profit margin or not. In other projects that he has re- viewed, 25 or 30% has not been unreasonable if you want "to create the housing stocktfor the other categories, and he would rather leave it as 25% and have the applicant prove otherwise based on the application that he submits. Mr. Castro further pointed out that the ordinance is not making specific requirements on amenities such as patios, barbecues, etc., but we are asking for a detailed state- ment from the applicant indicating what amenities are available at the present time and what amenities are to be added. Mr. Bill Lackey,1270 Longview, Pismo Beach, pointed out a problem he has seen happen where condominium conversions are not allowed is,for instance, you have a 12 unit apartment building and 8 of the tenants who live there get to- gether and buy the units and rent out the other four or eventually sell them. This way it appears that the City would lose their park fees and their subdivis- ion fees and, in his opinion, it would be a little easier to allow conversion and protect the City more. There being no further comments from the audience, Vice Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Cole requested that, due to the lateness of the hour, that this matter be continued to the next meeting. Plann- ing Director Castro agreed that the matter be continued so that staff can review the Commission's comments. Vice Chairman Gorsline announced that the matter would be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting of June 19, 1979. DRAFT - PROPOSED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Planning Director Castro reviewed that when the Kirkpatrick lot split was presented to the Council, one of their concerns was their previous action on another property in the same vicinity, and also how to maybe control the prolif- eration of lot splitting that is taking place in this area. He stated he suggest- ed that the Council consider a separate district that is more in tune with what is happening to the fringe areas of the City, and from that general discussion came the idea of developing a Suburban Residential District. He advised he has 1 i Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -5 -79 Page 7 tried to bring the proposal into as much conformity with the County's Suburban Residential District as possible. He further advised what he has done is pro- vide an outline to the Commission of what the purpose of the district is, in order to determine if we are heading in the right direction and, if so, staff will submit an ordinance within the next couple of weeks. Mr. Kirkpatrick, Printz Road, stated he has talked to many of his neighbors both in and out of the City, and they all like the idea; they would like to keep it suburban with a minimum of 2k acres. Mr. Bill Lackey, Pismo Beach, property owner in the area, inquired about the reference in the proposal to a community water system, and asked if this meant an individual system as opposed to a public or City water system. Plan- ning Director Castro advised that this should have been written in as "City water systems are generally required ", and the septic system is something that can be programmed differently if the City so wishes. He pointed out that the water may become critical if you continue to develop and subdivide that area. Mr. Lackey stated on a 41/2 acre parcel, if you are going to do any kind of irri- gating at all, you cannot afford City water. He further stated, with regard to septic tanks, there are problems out there, and an engineered system with the proper percolation would be a necessity. Mr. Nooker, Printz Road, stated he is generally in favor of Mr. Castro's proposal of 22 acres, but with the ability to use wells as opposed to City water. Mr. Bill Langworthy, Printz Road, stated he got involved in coming down to City Hall about four years ago because of a preoccupation of trying to preserve a particular style of living out there, and he felt this was a very good and positive step forward in their fight to preserve that life style. He further stated he was a little bit bothered by the uses stated under Use Permit appli- cation, and suggested that some of the agricultural and horticultural uses be specified a little bit more carefully, and the use of a food or liquor store out there, in his opinion, doesn't seem to be in conformance with the area. Mr. B. J. Burke, Noyes Road, property owner in the area, recommended that we go to the 21 acre minimum and that property owners supply their own water. Peggy Langworthy, Printz Road, stated another good reason for keeping it 21/2 acre minimum is the traffic density, in that it is a County road; it is not very wide, and is bounded on both sides by quite a deep ditch. After considerable discussion on the proposed ordinance, Vice Chairman Gorsline advised that public hearing on the Suburban Residential District would be set for the next regular meeting of June 19, 1979. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by Comis- sioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 11 :20 P.M. ATTEST : .° / Secretary 117