Loading...
PC Minutes 1979-01-16n56 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 16, 1979 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chairman Gorsline presiding. Present are Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Moots, Simmons and Vandeveer. Chairman Harris is absent. Planning Director Castro and Planner Sullivan are also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL Upon hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meeting of January 2, 1979 were approved by the Vice Chairman as submitted. CHAIRMAN HARRIS ENTERED THE MEETING AND ASSUMED THE CHAIR. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA. Chairman Harris requested that if there are no objections he would like to change Agenda Item #2, Use Permit Case No. 78 -278, to Agenda Item #6. CON'INUATION - REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE, STEPHEN COOL REPRESENTING RICHARD LEMON. Planning Director Castro referred to Mr. Shipsey's letter of response, dated December 29, 1978 stating he felt the response is in support of the staff's re- commendations that the application as noted in the Ordinance does apply to Mr. Lemon's project. Mr. Stephen Cool, Attorney representing Mr. Lemon, stated he feels there are some real questions as far as the interpretation of the Ordinance and its appli- cation to Mr. Lemon's project. The main question is whether the intent of the Ordinance is to require a developer or builder who builds at the end of a road that is used by other people, whether he can be required to pave that entire road at his own expense; whether or not the paving requirement applies to con- struction for which only a building permit is being pursued, as in Mr. Lemon's case; the question of whether the pavement requirement even applies in the R -A District; and most important is whether that paving requirement - applies to a project that was started back in 1976, which was before the present language of your Ordinance went into effect, which was in July of 1977. He stated that Mr. Lemon got his building permit in 1976 and started building, and at that time he was not advised of this paving requirement until he went to get his occupancy, and that was denied to him because the road wasn't paved. Mr. Cool further stated that a list was furnished to Mr. Castro of approximately 30 residences in the City of Arroyo Grande in the "R -A" District for which there is no paved access, and that the original Ordinance regarding access was adopted in 1969, and it is their feeling that these houses were all built since 1969, so there is a real question as to whether the policy has been to require paved access in the R -A District where it is a private road and not a dedicated road. Mr. Cool referred to some testi- mony given in a lawsuit back in 1976 by Mr. Anderson, Public Works Director in the case of Lawler vs. the City of Arroyo Grande pertaining to R -A property at the end of Traffic Way and Highway 101. He stated in looking at that testimony in 1976,'it was Mr. Anderson's understanding that if you had an R -A parcel already subdivided and it was on private road, the City would not require that road be im- proved with a paved road. In response to Mr. Cool's statement regarding the list of addresses, Mr. Castro advised the addresses were checked and they found that some of the houses date back quite a number of years, some 50 years or more, and that he didn't know what the policy of the City was at that point in time. He further noted that there were 5 or 6 addresses on the list where there should have been road im- provements made at the time that final occupancy was given, and that his only comment would be that he cannot answer for the past administration, but as far as the current administration is concerned in the enforcement of the Ordinance, he still believes that staff's interpretation is correct. Commissioner Vandeveer stated he agrees with staff, however, he didn't believe the ordinance requiring paved driveways applies to the R -A District, but that it is clearly designed for uniform development in a subdivision. He further stated it is his feeling that it is inappropriate to ask the applicant at this time to do that amount of paving to one house. Chairman Harris stated he would tend to agree with the City Attorney's opinion that the Ordinance applies as far as paving goes for houses in this District, however, in his opinion, the Ordinance that should apply is the one that was in effect in 1976 when the building permit was taken out. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gorsline, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, that the requirements for the sur- facing of Mr. Lemon's driveway should be the standards which were in effect in 1976 at the time the building permit was taken out, and the interpretation of what those standards were is to be made by the Public Works Department. It was Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -16 -79 Page 2 pointed out that if there was some disagreement with the Public Works Department interpretation, then the matter could be brought back to the Commission for a determination. Chairman Harris stated he felt the Commission should clarify if the current Ordinance requires paving of driveways in all cases for residential developments. Mr. Cool stated they would be willing to withdraw their request for an inter- pretation of the current ordinance of paving from a garage, at least until the Public Works Director has commented on what he thinks is required. Commissioner Vandeveer moved to accept the applicant's withdrawal. Motion seconded by Com- missioner Cole, and lost for lack of a majority vote. On motion by Commissioner Simmons, seconded by Commissioner Gorsline, and carried, determining that Article 26 of the Zoning Ordinance requires paving for all developments within_the City of Arroyo Grande. REFERRALS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL - LAND USE /ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW Planning Director Castro reviewed the four items of Land Use and Zoning Districts that were being referred back to the Commission for review, as follows: Item #17 - The southeast corner of Traffic Way and Cherry Avenue designated as Highway Commercial, being recommended for reclassification to Agricultural. Mr. Castro pointed out that the zoning is primarily RA -B3, with Highway Commercial fronting on Traffic Way. The original staff recommendations to the Planning Commission was for the Planned Manufacturing District, and at the time of the public hearing there was considerable opposition to that recommendation and it was withdrawn, and the Commission proceeded to review the property with its current land use. The Commission then felt that being that we are talking about land use, that maybe the "A" District should apply at this point in time. The Commission's action was to rezone that area into the "A" District, deleting the Highway Service and that recommendation went to the Council. Mr. and Mrs. Williams, owners of the property were present at both the Commission and Council meetings requesting to retain some of that Highway Service on the frontage, which was denied by the Commission, however, the Council granted the Highway Service for that portion as noted on the map, with the balance of the property rezoned in accordance with the Commission's recommendation to the "A" District. Item #28 - The properties on the south side of Farroll Avenue and bounded by the City Limits on the west and generally known as the Grandmothers' Mobile - home Park, and one undeveloped parcel of land fronting on Farroll Avenue, from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. On the Grandmothers' Mobilehome Park there were two matters under consider- ation. One, a recommendation on the mobilehome park changing it from low density residential and bringing it into conformance with the zoning, which is R -3 -D. At the same time we had an-application by Mr. Fuller for a townhouse project which was submitted prior to the beginning of the land use and zoning study, but being that we had to go with the General Plan amendment, we merely plugged it into the process. After reviewing the project, the Commission felt that it was compatible with the multiple development taking place north of Farroll Avenue and compatible with the Grandmothers' Mobilehome Park, and decided to go ahead and keep this zoning consistency by recommending the R -3 -D District. When the matter came be- fore the Council, there was opposition to the two -story structures and they didn't feel it would be in keeping with the immediate surrounding area. They also felt that the type of development should be geared more for the senior citizens, as opposed to what could be accommodated by the proposed project. In the process of reviewing Mr. Fuller's project, the Council acted to deny the recommendation, not being aware that they were also including the Grandmothers' Mobilehome Park. The fact that they did deny the recommendation means that the Commission still has to make a recommendation for the mobilehome park, and staff would still recommend the high density residential classification. Item #40 - The area generally between Bennett, North Halcyon and Grand Avenue, encompassing the Burke property and the Mobilehome Park and generally as shown on the existing zoning map, from Highway Commercial to Heavy Commercial/ Light Industry. The current zoning of this area is Planned Manufacturing, and staff's re- commendation to the Commission was that the property should conform to the Highway Service designation as noted by the General Plan. Staff felt that what is developed along Halcyon Road or along Grand Avenue would be more compatible if it was the same, as opposed to the Planned Manufacturing District. The property owners on Linda Drive felt that the industrial development would not carry as much traffic as the Highway Service; also, Mr. Burke objected to the change of zone because it would make his lumber company non - conforming. Staff advised the Commission at that time that it would make no difference whether it 057 n58 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -16 -79 Page 3 is "H -S" or "P -M "; it would still be non - conforming because everything has to be within an enclosed building. Those findings were presented to the City Council and they chose to go along with the General Plan recommendation of Highway Service in this area as opposed to the "P -M" District. Item #51 - Increasing the High Density Category to 29 Dwelling Units per Acre. This item was to increase the High Density category from 20 to 29 units to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission felt the recommendation was within reason and recommended its approval to the Council. The Council felt that 29 was too high and that what they have seen so far in apartment projects, they considered them to be poor planning, and poor definition of open space and build- able area. Mr. Castro stated, in his opinion, it was unfortunate that comparisons were made by Council in reviewing the density levels, and to pay the consequences with what may be a reasonable density consideration for a high density multiple development will be lost. After review of the four items referred back to the Commission by the Council, Mr. Castro advised the Commission could either re- affirm their prior action, or modify their action to agree with the Council. Item #17 - After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gorsline, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, that the Council's action be confirmed on this item. Item #28 - Mr. Tom Faciana, resident at the intersection of Farroll Avenue and Elm Street, stated it is the consensus of the residents in that area that the high density and high elevation projection should be halted at Farroll Avenue. Mr. Roger Fuller, 222 McKinley, petitioner for the zone change, stated that the City Council primarily wanted a project that was conducive to the retired people and, if necessary, there can be an age minimum requirement put on the proposed development. As far as the two story aspect is concerned, the design of the two story calls for a flat top mansard roof, and if those were to be single family homes with a typical pitch roof, they could have a capacity on a single story level of being within 1 foot of the roof line height of the two story design for the condominium project. Mr. Fuller pointed out that the City Council and Planning Commission were originally concerned with something to go from a buffer zone from the R -3 -D to the R -1 District, and that with the design that is being presented, they do have 39.2% of open space, which is over and above what you would have in an R -1 development. Mr. Fuller advised he had talked to the manager and original developer of the Grandmothers' Mobilehome Park, and her consensus of the people she had talked to in the park was that they were very much in favor of our project, because they are actually after something that is not single family residences and would prefer not to have children in their particular area. Mr. Fuller requested that the Planning Commission re- affirm their original decision on this matter. Mrs. Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, pointed out that there is a need for low income houses for seniors and maybe we could get a certain percentage of this housing that our seniors could afford. She stated that a lot of our seniors are having to move to Santa Maria, and under the Housing Element, you are supposed to be considering housing for all incomes, and even if the City insisted on 10 %, that would be 3 units that some of our own people could live in. There was considerable discussion among the Commission regarding the two issues at hand; one being the zoning issue and the other being the development itself. During the discussion, it was pointed out that with the " -D" override, the restrictions could be placed on the development by either the subdivision or the Use Permit for condominiums, and it was agreed to consider only the zoning issue at this time. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Commission re- affirm their previous action taken on this property. Item #40 - Planning Director Castro pointed out on the map the large "P -M" area previously recommended by the Planning Commission to remain as it is, and also recommended that it be reverted to the General Plan designation. Mr. Gene Mintz, representing Roy Burke of Burke and Pace Lumber, stated they would like to go on record requesting that this area be left in the "P -M" designation. He further stated that under the "H -S" zoning, there is no pro- vision at all for building materials dealers, either as a permitted use or as a use under the Use Permit procedure. Under the "P -M" District, it would be permitted under both; one as an enclosed storage area under uses permitted, and a non enclosed storage yard under the Use Permit procedure. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1-16-79 Page 4 After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Vandeveer, and carried with Commissioner Gorsline abstaining, re- affirming the Planning Commission's previous action to retain this area in the "P -M" District. Item #51 - Planning Director Castro reiterated that the recommendation was that the density level in the General Plan be increased from 20 to 29 units per acre on the High Density Residential classification, and the City Council changed that to 20 units per acre. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that in Mr. Castro's staff report, dated January 11, 1979, he stated that many of our multiple developments have been built to the 29 units, and inquired if there was to be a fire in one of these units now and the developer would have to come back for a building permit to re- build, would they be restricted or could they build back up to the 29 units? Planning Director Castro advised a determination would have to be made on the percentage of the damage. He further advised there is a question in his mind as to whether the 20 unit per acre, in fact, labels the property a non - conforming use, and as such, you do have limitations that need to be placed on the property. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Gorsline, and carried with one "no" vote, re- affirming the Planning Commission's position as previously stated. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Commissioner Fischer advised that the only thing that was brought up before the City Council at their last meeting pertaining to matters ruled on by the Commission, was that they questioned why the condition that the City services be provided as a requirement in the Lackey lot split, and that Planner Sullivan was present and answered the Council's question. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mrs. Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, stated she was very concerned about the problem with Mr. Lemon and the Negative on the property. There is a Negative with conditions; it is filed with the County; and it is a legal document, and the Planning.,Commission, the City Council and Mr. Lemon all agreed to the con- ditions when they were passed. She further stated that last year when she and her husband went on' vacation, he cut one set of roads on the hill, and the con- ditions say that he will. not take any heavy equipment on the side of the hill because 90% of it is over 50% steep and if we continue having rains like we have been having, _erosion is going to cause problems. She stated that the con- ditions should be followed because they are a law, and she wanted to know what could be done. Planning Director Castro stated, it was his understanding, that part of the grading that took place along the sides of the hill was for fire breaks. As far as the other grading is concerned, that was a violation and it was taken care of after the fact. The City put a "Stop Work" order on the grad- ing and required that Mr. Lemon take out the proper permits. In answer to Commissioner Simmon's question as to what can be done when it is an open violation of what.was put on an environmental determination, Planner Sullivan advised that the City is generally more interested in compliance than it is interested in taking someone to court. In other words, when he or anyone else does grading that is contrary to a grading ordinance or an environmental document, the City is more interested in having the violator go back in there and correct the situation. 'Mrs. Honeycutt pointed out that Mr. Lemon has graded three times without permits, which is one of the reasons why the conditions were put on the hill the first time because he did not have a permit. Also, when he did the fire break, there is all kinds of brush piled up and there is a worse fire hazard now than there was before. Chairman Harris advised that the City is not interested in prosecuting un- less violation of its ordinance is very flagrant or repetitive, and ordinarily the violation of any statute in the City is technically a misdemeanor and is punishable by law, but as a matter of fact, these violations are usually not prosecuted against anyone and, based on the way it is handled, it has to be a fairly serious violation before criminal prosecution will take place for a misdemeanor violation. Planning Director Castro advised that if the Commission feels strongly about what is happening, whether it is Mr. Lemon or somebody else, and you want to take that and prosecute the individual, then a recommendation to the City Council is in order requesting that enforcement. Commissioner Gorsline suggested that staff request the Fire Chief check on the brush, etc., piled up by the fire break. Chairman Harris requested that the staff check into the matter and report on which conditions were violated and how. 058 f00 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission 1 -16 -79 Page 5 CHAIRMAN HARRIS LEFT THE MEETING AND VICE CHAIRMAN GORSLINE ASSUMED THE CHAIR. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 78 -278, BUILDING MATERIAL PIPE STORAGE YARD IN THE "P -M" PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, 1166 GRAND AVENUE (HARRIS AND COCKS). Planning Director Castro advised that staff is recommending this matter be continued to the next meeting. Some of the material has been presented, but other material is forthcoming and is necessary to enable staff to make a total evaluation and recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Mitch Walker, representing the applicant, stated he objected to the recommendation, in that the applicant is merely asking for a Use Permit, and he didn't think the Use Permit guidelines called for architectural evaluation of the building. He stated that the applicant does not want to fully design this project until he gets some indication from the Commission whether exterior uncovered storage would be an acceptable use, and then come back for architectu- ral review on the structure. He further stated that if the matter is going to be continued, he would like a specific list of what staff needs. Planning Director Castro stated, in his opinion, the Use Permit that is required is the only means of this Commission policing the type of development that the applicant is requesting. He further stated that he has not received the architectural plans needed for the Commission to make a total evaluation of what the whole project is going to be like. After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried, that Public Hearing for Use Permit Case No. 78 -278 be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Vice Chairman at 10:30 P.M. ATTEST: 411 an