Loading...
PC Minutes 1977-02-01322 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission February 1, 1977 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Pope presiding. Present were Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Moots, and Ries. Commissioners Hitchen and Mathews were absent. Also present were City Administrator Butch, Mayor de Leon, Councilman Millis, and Planning Director Gallop. MINUTE APPI OV 1L There being no additions or corrections, the Chairman approved the minutes of the study session of January TO, 1977, as prepared. With regard to the minutes of the regular meeting of January 18, 1977, Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, asked why she was quoted verbatim in some minutes, but not in this set. She said she felt that the tinutes misconstrued the information she presented and she challenged the minutes on that. The Chairman stated that it is up to the Secretary to try to summarize the meeting the best she can. The Chairman asked Mrs. Honeycutt to submit the information she felt was pertinent and it will be put in the record. Mrs. Honeycutt said she felt the last set of minutes should be verbatim. Chairman Pope approved the mire tes of the regular meeting of January 18, 1977, as amended. REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS: Lot Split Case No. 77 -256 Ide Street (C. H. Properties).- Director Gallop stated that the petitioners had come in with a. revised map after the last Commission meeting, in view of the objections and the problems that arose at that meeting. The map revisions were reviewed by the Lot Split Committee at its meeting, where it was noted that if the Commission approved this map, it would supercede the original map. Director Gallop reviewed the revisions and the conditions of the map, noting that Parcels C and D would have access to Cross Street and would both be restricted to single family homes. He added that since the last meeting, the City has received a petition from a large percentage of the people living in the "R -2 "_area in Which this property is situated, petitioning for rezoning to' "R -1" . Even if the afea"i'S'ned, all' the large lots are subject to division as. long . as_they meet the minimum square footage requirements'. Chairman Pope asked if the ft. easement would be dedicated. Director Gallop replied that it will not be accepted by the City until it is upgraded to City 'standards. Elizabeth Jackson, 208 Fairview, asked who C. H. Properties were. Director Gallop stated that Mr. Cocks and Mr. Harris were the property owners; Mr. Harris added that it was a limited partnership. Mary Egan, 521 Allen, said she wished to say this was a much improved plan for the parcel. She noted that there is no requirement for providing curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the northeasterly line of the proposed street at the time it will be dedicated and built; she felt that it will never be done if it .isn't required now. Director Gallop said that the City will not accept it as a public street until there is curb, gutter, paving, and- sidewa1ik Mrs. Egan felt there wouldn't be any problems in the future if the developer had to bond for these now. Director Gallop replied that as long as each of the lots has access „to a public right of way, the City can not require this unless it is a subdivision. There being no additions or corrections, Chairman Pope ordered the report filed. filed. Lot S lit Case No. 77 -257 N/ Corner of Ma and Paseo Bowlin m Director Gallop stated that this property is located just off of the terminus of McKinley. Both streets are paper streets. A short section of May is improved The subdivision is an old one of record from the early 1900s, and the owner is now proposing to develop. The developer is requesting that the two long narrow lots be divided in the other direction_ The Review Committee Was not requiring any conditions as all off -site improvements will have to be put in as the lots are developed. John Sprague, 212 Tally Ho, asked how they would get the sewer in.. • Director Gallop replied this was an engineering problem which must be resolved by the developer's engineer. There being no additions or corrections, the Chairman ordered the report 1 " LotSpliit.-Base To 4 25'8. 1149 Fair Oaks (Bair) - Director Gallop stated th .'tt e;se are th0eA4arcels of land two of of which are presently landlocked, The : third- par tes a common easement. The lots are all . combined . in one � rm t ADV T WO;?ednmr is now requesting that the 25 ft. easement be split and becci he, le°g4SA.for the two interior flag lots. The lot line adjustment was priritr7y. tb give each individual lot legal access . to Fair Oaks, rather than tqae i,a. „etasent to each Director Gallop then reviewed the conditions of ,the 1'®l spLi;it Elizabeth Jackson, . 208 Fair View, asked for clarification 013; ew "alyabcation, which the Planning Director provided. There oeing !dies 'or corrections, the Chairman ordered the report filed. Architectural Review Case No. 76- 128,204 Aspen, Apartment Complex (Pace) - A...+II istetor Gallop noted that Architectural Approval and a Use Permit had been ' anted previously on this property. The developer had since had the plans it'ftea.igned, providing for more open space and deleting one unit. The Use . emit would still be valid. The. Director reviewed the changes for the "Commission; and after a brief discussion, there being no additions or corrections, the Chairman ordered the report filed. 'hIElmis s i'on '/ 1/`77 ' age 2 Architectural Review Case No. 77 -130 213 Whitele Tri lex Ellsworth - Director Gallop stated that this is a parcel of "R -3” property, to oh has one small single family home on it now This would be remodeled into a triplex. The coverage, setbacks, parking, etc.. all meet the requirements of the zoning. Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, asked for clarification of the property location, which the Planning Director provided. Mrs. Bennigsdorf, 518 Allen, asked if this was the old Norton property. Chairman Pope said he thought"it was. filed. There being :no additions or corrections, the Chairman ordered the report Architectural Review Case No. 77 -131 141 South Elm Office Buildin (Gering and Taylor) - Director Gallop said that this property is located in an "H -S" zone. The developers propose to build a new structure on the corner of Sunset and Elm. The proposal meets all the requirements of the zone. Chairman Pope asked if curb, gutter, and sidewalk is existing; Director Gallop replied that the sidewalk will have to be finished out on Sunset with the building permit. Chairman Pope reviewed the conditions of the Architectural Approval. Jack Scarbrough, 166 S. Elm, asked if the road would be widened across Elm Street, as it was a problem. City Administrator Butch said there were no plans for widening the road in the immediate future. There being no additions or corrections, Chairman Pope ordered the report filed. Architectural Review Case No. 77 -132 250 S.ruce Church Addition (Kin_dom Hall) - Director Gallop stated that the Church was proposing the addition of approximately 16 ft. to the front of the present building, which is located quite far back on the property. The parking is almost double the requirements of the current building, and the addition would not add any more parking requirement. There being no additions or corrections, after a short discussion, the Chairman ordered the report filed. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS Director Gallop stated that there was a question.raised at the last Commission meeting about the Commission's compliance to new State law, and for the Commission's and the public information, the City has been abiding by the State law requirements, even though the City's resolution had not yet`been amended, The State has issued two sets of guidelines and there- is a third still to come sometime in March or April. The City had been following the County's example of adhering to the new State law, but not changing the resolution until the guidelines are complete. He felt the only real area'of change is the requirement of a notice of the Commission's consideration of Negative Statements prepared after Jan, 1, 1977, Director Gallop noted that at the last Council meeting,the City Attorney had been requested to prepare a memo concerning: the appeal procedure. Since the memo was received too late for copies to be made, he then read the memo 323 • 324 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission 2 /1/77 Page 3 for the Cotmnission's and the public's information. REFERRAL FROM CITY COUNCIL RE: REVERSION TO ACREAGE, LOTS 1 -14, BLOCK 28 -A BECKETT'S CROWN HILL ADDITION (LENZI & MEAGHER) - DETERMINATION IF EIR OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS REQUIRED. Director Gallop said there was a question raised.' at the last Council meeting as to whether the reversion to acreage on Crown Hill required an Environmental Determination. He said that, in his opinion as the City's Environmental Co- ordinator, he had determined a Determination was not required because, under Class 5 (A) of the State Guidelines concerning exempt projects, this would be exempt as it did not increase the number of properties. The Director said he had checked with Dr. Harrow, the County's Coordinator, after the City Attorney challenged this determination, and he had a letter from Dr. Harrow stating that he agrees with the Planning Director's determination. After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and unanimously carried, the Commission recommended to the City Council that an Environmental Determination on the reversion to acreage on Crown Hill is not required. REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Lot Split Case No. 76 -254, 1065 Ash Street (Hays and Tucker) - Chairman Pope asked for public input on the Request for Negative Declaration; there was none. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 77 -490 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION. On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Moots, Ries, and Chairman Pope NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Hitchen and Mathews the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1st day of February 1977. Tentative Tract Map No. 555, Huasna Road, "Oakcrest ", (Kraatz) - The Chairman asked for public input. Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, asked that the Commission note that the Request is marked "no" under agricultural land. At the last meeting, it was stated that this was Class 3 and 4. She said the Department of Agriculture shows this land as Class I and II.. She said she was not objecting to this at this time, but she felt this should be public record. She said that on the school situation, the Request was also marked "no" and Dr. Hoagland has had a statement on file with the Commission stating the schools are full. She felt this should have been a "yes" answer" with an explanation. Lowell Kraatz, the developer, said he had not considered the school impact significant. Director Gallop said they must look at the cumulative effect on Environmental Determinations. He felt that this small tract would have no more impact than a 10 -15 unit apartment structure. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 77 -491 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING Co la SION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole,Gerrish,.MOots, Ries, and Chairman Pope. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Hitchen and Mathews Arroyo .Grande Planning Commission 2 /1/77 Page 4 the foregoing Resolution was adopted this lst day of February 1977. Tentative Tract Map No. 625, James Way, "James Heights" CLovett)- Chairman Pope asked for public input on the Request for Negative Declaration on the proposed 12 lot subdivision on James Way. Mrs. Ray Simmons, 150 Tally Ho Road, read a prepared statement, a copy of which.is on.file, regarding considering and assessing cumulative effects of the project. She said that when considering "James Heights ",,the Commission must.consider "Loomis Heights" and "La Barranca" Subdivision as well. Th ,report gave figures on.the traffic in.the area and discussed the overcrowded conditions at the local schools. The report said that the Negative Declaration did not properlyaddress.itself to the problems with drainage in the area. It asked whams will - happen .to the water after it is carried to Tally Ho Road. The report referred to statements made by R. Garing, Engineer, and the U.S. Department of Soil Conservation Mrs. Simmons stated in thw report that the area can not support increased traffic :and drainage. She said ". . .it is entirely up to you as to the 'degree of risk' you wish to take in• regards to consideration of cumulative effects. It will be your decision as to.the degree of protection you wish to afford the environment of this community, as the City will be totally responsible for the adequacy of your decisions." Jim Garing, of Garing, Taylor & Associates, engineers for the development,, said that Tally Ho Road now handles about 1,000 cars a day. From an engineering standpoint that is low; - Tally Ho Road could handle 400 cars an hour. As far as drainage was__cbfacerned, when Traot'453 was designed,.a drainage basin was provided for to retard drainage to Tally Ho'Road. In.addition, they planned to take the water off of-James Way-at the intersection of Colina Street. The net result will be to reduce the total f.low.:of flood maters to Tally Ho.Creek during the hundred year's storm. As far as schools were concerned; Mr. Garing said that all prop- erties in the.area pay taxes whether they are developed or not, John Sprague, 212 Tally Ho Road, asked.if James Way was a collector road. Chairman Pope stated the City's Circulation Plan set it out as a collector road. Mr. Sprague said he thought you could not bring a collector road into another road unless that road was a plan line road, which Tally Ho Road was not. He said the City said they would never do anything to that road because it would cost too much to widen it. Chairman Pope said he was on the Commission when this cane before the Commission, and at that time many residences of the area objected to widening Tally Ho Road. He said he didn't remember the City ever definitely stating it would not do anything in the future. Director of Public Works Anderson said that Tally Ho Road was originally planned as a collector road, but it would have to be widened. It could be used this way now. Directol` Gallop added that the Loomis Heights Subdivisions traffic does not empty onto Tally Road, Madeleine Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, asked "if copies were available of the Request for Negative Declaration. Chairman Pipe indicated they were on the table. He added that they are always available the Friday before the meeting. Commissioner Ries said he was in favor of Tract 625; however, he agreed that there was a significant traffic contribution and also a con- tribution to the school problem. He felt these two items should be marked "yes" on the form. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO, 77 -492 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION WITH AMENDMENTS, On motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and by. the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners.Gerrish, Moots, Ries, and Chairman Pope NOES: Commissioner Cole ABSENT: Commissioners Hitchen and Mathews 325 326 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2/1/77 Page 5 the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1st day of February 1977. Tentative Tract Map No. 636, Farroll Road. Lots 13. 14. &.15 of Beckett's.Oceano Addition (Phillips)- Director Gallop noted that this is the only subdivision the School District has individually addressed in the last few years. Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, said that Di. Hoagland made his position clear in his earlier letter, and other cities use that letter in all tracts. She said that if they did not address the school problem, they were leaving themselves open for a suit. As a citizen, she urged the Commission to "yes" on the school item and save the City a suit. After discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO, 77 -493 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE tNVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION, WITH AMENDMENTS. On the motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and by : the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Moots, Ries, and Chairman Pope NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Hitchen and MatHews the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1st day of February 1977. REQUEST FROM REUBEN KVIDT TO CHANGE CC&Rs FOR OAK PARK ACRES Director Gallop stated that this Commission had approved a set of CC&Rs for the Oak Park Acres development, and the developer is requesting two amendments: before the document is recorded, which should be done in the near future. One addition will prohibit the use of CB, ham, or television antennas.in the development to help the development relatively clean. The other change would be increasing . the minimum square footage of homes on Parcels 10, 11, and 12. He said he felt both of these were beneficial to the CC&Rs. Elizabeth Jackson, 208 Fairvew, asked for clarification on the elimination of antennas. She asked about television antennas. She asked about television antennas; would this force the development be forced to take cable. Chairman Pope replied that this was correct Chairman Pope noted that are the developer's restrictions; it is his land, and he will enforce them. Madeleine Steele, 1598 Hilicrest, said that the developer is pre- senting the CC&Rs for approval)for the Commission. She assumed that implication is that the Commission might object to the restrictions, otherwise he wouldn't present them to the Commission. Chairman Pope said that the Commission must approve these with regards to the total package, but it does not police the restrictions. Allen Jackson, 208 Fairview, asked whose duty it was to police the restrictions. Director Gallop replied that it is up to the Home Owner's Association. Bill McCann, 428 Tanner Lane, asked what authority:they had. Chairman Pope stated they had the authority which is vested in the recorded instrument. Doris Olsen, representing the Santa Maria Times, asked if one item is not enforced, would that affect the rest of the convenants. Director Gallop replied that the law says that if the people who buy property with a recorded document and are self policing the convenants, if one convenant is broken, this does not adversely affect the other convenants. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2/1/77 Page 6 After further discussion,on tibtion by Commissioner Cole, seconded b•gr Gerrish, that the Commission approve the proposed revisions to 'fie existing CC&Rs for Oak Park Acres; the motion carried,with Commissioner Ries opposed. WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE Director Gallop noted that he had two items from the City Attorney, He stated that at the last regular meeting, the Commission had approved the reduction of an easement in Lot 1 of Ruth Ann Way and an exhange of easements in Loomis Heights. City Attorney:Shipsey felt that since this is a question of relinquishment of property b vthe City, there should be a.finding by the Commission that neither one of these would be in violation of the General Plan.. Director Gallop said that in his opinion, they would not be. After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, the .Commission found these items not to be in conflict with the General Plan. ORAL COMMUNICATION Bill McCann, 428 Tanner Lane, said he just wanted to make sure exactly what action was taken on the property on Crown Hill; was the decision made that the property was categorically exempt and did not require an EIR or Environmental Determination. Chairman Pope replied that this was correct, Bill McCann asked what the time limit was for appealing this decision. Chairman Pope said it would be ten (10) days. Ella Honeycutt asked where she could appeal the determination,on Tract 555, as the two points she had made on the soils classification and schools were correct.. Chairman Pope replied that she should appeal to the City Council. City Administrator Butch added that this would involve a $50 filing fee. Mrs. Honeycutt said that they were fox warding erroneous material. She said this is in the St. Ag. book. She asked if this would have to go to a lawsuit. Director Gallop said that most of the Class I soil in the area has already been developed, but there may be some left. the Commission could amend its resolution, recognizing this land and the school problem, . if it Wished. Fred Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, said they were considering these Negative Declarations and they apparently didn't know what the soil classifications were. Chairman Pope said that the answers are very nebulous; the experts disagree. Mr. 1e felt the problems should be resolved before the Negative Declarations are made. Bill McCann, 428 Tanner Lane, said that if they are involved with prime agricultural land, they will be somewhat in conflict with the Land Use Element, which says a density of one dwelling unit per five acres of prime agricultural land. He said they would also be in conflict with the Subdivision Map Act, which says that a subdivision must be rejected if it does not .agree with any element of the General Plan. He felt these should be taken into consideration on all subdivisions, Chairman Pope stated that the Request for Negative Declaration was prepared by Lowell Kraatz, a registered civil engineer. The Commission approved it based on his best information. If anyone felt they did not make the right deter - mination,the matter could be appealed to the Council. Mr. McCann felt that the citizens should not have to pay $50 every time the Commission made a bad decision. Director Gallop said that this property has always been shown on the Land Use Plan as light residential and has been zoned "R -1" for many, many years. In his opinion, it did meet the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and the General Plan. Commissioner Ries asked for clarification on the soil classification matter. Director Gallop stated that the Soil Classification Map prepared for the Soil Conservation Service by soils specialists specifically states that the lines are not precise. A line indicates a relative area, and there is an area of Class I and II soils down the front of this property. He believed that most of that area had already been developed. If there was any Class I and II soils left, and he would assume at this point there was,: it was very small and already to development by a.former development of this property. If the Commission wished to make note of potential Class I and II soils, he would not recommend that they 327 328 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2/1/77 Page 7 draw a line from the Spil Map because it can vary several hundred feet. He felt this could be noted, as well as the school issue. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 77-494 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE VOIDING RESOLUTION NO. 77 -491 EIR, AND ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENT DECLARATION, WITH AMENDMENTS On motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Ries NOES: Chairman Pope ABSENT: Commissioners Hitchen and Mathews the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1st day of February 1977. Director Gallop noted that the mitigating measures if necessary will be incorporated in the revised statement. Commissioner Moots asked if there wasn't a strong possiblity that any development which would come before the Commission would have a cumulative effect on the school system. Director Gallop, using Tract 555 as an example, explained how: the staff interpreted "cumulative ". As this property is developed up the hill, this is a cumulative effect on the original subdivision. If second and third units of the tract were approved, these would have a cumulative effect on that particular property and on the original parcel approved. The Director added that a tentative map is approved without engineering; that is the reaOn.for all the conditions.. If the conditions are not met, the final map is not approved ADJOURNMENT There being :..no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:G1 P.M. to a study session, in which the Commission discussed proposed amendments to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, not including the Agricultural Lands Committee recommendations. ATTEST c_- Secretary 1 1