Loading...
PC Minutes 1977-01-10Arroyo Grande Planning: Commission /City Council January 10, 1977 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in an adjourned joint study session with the City Council, with Chairman Pope'presiding. Present were Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Hitchen, and Mathews, Councilman Gallagher, Millis, Schlegel, Spierling, andlMayor de Leon. Also present were City Administrator Butch,•Planning - Aide Sullivan, Public Works Director Anderson, and City Engineer Garcia and his replacement, Paul Karp CONSIDERAJrION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM AGRICULTURAL LANDS COMMITTEE Chairman Pope stated that the Planning Commission had received a communique from the City Council and the City Administrator regarding trying to establish what prime agricultural land is The Commission felt inept to do this; therefore, the Agricultural Lands Committee was established.. I.t consisted of two farmers, two citizens very concerned with the problem, two members of the Planning Commission, and one citizen - -at- large, The Committee found that it could not dOtermine what prime agricultural land is. There are many differe.t ways of defining prime l;b.nd. They did submit a packet consisting of three steps for consideration by the'Commission and the Council: 1) a policy statement with regard to annexation of land; 2) dealing with bringing the General Plan into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance; 3) a new zoning proposal the Committee felt should be considered, which would provide for the farmer to put his land into a specific zoning which entitled him to some' specific privileges. Tom Sullivan, Planning Aide, then reviewed the various proposals for the Commission and Council. Councilman Spierling asked about the portion in the policy statement which was stricketz out which;xea:d ". "unless the owner of the . property, in submitting a request for annexation,' can establish that the : property is no longer a viable agricultural unit and the next highest andl-best use is annexation and development," Chairman Pope stated that the Committee had felt this was too lengthy.. Councilman Gallagher suggested saying "It is the policy of the City �of Arroyo Grande that no prime agricultural land, hereby defined as Class I and II, used for the production of foods and /or fiber..,." Chairman Pope stated that the Committee had had to dispel the thought of land classification, as there are some Class IV lands on the valley floor that are taxed higher than Class I and II lands, Planning Aide Sullivan stated that, in his opinion, some measure of land productivity was needed in determining what is prime and what is non -rime, Mayor de Leon noted that some Class II_.iis very expensive to cultivate, Council an...Gallagher asked what the States criteria was for prime agricultural land; Planning Aide Sullivan replied that the bill which failed last year used the same criteria as the. 4i1'li'amson Act did ten years ago, This was $200 of crop or animal gross-value. or year per acre. He did not feel that figure was appropriate now Commissioner Gerrish felt there might bea- problm wi. the motion of the statement which says "land used for the production Hof foo andter fiber fbr commercial distribution.,," He asked if.a person could just not use land on the valley floor for sekeral years if he wanted to annex it Chairman Pope said this could be determined through the public hearings Coun.cilmaSpierling suggested that if the Council and ,Commission are going to continue to consider the policy statement, they shou.d proceed based somewhat on what Planning Aide Sullivan had suggested as a means of determining what prime agricultural land is, He suggested ":,.-:,eland suitable for the pro- duction of Yoodt ,and /or fib .x - ", rather than " land used for„" He felt this would cover a variety of points. He felt that under the term " *uitable" they were also. °talking .abort" the size of the property :. One ..acr.e may not be c.on ic:ally capable.o.f, sustainingLitself fOt the production of foods. He ale* felt they. 7n:eeded''a definition of the w rtc4 "prime!. He felt they needed scthing along the lines. of what Mr.. Sullivan had suggested and they also needed an update on the. $»2A0 /year. f acre figure; Councilman Schlegel asked why they used the term prime if no one could defin,si it, He suggested using something else, Commissioner Mathews suggested sayjrg ". -,.na agricultural land suitable for—." and then adding a price tag; he felt thin, could eliminate land that isn't productive, Commissioner Cole Stated she did not like the use of a spetific price because of inflation.. 307 308 Arroyo urande rianning Commission /City Council, 1-10-17 Page 2 • Cquncil;.Spierling stated they were putting the onus on the property owner to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that his property is no longer a viable agricultural unit: He felt this was the only way it could be done. Commissioner Mathews noted that it could be possible to bring in a lot of income from a piece of property, but it wduld not be:viable because the equipment needed to farm it would be too expensive. Councilman Spierling felt they may wish to ask some other questions. If they say that the property owner has to establish that his property is no longer a viable agricultural unit, they will expect more than just the owner's word.- Fred Wolf, one of the members of the Agricultural Lands Committee, noted that part of the intent of the policy was to place the developers, particularly those from out of town on.notice that they could not come in, bud land, and immediately apply for annexation with the intent of developing further dwellings. With regards to the suggested statement about public input, Councilman Spierling' asked what wag meant tsy " ' ". He - felt it should be "reco nized and•Considered "; if the word." accept!! - :.meant. to. incorporate,' :that was :something totally .different. : Wolf statednthis meant .listened :to`.and .nothingtmore'�: He felt the terminology :.could.be worked out. Commissioner - Gerrish .questioned'. Sec. ..9 -4A02 : which. said .but ,not `.in clud commercial animal or. fowl feeding or production." He asked if this was in the curr ordinance. Chairman Pope stated that the Committee telt this should be confined to the fiber and row crop type properties. Planning•Aide Sullivan added that they would like to require a use permit for the production of commercial animal or fowl feeding: Mr. Wolf noted there was a conflict in square footage of signs allowed in the "A-P "..Distrtcte ,,,In one part it says "in the aggregate six (6) square feet" and in another it says "six feet (6') square in area." Planning Aide Sullivan stated he would check on this. Councilman Gallagher asked if a property could be rezoned to "A -P" if it were under five acres. Chairman Pope replied that it could not; the committee did not feel it was - a viable agricultural unit. Councilman Gallagher said he felt this should be the property owner's determination. Chairman Pope stated that when -a property becomes zoned "A -P ", the property is pretty well frozen into a viable agricultural unit and also any adjoining: property owner who develops will have to meet certain requirements. Commisioner Gerrish questioned the 35% maximum lot coverage noted in Sec- 9-4A07. Planning Aide Sullivan noted that it is not excessive in terms of items greenhouses. Councilman Spierling questianed Sec.. 9- 4.4A08 (a) Front. Yards, the second paragraph, which says "..,nor shall the dismantling, repairing, or keeping of any disable voilitale4n the front or side or driveway be permitted;,.." He felt that farmers ofteni have to park their equipment between the times it is used. Planning Aide Sullivan stated that the intent was for the storage and repair of farm equipment or other vehicles to be done in the rear yard or in an accessory building. The only intent was to keep these vehicles out of the front and side Mr. Tom Runels, member of 'the Agricultural Lands Committee, stated there were a lot of "R -l" residences storing boats and repairing automobiles. Chairman Pope stated there were ordinances against this, and the City Council should be apprised of the matter if they were not being enforced. Commissioner Mathews stated he could agree with prohibiting these vehicles from the front yard; however, he felt the side yard portion could be eliminated, as many people have a fence all along the side yard. Commissioner Hitchen-said he felt the term "disabled" was a little ambiguous. Council anSpierling felt that perhaps having the repair of farming equipment done in accessory building might clean the matter up. With regard to See. 9- 4.3211, Councilman Gallagher stated there is still a� decision to be made Permitted land use is all that'.is expected or can be donsidered: Commissioner Hit — Chen asked who reviewed financial information and indicates that the land is no longer : a ; viableagricultural unit. Chairman Pope stated that there had.�:.been suggestions for this: the Lot Split Committee, the Subdivision Review Board, the Agricultural. Preserve Committee:_ -~. Councilman Spierling stated tht the Agricultural Committee is pretty consistent and is composed of people that are knowledgeable. Mr. Runels said he understood Arroyo Grande Planning Commissipn /City Council, 1 -10 -77 Page 3 that the property'owner had the Fight of appeal to the City Council if he did not,'agree with the Comiittee's recommendation. Councilman, Schlegel asked a- ,bout a farmer who had been farming . a particular•crop that was no longer feas- ible:and who•could change to.another crop that was feasible, but didn't want to; would he qualify for '!A -P" zoning. Commissioner Cole said this would be part of :what the Committee could decide on. Chairman Pope stated that every man has the basic right to farm as he wants; some things will have to be handled as special cases. Mr.. Runels asked about the farmer who wants to retire. Chairman Pope replied that it is all dependent on the farmer-..to make the application. Most farmers who spoke to the Agricultural Lands Committee said they wished to continue farming. .John Runels,.a farmer, asked what if the farmer did not have anyone to passthe farm on to.and selling the property as farm land was not the most lucrative. Chairman Pope stated that the farmer could go to the Committee for a rezoning; he could then appeal the decision to the City Council if he was not happy. Councianan Gallagher said there was a premise that nobody can expect more from a piece of land than the present ,zoning on it. 'Theprdperty owner can appeal and can request a higher zoning, but that is all. Nobody can expect a nigher designation on his land until he gods through the proper procedure to apply for a zone change . Imo. .Tom Runels:.stated that the farmers are paying taxes at a higher rate ';'Chan for- •agricu'ltural land because the Tax Assessor - by the highest and 'bestuse. for the land. Councilman Gallagher said hethought the intent of classifyiing agricultural .lands is to get the Tax Assessor to re- evaluate the farm lands. As long as land.is used for farming, thattis what it should be taxed for. He every effort should be made to make it profitable for the farmers. City Administrator Butch asked what was meant by "wall" in Item 1 of the Amend is to the Subdivision Ordinance. Chairman ?bOe said they meant some - thing I to protect the farmer's operation. Mr. Wolf g .id that what they were trying to do is contrary to the usual technique of keeping things in; they were . trying :. to keep things outs Councilman Spierling felt that a block Wall that is smooth on one side is the best solution. Mr. Wolf that the Committee had discussed ad't rig other advantages to the program at a later time, such as exemption from:' t a Sewer District. With regards to the recommended changes to the Land Use Plan, Maury Brennan asked what they considered large lot size. Chairman Pope stated that the Faftr Oaks area is a good example. When this area was incorporated, there were many large lots. The area was then zoned PR-1" and the properties were later split into several building sates. This overtaxes the sewer and water systems at that point. Mr. Brennan asked if 10,000 or 11,000 sq. ft, lots would be considered large lots; Planning Aide Sullivan replied that they wound not. A large lot would be something rake 11/2 acre lots. In summary, Chai n Pope stated thit the Agricultural Lands Committee was recommending that thi�,w zone be set up for protection for the farmers who want to continue' to i''erm. . Mayor de Leon . asked :. if a farmer's widow would have a lot of red tape to go through-if she decided to sell the farm for development. Chairman Pope replied that it :would have to come ultimately before the City Council and they *would have tt,Oe final decision. . Mayor de'.Leon stated he felt she should be ableto sell her property for the best use she can get. Commissioner Hitchen asked who the farmers would be applying to if they wished to go into this nefi zone within 90 days, as set out in the proposal. Chairman Pope replied that they would be applying to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council, as.in.a normal rezoning. Fred Wolf added that the farmers will be notified of the opportunity to enter into this new district; along with its advantages. Chairman Pope noted that the Committee did not feel that the Wil iamson Act is a very premising program in the City. Peggy Langworthy asked if. the Conimittee had considered the opportunity to enter into the new zone within 90 days at the-City's expense as aV'frost1ng" or if it' should be included in the ordinance. Chairman stated this was strictly a decision the individual farmer must .make. The only thing they were trying to do was make fa ng:a,more pleasantperience. Peggy Langworthy asked if a person in the' " A4" zone would be legally obligated to go into the Wipaamson Act, and if they were in the - Williamson Act, wmo d they. be -required 309 310 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission /City Council, 1-10-77 Page 4 to go. into "A -P" zoning. Chairman Pope replied that they would not be obligated to go.into the Williamson Act if they were zoned "A -P "; however, "A -P" zoning would be appropriate if they wished to enter into a preserve contract. Mr. D. G. Porter asked if it was the Williamson Act which spoke of prime land; Chairman Pope replied that it'.was. Mr. Porter stated that the Williamson Act said'prime land was Class I and-Class II land, as described by the Soil Conservation Service. Chairman Pope agreed this was right ;'however, the farmers on the Committee did not feel this was the correct way to define Class.I and II soils. Class IV soil can produceas much as I and II soils, Chairman Pope stated that the Committee had got away from using the term "prime" when it learned that the Tax.Assessor's Office often. taxes Class III or IV lands higher than Class I and. II soils, and when the farmers said that it really de- pends on.the farming operation and what is being grown as to the productivity of the land. Mr. Porter felt that "prime" should be removed; when it is used you must stick with Class I and II for Williamson Act classification. Councilman Gallagher said he thought that perhaps the Tax Assessors are probably not as- cognizant of land value in relationship to soil value, They are probably not assessing according to soil classification. Chairman Pope stated he had talked to the Assessor's Office and they are assessing the land on its highest and best use.'Mrs:. -Peggy Langwoi%thy asked.if.the land would be reassessed if it was zoned "A-P" and could not be used for anything except farming., Chairman Pope said he was not able to got a definite ansk7er from the Assessor's Office„ ,Mr. Tom Runels said the Assessor's Office had told'hi`m they would not tax the land differently than its highest and best use unless it had a valid preserve contract. Mr. Wolf said the County Asse4sor' told him he does not have that option at law. If he wanted to assess land in the "A -P" zone and not under the Williamson Act lower, he could not do so by State law; OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Planning Aide Sullivan stated that this proposed addition to the Zoning Ordinance was prepared by Hahn & Wise & Associates who prepared the Open Space and Conservation Element for Grover City and Arroyo Grande. It is basically the same as Grover City has. Arroyo Grande has the element; this would be the ordinance. Mr. Brennan asked what land this inv$lved, Chairman Pope stated it would be the .City parks, the streambed areas, areas such as the drainage Swale in Sunrise Terrace. Mobile Home Park. Mrs. Peggy rangworthy asked if there was a provision in the ordinance for acquiring more open space; the Chairman replied that there was. FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICTS The Commission and Council briefly reviewed the proposed,primaty and secondary flood plain districts.. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS The Commission and Council completely reviewed the suggested changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Regarding Sec. 9- 4.2421 (a -2), City Administrator Butch stated that pre- sently the City does not require_:curb, gutter and sidewalk on a piece of property if less than 50% of the block has them. This proposed change would mean that they would be required for any building:•permit, whether they existedR` elsewhere on the block or not. Chairman Pope felt that this would be exempting lots with existing structures without °curb gutter, and sidewalk, if another building permit was never issued for that property City Engineer Garcia felt that this was not necessary, as the City can require curb, gutter, and sidewalk regardless, under the Streets and Highways Code. City Administrator Butch felt the term "existing bonafide contract" should be excluded from Sec. 9- 4.3105 (aa); it could change. A contract may become void, Councilman Gallagher stated that he liked the idea that if someone doesn't do something within; °one year, they must come back for renewal. This gave additional control. Commissioner Gerrish asked who would decide if there is a bonafide contract. Planning Aide Sullivan replied that the Planning Commission would. Councilman Gallagher asked about the Fire Code in connection with the pro- posed addition to Sec. 9- 4.2405. Councilman Schlegel noted that any building must be according to Code, including a one -hour fire wall on property line. • Arroyo Grande Planning Commission /City Councih,- 1 -T0 Page 5 Witb regard to the changes recommended by the Planning Commission to Sec. 9- 4.802, Sec. 9- 4.803, Sec. 9- 4.902,`atid Sec. 9- 4.903, Planning Aide Sullivan noted that the Planning Commission felt multi- structure apartment develop- ments are more pleasing than single structure developments and that a use permit should not be required for'them in the "R -G" and "R -3" zones. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE City Engineer Garcia noted that the Subdivision Map Act -has changed. and many of the proposed amendments are just reflecting: the new location in the Govt. Code. He stated that one of the changes is the new inclusion of "Interested persons ". The new act provides that interesteed persons may be no €ified and they may appeal. The staff had defined interested persons in the same ..way as the Government Code does. In order to appeal, they 'must be notified. Some of the old terms have been deleted as they are archaic. The " standards" referred to a book they would be bringing to the City Council for adoption. The City has been using them, but historically -the City Council has never adopted them. These would be- improvement standards. The street definitions are_heing changed to reflect the Circulation Element. The major change to Sec. 9 -3.403 is.in the minimum average' lot depth., There could be,a situation where, as with modular- homes,a wide`.lot that isn't deep might be 'desirable. Thepproposed .change : would allow for this: withoutiieducing the, total square footage of the lot. Building.setbacks used to be required on the map. The staff felt that this.is a zoning matter and is subject to'change. Therefore, it is i'nappropt'iate to show.them on.the maps. .Councilman Schlegel asked where this information would be. .City Engineer Garcia replied that it would be in the zoning. requirements. City Engineer Garcia stated Sec. 9-3507 (1) is a.complete rewrite. There was a long cumbersome formula before which ended up with people paying widely varying amounts for the same basic purpose on lots. Commissioner Cole asked how this is evaluated; what about the person who donates open space which has a greater value than $100 per lot. City Engineer Garcia stated there were criteria for donating open space instead of monies. Or both could be donated. The subdivision keview - Board makes this determination. City Engineer Garcia stated that currently our inspection fee is a flat 2 %. On smaller projects it is insufficient. Therefore, the staff was recommending changing the fees. Councilman Gallagher asked if the City provided inspection on the weekends. City Engineer Garcia replied that normally it did not. Councilman Gallagher suggested that the City should require there be some;supervi §ion for grading. If it is done on a weekend, they would pay the fee for inspection. The developers should be required to do their work When .inspection . is possible. If they don't they should be requited to pay the fees for the cost of providing An inspector. Councilman Gallagher stated he would like to have some attention paid to this. City Engineer Garcia said that normally a grading operation can be corrected if it is done improperly. Counci]4nan Schlegel said he agreed with Concilman Gallagher; there should be proper inspection. Councilman Gallagher stated he would like to have the policy of granting deviations come back to the City Council for review. He felt that when the make up of the Council changed, things like this should be reviewed. City Engineer stated that the filing fee noted in Sec. 9- 3.606, (b) is new. The old few was $25 and $1 /lot; the new fee is $100 and $2 /10-t. Councilman Gallagher asked`if this is commensurate with the costs: involved. City Engineer ;Garcia mraid1 he believed it was. 311 Under Sec. 9-3.60, City Engineer Garcia stated that the City did..ndt require the attendance of the subdivider, his engineer, or other agent to attend the Subdivision Review Board meetings; the proposed change says there will not be a-meeting until one is present. Councilman Gallagher felt this was a good idea; too many times in the past the staff has had to act as spokesman for a developer. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Councilman Gallagher asked who comprised the Architectural Review Committee, Chairman Pope replied that the Committee is appointed by the Planning Commission Chairman. It is made up of two Planning Commissioners, and two City staff members. 312 Arroy Grande Planning Commission/ City Council, 1 -10 -77 Page 6 Councilman Gallagher asked if there uou1d be:.a problem in having other qualified people sitting on the Review Board. He felt there were many qualified people in the community. Chairman Pope stated if some citizen would like to volunteer, he would be happy to bring the matter up with the Commission. Mayor de Leon felt that five members would be better than four members. Chairman Pope asked for public input. Mrs. Ella Honeycutt noted that she had prepared a minority report on the farmland. She asked the City to look into the legal aspects of changing the land density from .2 to .7. She asked the Commission and Council to make sure they had legal grounds before they went into their meetings. She said she hated to see the Commission and Council working at something that may be illegal; she felt there was a question of con- sistency which must be answered. Both the Commission and the Council felt that study sessions such as these are very worth while. Chairman Pope stated he felt all the Commission members should attend the next City Council meeting as they had an item on the agenda concerning the function of the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman Pope adjourned the meeting at 10:00 P.M. ATTEST: Secretary 1