Loading...
PC Minutes 1976-05-04Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 4, 1976 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chairman Moots presiding. Present were Commissioners. Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Pope, Ries, and Sandoval. Also present were Planning Director Gallop,. City Administrator Butch, City Engineer Garcia, and Councilman Spierling• MINUTE APPROVAL The minutes of the regular meeting of April 20, 1976 were approved by the Vice Chairman after hearing no additions or corrections, "' ' REVIEW CONN]TTEE ACTIONS: Lot Spl' Case No.> 76 -244 231,_235 241, and 245 Spruce (Fu naaa) Director Gallop stated that this was a request for a lot line adjustment. The Property is fully developed with four structures and the petitioner was asking that the two front lots be deepened by twelve feet so that One of the units'' can be expanded. All units are attached to the sewer. The olycondition will':be` that the parking on each lot be adjusted so that it is adequate- for each lote Architectural Review Case No 76-118: Halcyon and Cornwall aissori) - The Planning Director noted that this was for a new dental clinic next:` to the existing Fissori real estate office, The Director then reviewed all of the conditions placed on the building by the Review Committee. He also pointed out that a lot split will be required as this will be a lease parcel. Architectural Review Case No 76-119. 1106 ^ ra Gnd (St ffan Director Gallop stated this property is presently improved with a combination office - retail sales building. The new structure will be placed to the front of old. He noted there will be a fence along the rear property line. - , :;Commissioner Cole asked for clarification of the required sewer benefit charges. The Director explained that whenever there is an increase of use, such as additional .:. residences or commercial, each use must pay a water charge and a sewer benefit charge. After a brief discussion of each case, the Vice Chairman ordered the reports filed. PUBLIC HEARING.^ REZONING CASE N0 i6 - FAIR OAKS, BETWEEN VALLEY ROAD AND HALCYON FROM "R-A-B -3" TO "R- 1"_(MIYAKE) "``,.4 :Director Gallop stated that the Land Use Plan designates this property as agricultural use through light density. He stated that the regested' zone change does conform to the Land Use Plan; however, if the zone change.'is'granted, he :felt'the Land Use Plan should be changed to reflect light density only He requested the Commission to consider the.Request for Negative Declaration, which included'statements from himself and the City Engineer, before they considered the zone change request itself. He noted that the Commission had .before them letters from the Soil Conservation Service and Dr. Piper, Head of the :Soil Science Department at Cal Poly regarding the soil capability of the property. Vice Chairman Moots opened the meeting to the public for .any .input regarding the Negative Declaration Request, 'Ron Bennett, of Benstock, Santa Barbara, agent for the petitioner, stated that the Negative Declaration said the project could generate controversy; but he felt that any project nowadays could do so. Stephen Liebzeit, 410 Woodland stated that the people had not:wanted the earlier development proposed on this property. He felt they did.`not'want such :a large development and that the property should be kept in.orchards as l as possible. Director Gallop noted that the original proposal' was: for "R-G " :zoning is a considerably higher density; Madeleine Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, asked for clarification of what the Negative Declaration said. Vice.Chairman Moots reviewed it for the audience. • ,Fred Wolf, 540 Gaynfair, said he believed the .Declaration was t otally erroneousiwhon it states there will be no potential overload on coMMuiity services; he felt the schools would very much be affected and that thereport should ; reflect this. 233. 234 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 Bill McCann, 428 Tanner Lane, said he felt that even though the developer plrr<nr.:d to k! as many trees as possible, the remaining trees would be greatly affected by the development. Bill Langworthy, Printz Road, asked for clarification of what the developer was asking for. Vice Chairman Moots stated that it was a request for "R -1" zoning, with no request for density transfer. Tom Runels, 586 Valley Road said he did not believe bottom land was the place for homes. He felt a development such as this would put pressure on the agricultural property which he owned that abutted this property. Peggy Langworthy, Printz Road, asked about the health of the trees. Dr, Piper, Head of the Soil Science Department at Cal Poly, stated that most of the walnut trees were in good shape, . although a few would have to be re- moved due to decay; the apricot trees are beyond help and will have to be removed. There being no further public comment on the Request for Negative Declaration,, Vice Chairman Moots closed the discussion to the public. Commissioner Ries asked about City Engineer Garcia's statement that a pump may be required for the sewers. Engineer Garcia explained that the City's experience with bridges across the Creek for sewer lines was very poor. This one would have to be located in a spot that could cause it to hang up debris and it could also become an attractive nuisance with children. He added that the developer would pay for the pump if it is required. Vice Chairman Moots said he believed a "no" answer to question 18 was not correct„ He felt the City was trying to good farm land. Commissioner Math:,ws stated that this was not good farm land. He felt the City really needs more housing. Commissioner Gerrish stated he agreed with Vice Chairman Moots, and asked how this could be handled. Director Gallop replied that the Commission could make any amendment or addition it wished. These should be stated in the resolution if the Declaration is accepted, After further discussion_ the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 76 -440 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION. On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Mathews, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Pope, and Sandoval NOES: Commissioner Ries and Vice Chairman Moots ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4th day of May 1976 Director Gallop stated that the streambed area would be required for dedication,. If that area exceeded two acres, the petitioner might ask for a density transfer on the excess; however, he could not request it for the property not included in the zone change. There could be a maximum of 45 -50 parcels. Due to the topography of the land, however, this number would probably be reduced. He noted that even if density transfer were granted, this would not increase the number of parcels allowed; all it would do would be to change their location,. Upon being assured by the Planning Director that public hearing for the proposed rezoning had been duly published, posted, and property owners notified, Vice Chain Moots declared the public hearing open. Ron Bennett, agent for the petitioner, reviewed what was planned for the property. He noted that they planned to retain as may tree® as possible and that the land had up to 17% slope in some areas. He stated they planned to create some retention basins in the lower Swale area to help in runoff and to prevent it from going into the streambed. He added that this is not prime agricultural land and it is abutting a residential area. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 5-4-76 ,. ,: _.'. = sT -Teggy::LangwortPrintz Road, asked- aboutpotential, growth of grass, etc. undPr the trees,; Mr, Xennett,reped that there is-a lot pf,grass ,growth ' Piperi state& :that- there, ahould be'. no- Problem. with mo.s plants),:, SinceLthe aoil, i,s.fairlY Well drained, _thereislbould also he PPr4lem with overwatering.thelwalnut , trees-. , : .,:., ,-, I!- : :'j Bill Langworthy, Printz Road, asked for an explanation of Class I and ss sons :-Illr.PiPer,exclained thatClass T'aoilalara; PriPla-,4gricultural lands with 0- 227 slope .and Po crPP limitation ClassII soils .have2i. limitations. Class III soils are severely limited; the slope is from 7-12%. Hei be, had ,classified this Particular PieCe of ProPertY as'q-aas IIIe-1. This,meant the slope,Pf thelland2 bas underg9T19,494 II/ i whiChithey considered :between slight and mPderate :- i . .1 '')-■ +2 :.q • . .r,'I !':' ,-L ,, ,' 7 l' : ' ,: ) : , ,i ' ,- ,■ : ,,-,'_:, ,,j,,, , I . Ti -) '' ' ,Langworthy _stated he opposed, the proposed i rezoning for tce,ro reasons: N. 4: (development so l cose to ,prime agricultural and would Put! Pressure 9n tbaitai!: . -,- fragrCultural- land; also-,would Place"an, additionalS train Pp the,.s,chool system, • - - - Nadeleine Billcrest, said she hadilived in.thisereat and that they couldn't grow anything under the trees, ,,WhenIthe,areawassubdimided, the trees died, Dr. Piper suggested that the undergrowth was poor because of the ,dense leaf cover-on-the trees However, the treeS;On thisAproPerty did not 1 liame),as dense;a leaf. comer, ;, Mrs ,S teele, also express ec1,1concernovthe number of children this project _would contain 'and the, impact on the eplloole ,.'._:' -!,',:' -',-.. , -D- .:;) ' T-'' ' . . . I ,.: -. .., r' , .):,..: Ernie Marquis,, 411 Woodland,' asked for OarifiCation Of-the Pr9PO3, line by the streambed, Director Gallop replied that the property had not been surveyed as yet; 3..until'it is, they-are assuming that the about1.5070 of the streambed area Vice. Chairman Moots-added,,that the City,ip IL; trying to preserve .the atreambedi no Patter who the owner.f,., , ,,,,' - 1 --1- 1 J 1.:,1,4 Torn Runels5WValley , Road, , asked l what soil classcation ithis. lan4 e.w have • if it were leveled, ' Dr PiPer ,said it...would be - Plass , T; 14 ,aitiwotild cost approximately $10i0Q0 or more an,acre tq clo said he felt the Creek was a natural divider between the agiicul,lanqv and development, and that allowing this development would put pressure on his!abutting farmland. , : , : - I' ,,,: Bill McCann, 428 Tanner_Lanei III land Waa agrit cultural, Dr, Piper replied that it was not. Mr. McCann asked if this land .-.Atiould'Ebe cOnS for AgJPres,erve underf,the,Williamson-Act,,,-DiTi9ctor Gallop explained that it depended on the governingagencnjn ArroY Class I and II qualify. Mr. McCann asked if this property was all Class III, or a combination , of-severall , ,olassesennett said tharthe-dividing line for the requested zone change had been set by a break in the soil classifications. This property was Class III.I:MrMcCanivalso'Asked if the City had a tree or- dinance; Director Gallop replied that it did; however, if someone wished to cut down the tree on his property,,Ale could:do so ',14r.,;(McCann„expreesed con- cern over the possibility thatfuture owners'would cut ,dPwn all, the trees, and felt that something should be done, to prevent thia::from,hampaning, Mr, McCann also said he felt the Creek,- natural,dividing ainei: that this property should be kept in some type of agricultural open space, and that he was opposed bto the requested rezoning, d Fred Wolf, 540 Gaynfair, questioned the dividing line between the prime agricultural land and the Class,III land. . Dr. Piper explained that the line is almost a straight one, as the map indicated. Mr. Wolf also asked for clarifica- tion of the previous rezoning proposal for this property. Director Gallop replied that the previous request included the total 20 acres and was for "R-G" zoning, which would have been about 4 times the density of the present proposal. Wri§ Ohm repregenting the Santa Maria Times asked hew many houses the preaent requeat would mean, Director Gallop said there would be a maximum of 50 homea, Thelma Liebseit 410 Woodland expressed concern over the potential number © children in the development. • 235 236 Arroyo Grp:,- Planning Commission, 5 -4 -76 Page 4 Stephen Liebzeit, 410 Woodland, asked who would pay to take the sewers across the aka Mr. Garcia replied that the developer would pay this cost. Mr. Liebzeit said he believed that this development would be an additional strain on the Fire and Police Departments; he also did not believe that Fair Oaks was meant to encourage development, it was simply an access road to the High School. There being no further discussion for or against the proposed rezoning, Vice Chairman Moots declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Pope stated that he had been on the Commission when the previous proposal was considered. He stated that the people on Woodland Drive had no objections at that time, other than the density was too high, He also stated that he had worked with the City when Fair Oaks Avenue was discussed, and the road was for the purpose of opening the area up, not just for access. He felt that the most important thing to consider was the density factor; he believed a planned "R -1" development was the best plan for this area. Commissioner Cole said she felt that the Commission should consider the fact that this is not prime agricultural land; also she felt that more housing is needed in Arroyo Grande, Commissioner Ries asked the City Engineer what he would recommend to keep water from draining from the subdivision onto the farm lands at the east and south, and vice versa. Mr. Garcia said that, if necessary, the City could require some type of diversion channel to direct the water through whatever drainage system is proposed and ultimately to the Creek, Commissioner Gerrish asked where the sewer and water lines would be coming from, Engineer Garcia said the water line would have to be looped from Woodland and connect to the existing water service at the Catholic Church. With regard to the sewers, there were three options: 1) they could cross the Creek; 2) they could go along the Creek bank to Valley Garden, assuming an easement was granted; 3) they could go back to Valley Road if they could make grade. A pump would be required if the sewer went under the Creek or back to Valley Road. Commissioner Sandoval asked if this property could be put into Ag Preserve. Director Gallop replied that it could not automatically be put into Preserve; it would require Committee Action, Vice Chairman Moots said he felt the Creek was a natural dividing line between agricultural lands and homes. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO, 76-441 Z RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 4 ZONING, ARTICLE 32. OF SAID CODE. On motion by Commissioner Pope, seconded by Commissioner Mathews, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Mathews, and Pope NOES: Commissioners Gerrish, . Ries, Sandoval, and Vice Chairman Moots ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was defeated this 4th day of May 1976. nL .AI., laUT LIMIIATraNa COMMISSIONER SANDOVAL EXCUSED HIMSELF DUE TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND IS NOW ABSENT: City Engineer Garcia displayed a map of the Ruth Ann Way Assessment Diatrict. He noted that the is a difference of 29 feet from the top of curb on Montego to the top of curb at the end of the cul -do -sac on Ruth Ann Way. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 5-4-76 Page 5 Based on consideration of the various street height differences and the heights of existing homes, he was recommending a height limitation of 18 feet on all lots except the four at the end of the cul -de -sac. He was recommending a limitation of 22 feet on these four lots. The two lots on either side of the'four could have either height limitation; he could see no problem with these two, no matter which limitation they had. He also added that whatever height limitation the Commission chose, that would be the absolute maximum to the highest part of the house. He was suggesting different treatmen_t on the four lots at the end of the cul -de -sac because they sit high 'on ° the hill. He added that either height could possibly allow two -story homes Upon being assured by Director Gallop that public hearing for the proposed "height limitations on Ruth Ann Way had been duly advertised and posted,'Vice Chairman Moots opened the public hearing. Keith Beckman, 319 Corona del Terra, asked that the Commission consider making a limitation of single-story residences only He also suggested that Ruth'Ann Way be staked so that people could visualize it better, Mr, Garcia replied '. that it would still be abstract even it were staked.. He also toted there is a one story home on Corona del Terra that is 23 feet high. Stella Nobles,.1239 Montego, expressed concern over the loss of her view. She asked that some consideration be given to the fact that Montego has . a height limitation of 11 feet, H. Carpentier and Joyce Carpentier, 1243 Montego, spoke regarding Mrs..Nobles' home. Mrs.. :suggested a 15 -16 ft. limitation. Mr. Garcia explained that the 22 ft. height limitation did not mean a 22 -ft. house; it meant that the house could not be higher than.22.feet above curb line. He added that the only way the City could guarantee no loss of'view would be.not to allow any homes to •be built. John Nairn, 950 Sycamore,.said he believed that a 22.f t ¢ height . limitation would not block any views. He said he believed it was correct to:usethe curb height as the basis in setting the'limitations. .Elizabeth Jackson,.208'Fairview, asked if the building ;pads would be• raised. Mr. Garcia'said that this'would not make any difference because the height limitation was from the top of the curb. Mrs.. Jackson also'.asked the Commission to consider tree height limitation. There'being no further . discussion for or against the proposed height limitations, Vice Chairman Moots declared the public hearing closed, After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 76 -442 Z .RESOLUTION ,OF THE 'PLANNING :COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF'ARROYO GRANDE 'RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE .MUNICIPAL CODE 'OF THE CITY OF-ARROYO GRANDE•AS'PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 4.ZONING, .ARTICLE 32, OF SAID CODE. On motion by Commissioner'Pope, seconded by.Commissioner Cole, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Commissioners. Cole, Gerrish, Mathews,,Pope, Ries ,• and Vice Chairman Moots None ABSENT: Commissioner Sandoval the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4th day of May 1976 COMMISSIONER SANDOVAL T8 NOW PRESENT. hA E .E B NIA,. 'A EEAT "Director stated that all of the communications received by the Planning. Department will be incorporated into.an appendix, including ,a letter.from the State Clearinghouse and one letter which accompanied that. 237 238 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 5 -4 -76 Page.6 Director Gallop also noted that be had received a, letter from the petitioner regarding changes he wished to make to his original in answer to public input, as well as information. which the E. I..R..provided0, The . Director reviewed these suggested changes for the Commission... Most of the changes dealt.with.reducing the commercial acreage by 15 -20 acres., and changing some of the resideratia1 areas to adult use only, He noted that this map is not the final map; it is only a guideline to be used when the f.inaiJ map is before the•Commission for consideration,,.. Carolyn Moffatt, Noyes Road, questioned how the new request•from the petitioner would .affect the prepared Draft. .Andrew Merriam, representing Meyer,IMerriam, and'Associates, the firm preparing -the E..I. R.,. stated that.,, this .letter could be included along with the public input. He felt it was an attempt to mitigate some of the problems the public was concerned about., However, the report had made no response to this letter as it was received too late,. Madeleine Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, asked about the proposed adults only sections. Director Gallop stated that the City itself could not put an.;adult limitation on the development, However, the developer could put this restriction on as a deed restriction under his CC &Rs and itlwould be. legally binding. He also noted that the petitioner's letter could be bound into the E. I., R. as an addendum. Then when the final map came in for con sideration; and:if the petitioner requested a higher density, anamendment could be squired to the E. I. R. if the Commission felt that there would. be an unanticipated impact. .Mr, Merriam then reviewed the firm's responses to input received at the public hearing and study session. These comments will also be bound into the. final E, I. R. if the document is approved, Commissioner.Cole questioned the letter from the Air Resources Board - regarding. impact on air quality. Vice Chairman Moots stated he believed thi's.;simply referred to: the fact that the more people., the.more,- pollutants Commissioner Gerrish asked about the requested report concerning - development.impact on City servics. Director Gallop replied that the report.,had not.been completed on time, but would be presented.at the next meeting. Commissioner Gerrish stated he felt this should be a part of the E. I. R. Director Gallop replied . that. the report did not deal_,-only . with this proposed development; it was based more generally upon develop- ment anywhere in the. City. After further discussion the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 76 -443 EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, On motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Cole, Mathews, Pope, Rigs Sandoval, and Vice Chairman Moots Commissioner Gerrish None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4th day of May 1976. CMi ®h stated that he had voted no because he believed th@ City segvieea report should be included, not because he was against the Draft E i, R. itsel , 2,BIUMILMALIZIENSZLOE USL,JIMIT C SmO,, :234, PATIO HOME CARE 9x= Director Gallop stated that he had received a letter from Mrs. Muliiner requesting an extension for one year on her use permit. He reviewed the conditions of the original permit, noting that there had been Arroyo Grande .Planning Commission,,5 -4 -76 Page 7 no changes in conditions that would affect the original use permit. .After . a .brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the extension. of Use Permit Case No. 75 -234 for a one-year period. EXCESS PROPERTY 'OUTSIDE OF SOUTH ELM STREET :PLAN LINE City .Engineer Garcia noted that when the Plan Line for South ;Elm Street was adopted in 1966, there was a. small area between Ash and Maple that had an excess of right of way. The street had been improved about a year ago, and the City no longer'has any need for this excess. The Public Works Department was recommending that this excess be abandoned to the abutting property owners, by deed,.if they install curb, gutter, and sidewalk. On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, the Commission found that this is excess property and that it is consistent with the General Plan, and recommended to the City Council that this is not needed for right of way purposes. .A.EQUEST FOR JOINT STUDY SESSION BY CITY COUNCIL The •Planning Director noted that the City Council had requested .a joint study session for May 17, to consider the revised Land Use Plan, the question of rezoning on James Way, and. any other items of interest to either the Council or the Commission. On motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded. by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, the.Commission approved the joint study session. REQUEST TO BE' ABSENT Commissioner Mathews noted that he would be out of town from May 12 to May 24, and requested permission to be absent from both the study session and the regular meeting of May 18. On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and unanimously carried, the Commission granted permis- sion for his absence. ,ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Sandoval, the Commission adjourned at 10:38 the motion was unanimously carried. ATTEST: Secretary Vice.Chairman 239,