Loading...
PC Minutes 1976-01-06Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 6, 1976 The. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Calhoon presiding. Present were Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Moots, Ries, and Sandoval. Also present were City Administrator Butch, Public Works Director Anderson, City Engineer Garcia, City. Attorney Shipsey, and Councilmen de Leon.and Millis. - Planning Director.Gallop was absent. MINUTE APPROVAL The minutes of the regular meeting of December 2, 1975 and the special meeting of December 8, 1975 were approved by the Chairman as prepared. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT END OF PEARWOOD FOR PROPOSED LOT SPLIT AND REZONING Administrator Butch stated that this was a Negative Declaration for a rezoning previously approved by the Planning Commission and City Council and a lot split which the Commission would review tonight, Commissioner Ries questioned the statement ir, the Negative Declaration which said that the project appeared to be non - controversial,. Administrator Butch stated that at the time the report was prepared it did appear to be so; however, since that time a petition regarding the proposed lot split had been received regarding placement of a fence. City Attorney Shipsey noted that if the Commission was inclined to approve the Negative Declaration, it would have to first find that the pro- posed lot split and rezoning did not have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and that the resolution should show this fact. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 76 -423, EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION. On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Mathews, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Moots, Sandoval, and Chairman Calhoon NOES: Commissioner Ries ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of January 1976. REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 75-227 END OF PEARWOOD AVENUE (LEMON) Administrator Butch advised the Commission that he had received a petition circulated by Mrs, Honeycutt and Mrs. Mills, residents of the Pearwood area, which asked that Mr. Lemon fence the cliff, top and bottom, for the safety of small children and to retain falling rocks. The Admini- strator also stated that an abandoned well had been discovered on the property which had not been capped and that the capping should be a condition of the lot split. Commissioner Cole requested that the two matters be considered separately; on motion by Commissioner Mathews, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and unanimously carried, that the well be capped and covered in accordance with State, County, and local regulations. Administrator Butch drew a diagram of the property and the proposed fencing,for the Commission and presented some photos taken by Mrs. Honeycutt and Mrs. Mills. Commissioner Cole pointed out that the fence could be an attractive nuisance, Paul Sturges, r,.epresenting the owner, stated that part of the bluff in question is in the City right of way, He felt that it would be best to build a fence around the side of the bluff to connect to those already in existence; he did not feel it was correct to require the property owner to build a fence on City property. 189 190 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -6 -76 Page 2 Harvey Palmer, 210 Pearwood, stated that he lived across from the bluff and that it is an attractive nuisance as it stands, He felt that it was necessarily the responsibility of the new developer, it should be done by the City to correct a previous developer's mistake; he felt that there should be a single fence encircling the entire bluff. Jackie Stewart, 202 Pearwood, stated he agreed'with Mr. Palmer. He also felt that the soil. would not hold water, Harvey Harris, 134 Rosewood, said he felt that a fence would eventually be knocked over by falling rocks, and suggested something similar to the methods used on cliffs by highways. Mrs. Silva, 102 Pearwood, asked who is liable if somebody is hurt; she felt whoever is liable should correct the problem. James Grimes, 145 Rosewood, felt that all of these problems should have been considered when the land was first subdivided and that they should be solved before any more developing is done. Ella Honeycutt, Oak Hill Road, asked if the fence could be considered under the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Commissioner Cole said that she did not feel that a fence was the whole solution. Commissioner Ries stated that he felt that there were two property owners involved: Mr. Lemon and the City of Arroyo Grande. Administrator Butch replied that the City did not feel it was their responsibility. On motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried, the matter was referred back to staff for further study. REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS - LOT SPLIT CASE NO, 75-232 1340 SIERRA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 75-110 BRIGHTON AVENUE 16 UNIT APARTMENT HOUSE AND CONDOMINIUM- ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO„ 75 -111 240 SPRUCE APARTMENT COMPLEX Commissioner Moots requested that the Planning Commission more fully review all Committee actions. On motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and unanimously carried, that all Committee actions be reviewed fully by the entird Planning Commission. Administrator Butch reviewed each of the Committee Actions for the Commission, and thiprr being no further additions, Chairman Calhoon ordered the reports filed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CASE .NO,,..75 - ..THOMAS A RUNEIS , ETAL, 661 VALLEY ROAD, FROM "R- A-B RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL TO "A" AGRICULTURAL ZONED DISTRICT Administrator Butch noted that this is the first request for Agricultural Preserve status in the City. He reviewed the fact that the property being re- quested for rezoning is less than the normally required ten (10) acres; however, the Agricultural Preserve Committee felt that the Planning Commission should consider it because it is an extension of an existing Agricultural Preserve in the County. After being assured by Administrator Butch that public hearing for the proposed rezoning had been duly published, posted, and property owners notified, Chairman Calhoon declared the hearing open. There being no persons appearing for or against the requested rezoning, the public hearing was closed. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 76 -424'Z RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 4 ZONING, ARTICLE 32, OF SAID CODE. On motion by Commissioner Colo, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -6 -76 Page 3 AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish,- Mathews, Moots, Ries, Sandoval, and Chairman Calhoon NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of January 1976. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CASE NO. 75-91, COACH AND BRANCH MILL ROADS. FROM "A" AGRICULTURAL TO "A -P" AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE ZONED DISTRICT (HILO FUCHI.WAKIj. Administrator Butch reviewed the requested zone change, which is for three parcels of property, all currently zoned "A" Agricultural. Upon being assured by Administrator Butch that public hearing for the proposed zone change had been duly published, posted, and property owners noti- fied, Chairman Calhoon declared the public hearing open. Mrs. Graham, 835 Branch Mill Road, inquired as to how long the Preserve status was for, and also if adjacent property owners could apply. Administrator Butch informed her that the property must be prime agricultural. Land of ten acres or more, and that three or more property owners could petition together. There being no further discussion for or against the proposed zone change, Chairman Calhoon declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO, 76 -425 Z RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER. 4•ZONING, ARTICLE 32, OF SAID CODE, On motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews Moots, Ries, Sandoval, and Chairman Calhoon NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of January 1976, CONTINUATION - REZONING CASE NO. 75 -86 BRANCH MILL ROAD FROM "A" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "R -1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND "R- A-B -3" RESIDENTIAL AGRICUL- TURAL ZONED DISTRICTS COMMISSIONERS MOOTS AND MATHEWS WERE EXCUSED DUE TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND ARE NOW ABSENT. Administrator Butch reviewed the history of the requested rezoning for the Commission and indicated the property on a neap, noting that the total property was comprised of approximately 35 acres. He added that approximately ten acres were planned to be set aside for Agricultural Preserve status. Charles Greenwood, 17842 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, the property owner, thanked the Commission for having had the study session on the proposed re- zoning. He stated that it was his opinion that the City had planned for development in this area due to the fact that several streets dead -ended at his property and also because the sewer system had been installed right up to his property. David Murray, 478 Tanner Lane, stated that he felt the road was not adequate to handle further development, Fred Wolf, 340 Gaynfair, commended 'M:c ', G.i eemmod for his compromises; however, he also felt that the road was not adequate. 191 192 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1-6 -76 Page 4 David Loomis, 1120 Flora Road, also felt that the road was not adequate. Bill McCann, 428 Tanner Lane, submitted a petition to the Commission, containing 100 signatures, which asked the Commission to deny the rezoning due to the road not being suitable for increased traffic, the impact on the schools, increased cost of municipal services, and the destruction of good farmland. He then asked if the Commission had any information as to the type of soil. Administrator Butch referred to a letter from Clark Moore, District Conservationist, which broke down the types of soils in the parcel. John Silva, 1155 Flora Road, stated he believed all the land was prime agricultural land. Madeleine Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, referred to the land designation in the Land Use Element. Kathy Greenelsh, 453 Tanner Lane, said she believed agricultural lands needed to be preserved for the future. Mr. McCann said he felt that development should be in the hillsides, Joseph Garcia, City Engineer, displayed a collision diagram for Branch Mill Road. He noted that most of the road is in the County. He added that there is an average of 1020 cars per day on the road, approximately half of that generated by the present Greenwood Manor, and that seven accidents had occurred in the past three years, He stated that in his opinion the accident rate is not excessive for the number of cars using the road. Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, referred to a handbook from Garing & Taylor, Civil Engineers, regarding narrow roads. John Lundgren, 1123 Flora Road, spoke against the proposed rezoning due to the road condition and municipal services being inadequate to handle the development. Bill McCann referred to the Planning Commission minutes of December 4, 1973 which stated that the widening of Branch Mill Road had been budgeted. Administrator Butch replied that the funds have been diverted twice by the City Council for use in more urgent matters. There being no further discussion for or against the proposed rezoning, Chairman Calhoon declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Cole stated she believed the road was safe if driven according to how it is built. Commissioner Ries said he agreed that there were problems regarding the road and municipal services to the area. As requested by the City Attorney, Commissioner Gerrish moved that the proposed zoning was consistent with the General Plan and the Land Use Map and would not conflict with abutting land uses. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cole, and approved on the following roll call vote. AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, and Chairman Calhoon NOES: Commissioners Ries and Sandoval ABSENT: Commissioners Mathews and Moots After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 76 -426 Z RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 4 ZONING, ARTICLE 32 OF SAID CODE. On motion by Commissioner Sandoval, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Ries, Sandoval and Chairman Calhoon NOES: Commissioners Cole and Gerrish ABSENT: Commissioners Mathews and Moots the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of January 1976, Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -6 -76 COMMISSIONERS MATHEWS AND MOOTS ARE NOW PRESENT. Page 5 CITY ATTORNEY REQUEST TO RECONSIDER THE NEGATIVE DECIARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON LOOMIS HEIGHTS Administrator Butch stated that the City had recently received a letter, dated December 9, 1975, from Carol Allen, an attorney, that asked that the Commission reconsider its action of November 4, 1975 regarding a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact on Tract 577, Loomis Heights. Attorney Shipsey and Planning Director Gallop had discussed the matter; and even though the appeal' Wag filed "after the ten day appeal period,'they informed Mrso.Allen that they would ask the Commission if it wished to consider her request. After discussion, Commissioner Gerrish moved to reconsider the Negative Declaration; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Ries, with the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, and Ries NOES: Commissioners Mathews, Moots, Sandoval and Chairman Calhoon ABSENT: None The request of Carol Allen for reconsideration of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Tract 577 was denied die to the above roll call vote. STAGECOACH ANNEXATION REFERRAL FROM CITY COUNCIL Administrator Butch stated that this annexation request had been re- ferred from the City Council for the Commission's review and recommendations. Joseph Garcia, City Engineer, reviewed the request for the Commission, noting that the petitioner was proposing to build a water tank to service a proposed development in the Stagecoach Road area. The City does not allow persons out- side the City limits to hook up to the City water system. Therefore, the de- veloper wanted the area the tank would be in to be annexed to the City in hopes that as the area developed and homes connected to the water system, he could recoup some of the cost of the tank because the City would give him the distri- bution charge portion of the meter costs until his prorated portion of the cost was met. Commissioner Moots questioned a portion of a memo from Joseph Anderson, Public Works Director, which stated that -LAFCO or the County might insist on the City including existing boundary roads. Mr. Garcia explained that the re- port was a general one for a larger annexation and that this would not neces- sarily apply in this smaller annexation. He added that the City had no design criteria for sewer lines in this area, and anyone wishing to develop would have to prove that the sewer lines could handle the increase. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO, 76 -427 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF STAGECOACH ROAD ANNEXATION, On motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Mathews, Ries, Sandoval, and Chairman Calhoon NOES: Commissioner. Moots ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of January 1976. 193 194 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1-6 -76 Page 6 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Sandoval, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:52 P.M. ATTEST: ("3-a,LAck_6! rZ Secretary Chairman