PC Minutes 1973-12-1846
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
December 18, 1973
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman
Pope presiding. Present are Commissioners Calhoon, Goulart, Gul l ickson, Jones and
Porter, Commissioner Spierl ing is absent. Also in attendance are Councilman de Leon
and Planning Director Gallop,
MINUTE APPROhfAL
Chairman Pope requested the Secretary to report on the tapes of the meet4nag
of November 7, 1973 wherein a question was raised with regard to items 2 and 12 of
Resolution 73 - 319 U. The Secretary advised,thet the, tapes did coincide with the
Resolution and, on motion by Commissioner Gullickson, seconded by Commissioner Calhoon,
and unanimously carried, Resolution No. 73 - 319 U in the minutes of November 7, 1973.was
approved as prepared.
On motion by Commissioner Goulart, seconded by Commissioner Guilickson, and
unanimously carried, the minutes of the regular meeting of December 4 1973 were
approved as prepared.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Director Gallop reviewed the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970
requiring a determination of environmental impact on all public works activities.
Director Gallop pointed out that Resolution 1032 deals with environmental impact as
a zoning and land use development effect only and doers not include public works
activities and, therefore, it is necessary to make a Negative Declaration determination
on the three items. He advised that in each case the materials in the report touch
on all of the key criteria set up by CEQ,A for determining whether there is or is not
an environmental effect. Director Gallop listed the various public works projects as
follows: Project No. 90 - - Storm Drain Extension on Elm Street from Maple to Pond -
ing Basin at Ash Street; Project No. 60- 732, "hater Distribution System Improvements ,
on Branch Street between Bridge Street and Crown Hill; Project No 90- 15 -4, Traffic
Signal Modification and Installation at Fair Oaks Avenue and Halcyon Road.
After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gul1ickson, seconded by
Commissioner Goulart, and unanimously carried, that the Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact on the three public works projects be accepted and approved by
the Planning Commission.
CANCELLATION OF JANUARY 1., 1 PLANNING C?7MM I SS I ON MEET I hu
Director Gallop advised that at the last meeting of the Planning Commission
there was a request to make a determination of what the workload would be for the
regular meeting of January 1, 1974. He advised the Commission that nothing has been
filed and, if the Commission wishes to cancel that meeting, it should be done in the
adjournment motion.
PUBLIC HEAR i NG - USE PERMIT CASE NO, 73 -221 FREE STANDING SIGN IN A C-N DISTRICT,,
' VALLEY ROAD G LENViEW CONSTRUCTION CO.
Director Gallop reported that the sign being requested has a total ground
clearance of 13' to the bottom of the sign, and that the sign itself Is. 3 °9 x 6'6
or a total of 39 square feet. He advised the sign is non - rotating, non- flashing
and interior illuminated, and is designed so it can be seen from just over the top
of a coach. He pointed out that the request is to place the sign at Valley Road
and Sunrise Terrace, and that the sign° is within the permissive square footage and
total height limitation of the district. He further advised that there is a letter
on record from Mrs. Rosa who owns the property immediately to the south who objects
to the sign.
Upon being assured by Director Gallop that public hearing for Use Permit Case
No. 73 -221 had been duly posted, published and property owners notified, Chairman
Pope declared the hearing open.
Mr. Michael Anthony, Glenview Construction Co., was present and spoke in
favor of the Use Permit being granted. He stated they realize that they could
possibly ask for a bigger sign in this district, but they are trying to keep it
at a minimum, and the total height of the sign will be i8'9 and 6'6 °° wide, and
because of the size of the park and its potential, thine feel that in order to
advertise the product they have to sell, that a sign is almost a necessity,
especially since the sales portion of the park will be open until 8:00 or 9 :00 at
night.
No further discussion for or against the proposed Use Permit, Chairman
Pope declared the hearing closed.
Arroyo'Grande Planning Commission, 12-18-73 Page 2
Commissioner Gullickson stated it was his understanding that when the de-
veloper, Mr. Elliott, asked for approval of the temporary mobilehome sales lot, he
stated he would like to have a sign approximately 3' x 4 1- ., and the sign would not
be illuminated,
Director Gallop advised the consideration of the sign in the issuance of the
original Use Permit should not have been a consideration; that it was a statement
made by Mr. Ell,!ott and is in the minutes, but he didn't feel it is a basis for the
denial. He pointed out that in denying a Use Permit, the Commission must find a
basis causing detriment to the community. Commissioner Goulart also made reference
to Mr. Elliott's statement, and referred to the letter on file from Mrs. Rosa, the
adjoining property owner, and pointed out that the sign will be up in the alr and will
go over the top of the coaches, with a possibility it would be detrimental to the Rosa's
property.
Commissioner Jones stated the sign is a permissive use in the C -N District and
he feels it is a reasonable height, and that people should be able to advertise their
business.
Chairman Pope inquired if the use permit for the sign automatically
terminate with the Use Permit for the temporary mobilehome sales lot. Director
Gallop indicated that he feels it should be a condition of the Use Permit, in that
the sign would automatically terminate with the use of the sales lot. He further
pointed out that with reference to the Rosa property, that their building Is also
in the C -N District and they were fully aware of this fact when they purchased the
house.
After discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-324 U
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO. 73 -221.
On motion by Commissioner Calhoon, seconded by Commissioner Porter, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Calhoon, Jones and Porter
Commissioners Goulart, Gullickson and Chairman Pope
Commissioner Spierling
The foregoing Resolution was defeated for lack of a majority vote.
Mr. Anthony asked that if the problem seems to be the height of the sign,
he felt they would be willing to fluctuate the height to some extent,. and asked
the Commission for some indication of what would be an acceptable height.
After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner
Calhoon, and unanimously carried, it was agreed to reopen the public hearing.
After considerable discussion regarding acceptable height of the sign, the
following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 73 -329 U
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 'OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO. 73-221.
On motion by .Commissioner Gullickson, seconded by Commissioner Goulart,
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Goulart, Gullickson, Jones, Porter and
Chairman Pope
NOES: Commissioner Calhoon
ABSENT: Commissioner Splerling
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of December, 1973.
47
48
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, l2 -18773
Page 3
PUBL 8 C HEAR i NG - USE PERMIT CASE NO 73 -222, _ COQ S T RUCT i ON OF 'A in ARK i ,N9 LOT IN AN R-1
D O S T R O C T - 1050 SUNSET DROVE E ANK LAND Nil,
Director Gallop distributed sketches of, the proy�oaal, and advised that uru er
our Zoning Ordinance when an R -1 District abuts a Commercinl District, the commercial
off- street parking may be extended into the residential area by Use Permit procedure.
He advised that the proposed area would de =velop approximately 25 new parking spaces
in addition to what is already there by rearrangement and realignment of the parking
pattern. The proposal indicates access to and from Sunset Drive. on to the lot and on
to Grand Avenue, Director Gallop recommended that, if the permit is granted, a solid
fence be required on either side of the property line, 15° back from the property line;
and that a 3° fence be required within the 15' setback.
Upon being assured by Director Gallop that the public hearing for Use Permit
Case No. 73 had been duly posted, published and property owners notified, Chairman
Pope declared the hearing open.
Mr. Frank Landini, 530 San Luis Avenue, Pismo Beach, the petitioner, stated
the extension was basically planned for the employees of the businesses to take them off
the Existing parkhtg lot and strants. He pointed out the areas that would be landscaped
and that they would provide pedestrian walkways because quite a few people walk
through there to the stores. He further advised if there was some concern about
people speeding through the parking area, he would pint bumpers in to slow them down,
and he could also put a 10 miles per hour speed limit sign up.
On answer to Chairman Pope's question as to whether the access on Sunset
Drive was necessary, Mr. Landini stated he would like to try it and if problems were
created, the access on Sunset Drive could be blocked off. He further stated he didn't
foresee any problem as the traffic is going through there now even though it is sand,
Mr. Joe Crescione, Architect for the development, stated that in the process
of laying out the project, they wanted to make certain that the parking lot would be
a real asset to the community. He ad,ise.d that to the best of their knowledge the
access into Sunset Drive would be an asset and also would reduce traffic coming in
from the other street.
Mr. Charles Serafine, 1057 Sunset Drive, read a petition with 18 signatures
of residents on Sunset Drive opposing Mr. Landinis request to construct a parking
lot. He stated there i,s a serious drainage problem on their street and they feel
construction of the parking lot would seal the soil and cause further drainage
problems, and also cause traffic problems. Mr. .and .Mrs. ..Willi:am Baxter, w64 Sunset
Drive; Mr. Pete Ducca, 1045 Sunset Drive; Mr. Fred A. darks, 1057 Sunset Drive; I1r.
Robert Fernanberg, 1128 Sunset Drive; Mr. Howard Burke, 1085 Sunset Drive; and
Charlene Harp, 1055 Sunset Drive, were present and spoke in opposition to the Use
Permit being granted because of the drainage problems, traffic problems, devaluation
of their property, trash from the parking lot blowing Into their yards, and the
possibility of future business developments coming into the residential area.
No further discussion for or against the proposed Use Permit, Chairman Pope
declared the hearing closed.
Commissioner Celhoon moved to adopt a resolution granting the Use Permit
with no vehicular access from Sunset Drive; that the area be landscaped, and that
a 6° solid decorative type fence be placed on the perimeter of the proposed de-
velopment. Motion lost for lack of a second.
After further discussion, it was the general consensus of the Planning
Commission that the proposed use would create problems by increasing the traffic
flow on Sunset Drive, and by extending the business area into a residential area.
RESOLUTION NO. 73 -326 U
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CC0MM i SS i ON OF THE C O T Y
OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO. 73 -222.
On motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Gul l ickson, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Goulart, Guf i ckson, Jones and Chairman Pope
NOES: Commissioners Calhoun and Porter
ABSENT: Commissioner Spierling
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of December 1 973.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 12 -18 -73 Page 4
Chairman Pope informed the petitioner of his right to appeal the Planning
Commission's decision to the City Council.
DISCUSSOON RE: LOT SPLOT CASE NO. 71 -i47, PAOR OAKS AVENUE (1. BETOTA
Commissioner Jones requested clarification regarding the lot split granted
on the Betito property on Fair Oaks Avenue. He stated he ree lied that one of the
major items discussed was that there would only be one access on Fair Oaks Avenue.
Director Gallop :adv i s.ed there was drivew y tc. th Frent lot, and ,9 driveway to
the two rear lots. He further advised that the Planning Commission decision was
appealed to the City Council, and that he would research the files and provide in-
formation regarding this matter at the next Planning Commission meeting.
D O SCUSS O ON RE: A. C. PA's U NG
Commissioner Gullicksop'requested clarification as to the advantages and dis-
advantages of A.C. paving. D:i Gallop stated if the Commission wishes, he would
work with Public Works Director Anderson and develop a policy statement for the
Commission's adoption on certain types of f i n i s h e s to be applied to certain types of
uses recommended by the Public Works Director.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by Commissioner
Guilickson, seconded by Commissioner Goulart, and unanimously carried, the meeting was
adjourned at 8 :55 P.M., and the regular meeting of January 1, 1974 was cancelled.
ATTEST:
49