Loading...
PC Minutes 1972-06-20424 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission June 20, 1972 The Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Schultz pre - siding. Present are Commissioners Berryhill, Jones, Nunes, Porter and St. Denis. Commissioner Bowles is absent, Also in attendance are Mayor Schlegel and Planning Director Gallop, MINUTE APPROVAL On motion of Commissioner Berryhill, seconded by Commissioner Nunes, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of May 16, 1972 were approved as prepared. DEVELOPMENT PLAN #3 - LINDA DRIVE Director Gallop reviewed Development Plan #3, stating it had been adopted in March 1969 after the required public hearing. In the past few years there have been a number of property changes in the area which may warrant some changes in the plan. He pointed out that recently a letter had been received from the residents of Linda Drive requesting reconsideration of the Plan, stating their main concern was truck traffic on a residential street. Director Gallop noted that the staff has reviewed the matter twice recently and have prepared a report, which he briefly reviewed. He further pointed out two steps the Commission could take: (1) either reiterate . the adoption of the plan, or (2) ask for a staff redrafting of the Plan and a new public hearing, with the possibility of adopting a new plan to take the place of the one now in use, Director Gallop pointed out that a Development Plan is not a legal document and is merely a guide line to staff, Commission, and property owners as to how property may be developed to provide maximum and best use of the property. Director Gallop pointed out that, in considering the original plan, it seemed reasonable to extend Cornwall through to Linda, and bring Bennett Avenue around to an intersection, opening up several parcels of property. Director Gallop advised that in looking at the Plan, the staff (Fire Chief, Director of Public Works and himself) felt that when Linda Drive was approved as a deadend street, it was done so with the anticipation it would someday be extended; and the staff would not recommend approval of any subdivision today without provisions for a cul -de -sac. If Bennett Ave, and Linda were terminated and cul -de- sac °d, provisions for continuation of utilities and drainage would have to be made in the way of easement, Mrs. Linda Sheppard, Linda Drive, stated the residents of Linda Drive are very much concerned with the future plans, and their primary concern is for the safety of the children on the street, Mrs. Bryant, 1120 Linda Drive, stated she would strongly protest the present plan, and indicated that Mr. and Mrs. Archie Green and Mr, and Mrs. Carter, also residents of Linda Drive, were unable to attend the meeting, but had requested that she convey their protests to the Plan, Mr. Richard Coffee, 1110 Linda Drive stated he felt the plan would result in quite an increase in traffic on Linda Drive, Mr. Roy Burke, 971 Bennett Avenue, stated there is a lot of Commercial property surrounding these homes, and he would like to see the plan left as it is until further study, and possibly the street could be restricted to certain types of vehicles. He expressed his opinion that this property is going to develop sometime in the near future. Mr. Ray Scott, Linda Drive, stated that putting the street through is bound to increase traffic, and he would be in favor of a cul -de -sac on Linda Drive and Bennett Avenue. There is quite a grade coming down off of Linda, and he felt cars would travel too fast for a residential street. Mr. Carol Pruett, 1026 Grand Avenue, stated he felt the Development Plan should continue as previously adopted, in that there are several large parcels of property involved that will not be too usable unless they are opened up. He further stated there are many acres zoned for Planned Industrial development, and the taxes are such to demand that the property be utilized. Mr. Walter Filer, 1015 Grand Avenue, stated that during the past few years the traffic on Grand Avenue has been increased several times over, and he felt this was an important issue; all of the people on the hill have to come down to Grand Avenue to get around town, and also that there are children living on all streets in the City, and it is up to the parents to look after them, and he felt this street should be opened up. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -20 -72 Page 2 Mrs. Marks, Linda Drive, stated that Grand Avenue is the main street of the City and was supposed to take a lot of traffic, but that children do play on residential streets, Mr, Ward Sheldon, 1106 Grand Avenue, stated streets were not improved as playgrounds; but were improved to take care of vehicular traffic. Mr, John Bryant, 1120 Linda Drive, stated he was in favor of a cul-de-sac at the end of Linda Drive, Mr, Fred Marks, 1198 Linda Drive, advised they considered the deadend street when they purchased their property on Linda, and he couldn't see any advantage to opening it up through this residential area, and he felt the property values would decrease if this were opened up. Mr, Marvin Hartwig, 1026 Grand Avenue, stated that the whole community should be considered as far as traffic flow is concerned, and traffic flow is acute in this area. COMMISSIONER BOWLES ENTERED THE MEETING DURING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION. Director Gallop advised that the plan is desirable for circulation purposes and continuation of utilities, but not absolutely necessary because both streets could be terminated in a cul -de -sac. The cul -de -sac would have to be paid for by the owners of the property who are developing it. The staff feels that the only other way that the street could be cul- de -sac'd would be for the Linda Drive property owners to purchase the property and put in the cul -de -sac. Commissioner Berryhill expressed concern about carrying commercial traffic through a residential street such as Linda Drive, and pointed out the problem of having a small residential area completely surrounded by a commercial district. After discussion by the Commission, on motion by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner Berryhill, motion carried with two "no" votes and one abstention, that Development Plan #3 be returned to staff for further study and recommendations. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Nunes, seconded by Commissioner Berryhill, and unanimously carried, that a public hearing be set for July 18th for the Linda Drive Development Plan, PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 72 -194 WAREHOUSE AND STORAGE YARD, 111 ALDER STREET (ROBERT F. FOLKERTS) Director Gallop noted that the request is to use an existing warehouse as a distributing warehouse for the Dr. Pepper Co, He stated he was advised by Mr. Folkerts that they plan on using the warehouse for loading and unloading of trucks, which will all be done inside of the building, and they would be using the outside storage area for empty bottles and cases. This proposed storage area is surrounded on three sides by structures and would not be visible from Grand Avenue or Alder Street, and very limited vision from Halcyon Road, Director Gallop further advised that a lot split had been approved on the triangular portion south of the ware- house and, if the Use Permit is granted, he felt the lot split should first be re- corded. Upon being assured by Director Gallop that public hearing for Use Permit Case No. 72 -194 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Schultz declared the hearing open. Mrs. Allen, 169 Alder Street, was present and objected to the Use Permit being granted, stating she felt Alder Street was not wide enough for a trucking operation. Ralph Richards, 151 Alder Street, stated this was not a proper location for a warehouse, and pointed out that old mattresses, davenports and cartons from the furniture store are stored on _he property and no effort is made to clean it up, and the fence is now broken down and everything is exposed. He further stated, in his opinion, the street doesn't lend itself to a commercial operation. Mr, Matthew Gallagher, Leanna Drive presented pictures taken on June 3rd depicting the situation at the present location of the Dr. Pepper warehouse., He further stated he felt the noise level would be intolerable for the people who live in the area„ Mrs. Lois Martin, 168 Alder Street, objected to the trucks turning out on to Alder Street, stating the street is not wide enough for trucks. Mr, Robert .Folkerts, petitioner, was present and stated he donated property for the street and it was a 60' right -of -way; that he had improved the street and set his sidewalks on his own property, and it wasn't his fault if the street is too narrow, Mr, Folkerts further advised there will be no trucks parked on the street whatsoever; all trucks will be parked inside the building at night, with the exception of one truck that might be parked there at night. The building was built for a warehouse, and he advised he asked for a lot split and he will include parking with the property. He advised the mattresses and couches are left in the back and are generally gone the next day, and that the 425 4.26 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -20 -72 Page 3 reason the company is going to move is because they couldn °t keep their merchandise inside the building in the present location, Mr. Charles Parker, Sales Manager for Canada Dry Bottling Company, stated he would have four drivers, one loader and himself, and the main reason they are looking for a bigger location is so that they can get everything inside. He noted they start work at 8 :00 A.M., at which time all three trucks will roll out, and there will be a semi coming in anywhere from 11:00 a.m. until 3 :00 p.m. in the afternoon and will be put inside for loading. He further stated they do not work Saturdays or Sundays, and the bottle sorting is done in the afternoon, and only the loading inside the building is done in the evening. Mr. Folkerts stated he had talked with surrounding property owners, Mrs. Keeseman, Mrs. Nunn, Mrs, Dougherty, and the people who own the theater, and they had no objections to the use. Director Gallop read a. letter from Mrs. Elise Pfeffer, 166 Alder Street, stating she was opposed to the Use Permit being granted for various reasons. Mrs. Davies stated she lives across the street and is opposed to the noise, and also objects to the trucks coming down the narrow street. Mr. Gallagher stated there will be hundreds of empty bottles stored with unused syrups in them, and thought this might present a health problem. He also felt there would be a problem of noise and possible fire hazard with cardboard cartons and wooden boxes. Mrs. Allen pointed out that the warehouse was built primarily for a furniture warehouse, Mr. E. W. Allen, 169 Alder Street, questioned how they are going to get the trucks in and out, and stated he felt it would create a traffic problem. No further discussion for or against the proposed Use Permit, Chairman Schultz declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Berryhill noted that in the Highway Service District of the Zoning Ordinance under "Uses Permitted ", there isn't any use listed similar to this one. Director Gallop advised that the Commission has the right to elaborate in the Highway Service District to similar uses. With reference to the outside storage, Director Gallop indicated that the original intent was aimed at public utilities storage of equipment, etc., and if the Commission wishes to include storage of merchandise, this is something else. Chairman Schultz pointed out that if the Use Permit is granted, then the Fire Chief would make recommendations to the petitioners as to what has to be done to comply with fire regulations. After further discussion the following action was taken; RESOLUTION NO. 72 -251 U RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO. 72 -194. On motion of Commissioner St. Denis, seconded by Commissioner Jones, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Bowles, Jones, Porter, St. Denis and Chairman Schultz NOES: Commissioners Berryhill and Nunes ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of June 1972. ,PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CASE NO, 72 -61, LA BELLE TRACT, HWY, 101, R -A -B-3 TO - H -S DISTRICT (A.,DOKO). Director Gallop advised this request is similar to the one that has been held over. He pointed out that there is no existing public right -of -way through or from the south end of the property, and the area is presently zoned R- A -B -3. Director Gallop advised that the Land Use Plan for this area is not noted for commercial use, and the only way Commercial could be put in here, under the present Land Use Plan, would be through Planned Development, utilizing various uses combined in one development. In other words, if we had Planned Development approved, Commercial could be approved as a part of it. Approval of this zone change would be in violation of the Land Use Plan as adopted. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -20 =72 Page 4 Upon being assured by Director Gallon that public hearing for Rezoning Case No. 72 -61 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Schultz declared the hearing open. In answer to Mrs. Bentley's question as to how much property is involved in the rezoning, Director Gallop advised there were approximately 9 acres and, in addition, it has very limited public access from a public right -of -way from the north. If the frontage road is constructed, it is going to be quite expensive. He noted that at the present time the property is isolated, and it is questionable whether it would be spot zoning or not. He again noted that unavailability of public access and the Land Use Plan are basic reasons for recommending against the rezoning, Mr. Ward Sheldon, representing the petitioner, stated he was concerned with the assumption that no public access could be provided, and advised there.is public access to the west. With regard to the expense of making a public right -of -way acceptable to the City, he stated this was not the Planning Director's decision. He further stated this property was incorporated in the Land Use Plan as a high density area and to his knowledge, has been a construction yard for about 20 years. He pointed out that in Mr. Doko °s petition he cited that the property is in no way a desirable location for either high or low density residential property, and the idea of the Plan is to see that the land in the area is used to the best advantage. Mr. Walter Filer stated he was speaking for Mr. Al Browne, adjacent property owner, who is in the hospital and unable to attend the meeting. He also stated that two of the other property owners close to this property had also asked Mr. Browne to speak for them - Lovasz and the Bolton family. Mr. Filer read a letter from Mr. Browne stating objections to the rezoning on the basis of spot zoning and no de- velopment plan being submitted. Mr. Browne °s letter stated he would go along with any recommendations by City staff. - Mr. Jerry Weaver, Attorney representing Mr, and Mrs. Lawler, stated it is not a problem of spot zoning, and requested that the Commission give consideration to changing the General Plan in this regard. He pointed out the property in question is not conducive at all to residential development and requested the Commission make a recommendation to the City Council to change the Land Use Plan. Chairman Schultz noted that the General Plan has to be brought before the Planning Commission for review before the end of the year, and if the Commission feels it should be changed, it could be considered at that time. Mr. Ward Sheldon stated that if it was the Planning Director's knowledge that this was the procedure that had to be followed and, since the petitioner is re- quired to post a $75.00 fee to put his petition before the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission at this time could take no action, he felt the petitioner should have been advised of the legal aspects and the fact that the Commission would not be able to consider the rezoning, he felt the filing fee should be returned to the petitioner. Mr. Jerry Weaver stated he also felt the City had a moral obli- gation to return the filing fee to the petitioners. Director Gallop stated with reference to Mr. Lawler °s filing for the zone change, he had never spoke to Mr. Lawler or his attorney concerning the matter. He did speak to the realtor with reference to R -3 zoning, but not H-S zoning. With reference to Mr. Sheldon °s statement, Director Gallop stated he had discussed the matter with him briefly prior to filing, but stated he never recommends against filing a petition if the petitioner feels he wishes to do so. No further discussion for or against the proposed zone change, Chairman Schultz declared the hearing closed. Mr.Sheldon requested that the statement be worded not as a denial but worded to the effect that inasmuch as the Commission is unable to act at this time and that the petitions be resubmitted following the revisions of the General Land Use Plan at some future date. After further discussion, the following action was taken: 427 428 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -20-72 Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 72 - 252 Z A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 21 OF SAID CODE. On motion of Commissioner Nunes, seconded by Commissioner Bowles, and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Bowles, Berryhill, Jones, Nunes, Porter, St. Denis and Chairman Schultz NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of June, 1972. CONTINUATION - REZONING CASE NO. 72-60 LAWLER PROPERTY, HIGHWAY 101, R -A -B-3 TO H -S DISTRICT. In view of the action taken on the preceeding Rezoning Case No. 72-61, Mr. Jerry Weaver, Attorney for the petitioners Mr. and Mrs. Lawler, requested the Commission make the same motion because of inability to act at this time,and, after further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 72-253 Z A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 21, OF SAID CODE. On motion of Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner Berryhill, and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Bowles, Berryhill, Jones, Nunes, Porter, St. Denis and Chairman Schultz NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of June, 1972. REQUEST FROM MARVIN K. HARTWIG RE: PROPERTY VACATED BY SAN LUIS OBISPO SAVINGS AND LOAN. 1119 GRAND AVENUE. Director Gallop reviewed that in May, 1972 an extension for the temporary facility of San Luis Obispo Savings and Loan Association at 1119 Grand Avenue was granted by the Commission. One of the conditions of the extension was that the improvements which were placed there be removed. A letter has been received from Mr. Hartwig, owner of the property, requesting that the planter be allowed to re- main after the Savings and Loan firm's lease expires. After discussion the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 72 -254 U RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 72-249 U, USE PERMIT CASE NO. 69 -121. On motion of Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Porter, and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Bowles, Berryhill, Jones, Nunes, Porter, St. Denis and Chairman Schultz NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of June, 1972. REQUEST FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION FOR PERMISSION TO OPERATE A WEEKEND FLEA MARKET AND RETAIL STORE. 15 2 GRAND AVENUE (,BAKER AND KYSER). Chairman Schultz advised that MI. Baker had previously been advised that he did not have to attend the meeting when the request was originally discussed and, Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 Page 6 therefore, he was not present at the time the Commission denied the request. Director Gallop advised it was his impression that the feeling of the Commission was that the proposed use would not be in keeping with the intent of the District or proposed uses of the area. This is a Neighborhood Commercial or C -N District and the determination would have to be made by the Commission of whether this is a permissive use in the C -N District and if so, under what conditions, Mr. Gerald Baker stated their intentions were for a Saturday and Sunday oper- ation only, with a retail business in the front building. He advised the property used to be an old lumber yard and they plan to install doors on the stalls, erect a wood fence around the area and would probably black top the area where they would be running the swap meet. Commissioner Berryhill stated that in reviewing the purpose of the C°N District, there seemed to be no way a flea market could be included in the District. After discussion, on motion of Commissioner Nunes, seconded by Commissioner Jones, motion carried with one abstention, that the request to allow for a weekend flea market in a C -N District be denied. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF OPTIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS - HILLTOP DEVELOPERS INC. Director Gallop noted that the property involved is a 13 acre parcel directly across the road from Valley Gardens Subdivision and south of the "Davis House ", and was recently approved for a zone change from R -A -B -3 to R -1 District. He further pointed out that there is a definite drainage problem on the property and the developer will have to provide a channel through this property to take care of all the water that is generated above him. Under the Optional Design Standards in the Subdivision Ordinance, it is permissive, with the approval of the Commission, to reduce lot size up to 4500 sq. ft., or one - fourth of the 6,000 square feet, recognizing this problem. Mr. Gallop advised that on 13 acres, he would have approximately 75 lots permissive under normal R -1 development, and even with the Optional Design Standards, very few lots are going to be smaller than a standard R-1 development. The problem is develop- ing the property and accepting the water. After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner St. Denis, and unanimously carried, that the request from Hilltop Developers, Inc., for approval of Optional Design Standards of the Subdivision Ordinance be granted for that 13 acre parcel of property immediately east of Valley Gardens Subdivision and south of the Davis house. LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 71 -147 - M. BETITA Director Gallop advised that an amendment to Resolution No. 72 -245, Item No. 2, is required in order that the map can be filed. He clarified that the amendment should read "access road be granted as part of Parcels B and C as flag lots with an easement to Parcel A." After discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 72 -255 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 72 -245, LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 71 -147. On motion of Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Nunes, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Jones, Nunes, Porter, St. Denis and Chairman Schultz. NOES: Commissioner Berryhill ABSTAIN: Commissioner Bowles ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of June, 1972. DISCUSSION RE ENFORCEMENT OF USE PERMITS Commissioner Berryhill inquired as to whose responsibility it is to enforce the conditions placed on Use Permits, and cited Netto ° s Car Lot and Red Top Garage as two cases of Use Permit violations. Director Gallop advised that he has pretty much assumed the responsibility for enforcing Use Permits. With regard to Netto ° s Car Lot, he advised there was a problem in that the property was for sale and at the time the Use Permit was granted, the property was in escrow, and they didn't want to put the investment into it at that time, and it appears now that the sale is not 4.29 430 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -2O -72 Page 7 going to go through. With regard to the Red Top Garage, Director Gallop advised he must meet with requirements of the Building Code before the Use Permit is in force. He noted the petitioner has been in the office numerous times trying to get the Building Department to design his job for him. He has applied for a business license, which has not been approved, and the City Attorney refuses to take action because he does not have a business license. After discussion, on motion of Commissioner Bowles, seconded by Commissioner Berryhill, and unanimously carried, that a recommendation be made to the City Council to request an investigation of non - compliance of Use Permit and violation of the Business License requirements. PRESENTATION OF NAME PLATES Director Gallop presented Chairman Schultz and Commissioner Bowles with their name plates and thanked them for their assistance while serving on the Planning Commission. Chairman Schultz thanked members of the Planning Commission and staff for their participation and cooperation. REUQ,EST FOR PERMISSION TO BE ABSENT Commissioner St. Denis requested permission to be absent from June 23rd to July 15th. Permission granted by Chairman Schultz. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, Chairman Schultz declared the meeting adjourned at 11 :05 P.M. ATTEST: Secretary