PC Minutes 1971-09-21Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
September 21, 1971
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Schultz
presiding. Present are Commissioners Berryhill, Bowles, Jones, Nunes and St, Denis.
Commissioner Porter is absent. Also in attendance are Councilwoman Thompson, City
Administrator Butch, City Attorney Shipsey and Planning Director Gallop.
MINUTE APPROVAL
Commissioner Bowles corrected the minutes of the regular meeting of September 7,
1971, Page 2, Resolution No. 71 -211 U to read "On motion of Commissioner Bowles ", and
thereafter on motion of Commissioner Bowles, seconded by Commissioner Nunes, and
unanimously carried, the minutes of the regular meeting of September 7, 1971 were
approved as corrected.
DETERMINATION OF USE - EQUIPMENT RENTAL CENTER IN THE FREEWAY SERVICE DISTRICT
II/ Director Gallop advised that the request is for a determination as to whether an
equipment rental service would be permissive in the Freeway Service District, and that
the property involved is the old service station on the inside radius on Traffic Way.
He further advised that the petitioner indicated he would be using and probably upgrad-
ing existing buildings. Director Gallop pointed out that similar uses are permitted in
this District, however, not specifically this type of business.
Mr. Ted Gibbs, the petitioner, was present and advised that approximately 50%
of the available square footage would be used for outside storage of equipment, and the
balance would be used for traffic islands and off - street parking. He further advised
that with regard to fencing of the area, they plan a rolling gate 30 feet in length and
a complete perimeter chain - 1ink'. fence. Mr. Gibbs indicated that the type of rental
service would be for the home owner, contractor or rancher, and that the largest piece
of equipment would probably be a U -Haul Van, approximately 16 feet in length. Mr. Gibbs
stated there would be no major alteration to the site, in that they would utilize the
buildings that are there now, that the existing gas pumps would be removed, and that in
time, if merited, they would make arrangements to purchase the property and would un-
doubtedly erect new buildings. Mr. Gibbs pointed out that as far as rental yard
operation is concerned, they would provide the required off - street parking, but that
normally people drive into the yard to pick up their equipment, make the circle and
drive out.
COMMISSIONER PORTER ENTERED THE MEETING
Director Gallop pointed out that, generally speaking, economics go along in
determining land use, and that this property is not adjacent to or oriented to the
Freeway. He indicated that this is one of the areas that is going to be recommended
for a zone change to Highway Service in view of the topography and location with reference
to the freeway. It was the opinion of the Commission in general that this type business
would be better suited in the H -S District and Director Gallop advised that this is a
permissive use in the H -S District, subject to Use Permit procedure, and felt that per-
haps an alternate would be to recommend the petitioner filing a zone change on the
property to H -S District. Mr. Gibbs explained to the Commission why he would be un-
able to wait the 120 days required from the date of filing a zone change until the
effective date.
After discussion, on motion of Commissioner Berryhill, seconded by Commissioner
Nunes, and unanimously carried, that an equipment rental service in the F -S District
would not be a permissive use.
PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO 71 -176 SANTA MARIA NEON AGENTS FOR STANDARD
COMPANY, GRAND AVENUE AND HIGHWAY 101 - FREE STANDING SIGN
Director Gallop advised the request is to erect a new sign replacing an existing
sign, to be erected in the undeveloped portion in front of the station on Grand Avenue.
Director Gallop further advised that when Grand Avenue was redeveloped, the station
acquired some additional property in front of the station, and that the existing sign
is presently located in the corner of the property adjacent to the freeway. The original
sign was erected in January 1964 and, unfortunately, there is nothing in the file to in-
dicate what the plan was. However, Mr. Butch stated that the Standard Oil Company I liad
made an agreement to landscape this area when Grand Avenue was redeveloped and, in ,view
of the requirements placed on other stations, this area certainly should be considered
for landscaping purposes.
Upon being assured by Director Gallop that public hearing for Use Permit Case
No 71-176, Free Standing.. Sign, at Grand Ayenpe and Highway 101, had been duly posted,
published and property owners ?man. Schultz declared the hearing open.
36.9
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 9 -21 -71 Page 2
Mr. Gene Laird, Santa Maria Neon, stated that the Standard Oil Company definitely
has plans for remodeling this station, and from information he has, this remodeling
probably won't take place for six months. He understands that the Standard Oil Company
plans to remodel this station and install another pump island in the front, with land-
scaping in that area, and they are now changing over all of their signs to the new type
of sign.
No further discussion for or against the proposed Use Permit, Chairman Schultz
declared the hearing closed.
City Administrator Butch recalled that in 1963, just prior to granting the Use
Permit, representatives from the City met with the Division of Highways and Standard
Oil people, and at that time Standard .Oil indicated that if and when Grand Avenue was
realigned, they would pursue remodeling and landscaping immediately.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 71 -213 U
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO.
71 -176.
On motion of Commissioner St. Denis, seconded by Commissioner Berryhill, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Berryhill, Bowles, Jones, Nunes, Porter, St. Denis
and Schultz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21st day of September, 1971.
ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF GARDEN STREET NORTH OF IDE ST. - LOT SPLIT CASE #71 -141.
Director Gallop advised that parcel map for the division of property recently re-
zoned R -1 on the easterly side of. Garden Street, between Myrtle and the Arroyo Grande
Creek was approved by the Lot Split Committee. In considering the matter, it was
determined that the Garden Street right -of -way north of Ide Street was of no value to
the City for future circulation needs. If the Commission feels that this portion of
the street north of Ide Street should be abandoned and returned to the tax rolls, it
should be referred to the City Council for proper disposition. Director Gallop further
advised that, if approved, the design of the street should be engineered to provide
adequate access to the corner parcel of property of the lot split. The abandonment- -
actually amounts to a street closure and abandonment of unnecessary land beyond that
closure point. The Committee recommendation is that no buildings be permitted, but
that the property be maintained for an easement for drainage purposes, public utility
easement, etc.
After discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 71 -214
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING STREET CLOSURE AND ABANDONMENT
OF A PORTION OF GARDEN STREET NORTH OF IDE STREET,
On motion of Commissioner Nunes, seconded by Commissioner Berryhill, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Berryhill, Bowles, Jones, Nunes, Porter, St. Denis
and Chairman Schultz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21st day of September, 1971.
REQUESTED STREET ABANDONMENTS
Director Gallop advised that two items came to the Planning Director too late to
be included in the agenda; (1) a request that a portion of Arroyo Avenue be either
vacated or maintained by the City, and,(2) recommendation for the closure and vacation
of the easterly portion of Harrison Street -: On motion by Commissioner Bowles, seconded
by Commissioner Nunes, and unanimously carried, that the foregoing items be considered
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 9 -21 -71 Page 3
as non - agenda items.
Director Gallop advised the first item is a request from Mrs. Verdi Mills. The
property in question is indicated on the large map on display. The piece of property
at one time was a part of Arroyo Avenue, which was cut off when the freeway went through
this area. This property has been used for some years as an easement to the property
at the back, which has since been acquired by Mrs. Mills and is now all one piece.
Director of Public Works Anderson has advised there are no existing utilities in the area
and has recommended that this property be abandoned and vacated to .the adjacent property
owner since it is of no value to the City.
After discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 71 -215
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING ABANDONMENT OF A
PORTION OF ARROYO AVENUE.
On motion of Commissioner St. Denis, seconded by Commissioner Jones, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Berryhill, Bowles, Jones, Nunes, Porter, St. Denis
and Chairman Schultz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21st day of September, 1971.
Director Gallop advised that the second item of abandonment is a portion of
Harrison Street, a one block long street which is located between LePoint and Crown
Hill, between McKinley and Corbett Canyon Road. Mr. Rooker, owner of the property,
wishes to develop the property facing on Corbett Canyon Road and, therefore, he bought
that first key lot for access purposes. Director Gallop pointed out that Harrison
Street is quite high and is a paper street which intersects with Corbett Canyon Road
and, if it were built, would create three intersections all within a matter of 400 +
feet. In addition, Harrison Street is quite high and would require an exceedingly
deep cut, and would provide marginal vision insofar as Corbett Canyon Road traffic is
concerned. In attempting to resolve access problems to the subject property, and be-
cause of the limited number of potential building sites, Director Gallop advised that
the staff feels the most reasonable method of resolving the problem would be to close
Harrison Street and create a cul-de-sac. He further advised that Mr. Rooker is aware
of this recommendation and has accepted it as being a method whereby he can develop
his properties.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 71 -216
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING STREET CLOSURE AND
ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF HARRISON STREET
On motion of Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner Berryhill, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Berryhill, Bowles, Jones, Nunes, Porter, St. Denis
and Chairman Schultz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21st day of September, 1971.
PHILADELPHIA TIRE RECAP SHOP - REFERRAL FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
Director Gallop advised he apparently misunderstood the referral from the City
Council, and that the City Council did uphold the. Planning Commission action in the
denial of the Use Permit, He further explained that the Council referred the matter
back to the Commission for consideration of the requirement that the premises be:
vacated within 90 days and, in effect, it nullified the 90 day time limit, Resolution
No. 71 -209 U.
3
.1
37
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 9 -21 -71 Page 4
Director Gallop advised that apparently the decision before the Commission now
is to determine that either the existing Use Permit is still valid and, if so, whether
the Commission wants to "live" with it, or commence revocation proceedings.
City Attorney Shipsey stated he had advised the Council that in spite of the fact
that they did rule with the Planning Commission as well as they could, in his opinion,
the old Use Permit still exists because our Ordinance spells out a specified procedure
by which a Use Permit could be revoked, and this requires written notice to the holder
of the Use Permit; this is a strict procedure we have to follow and, for this reason,
he felt that the old Use Permit was still in existence. The City Council then referred
the matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration, following the procedure in
the Ordinance to revoke the Use Permit. Mr. Shipsey pointed out that the Council revokes
the Use Permit, but before Council consideration of revocation of any Use Permit, the
Planning Commission must hold a public hearing. Director Gallop inquired if this was the
only route the Commission could go, or if they could still consider the existing Use Permit
and enforcement of that permit. Mr. Shipsey indicated, in his opinion, they could stFll
consider the existing Use Permit and enforcement of that permit.
Mr. James M. Duenow, attorney representing the Tire Company, stated that from a
legal standpoint, in his opinion, the action taken the last time was invalid. The
Ordinance requires that the Commission make findings and recommendations for revocations.
He advised that in addition to the two alternatives previously stated, another alterna-
tive would be adding to, changing or modifying the existing Use Permit. He further
stated that the complaints sound more like complaints regarding nuisance, and he wou Td
request that at the hearing the Commission have specific findings, and if the Commission
is going to listen to complaints on noise, smell, dust, etc. it seems this should be
abated by nuisance. He explained the reason he is bringing this up is that there is
another section in the Ordinance stating that if new evidence is brought up at the City
Council hearing, they can refer the matter back to the Commission.
Mr. Duenow advised that testing of the pollution problem is being made by the Air
Pollution Control District but, unfortunately, the only equipment to do this is at
Cal Poly and it has to be done as a class project, and the earliest date they can do
the testing is October 20th, and that the nearest time for a report after the testing
would be ten days. He further pointed out that this Use Permit is being treated as a
'nuisance in guise of violations of the Use Permit. He requested consideration of (1)
whether the Commission would, at that time, consider any amendments or modifications
of the Use Permit; (2) that the Commission make findings on specific violations of the
Use Permit; and (3) whether the Commission would schedule the hearing to give the
Company time to have this evidence in time for the Commission to hear it.
Chairman Schultz inquired of Mr. Shipsey that if a hearing is held, can the exist-
ing Use Permit be amended or modified. Mr. Shipsey advised he would have to look this
up.
Mr. Duenow pointed out that, in his opinion, one of the complaints, which is
noise, is not a condition in the Use Permit, and it would seem that on any consider-
ation for revocation, we have to get this in the condition of specific findings so
they would be in a position to get specific changes. The noise, etc., would come
under abatement of nuisances.
Commissioner Berryhill referred to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 24, General
Provisions, Sec. 94 -2404, as follows: ... "in addition to the criteria for determining
whether or not a use permit should be issued as set forth in Article 31 hereof, the
Planning Commission shall consider the following additional factors to determine that
the characteristics of the listed uses will not be unreasonably incompatible with uses
permitted in the surrounding areas. 1) Damage or nuisance from noise, smoke, odor,
dust or vibration; 2). Hazard from explosion, contamination or fire; 3) Hazard occasioned
by unusual volume of character of traffic of the congregating of a large number of
people or vehicles... ". Commissioner Berryhill expressed his opinion that if the
Commission is to consider these conditions in issuing a Use Permit, they would certainly
have to consider the same conditions in revocation of a permit. Mr. Shipsey stated this
was his opinion and he felt it would be proper for the Commission to hear nuisance com-
plaints.
After further discussion, on motion of Commissioner Porter, seconded by
Commissioner Nunes, motion carried with one "no" vote, that public hearing to consider
possible revocation of Use Permit Case No. 67 -104, Philadelphia Tire Recap Shop, 111
Alder Street, be set at 7:45 P.M., October 19, 1971.
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 9 -21 -71
ATTEST:
Secretary
g,
Page 5
Commissioner Nunes requested that Mr. Shipsey prepare a report for the Commission,
preferably by the 5th of October, explaining what the Commission can or cannot do with
a Use Permit once it has been issued.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, Chairman Schultz declared
the meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M.
3'3