Loading...
PC Minutes 1971-03-02Arroyo Grande Planning Commission March 2, 1971 The Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Moss presidi Present are Commissioners Bowles, Nunes, Porter, St. Denis, Schultz and St'rother. Also in attendance are Mayor Levine, Councilwoman Thompson, Councilman Wood, City Administrator Butch and Planning Director Gallop. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Moss requested that the word "possible" be stricken from Resolution No. 71 -190 U, Item No. 6. On motion of Commissioner Nunes, seconded by Commissioner St. Denis, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the regular meeting of February 16th were approved as corrected. REPORT FROM COASTAL VALLEY PLANNING COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Commissioner Nunes reported on the March 1st meeting of the Coastal Valley Planning Council, advising that they had discussed the recent Seminar on mobilehome parks. With regard to the term of office of the Council Member at Large, it was noted that the term of office is set out to be a two year term in the Joint Powers Agree- ment, and that Mr. Keys had served one year of a two year term. Commissioner Nunes advised that the Council also went over the financial report to be submitted to the cities for:'the 1971 -72 budget, asking for a total a'f $825.00 to enable them to carry on with administrative services as in the past, and added $75.00 this year in order to plan for larger seminars than in the past because of the large turnouts. REVIEW - THE TRAILER HITCH, 1230 GRAND AVENUE, FREE STANDING SIGN Director Gallop advised that the owners of ."The Trailer Hitch" have agreed to have the outside 4 x 4 post of the new sign replaced with a pole to match the inside pole as soon as the contractor can do the work, which would be on or before March 12th. Director Gallop further advised that if the change is not made by March 12th, the matter could again be placed on the Agenda for review. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - RETAINING WALLS Director Gallop stated that the staff has recommended to the City Council that in the adoption of the Uniform Building Code, Volume 1, Chapter 70, which is the Grading Ordinance, an amendment be inserted to the effect that "any retaining 'wall exceeding 16" in height -shall be constructed of concrete or masonry ". After dis- cussion, on motion of Commissioner Nunes, seconded by Commissioner Bowles, and unanimously carried, that a recommendation be made to the City Council for the adoption of the Uniform Building Code, Volume 1, Chapter 70 "Grading Ordinance" with the amendment as recommended by staff. APPEAL OF REZONING CASE NO. 71 -43. GARDEN STREET (PACE) Director Gallop advised that Mr. Vick Pace has appealed the zone change denial by the Planning Commission to the City Council. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEETING Administrator Butch advised that a Housing and Community Development Meeting is scheduled in King City this Thursday, March 4th, which will be a one day seminar on housing requirements. THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED SESSION WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY MAYOR LEVINE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER PERTAINING TO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOM- MENDATION COUNCILMEN TALLEY AND SCHLEGEL ENTERED THE MEETING JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL - DISCUSSION OF GREEN BELT AND VARIDUS HOLDING ZONES. Chairman Moss pointed out that the original intent of the discussion was brought about by several recent requests for rezoning of RA zoned property to heavier density zones, and it was the feeling of the Planning Commission that they wanted to discuss this matter with the City Council to determine their feelings on the matter. Councilwoman Thompson stated it was her feeling that it is reasonable to re- quest a zone change when the property is abutting a similar zone. Chairman Moss stated he was concerned about the outlying developments such as Valley Gardens, Greenwood Manor, Pearwood and Rosewood, and the fact that the City is required to provide roads and services to these areas. 339 340 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3-2-71 Page 2 Director Gallop referred to the existing Land Use Map that he had_prepared and pointed out that in the Land Use Plan Element of the General Plan there are several statements discussing residential densities, and Statement B on Page 16 indicates "A" meaning low density agricultural. He further advised that we do have an agricultural district, but we do not have any land zoned agricultural in the City. Single family homes from 1 acre to 5 units per acre is considered "low density ". Any zonirg from R -1, R- A- B- 1, -B -2 or -B -3 is considered low Aensity zoning. He further advised that the .Plan .was ..adopted : 1966 updated :a year: ago w:ithout 'amendment; `.and':that there .has':not been any material change made in the basic land use of the City until_ about a year ago when the construction "boom" started, which has been coritinuing and is getting stronger every day. It has come to the point where R -1 building sites have practically disappeared, and if the City is to continue providing R -1 lots, it is going to have to be by rezoning land that is on the market or by subdivision of parcels. Chairman Moss remarked that this . is prime agricultural land and we are going to be using it up for homes instead of trying to preserve it. Councilman Talley stated he felt we should try to preserve the flat land, however, he doesn't think we can re- quire present owners to preserve it for us to hold the green belt for the rest of the City, and continue to pay the taxes on the land. - Director Gallop advised that he had talked to Mr. Rogoway, County Planning Director, who advised that it is impossible to create an agricultural preserve zone within an incorporated area under the present. law. Chairman Moss pointed out that the R -A -B -3 zoned area between the freeway and Greenwood Manor is highly productive land and an asset to the community, and he - felt this should stay R- A -B -3. Gommias'i'oner Porter stated that property zoned R -A -B -3 within the city limits. may not be an asset to the owner. Councilman Schlegel stated.it is a matter of economics; how can you ask a property owner to keep his property as green belt? Councilwoman Thompson stated it was her feelings that if people want to live in the green belt, they should live in the County because property is too expensive to maintain as green belt. With regard to a holding zone, Director Gallop advised that legally the City cannot adopt a true holding zone unless it is exclusive, which the County-can do. He further pointed out that any plan or ordinance must be flexible and must be amended periodically to keep it up with the current trends and demands. - Commissioner Strother stated he felt the reason for the requests for these subdivisions on the outskirts is probably because property is cheaper to develop out there, and he felt there are a number of lots in the City that could be built on. Commissioner Porter stated that developers, for example, can't pay $15,000 for R -1 acreage and develop it because the price of the homes would be beyond the ability of the people in this area. Councilman Schlegel maintained that regarding land within the City Limits, you cannot tell a property owner that he can't develop his property. Chairman Moss stated it would not be feasible for the City to service an outlying area with sewers, water, etc. He further stated it was his feeling that development of tfie parcel adjacent to Greenwood Manor would put a load on the City as far as roads, traffic, drainage, services,, etc. are concerned, and questioned whether the City could afford to let land be developed in that area that they have to provide services for. Councilman Schlegel pointed out that the developer has to bring the utilities out, and must develop the streets in the immediate area, and eventually the road in between is going to be improved by someone else. Councilman Talley stated That if we put the people out there, he felt the City would have to furnish a better road, and the City is not able to provide it. Commissioner Bowles pointed out that roads are partially improved with gas tax funds, and eventually the only way we can get the roads improved is with more revenue brought into the City. Director Gallop stated that, in his opinion, there are areas within the in- corporated limits of the City that are more desirable for development than others and it would appear from past Planning Commission and City Council actcons on annexations that there was the intent of accepting development within those areas, and because these areas have been incorporated, the Commission and Council' are going to have to consider this fact in more and more rezoning applications in,the future. If the periphery developments are continually turned down, the growth of the City will be materially or effectively stopped. Director Gallop advised that he has been developing an outline of a plan that he would like the Commission and Council to consider and, if it appears feasible, and if it is the desire of the Commission and Council, he would expand the idea into a plan for possible use in amending the General Plan of the City. 341 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -2 -71 Page 3 He also stated that he felt that in these areas being discussed, which are now being served by the City, that additional housing would help defray the costs which have already been imposed upon the City as a whole. He agreed that the roads would have to be upgraded but would not be upgraded to City standards, and this could be done at .a fairly minimum cost. At this point, Director Gallop was requested to outline his idea concerning controlling the .City growth. He indicated this was an idea which he had been working on for several months and had discussed it with the County .Planning Director, Mr. Rogoway, who had indicated he felt there was merit to the idea. The program would consist first of developing a peripheral line using basically. the existing city limits, but encompassing several of the small "islands" of County property, and defining this line as being the present growth pattern line of the City, and that no annexations beyond this line would be considered until such time that the present. incorporated area were developed to a 65% to 75% capacity. In connection with this line, the City would not extend any City services,. including water and sewage. This line would then stop present and past practices of exploitation of peripheral lands because of cheap price and possible development for annexation. Director Gallop indicated that Mr. Rogoway felt that the County Planning Commission would recog- nize such a program which would then have the effect of the County Planning Commission not approving subdivision or mobilehome park development,,or for that matter any de- velopment acre, within a reasonable distance of the line. There would have to be some recognition of the Oceano area, but again this. line could also be defined by the County. The City would have to then accept the fact that agricultural lands already incorporated into the City would one day be subject to development. Then, if the County were to rezone agricultural lands abutting the City in an A -2 or A -3 District and without the possibility of speculation, these lands would sooner or later have to be re- evaluated as agricultural lands and assessed accordingly. This appears to be the only potential method of protecting these valuable agricultural lands without preserve status, which the present owners are not entertaining because of the po- tential increase of assessment rather than the possibility of decreasing assessments. There are some methods whereby these peripheral lands can be put into green belt or open space status and still used agriculturally without being put into the agricultural preserve status. After further discussion, on motion of Commissioner Bowles, seconded by Commissioner Nunes, and unanimously carried, that Director Gallop prepare a report on the Development Line plan which he had outlined. Councilman Wood stated that he was the original developer of Greenwood Manor and the plan covered the whole property to be developed in increments. He further advised that since that time the property has been sold and the new owner is pro - prosing to take up where he left off, and he didn't see how the City can prevent improvements within the City boundaries. He added that there are very few lots available for residential construction today. DISCUSSION REGARDING MOBILE HOME PARK ON VALLEY ROAD With regard to the Mobile Home Park on Valley Road, Director Gallop reviewed the requirements of the Use Permit. With reference to report from the Citizens' Committee on the suggested mobile - home park requirements, the following action was taken. Item 1 requested a requirement for a 6 foot high masonry wall enclosing the entire mobilehome park with the exception of the area designated for a 4 foot decorative block wall. Director Gallop suggested that a cyclone type fence would serve the same purpose as a solid masonry wall from the standpoint of protection. It was also suggested that plantings be required along the fence, and Director Gallop suggested that the landscaping requirement be withheld until a copy of the lease agreement is received to see if it prohibits mobilehome owners from accumulat- ing junk on the property. After discussion, it was agreed to require a 6° high chain link fence installed to State specifications on the perimeter of the develop- ment where decorative block walls were not required. Regarding Item 2 of the Citizens Committee report covering parking require - ments, after discussion it was agreed that in addition to the two parking spaces required for each mobilehome unit that one additional parking space for each 7 units be provided in various areas of the park, not including spaces required for 342 Planning Commission, 3 -2 -71 Page 4 recreation facilities, or increase the width of the streets to 32' providing parking on one side of the street. Item No. 3 of the Citizens' Committee report requested rolled curbs and gutters on both sides of all streets. The Director of Public Works was not in favor of the use of rolled curbs and gutters, but stated he felt that the 18" inverted concrete section proposed by the developer would be adequate, except perhaps in some areas where additional protection would be required for drainage purposes, and this would be subject to his review of the drainage plan as covered by Item No. TO of the Use Permit. Item No. 4 suggests 5 ft. wide sidewalks to be constructed on each side of the street. After discussion, it was agreed to recommend 5 ft. sidewalks on both sides of the two main streets. Item No. 5 regarding mail boxes is to be decided by the Post Office Department. Item No. 6 suggesting ,a performance bond to be filed with the City will be re- ferred to the City Attorney for interpretation of the legality of requiring - such a bond. Item No. 7 suggests requirement for undergrounding of all on-site utilities. It was pointed out by Director Gallop that this is a requirement of the Ordinance, but that it could be reiterated in the Use Permit. Item No. 8 regarding requirement for all mobilehomes to be skirted with commercial skirting material, Director Gallop stated this requirement is usually written into the lease agreement. He further recommended that under Item 22 of Resolution No. 71 -187 U, submission and review of a copy of the lease agreement be included. Item No. 9 regarding patios was not made a requirement, subject to reviewing the lease agreement. Item No. 10 regarding trash collection areas was considered, and it was agreed that this matter would also be subject to review and approval of final plans by the Planning Commission, and review of the lease agreement. Items No. 11 and 12 regarding condition of mobilehomes and landscaping of the park were also to be covered under Item #22 of the Use Permit. Item No. 13 regarding drainage facilities is covered under Item No. 10 of the Use Permit. Item No. 14 regarding the minimum age of park residents; it was that this matter would be left to the developer's choice. Item No. 15 suggests a requirement for a minimum depth of 80 ft. and a minimum width of 50 feet for each mobile home space. Director Gallop advised that our Ordinance does not require minimum width. The City has set a maximum . number of units that the developer can place in the park to control the density and open space standards, and the developer should be permitted sufficient latitude to provide smaller spaces for the smaller units. After discussion, it was agreed that the minimum lot size of 40' has already been required and no change in the Use Permit would be necessary. The requirement for street lights was discussed and Administrator Butch advised that P.G.&E. normally recommend 200' spacing on street. lights. After discussion it was agreed that a 400 watt street light would be required at the main intersection, and one 175 watt street light be recommended at the north and south end of the development, making a total of three street lights. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, Chairman Moss declared the meeting adjourned at 10 :50 P.M. ATTEST: Secretary Chairman