Loading...
PC Minutes 1971-01-053322_' Planning Commission January 5, 1971 The Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Moss presiding. Present are Commissioners Bowles, Nunes and Strother. Commissioners Porter and St. Denis are absent. One vacancy exists ;:on the Commission. Also in attendance are Councilman Talley, City Administrator Butch and Planning Director Gallop. MINUTE APPROVAL On motion of Commissioner Nunes, seconded by Commissioner Bowles, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the regular meeting of December 15, 1970 were approved as pre- pared. COMMISSIONERS PORTER. AND ST. DENIS ENTERED THE MEETING REPORT FROM COASTAL VALLEY PLANNING COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Commissioner St. Denis advised that at the Coastal Valley Planning Council meeting held Monday, January 4th, progress of the suggested street name changes thathad been -presented to Pismo Beach, Grover City,. Arroyo Grande, and the County was discussed and, apparently, they are not going to make any further recommendations for changes at this time. It was noted that Pismo Beach had not taken any action on the recommended changes; Grover City had adopted all of the changes; and. Arroyo Grande City Council had again turned down "El Camino Real ". The Planning Council also discussed plans for the Winter Planning Seminar, which would be a one day discussion of Mobile Home Parks. LOT SPLIT`CASE1O. 70 -122 - DONALD A. ROWE, 830 HUASNA ROAD Director Gallop advised that Mr. Rowe has requested consideration of an appeal to the Minor Subdivision Committee action, Case No. 70 -122. Director Gallop pointed out that the property he owns is on the south side of Huasna Road and he is request- ing a split so that the rear parcel of property could be sold to Dr. Wical for eventual expansion of his mobile home park. Director Gallop explained that Mr. Rowe was appealing the .requirement fora 30' dedication across the entire frontage of his property within the Huasna Road Plan Line for right -of -way purposes, and requested that this matter be considered by the Commission as a non - agenda item. On motion of Commissioner St. Denis, seconded by Commissioner Nunes, and unanimously carried, that the Commission agreed to consider Mr. Rowe's appeal as a non - agenda item. Director Gallop advised that in most lot split cases the action of the Committee has been to require right -of -way dedication, and that Dr. Wical was required to make a 30' right -of -way dedication and also full improvements of curb, gutter and side- walks, and that Mr. Rowe was not required to make full improvements. Mr. Rowe was present and stated he has about 52 acres and that he is selling the rear 4 acres, which has nothing to do with the improvement along Huasna Road. He further advised that his neighbors have not been required to dedicate property, and that at the time the Plan Line was considered, it was stated that the City would pay for that property. He stated he thought this is discrimination in asking him to dedicate this property when it has nothing to do with the development of the` property frontage. Commissioner Strother stated he was on the Commission at the time the Plane Line was adopted and he remembered `the statement. was made by Mr:_- Anderson that.' three' City would pay for the property, Commissioner Porter agreed with Commissioner Strother in that he was on the Commission also at the time the Plan Line was adopted and he remembered the property owners being told that when the time came for the. property to be used, they would be paid for it. At the request of Commissioner Nunes, Director Gallop drew a sketch of the property involved, showing the 30' dedication. He pointed out that at the time of the hearing, it was a consideration that the necessary right -of -way would be taken from both sides, however, after the public hearing it was decided that the entire take be taken from the south side of the road because there were no improvements to be distrubed by widening to one side. Chairman Moss advised that, as a member of the Lot Split Committee, he would uphold the decision of the Committee. He further stated that the Committee did not require curb, gutter and sidewalks as they have in other lot-splits of this type, and he felt the Committee was being fair. Mr. Rowe maintained that the Planning Cofinmission, 1 -5-71 Page 2 After discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 71 -184 Z • Commission shouldn't have a policy that discriminates and damages property,, and that his position is exactly the„`same as his neighbors. Chairman Moss advised. that should his neighbors request a.. lot split, the same requirement would be made of them. in answer to Commissioner Nunes' questio'rt, >i -f .the other property owners on Huasna Road are now being required to make this ,3.O A dedication; Mr.,;Gallop advised. that such dedication would be required only upon development of properties involved, either through splits, permits to improve, rezoning,;,:e'tc. Commissioner Strother asked if the property owners were told this. He stated'th!ey were told that they were going to be paid for their property at the time of widening. Commissioner Porter agreed with Commissioner Strother. Commissioner Strother further stated the Plan Line was established so that the owners would not build on that land. Mr. Rowe stated that he recognized he would have to deed this required right-of-way if and when he were to split and improve the front parcel of the property. Commissioner Strother moved that Mr. Rowe's request be allowed, seconded by Commissioner Porter. Mr. Nunes - requested that a roll call vote be taken,. Ayes: Commissioners Porter, St. Denis and Strother; Noes: Commissioners Bowles, Nunes and Moss. Because of the split vote of the Commission, on motion of Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner Nunes, and unanimously carried, that the matter be ge;fe.rmi to the City Council for final solution. , hut: , d m I CONT INUATION - REZONING CASE NO. 70 -41, RA -B3 TO R -1, LOTS 39, 40 AND.41, STEELE'S RESUBDIVISION .(ADDISON WOOD) Director Gallop advised that the public hearing was held at the last r:egul:ar meeting of the Commission and the hearing was closed at that time, and that unless the Commission wishes to reopen the hearing, the discussion is closedto the floor. He also advised that a letter had been received dated January 4, 1971signed by 18` people representing 12 properties, 5 of which are within the affected area of the notice, opposing the proposed rezoning. He further stated that to recognize the letter, the Commission would have to reopen the hearin'g,.and in reviewing the letter, it appeared -to contain the same arguments that were presented earlier in the public hearing. No action was taken to reopen the hearing..: Director Gallop reviewed the staff report to the Commission, dated :December 30, 1970, with reference to the availability of R -1 building-:Sites in the':City, and pointed out that in view of the 40 single family residence :permits issued in 1970, and if. we want building to continue, the City should have at least two to three available building sites for each house built to have a healthy property market. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 4 ZONING, ARTICLE 21, OF SAID CODE. On motion of Commissioner Nunes, seconded by Commissioner Porter, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: - :AYES: Commissioners Bowles, Nunes, Porter, St. Denis,. Strother and Chairman Moss NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5th day of January, 1971. _ PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CASE NO. 70 -42 - RA -B3 TO R -1, PORTION LOT 108, RANCHO CORRAL DE PIEDRA (STANLEY AND LOIS GRIEB) Upon being assured by Director Gallop that•public hearing for RezoningCase 70 -42 had been properly advert.ised.and property owners notified, Chairman Moss clared the hearing open. Director Gallop advised that this petition concerns the newly annexed property between Halcyon Road and the Arroyo Grande Creek,. immediately south of the lots fac- ing Olive Street, which is presently zone,,,RP -B3. The petitioner wishes to split this property for R -1 development and WoQ4]ilnd Drive,.. could be extended southerly. No further discussion :fort o r or against the propos zone change, Chairman Moss declared the hearing closed and the following action wars taken: 323 324 Planning Commission,. 1-5-71 Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 71 -185 Z A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING 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 Bowles, seconded by Commissioner Strother, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Bowles, Nunes, Porter, St. Denis, Strother and Chairman Moss NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5th day of January, 1971. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF A USE Director Gallop requested another non- agenda item be considered by the Commi's which requires a determination of a use and a request to conduct a used furniture business and auction in a P -M District. On motion of Commissioner Strother, seconded by. Commissioner Bowles, and unanimously carried, that this item be considered as a non - agenda item. Director Gallop pointed out that the sale of second hand goods is permissive in the P -M District if conducted totally within an enclosed building, and there is no reference to auctions as such. The petitioner wishes to conduct a retail business five days a week and to hold an auction on Saturdays. The matter to be determined is whether the auction would be permissive; or permissive subject to Use Permit pro- cedure. This is :a case where specific types of uses are not spelled out in the Zon- ing Ordinance. The auction in conjunction with the retail sales is not mentioned in the ordinance ancl, normally, an auction Is considered as retail sales. Administrator Burch advised that the City does not permit certain types of sales such as fire sales, etc. Director Gallop advised there is a $10.00 per day City business license fee charged for auctions. On motion of Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner. St. Denis, and unanimously carried, that prior to any action taken by this Commission, a determi- nation be made by the City Attorney as to whether this would be compatible w,th . the existing licenses of the City. MORATORIUM: AGAINST MOBILE HOME PARK DEVELOPMENT Director Gallop noted that the City Council did not adopt a moratorium against mobilehome park development within the City as recommended by the Commission and indicated they felt that such action should be area or state wide. Chairman Moss . pointed out that, even though the moratorium is not area wide or state wide, and Arroyo Grande is a small city, you have to start somewhere and, in his opinion, it is a way to show the mobilehome park developers that the cities don't want them unless they pay their fair share. Councilman Talley stated the Council feels they have equalized the mobilehome owners payments to the City more than any other city in the County. We are already faced with the situation of having three mobilehome parks right on the edge of the community, where they use City streets and services the city provides to the down - town areas, and that if we were to pass a moratorium, there would be nothing to stop further development right outside of the City. Our City Administrator has been instructed by the City Council to write a letter to the County Board of Supervisors urging their support for fair and equitable taxation to mobile homes. RENAMING OF FRONTAGE ROAD TO "EL CAMINO REAL" Director Gallop advised that the recommendation of the Coastal Valley Planning Council and this Commission to rename Frontage Road to "El Camino Real" was again denied by the City Council without referral, other than suggesting that another name be considered. In answer to Chairman Moss' question regarding the grounds for the denial, Councilman Talley stated it was the feeling of several of the Council members that El Camino Real means the "King's Road ", and Frontage Road does not appear to fit the name, and that in many cities "El Camino Real" is a major thoroughfare, and also that Highway 101 has the name "El Camino Real ". Planning Commission, 1 -5 -74 Page 4 DISCUSSION RE: IMPROVEMENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY Chairman Moss inquired about installation of sidewalks from. the Kentucky Fried Chicken west to the corner of Elm Street. Administrator Butch advised that the City is embarking on a big project for sidewalks on Halcyon Road, Elm and Montego Streets, which will be an extremely big area and will cost a considerable sum of money. Mr. Butch further advised that the City will get. to Grand Avenue as soon as possible, but at the present time it is a matter of time and money. VARIANCE CASE NO, 70 -45, OPERATION OF A MORTUARY, BELL. AND BENNETT (I0PPINI) Director Gallop informed the Commission that Variance Case No. 70 -45 had been appealed' to the City Council, REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COASTAL VALLEY PLANNING COUNCIL Commissioner Bowles advised that because of a conflict of meeting dates between Ilr e School District and the Coastal Valley Planning Council, it would be necessary at he submit his resignation from the Coastal Valley Planning Council. On motion of Commissioner St. Denis, seconded by Commissioner Strother, and animously carried that a recommendation be made to the City Council to appoint Commissioner Nunes, who is presently alternate, to be the representative to the Coastal Valley Planning Council replacing Commissioner Bowles. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Commissioner Nunes, seconded by Commissioner St. Denis, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8 :33 P.M. Chairman 325