Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-07-06ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1999 Page 1 of .16 CALL TO ORDER Chair Greene called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL X Commissioner Costello Commissioner Keen X Commissioner London X Vice -Chair Parker X Chair Greene MINUTE APPROVAL The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 4, 1999 were unanimously approved on a motion of Commissioner London, seconded by Vice - Chair Parker with the following corrections: • Chair Greene stated that on Page 5 the name of the landscape architect should be Ms. Florence; delete the words "redwoods" and replace with "ironwoods ". • Commissioner Parker stated that the name on page 8 should be C.Z. Brown; the second paragraph on page 7 should be reworded to make the meaning clearer. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Memorandum from Henry Engen concerning James Way Annexation and School Facilities Time Schedule. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS BERRY GARDENS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 99 -001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99 -005, PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 99 -001; AMENDMENT TO SUBAREA 4 OF THE BERRY GARDENS SPECIFIC PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR AN AUTO PARTS RETAIL BUSINESS; APPLICANT: AUTOZONE; LOCATION: 1539 GRAND AVENUE Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner reviewed the staff report dated July 6, 1999. She informed the Commission that the proposed project is located on the South Side of Grand Avenue in Subarea 4 of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan. The City Council approved the Berry Gardens Specific Plan and Tract Map on September 8, 1998. The Specific Plan divided the property into 4 subareas and only addressed development and design standards for the residential• - portion of Subarea 1. Subareas 2, 3, and 4 are subject to a Specific Plan Amendment prior to any development approval. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1999 Page 2 of 16 The proposed Specific Plan Amendment basically summarizes development standards for the Commercial Zoning District and specifies some of the project details related to circulation, drainage, and public street improvements. The applicant is proposing to develop only 1.5 acres of the front half of the property at this time. The remainder would stay vacant until such time as the property owner submits and is approved for another project. The Berry Gardens Specific Plan addressed infrastructure needs for all 4 subareas including a water and sewer Master Plan to insure that future development of subareas 2, 3 and 4 can be accommodated. The applicant will be responsible for constructing a portion of the Courtland Street extension along the property frontage as well as frontage improvements along Grand Avenue. Both the undergrounding of utilities and construction of Courtland Street will be phased and coordinated with the development of Berry Gardens Subarea 1. The Conditional Use Permit is to allow construction of the commercial building as well as a drainage basin for the entire parcel. The proposed project meets all Development Code standards for development. The applicant has proposed to install three (3) wall signs and 1 twelve -foot high monument sign. The aggregate sign area is 274 square feet which requires approval of a Planned Sign Program. Ms. Heffernon stated that the height of the signs had been brought to her attention by Commissioner Keen. Although unable to come to tonight's meeting, Commissioner Keen had contacted her and felt that viewed from Grand Avenue, which is the north elevation, the signs on the west and east sides dominate the building. The Staff. Advisory Committee and the Architectural Review Committee have reviewed the project and recommend approval. Commissioner London asked if the chain link fence around the drainage basin was standard? It would be visible from Courtland and would not be very aesthetically pleasing to look at. Craig Campbell, Public Works, told Mr. London that the fencing was typical. However if the Planning Commission wanted to they could condition a different type of fencing material. 1 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1999 Page 3 of 16 Vice -Chair Parker had questions concerning the figures in the traffic report for the project. She stated that on page 6 under Traffic Circulation, there was an estimated 83 ADTs based on Staff calculations of peak hour trips from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. She asked if this included one trip in and one trip out equaling one trip or one trip in and one trip out equaling two trips? Mr. Campbell stated that one trip in and one trip out equaled two trips. Ms. Parker asked if this meant that staff was saying that AutoZone would have 42 customers a day minus delivery trucks and the like? This seemed like a very small number to her. Ms. Heffernon explained that this was based on the latest edition of the manual, which had figures for an auto parts store, and then staff added the peak morning and afternoon figures. This would add up to 42 customers per hour. Ms. Parker then asked at what point the 83 ADT's per hour would necessitate a mitigation measure? She stated that according to the staff report there was no anticipated impact to the LOS. Ms. Heffernon replied she had used a comparison of Wayne's Tire and according to that comparison there would not be . a significant impact. Ms. Parker had a question about Condition of Approval No. 50. The Condition states that "Prior to issuance of a building permit, avoid concentrated flow over the driveway to Courtland ". She asked if when the City uses words like avoid or impossible, is this something that the City is suggesting or something that the City is specifying that would actually need to be followed up on? Mr. Campbell replied that what he meant in this instance was the need for certain specific items that would need to be addressed when the final improvement plans are submitted. The one that Ms. Parker had mentioned, concerning the concentrated flow, meant that the applicant needed to put a culvert under the driveway. The basin resizing meant that they did not justify the basin shown on their plans with calculations. It is a way of identifying in the Conditions that this needs to be done. Ms. Parker asked if what Mr. Campbell was saying was, for instance, with the basin resizing possibility, the applicant would come back at a later date and Mr. Campbell would determine whether or not the basin needed to be resized? ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1999 Page 4 of 16 Mr. Campbell replied that the size and criteria of the basin is built into the Berry Gardens Specific Plan and the applicant needs to follow the formula. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she was confused about the plans she had received for the Planned Sign Program. She asked if the version she was supposed to be considering was Attachment B -6? Ms. Heffernon replied that Attachment B -6 was correct. Commissioner Costello asked if the 1.5 acres the applicant was developing included the retention pond? And if this was true, was the retention pond large enough to meet the 100 year storm standard? Mr. Campbell stated that the basin would be large enough. Mr. Costello asked if the pond needed to be enlarged, could the developer simply make it deeper? Mr. Campbell replied that there were limits to doing that. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Shafik Salamor of CEI Engineering, representing AutoZone, spoke to the Planning Commission. He discussed some of the issues that the Commissioners had brought up. ■ He stated that one of the things being planned around the retention basin was some sort of screening done with trees and shrubs. • AutoZone figures on 30 to 40 trips a day per 1,000 square feet of store space. ■ Regarding the size of the basin, the correct size will be shown on the preliminary grading plans. • The culvert and 6 inch pipe in the driveway has been added to the plans. • In response to Commissioner Keen's concerns about the signage, he would be willing to drop the height of the signs by one foot. However, he would like to keep the sign on the west side of the building at the same height so the sign would be visible from Grand Avenue. Mr. Salamor was concerned with Condition No. 67 and the wording that obligates Autozone to complete all improvements along Courtland if Berry Gardens Specific Plan does not go through. He would like to revise the Condition with specific language that would clearly indicate what AutoZone was obligated to. 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1999 Page 5 of 16 Commissioner Costello asked why the landscaping was only on three (3) sides of the retention basin, leaving the other side open? He also asked if the applicant had any specific plans for the remainder of the property? Mr. Salamor replied that they hoped the future developer would take care of that side, but AutoZone would landscape that side as well if the Commission wanted them to. Also, the applicant had no plans for the development of the remainder of the property. Vice -Chair Parker asked if the applicant was intending to have a chain link fence and shrubs around the retention basin, or just shrubs? Mr. Salamor replied that there would be both a fence and landscaping. Commissioner London asked the applicant if they intended to put in an irrigation system too? The applicant replied that there would be irrigation. Ms. Heffernon stated that according to Exhibit 14 for the Berry Gardens Specific Plan, a six -foot iron and block wall fencing is required. Mr. Campbell stated that according to the Conditions of Approval the fencing is subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. Peggy Carmichael, owner of the property east of Courtland, stated that she wanted verification of what was going to happen on the street improvements to Courtland Street and how far it was going to be improved? Mr. Campbell stated that Condition of Approval No. 67 addresses this question. What this condition was trying to do was to cover a couple of unlikely, but possible scenarios. He first explained how this project relates to the Berry Gardens project. He stated that the Berry Gardens project was conditioned to construct Courtland Street from the Berry Gardens boundary, across the frontage of this project, and the Carmichael property up to Grand Avenue, to build two - thirds of the road. A curb, gutter and sidewalk, pavement to one side and one lane beyond was to be installed. This is the normal code requirement for the extension when the project is on one side of the street and does not need full use of both sides of the street. The Berry Gardens conditions did not specify which two - thirds they needed to build. Since then Mr. Campbell stated that he had been informed that they have completed negotiations with the owners of the AutoZone property and have a pending agreement to acquire that right -of -way. They have submitted a grading plan, which Public Works has reviewed, and they will resubmit soon for two - thirds ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1999 Page 6 of 16 on the west side. However, staff understands that the best plans do fall through, and eventually the Berry Gardens might not go through. Then, Public Works would be faced with AutoZone developing without somebody else building the road for them. Public Works has to develop a plan for this situation. Most commonly, they would condition the applicant to construct their improvements along the frontage. In the case of an undeveloped road the City code calls for the applicant to build the two - thirds on their half. Mr. Campbell stated that this condition attempted to address this scenario. He further stated that the third scenario that is foreseeable is that Berry Gardens might build the other two- thirds of their road leaving the AutoZone portion unbuilt. Public Works would then want AutoZone to build their part. The wording in the Conditions of Approval for this project was Mr. Campbell's attempt at solving any situation. Mr. Campbell explained the wording in the Condition to the Planning Commission. Commissioner London asked if the applicant was required to complete the road the entire length of their property or just the half they are building on now? Mr. Campbell explained that the condition did not speak to that. He would say that it would be appropriate to do the part that they are constructing; however it would be unusual not to develop the entire frontage. Commissioner Costello questioned Condition of Approval No. 67. If Phase 1 of Berry Gardens does not occur, do the improvements still have to be constructed? Mr. Campbell stated that the improvements for AutoZone would still have to be accomplished. Rob Strong, a Planning Consultant stated that he was in attendance at tonight's meeting primarily because he had worked on the Berry Gardens project. He felt staff had done a good job in addressing some of the contingencies and had addressed all possibilities for anything with the project. If AutoZone for some reason is the only developer, it seems logical that they would construct their portion of the street. He does not feel their responsibility for a signal would be warranted. The residential area of Berry Gardens would generate the traffic that would be responsible for the signal. He appreciated staff's suggestion that the basin fence would be consistent with the Berry Gardens Specific Plan. Chair Green closed the Public Hearing. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1999 Page 7 of 16 Mr. Campbell informed the Planning Commission that when they were considering Condition Number 67, keep in mind that there is very similar wording in the Specific Plan Amendment on pages 5 and 6. He would suggest that if the Commission made any changes to Condition Number 67, they would direct staff to make similar changes in the Specific Plan. Vice -Chair Parker stated that for safety reasons the drainage basin would have to have a fence. She appreciates the applicant putting in the shrubs and trees around it to make it look better. With regards to the signage, she agrees with the staff recommendation that since the store has frontage on both Courtland and Grand Avenue, a sign on each side would be appropriate. Further she feels the sign size is alright. The total signage is under 10% of what the Planning Commission can allow so she has no problem with that. Commissioner Costello had no problem with minimal overage on the signage. He felt the developer might have some risk involved with the development of Courtland Street, but if the developer was not concerned with it, it was fine with him. Secondly, he felt the same as Ms. Parker and wanted to have the fence around the retention basin, but was also glad to have the landscaping as well. He wondered about putting another auto parts store in town, but overall he had no problem with this project. Commissioner London stated that he felt this was a good project and as long as the wording is changed concerning the fencing around the retention basin, he is fine with the project. Chair Greene pointed out that tonight's hearing is for the purposes of making a recommendation to the City Council and that it is not up to the Planning Commission to approve this project. He stated that because it is a Specific Plan Amendment request he was going to take a different position than the . other members of the Planning Commission. He stated that with all due respect to Mr. Salamor and to AutoZone, he cannot support the project. He stated that his focus was on the broader issues and he would like to take a moment to explain his thinking so that those who will make the final decision on the project can at least consider his viewpoint. He went on to explain that those who were present during the Berry Gardens public hearings would remember that he was opposed to the Berry Gardens Project, specifically based on concerns with the density. He did express however, on several occasions, his admiration for the design of the project; the neo- traditional features of the homes, the way in which the project itself seemed to emphasize a ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1999 Page 8 of 16 small town and pedestrian feel, which he really liked. He thought that overall the project could be the best residential district in the city. So, in keeping with his feelings about the qualities of the project, he looked at the request to develop a discount auto parts store on the flagship corner of Courtland and Grand . This corner will probably be the main entrance in and out of the Berry Gardens and he felt this project would not be one that met the high standards that should be set in the City of Arroyo Grande. Mr. Greene stated that he was concerned about the subdivision of the parcel. He feels that when you take the prime corner of the parcel and develop it, leaving the second half vacant, it will be much more difficult to find a tenant that will occupy that portion of the parcel. He was hoping that whatever developer looked at this parcel would do this in its totality and not in piecemeal fashion. In addition, in the staff report it states, on page three of ten of the Specific Plan Amendment, that Specific Plan Subarea 4 objectives include, "to provide for the general shopping needs of area residents and workers with a variety of retail and commercial services ". Typical uses include but are not limited to general retail, food markets, commercial services, ... ". As Commission Costello pointed out there are general auto parts stores very close. So, by permitting the development of this parcel we are not providing for the general shopping needs of area residents we are simply adding one more auto parts store. With no disrespect to the AutoZone store, he considers the inclusion of a discount auto parts store on this corner to be a less than satisfactory addition to the Grand Avenue shopping corridor. Mr. Greene stated that this parcel was within the redevelopment district. The redevelopment district was enacted as a way to provide incentives to property owners to be imaginative in the development of the Grand Avenue corridor. This is the western gateway to the City. He felt that the City should be looking for developments for the parcels which are specialized and unique, and enhance the economic vitality of our city. He does not see AutoZone as providing economic enhancement for the City. He went on to say that if the parcel in question is subdivided all the City is doing is creating smaller parcels that are less capable of sustaining vital economic growth and success. He has grave doubts about approving this project, not because it fails to meet the Development Code standards, but he feels this is a policy issue and the City Council should be looking at broader uses. He felt the City should be combining parcels, not dividing them, building large types of uses on these parcels and not reducing them, looking for complimentary uses not competitive ones. The City should be looking for the kinds of developments that will make the people who 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1999 Page 9 of 16 live in Berry Gardens proud of the fact that they drive by the store. He does not see AutoZone as the kind of gateway that people would want to pass by. Finally, Mr. Greene stated that because this is a Specific Plan Amendment the Planning Commission is vested with the authority to exercise their discretion on these issues and not simply determine whether the project meets the minimum thresholds of the Development Code. In his judgement the project does not rise to the General Plan purposes and objectives for this area and it does not rise to the Specific Plan purposes and objectives. He would like to see something on this parcel that would meet the needs of the City. He would like to see some discussion between the property owners and some unity reached for development of all of the remaining parcels. Vice -Chair Parker stated that her initial reaction for this project was to look to see that it met the Development Code standards. To look at the project in the way Chair Greene was doing had not occurred to her. As she understood what Mr. Greene was saying, that because this was a recommendation to City Council and because this is a Specific Plan, he felt it should meet the requirements of the Specific Plan. She asked if this was what Mr. Greene was saying about this project? Chair Greene referred Ms. Parker to the resolution for - the amendment of the Specific Plan. On page 2 it states that the City Council must find that the amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. Another finding is that the amendment will result in a superior development to that which would occur using standard zoning and development regulations. He believes that this language gives the Planning Commission the right to exercise their discretion. Vice -Chair Parker asked Staff if their interpretation of the purposes and objectives of a Specific Plan differed from the General Commercial zoning standards? As Planning Commissioners should they be viewing this differently because it is under a Specific Plan? Henry Engen, Interim Planning Director stated that the General Commercial zoning in the Development Code allows for a wide range of uses. This is one of the reasons that there is the use permit process so that each use can be looked at as it comes along. Community Development looks at each project as it comes in and if it is allowed by the General Commercial zoning, then staff deems it appropriate. There is no definite structure to the zoning. 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1999 Page 9 of 16 live in Berry Gardens proud of the fact that they drive by the store. He does not see AutoZone as the kind of gateway that people would want to pass by. Finally, Mr. Greene stated that because this is a Specific Plan Amendment the Planning Commission is vested with the authority to exercise their discretion on these issues and not simply determine whether the project meets the minimum thresholds of the Development Code. In his judgement the project does not rise to the General Plan purposes and objectives for this area and it does not rise to the Specific Plan purposes and objectives. He would like to see something on this parcel that would meet the needs of the City. He would like to see some discussion between the property owners and some unity reached for development of all of the remaining parcels. Vice -Chair Parker stated that her initial reaction for this project was to look to see that it met the Development Code standards. To look at the project in the way Chair Greene was doing had not occurred to her. As she understood what Mr. Greene was saying, that because this was a recommendation to City Council and because this is a Specific Plan, he felt it should meet the requirements of the Specific Plan. She asked if this was what Mr. Greene was saying about this project? Chair Greene referred Ms. Parker to the resolution for the amendment of the Specific Plan. On page 2 it states that the City Council must find that the amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. Another finding is that the amendment will result in a superior development to that which would occur using standard zoning and development regulations. He believes that this language gives the Planning Commission the right to exercise their discretion. Vice -Chair Parker asked Staff if their interpretation of the purposes and objectives of a Specific Plan differed from the General Commercial zoning standards? As Planning Commissioners should they be viewing this differently because it is under a Specific Plan? Henry Engen, Interim Planning Director stated that the General Commercial zoning in the Development Code allows for a wide range of uses. This is one of the reasons that there is the use permit process so that each use can be looked at as it comes along. Community Development looks at each project as it comes in and if it is allowed by the General Commercial zoning, then staff deems it appropriate. There is no definite structure to the zoning. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1999 Page 10 of 16 Vice -Chair Parker asked if there had been meetings. with regard to the redevelopment district? Mr. Engen replied that this was just getting started. Commissioner London stated that he was under the impression that looking at the kind of business that was being proposed was not the Commission's concern. The important issue was that it was in compliance with the General Plan and Development Code. From this discussion he realizes that it is possible for the Commission to look at this from a philosophical standpoint, does the City need another auto parts store? His question is now, what responsibility does the Commission have to question this now? Commissioner Costello stated that he was not familiar with the entire language in the Berry Gardens Specific Plan. Mr. Greene had made some very compelling arguments for this. In principal if the language that was being proposed was not so specific, he might not be inclined to support Mr. Greene's position. But it is very specific, so in those terms it does seem contrary to the Specific Plan. It does make sense to look at the entire project, all four subareas, in their totality. Vice -Chair Parker stated that in the General Commercial - Specific Plan conditions where it says that the Specific Subarea shall allow one commercial establishment per legal lot. Is this one legal lot? Ms. Heffernon stated that what the Commission had before them was one legal lot. They would have to apply for a lot split to develop the second half. The Planning Commission discussed how best to vote on the Resolutions, bringing their comments, concerns, and recommendation to the City Council. Vice -Chair Parker asked if the Commission could bring their concerns and objections to the City Council without voting on the resolutions. Mr. Engen stated that they did not have to vote on the resolutions. The Commission could recommend whatever they wanted and it would be taken to the City Council. Vice -Chair Parker moved that the Planning Commission supply our objections and concerns with the project and send them to the City Council without taking a vote on the resolutions. Commissioner London seconded the motion. 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1999 Page 11 of 16 Commissioner London stated that this would say that it meets the criteria of the Development Code, but it does not meet the overall objectives of the Specific Plan. Vice -Chair Parker felt that if they voted yes on the resolutions but adding their concerns, it would say that the Commission felt that this was a good project, but we would like the concerns addressed. If the Commission votes no on the resolutions with concerns, what kind of a message does it send? Chair Greene felt that the Resolutions should be voted on as a recommendation to the City Council because, as staff had pointed out, these concerns would be noted and would be sent on to the City Council. He did . not feel they needed to do anything other than vote on the resolutions. The motion was voted on and defeated 3 to 1 by the following vote. Roll Call Vote No Commissioner Costello Absent Commissioner Keen Ave Commissioner London No Vice -Chair Parker No Chair Greene Vice -Chair Parker moved that the Planning Commission reject Resolution No. 99- 1701 concerning Specific Plan Amendment Case No. 99 -001 with Conditional Use Permit 99 -005 with recommendations to City Council. Specifically excluding resolution 99 -1703. Commissioner London seconded the motion. Commissioner Costello wanted to note that his decision on this was based on the specific language within the Specific Plan Amendment. Vice -Chair Parker stated that she had a problem with General Commercial- Specific Plan Condition Number 1 permitting conditionally allowed uses allowing one commercial building per commercial lot. She felt an entire plan should be submitted or a lot split application submitted first. Chair Greene felt that for the purposes of clarity and simplicity and staff reporting, that the most effective way to achieve what appears to be a majority result on this issue would be for the Commission to move that we either adopt or do not adopt ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1999 Page 12 of 16 the three resolutions as separate issues. He felt for simplicity's sake that the Commission should vote no on this amendment. The motion was voted on and defeated 4 to 0 by the following vote. Roll Call Vote No Commissioner Costello Absent Commissioner Keen No Commissioner London Ave Vice -Chair Parker No. Chair Greene Chair Greene moved that the Planning Commission reject : Resolution No. 99 -1701 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE BERRY GARDENS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 99 -001, APPLIED FOR BY AUTOZONE, INC., LOCATED AT 1539 GRAND AVENUE. Commissioner Costello seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote Ave Commissioner Costello Absent Commissioner Keen Aye Commissioner London Ave Vice -Chair Parker Ave Chair Greene Commission Costello moved that the Planning Commission reject: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1702 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVING CONDITION USE PERMIT CASE NO. 99 -005, LOCATED AT 1539 GRAND AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY AUTOZONE, INC. Roll Call Vote Aye Commissioner Costello Absent Commissioner Keen Aye Commissioner London ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1999 Page 13 of 16 Ave Ave Vice -Chair Parker Chair Greene Commissioner Costello moved to reject: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1703 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 99 -001, APPLIED FOR BY AUTOZONE, INC., AT 1539 GRAND AVENUE. Commissioner London seconded the motion. Roll CaII Vote Ave Commissioner Costello Absent Commissioner Keen Ave Commissioner London No Vice -Chair Parker Ave Chair Greene NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None DISCUSSION ITEMS None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS Commission London reported on the second meeting of the Economic Task Force. They are attempting to come up with a theme and will be setting a schedule for future meeting. The Task Force had met with a company that was looking for 10 acres within the city limits for development. There was no such land within the city limits and there was some discussion about possibly working out a deal with the school district. Chair Greene announced that the City will be interviewing applicants for the Community Development Director position. There are three applicants and he will be sitting on the oral board for this position on Friday, July 9, 1999. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS. Mr. Engen stated that the James Way Annexation /School Facility timetable was included in the Commissioners packet. He explained that after the City Council ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1999 Page 14 of 16 rejected the Environmental Impact Report on that project the project applicant and the school district got together and have struck a tentative deal to develop a school site as part of the property. As time is always of the essence, the Department has put together a timetable to make sure the project stays on tract and is completed as quickly as possible. Commissioner London asked if there was discussion about the school site before the Planning Commission heard the project? Mr. Engen replied that this discussion did not come up until after the City Council had voted on the project. Vice -Chair Parker commented that a school site was brought up at the time_of the project and Gary Young said the school had approached him for a school site. The school was looking at a different section of the project for a school site and they had decided that there would be too much land moving so they rejected it. Chair Greene commented that at the Planning Commission hearing on the project, Perry Judd from the school district had spoken and said the school district had found the site unsuitable for a school and they were not interested at all in the site. He had assured the Commission that the school district was comfortable with the mitigation of a payment of in -lieu school fees, and the applicant and the school district had reached an agreement which called for a payment of fees that exceeded the statutory standard. They were very explicit in their feelings that this was not the place for a school site. This made all of the work that the Planning Commission had done on the project null and void. • Commissioner Costello commented that he would like to think that the work the Planning Commission had done did have some impact on the final decision. The Planning Commission did had some recommendations that they had sent onto the City Council. Chair Greene stated that this was one of the most interesting things that he has seen happen since he has been involved in city planning. He feels the City Council deserves enormous credit for brokering a deal for a school site, which results in a reduction of the number of units on the property. Commissioner London commented on the AutoZone project and asked if there was a way to avoid this kind of problem in the future. He stated that he was completely unaware of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan until 6 months ago. Mr. Greene had brought up some very good points that, had he been aware of at the onset, would have saved a lot of discussion and perhaps a lot of work on the part 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1999 Page 15 of 16 of the applicant, at an earlier stage. Is there some way that the Commission could get a little more background in the staff report. Mr. Engen stated that since the Berry Gardens Specific Plan did not have control over this particular parcel, the Berry Gardens developers didn't really have a say as to what could go in there. It deferred to what the zoning allowed. Mr. London asked if there was any discussion about what should go in there? Chair Greene stated that there was no discussion about this because it was not part of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan. However, it was included in the Specific Plan to give the City some control about what should go there. The parcel is not owned by the same people that own the property for the residential project. However, it was included in the Specific Plan by the applicant for "quality control ". He felt the applicant and the Commission would have been better informed if the project had come before the Commission as a pre - application review and then these feelings could have been discussed. He feels that since the Planning Commission has some discretion as decision - makers, their authority can exceed the scope of the recommendation provided to them. Ms. Heffernon stated that it is the applicant's decision to come .before the Commission with a pre- application review and in this case the applicant had decided not take this opportunity. Vice -Chair Parker asked Mr. Engen if he had anything to report on the_ Commission viewing Tract 1998? Mr. Engen replied that Tom Buford has been out of the office and when he gets back they were going to go and view the site. Vice -Chair Parker asked if after Mr. Engen and Mr. Buford viewed the area they would set up a time for the Planning Commission to do the same? Mr. Engen stated that they would bring the issue back to the Planning Commission with their views and thoughts. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. to its next scheduled meeting on July 29, 1999. ATTEST: ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 1999 Page 16 of 16 Jail/UAW GOARJ Kathleen Fryer, Commi on Clerk Laurence Greene, Chair AS TO CONTENT: Henr gen Interim Community Development Director