Loading...
PC Minutes 1991-08-063O 2 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission August 6, 1991 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Gallagher presiding. Present are Commissioners Soto, Moore, Boggess, Brandy and Carr. Commissioner Souza is absent. Also in attendance are Planning Director Liberto - Blanck, Current Planner Scott Spierling, and City Attorney Judy Skousen. MINUTE APPROVAL The minutes of the regular meetings of June 4, June 18 and July 2, 1991 were approved as submitted on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Brandy, and unanimously carried. SIGN PERMIT CASE NO. 91- 102 /VARIANCE CASE NO. 91 -157, LAST CHANCE LIQUOR, 320 E. BRANCH STREET (CHARLES DOSTER/CARLEN LANDECK.) City Attorney Judy Skousen stated that since this item has the potential to result in legal action she asked that anyone who has any public comments be sworn in by the Clerk. She informed those being sworn in that they are under oath and under penalty of perjury. Charles Doster, Carlen Landeck, Doreen Liberto - Blanck, Scott Spierling and Judy Skousen were sworn in by the Clerk. Current Planner Spierling reviewed the background of this application and the staff report dated August 6, 1991. He listed the signage proposed by the applicant and a description of the requested exceptions to the Development Code requirements. He noted that the sign standards contained in the old Zoning Ordinance were not changed when the Development Code was adopted. 1. The applicant is requesting 24.25 square feet more than the allowed aggregate sign area for signs. The existing business has a street frontage of 109 feet and is thus allowed a total aggregate sign area of 154.5 square feet. The applicant is proposing an aggregate sign area of 178.75 square feet. 2. The applicant is requesting 7 signs more than the allowed number of signs. The applicant is requesting a total of 9 signs, including the two that have already been approved. The Development Code allows only two signs per street frontage. Since this location has only one street frontage, only two signs are allowed. 3. The applicant is requesting four neon window signs. Neon signs are prohibited by the Development Code. The applicant is requesting a neon sign in each of the two windows facing Branch Street and a neon sign in the windows on each side of the building. Mr. Spierling stated that to approve this variance and planned sign program, the findings outlined in the Development Code must be made in the affirmative. Staff does not believe that these findings can be made in the affirmative and has provided findings for denial of the project. The applicant has submitted a discussion of his reasons for approval of the variance, which is attached to the staff report. Mr. Spierling advised that the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed variance and sign plan on June 3, 1991, and also conducted a field investigation. After discussing the project at some length with the applicant, the Committee made several recommendations, and continued the project to the regular meeting of July 1, 1991 to allow the applicant time to make the requested changes. The applicant did not submit revised plans for the Architectural Advisory Committee Meeting of July 1, 1991, and requested another continuance. Upon the recommendation of the City Attorney, the Committee forwarded the project to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial since the Committee's recommendations had not been implemented. Therefore, the Architectural Advisory Committee and the Staff Advisory Committee recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions denying Variance Case No. 91 -157 and Sign Permit Case No. 91 -102. City Attorney Judy Skousen stated that one of the reasons this matter was continued by the City Council was to give the applicant more time and submit plans and request a variance, was because the applicant had agreed to turn the illegal signs off until the variance issue was resolved. She further stated that Mr. Doster advised her this evening that he misunderstood the conditions and thought he only had to turn them off during the City Council meeting, and other than that, he didn't have to turn the illegal signs off until he received his variance. He has now requested another extension of time and has promised that he will get the additional information in. She recommended that if additional time is granted by the Commission, this time it should be made very clear that unless he receives a variance and a sign permit he must keep those illegal signs turned off and must stay off until he gets legal permission to have those signs. Mr. Doster has stated that he needs about 60 days to have the signs redesigned and the information submitted to the Architectural Advisory Committee, and then back to the Planning Commission. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Sign Permit Case No. 91 -102 and Variance Case No. 91 -157 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gallagher declared the hearing open. Charles Doster, 1152 Tenth Street, Los Osos, applicant for the project, stated that because of a misunderstanding, as explained by the City Attorney, they need additional time in order to get all of the signs done in the new graphics; they need to hire a graphic design company to do the work. Carlen Landeck, 1152 Tenth Street, Los Osos, applicant for the project, stated in her opinion, they are being singled out and their conditional use permit is being held over their heads. Also, she thinks the Commission should give a little thought about what is going to be done about the other illegal signs in town. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chairman Gallagher declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Carr, and unanimously carried, the item was continued to the regular meeting of October 15, 1991, or earlier, after review by the Architectural Review Committee, and with the provision that all neon signs be turned off and kept off with the exception of the two "OPEN" signs. COMMISSIONER SOTO LEFT THE MEETING BECAUSE OF A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON THE NEXT ITEM, AND IS NOW ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARING (CONT.) - PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 90 -490, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90 -479 AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 90 -457, CENTRAL COAST BOWL, 1524 GRAND AVENUE (MERILEE PECK - NEWDOLL.) Current Planner Spierling referred to two letters which were given to the Commission tonight; one from Richard and Lydia Dell, 308 Courtland Street, and the other one from Will and Eleanor Swayne of 1214 Brighton Avenue. He noted that these letters were received after the Commissioners' packets were distributed. Mr. Spierling then read the staff report dated August 6, 1991 pertaining to the subject applications. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that continuation of the public hearing for this project was re- advertised, Chairman Gallagher declared the hearing open. Bernie Burke, 1227 Priscilla Lane, spoke in favor of the project, stating that the community needs this project very much. Les Henderson, 332 No. Oak Park Boulevard, Grover City, spoke in opposition to the project and stated if the project is approved, it will have a devastating effect on the neighborhood and on the people who live there. Mr. Henderson commented on the EIR and some of the statements in the staff report. Becky Gerrachi, 322 Courtland, stated she is opposed to the project and her major concern is traffic. Susan Henderson, 332 No. Oak Park Boulevard, Grover City, stated she opposed to the project because of increased traffic, and she recommended that this project not be approved without the adoption of a mitigation plan for traffic. Tom Nelson, 1231 Montego Street, read a petition containing 109 signatures against the placing of a barricade on Courtland and Brighton streets, or the restricting of two -way traffic on Courtland. He stated the biggest concern was having to go from that area down Newport, make a left turn, down Oak Park, make a left turn, etc. Some were concerned that they could no longer go up Montego through to the school. Another concern was the impediment in length of time for response of emergency vehicles if Courtland 3 © 7 3o Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 8 -6 -91 is closed. Mary Buckley, 830 Tempus Circle, stated she doesn't feel that a large structure and use such as this is desirable for an area where a church and preschool is located. Walter Wideman, representing Peace Lutheran Church, 244 No. Oak Park Boulevard, stated his opposition to the project. He asked that the Commission consider the detrimental impact that the sale of alcoholic beverages on the premises of the proposed bowling center will have on members of the families participating at the center. He stated that the service of alcoholic beverages negates the family atmosphere the center would provide. Also, the congregation and families of the pre- school are concerned about the public safety factor. He asked that the Commission eliminate the service bar from the project entirely. City Attorney Skousen advised that one of the problems the City has is that regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages is outside of the City's jurisdiction; that is controlled by the Alcoholic Beverage Commission (ABC) and, therefore, if we have a facility where the zoning requirements are met, whether or not to allow alcoholic beverages to be sold is within the ABC's jurisdiction. Joe Kovak, 1981 Moss Beach Court, Grover City, stated he is opposed to the project because of traffic and the safety concerns, because with the bowling alley, there will be people who will be drinking and teenagers who are just learning to drive. Richard Duffin, 1398 Newport Avenue, stated he is opposed to the project in this location, stating it needs a site more conducive to traffic. Al Gauss, 221 No. Elm Street, stated he is opposed to the project and suggested diverting the project to another site. Eric Rose, 1391 Newport Avenue, stated he feels this is a good project but is proposed in the wrong area and, if the project is approved, the traffic problems need to be addressed now and not after the project is built. Larry Steffan, 382 Courtland Street, stated he is not opposed to bowling, but he is opposed to the proposed location and he is also opposed to the process that is currently being followed. He suggested that approval of the project be delayed and a special meeting be requested with the City of Grover City. Charlie Nichols, 350 Courtland Street, stated he agrees with the park scenario to mitigate traffic concerns on residential streets. David Watson, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the applications before the Commission. He pointed out the fact that the environmental document is complete and it discusses a variety of issues, including traffic. He reiterated some of the statements that have been made tonight and referred to material in the EIR that supports a different conclusion. He stated, with regard to traffic concerns, the cumulative impact needs to be brought into perspective as to what this project will generate. He asked that the Commission evaluate some of the alternatives that might occur on the site, and if the bowling, center doesn't go in, it is reasonable to expect that at some point in time a potentially more dense, more traffic generating project will. He further stated that the applicants are willing to contribute to their proportionate share of the solution when it is determined what that is. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chairman Gallagher declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Carr stated he liked the idea of having a bowling alley here and that it would be an asset to the City; also, he doesn't think this is the wrong place to have it, however, he would like to see some other criteria or some requirement to better deal with the traffic situation than what we have so far. He further stated, in his opinion, the traffic problem in this neighborhood goes beyond the immediate area. He asked if anyone has looked at the possibility of forming an assessment district and taking a bigger look at Grand Avenue in both Arroyo Grande and Grover City, and deal with the traffic situation from a larger perspective. After further discussion, Planning Director Liberto - Blanck stated that it might be helpful for the Commission to continue the item to the August 20, 1991 meeting and staff will try to set up a meeting between the Arroyo Grande staff, Grover City's staff, the applicant, the EIR consultant and the traffic engineer and come back with additional information regarding the traffic issues, an update on the South County traffic model and information on the Backbone Traffic System. 3 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 8 -6 -91 On motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and unanimously carried, the items were continued to the meeting of August 20, 1991 with the request that additional information be brought back to the Commission at that time along the lines of issues discussed tonight and that will identify long term solutions to the neighborhood traffic problems in this area. TIME EXTENSION - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 88 -437, 207 PILGRIM WAY (COASTAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL.) Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated August 6, 1991. He advised that this matter was continued from the June 18, 1991 Planning Commission meeting to allow the - applicant additional time to meet the conditions of approval of the Conditional Use Permit, however, these conditions have not yet been met. The applicant has been working with the Building and Fire Department and they expect to complete the work in two weeks. Staff is recommending continuing this item to the next Planning Commission meeting of August 20, 1991. On motion by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and unanimously carried, the request for a time extension on Conditional Use Permit Case No. 88- 437 was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 20, 1991. APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REQUIREMENT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DENIAL OF A BUSINESS LICENSE FOR ALLEN'S USED BOOKS, 723 - B GRAND AVENUE (HAZEL AND JACK ALLEN.) Mr. Spierling reviewed the staff report dated August 6, 1991. As background information, Mr. Spierling advised that On July 3, 1991 the Planning Department received a business license for the subject use, and as part of the normal review, a site inspection was conducted. At that time it was found that no off -site parking was provided and, after research of past businesses at this location, staff found that the last recorded business in this location was a realty office that did not renew their business license two years ago. Mr. Spierling reviewed Subsection C.2. of Section 9- 03.180 of the Development Code as follows: "Approval of a business license application that proposes establishment of a different business in an existing building or structure shall be subject to the provisions of Subsection C.1. above and, in addition, shall be subject to the following: "a. The proposed business site shall provide for the number of off - street parking spaces, driveway and parking lot improvements as required by Chapter 9 -12 (Parking) ". He further advised that if a Conditional Use Permit is submitted, off - street parking would have to be addressed, as well as a traffic study. The proposed use in this building would require 3 off - street parking spaces and, since there is no space on the site to create parking spaces, Section 9- 12.020 of the Development Code requires approval of a minor exception. The minor exception and conditional use permit would have to be processed concurrently. After the above review, Mr. Spierling stated it is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission uphold the requirement for a conditional use permit and denial of the business license. Mr. Allen, 2242 Laverne Street, Oceano, applicant, stated he doesn't feel he should have to pay to get a use permit when that building has been vacant for two years. He further stated that there are four or five on- street parking spaces right there that he knows of. 4 309: 310: Arroyo Grande Planning Conunissipn, 8-6-91 After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and carried with one "no" vote to uphold the requirement for a conditional use permit and denial of a business license. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by Commissioner Brandy, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M. ATTEST: Pearl L. Phinney, Secretary 5 M. P. Gallagh 4 hairm 1