Loading...
PC Minutes 1981-06-1630 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION June 16, 1981 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular sesion with Chairman Gorsline presiding. Present are Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Moots and Pilkington. Commissioners Gerrish and Sebastian are absent. Planning Director Hays is also in attendance. COMMUNICATIONS Planning Director Hays read a letter addressed to the Commission from Jim McGillis, San Luis Engineering, dated June 16, 1981, requesting the Commission's interpretation as to whether or not guest parking should be considered as part of open space in the "R -G" District. Planning Director Hays explained that several applications have been close when they have to have a 40% portion in open space, and the requirement for 1/2 guest parking space per unit places an extra burden on the applicant. Chairman Gorsline stated, in his opinion, what Mr. McGillis is asking for is that a portion of the guest parking be considered as part of the 40% requirement for open space. He stated that possibly Mr. Hays could come up with some ideas and directions in that respect. He further stated that guest parking has been a requirement of the Commission and, in his opinion, it should be in the Ordinance. The Commission concurred that guest parking is imperative in any type of condomonium and apartment projects. PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 81 -322, 10 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, 1146 ASH STREET, "R -G" GARDEN APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. (LINDSEY). Planning Director Hays reported that he had received a phone call yesterday from the applicant's representative indicating that they were not quite ready to proceed with this project due to the concerns regarding circulation and setbacks, etc. and they requested that the item be deleted from tonights agenda. Chairman Gorsline announced that Use Permit Case No. 81 -322 would be continued to the next regular meeting of July 7, 1981. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 81 -76, 1200 RUJSS COURT, "R -1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO REDUCE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 20 FT. TO 18 FT., AND TO REDUCE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 10 FT. TO 8 FT. (POULIN). Planning Director Hays stated the applicant, Mr. Poulin, has submitted an application for a Variance to reduce the required year yard setback from 10 ft. to 8 ft., and the front yard setback from ft. to 18 ft. He wishes to convert the existing garage into a living area, and the new garage will require the setback variance. He further advised that the rear yard setback does not pose a problem and the front yard will still have adequate room for a car to park on the driveway and not project over the sidewalk. Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for Variance Case No. 81 -76 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing open. Mr. Poulin, 1200 Russ Court, spoke in favor of the Variance being granted. He advised he would like to convert the existing garage into a living room and dining room, and the way the home is situated on the lot, reduction of the setbacks is the only way he can do that. There being no further comments for or against the proposed Variance, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -16 -81 Page 2 declared the hearing closed. to present this.information to•the working on a report. .Chairman Gors offered to the City.by the Universi RESOLUTION NO. 81 -830 V RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE., CASE NO. 81 -76. On motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES:. Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Moots, Pilkington and Chairman Gorsline NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Gerrish and Sebastian the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of June 1981. PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO 81 -320 - 16 CONDOMINIUM UNITS, 830 HUASNA ROAD IN THE "R -2" DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. (HSU /ADR.CORP.) Planning Director Hays noted that the applicant has submitted an application to develop a 16 unit condominium project on the south side of Lopez Drive. The site is zoned "R -2" Duplex Residential District, which permits condominiums subject to obtaining a Use Permit. He pointed out also that this will take a subdivision map to complete the total application. Matt Gallagher, 520 Leanne Drive, stated it has come to his knowledge that the sewer plant, the share that belongs to Arroyo Grande is over committed, and the share.that we are using is- actually the share that belongs to Grover City and, in his opinion, the. Planning Commission should not consider any further development until this problem has been resolved. He further stated that, even if we get a grant.to increase our sanitation disposal, it would take anywhere from 3 to 5 years for the development of it. He.further stated that it came to his knowledge after leaving.the City Council that we only had two wells in the City of Arroyo Grande that were contaminated, and shortly thereafter it was found that all five . wells were contaminated. Now we are spending $200,000.00 or more to drill a well in the Elm Street Park with no idea in mind if we are going to.come up with potable water and, in his opinion, this is_a.waste of- taxpayer's money. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Gorsline Chairman Gorsline commented that he had read the article in the San Luis paper about Grover..City_suddenly realizing that we -were using more.than our share and, -in his opinion, it .comes.down eventually that.the.City.has got to look at resources. •He stated we drew -the line a while back on all annexations, and it.may be the time.now.where we.are going to have to draw the line on any developments until the Planning Commission gets some sort - of direction on resources. Planning Director Hays stated with regard to . the resources study, when he came on board the Council at the time indicated they would like this item.to -be pursued and at this point the.Planning Department is gathering this information right now, and sewer.capacity is one of these items.. -He further advised that point it is still,premature Commission or Council, but staff is line commented that this service was ty of California, and the Council did not do anything about it and, in his mind, he has a real question about that. Planning Director Hays commented that he.is.sure that all of these - concerns are well taken, but he is not sure it, has been officially determined that we are at certain points and, in his - opinion, there is a lot of conjecture and there have been a lot of figures and facts thrown around and he would be a little hesitant to go too far on this until we get some direction. Commissioner.Cole.stated she doesn't feel the Commission can stop and say we can't make any kind of committments because we don't have the facts. Planning Director Hays stated he is required to accept the applications and until we have a.certain cut off point or some word that this is it, we can no longer accept the applications because we have reached a certain capacity as far as water consumption, sewage capacity 331 332 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -16 -81 Page 3 and traffic capacity.. Chairman Gorsline stated the Commission is still being asked to make decisions in regards to situations that we really do not have the information about. Commissioner Pilkington stated that as long as the City takes the applicant's fees, we are saying "yes" we will hear your situation and, in his opinion, it would an injustice to shut these people down until we have the proper direction or the answer from the City Council. Commissioner Cole stated she feels that as an advisory committee, the Commission has not been told by the powers that be that they have to stop, and it is her feeling that we must continue until we get that direction. Commissioner Fischer stated, in her opinion, some- time someone has to take that responsibility and say there is a problem. She commented that possibly if the Planning Commission hag not made a big deal, maybe the water problem wouldn't have been accepted as soon as it was, because no one had ever directed the Commission that there was a water problem; it came up by independent people saying there was a problem; the Commission was never told by a City official that we have a water problem and we need to do something about it. She stated she thinks the Commission needs to be responsible and maybe start asking questions and making a few waves; She further pointed out that the Commission was never directed to start a moratorium on annexations and as responsible Planning Commissioners, took that authority and said we would no longer accept annexations until we know for sure that we have no water problems. Oommissioner Cole stated she feels the Commission should continue with the agenda they have tonight because they have not been given any definite information. Commissioner Moots stated that until the Commission gets a responsible answer to this, he does not want to vote on Mr. Hsu's project because he feels we have a responsibility to somebody to say, lets find out what really is the truth -- water, sewer, traffic circulation, or whatever. He further stated the Commission would not be acting responsible to vote on a project when they have even a lurking knowledge that they may be wrong.. Commissioner Fischer moved that the public hearing be continued until the information that was brought up tonight is clarified as to whether we have any sewer allotment left. Motion seconded by Commissioner Moots. Mr. Hsu stated if that motion means that the Commission is post- poning this, he would like to make a to the City that a moratorium be put on all buildings and that all agenda items from 4 to 14 be continued. After further discussion, Chairman Gorsline pointed out that a motion has been made and seconded to Use Permit Case No. 81 -320 until we have direction from the City staff regarding our Sanitation District The vote was taken and motion carried with two "no" votes. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 81 -363, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, 1190 GRAND AVENUE. (HARRIS, COCKS & HARRIS). Planning Director Hays advised that at the Minor Subdivision Committee Meeting it was determined that there was an additional problem that needed to be resolved with regard to this item, and the applicants have requested that the matter be continued to the July 7th meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 80 -345, CAYON WAY. (MEYERS). Commissioner Pilkington inquired how the Commission can hear this matter due to the way the Commission just voted on the previous Use Permit, which would be further taxing the situation that we have as far as sewage allotment, which would be adding more to the same problem? A motion was made by Commissioner Pilkington, seconded by Commissioner Moots, that Agenda Item 6 through 11 be continued the same as Item #4 until the sewer problem is resolved. Motion carried with two "no" votes. Mr. Meyers, petitioner for the lot split, stated that the sewer lines, are already being put -in_ for ( three lots to his property and he is being assessed on that basis, ana if it is not going to be approved, then the City had better 'stop the Assessment District. Chairman Gorsline stated that Mr. Meyers is correct in that these lots have already been assessed on the basis that they were going to have x number of lots. Planning Director Hays pointed out regarding the lot splits on Canyon Way that the Assessment District has been formed and everyone has Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -16 -81 Page 4 been proceeding on the basis that, assuming that they could meet the Ordinance, these lot splits would be approved, so we are in a situation here where it is difficult not to proceed 'in some way. Chairman Gorsline stated he voted to continue the items on the basis that this was exactly the same situation as the other issue, however, now he doesn't think that it is. Commissioner Cole pointed out that we also have sewer lines out there where the Item 4 project was going, and we also have a committment on that. Planning Director Hays pointed out that Item Nos; 6 and 7, Mr. Kopitzke and, Mr. Meyers, have'already been through the mill, and their tentative maps have been approved; they had submitted their final maps for acceptance by the Council and, at that meeting, the City Attorney indicated that he felt there should be a public hearing on these matters to clear the record. Chairman Gorsline noted that there a motion to continue these public hearings until we have additional information. and inquired if there is Emotion to reconsider the motion? Commissioner ,Moots- moved that ;the .,moton. reconsidered regarding_.Itetsi -6 through, on_ : seconded_ by ,Commissioner Fischer, and carried WI "no" vote. • With regard to Lot Split Case No. 80 -345, Planning Director Hays advised that the conditions, of the split have been presented to the Commission in their packets. He pointed out that the applicants have complied with the conditions and have submitted their final map to be accepted by the City Council. Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 80 -345 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Gorsline' declared the hearing open. : Frances Schmandle,.Pismo Beach, inquired if it is the Planning Commission's statement now that these are the first legal public hearings and that they have priority as a legal right to the sewer over Item 4•on•the•agenda.which was said to have a legal - right and was, continued? She further inquired , if this is discrimination? Chairman Gorsline advised that this is a judgement, and the only difference is that these have already been approved; it has gone through -the. Commission and City Council. .He further stated that the Assessment Dis tghas_been_set_.,up the property own_ e hasnbeenacharged ,orgithatnumber of units,. „ r - Mr. Jim McGillis commented that there is a duly acting Board of Directors for the Oceano Sanitary District and until that Board of Directors' tells the City "you don't have any sewer ", then:you have sewers; For the Commission's information,. Planning Director Hays noted that since the matter of public hearings on lot splits has come up, he has contacted - the City Attorney and it is his opinion that those items that have already had a tentative map approved need not have the public hearing, and Mr. Myers and Mr. Kopitzke's lot splits got caught the middle and are-being jeopardized. Ella Honeycutt, Hill Road; stated she feels is wrong is not having resources management, 'and all of a sudden the Commission is caught. in the middle, and innocent people are getting hurt. She further commented that' the Sewer District did put out these figures and the City is going to have to do some dealing with Grover.. She-stated-that if the Commission 'has the hearings :. • tonight they should leave it ;in the Council's-lap;-it is their responsibility because they didn't have things given to the Commission. Upon hearing n o ' further comments for or against the proposed lot split,• Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing closed. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and unanimously carried- Lot -Split Case No. 80-345 was approved subject to the 5 conditions listed in Minor Subdivision Committee Action; :dated February 25, 1981. - PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 80 -346, CANTON WAY. (KOPITZKE). 333 234 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -16 -81 Page 5 ' Planning Director Hays stated the conditions of approval are noted on the Minor Subdivision Committee report and the applicants., have complied with those conditions to this point which is necessary to file the final map. • Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 80 -346 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing open. Upon hearing no comments for or against the proposed lot split; Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing closed. On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by 'Commissioner Fischer, and unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No. 80 -346 was approved subject to the conditions noted in Minor Subdivision Committee Action, dated February 25, 1981. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 81 -356, CANYON WAY. (SCHAFER). Planning Director Hays advised that the Minor Subdivision Committee reviewed this item and recommended approval of the map subject to the 10 conditions listed in their Action Report. ' Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 81 -356 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing open. Frances Schmandle, Pismo requested if the Commission is going to continue the public hearings on lot splits, that they re -open Item #4. There being no further comments, Chairman'Gorsline declared the hearing. closed. Commissioner Pilkington stated he agrees with Mrs. Schmandle arid if we stop one person, "we certainly can't continue with the other people. He stated, however, he is against stopping the people because we are taking their fees and certainly should consider their items. Commissioner Cole recommended that the Commission continue because we do not have facts on what has been brought up tonight in which to make any decision and, therefore, continue with the knowledge have until the Council, or whomever provides us with the information to make that kind of decision. • After discussion, on motion by .Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, approving Lot Split Case No. 81' -356, subject to the 10 listed in Committee Action Report, dated May 27, 1981. No action was taken due to a 2 to 2 vote, with one abstintion. Commissioner Cole commented she does not understand how 'the Commission can justify turning these people down when they are in the Sewer Assessment District and most of them have paid some funds, and in her opinion, a split vote represents a denial of the lot split. Planning Director Hays commented that where the City has entered into an agreement on the Assessment District; people are paying funds, and everything has been predicated on the fact that they would be able to go ahead and split this and he feels we really need a - legal interpretation of what sort of action the Commission could legally take on this matter. He further stated that the information the Commission is requesting relative to the sewer information can be gathered very quickly and these items could be continued to the next meeting, however, he would hate to see these matters left hanging because they have applied; have paid their money; they are an Assessment District; and committments have been made.. Mr. Hays stated he feels 'we are facing some real serious legal' consequences on these matters, and as he sees it this was more of a formality and consideration that they did meet the zoning code and subdivision ordinance relative to their applications, and he felt it was predetermined that there would be capacity when they were-allowed to go ahead with all of this, and he finds it hard not to proceed on these matters.` Commissioner Cole pointed out that Commissioners Gorsline arid Fischer - will not be with us at the next meeting and there is a possibility we will not have a quorum, therefore, it will be a full month before we face this, and in her opinion, in all fairness to the people who have come into agreement Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -16 -81 _ Page 6 with the, City, the Commission should vote_on this point. .Planning Director Hays also pointed out if at the time these people come in to get their building permit,, if, there is not capacity, they will not be able to.hook up to the sewer. Chairman Gorsline commented that if there would be a motion to reconsider, he would be willing to change his vote on this, matter. On motion.by Commissioner. Cole,, seconded, by Commissioner Pilkington, motion carried. with one "no" vote and one abstintion to. reconsider Minor Subdivision Committee Action on the application of C.E. Shafer, Lot Split Case No. 81 -356, Canyon Way, and approved said lot split with the 10 conditions as stated in Minor Subdivision.Committee Action, dated May 27, 1981. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT 'CASE NO. 81 -357, CANYON WAY. (CUMLEY). Planning Director Hays advised that the Minor Subdivision Committee action was for_approval of.this application.with the 9 conditions as listed. Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 81 -357 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing open. _Upon hearing no comments for or, against lot_split,.Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing closed. On motion by Commissioner dole, seconded - by Commissioner Pilkington, motion'carried with 1 "no" vote and 1 abstintion, approving the action of the Minor Subdivision Committee subject to the conditions as stated in Action report, dated May 27, J981. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 81 -358, CANYON WAY. (MC KEE). Planning Director Hays advised that the application was reviewed by the Lot Split Committee and approval was recommended subject.to the 7 conditions noted in. the report, . Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for . Lot Split Case No. 81 -358 had been.duly published,,posted and property owners notified, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing open. Frances Schmandle, Pismo Beach,.stated she hopes the Commission will have the courage to go back and reconsider Item #4. There being no further comments.for.or against the proposed lot split, Chairman, Gorsline declared.the hearing closed. On motion by Commissioner Pilkington, seconded, byCommissioner_ motion carried with one "no" vote, to approve Lot Split No. 81 -358 subject to the 7 conditions listed in the Minor Subdivision Committee Action Report, dated May 27,'1981. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 81- 359,.CANYON WAY. (RAMIREZ). Planning Director Hays advised that the Lot Split has reviewed the application and recommended approval with the 8 conditions listed in their report. :. Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays.that public Lot Split Case No. 81- 359,had been duly published, posted_and notified, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing open. Upon hearing no comments for or against the proposed lot Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing closed. hearing for property owners split,' On motion_by Commissioner Pilkington, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, motion carried with one "no" vote, Lot Split Case No. 81 -359 was.approved as recommended by the Lot Split Committee subject to,the 8 conditions listed in the Committee report, dated May 27,' 1981, PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CA NO. 81 -361; "KNOLLWOOD',' DEVELOPMENT, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF SO. COUNTY REGIONAL CENTER ON W. BRANCH STREET. (BAMOD CO.) Planning Director_Hays advised that the applicant has submitted an application to divide the property into six parcels. TheKnollwood project's total development site was originally reviewed and approved by the Commission _ and Council. The development parcel sizes conform with the different density 335 236 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -16 -81 Page 7' allowances in the various areas, and the, configuration conforms with the approved development plan: of the Ordinance which was approved.' He stated that the split will essentially allow them to proceed with various phasing of the development for financing purposes, etc. He further stated that the parcel sizes are larger than 20 acres, which means the Commission can approve them if they have access to an improved road. He pointed out that there are 9 purposed conditions which - will take care of'the road construction, right of way acquisition, etc. He explained that this action will break the property into various parcels for development that will come in on a parcel to parcel basis for phasing. Mr. Howard Anderson, BAMOD Co., stated this action is a formalization of one step further in the development; every one of the conditions are duplications of the conditions of approval which still apply This lot split would allow BAMOD to come'in with a subdivision,_ and would break the property down into workable parcels and, basically the conditions, would remain the same. Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 81 361 been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing open. Mr. Paul Hsu stated he wanted to clarify why his project has to be , continued. He inquired if the subject project will increase housing and if they have paid assessment fees for the sewer? Chairman Gorsline advised that this was an approved project„and has been ;figured in ourroveraardensity., Judy Peterson, Printz Road, inquired as to how many homes would be . _ developed and what the price range would be. She also inquired about the concern of over - crowded schools,.„ Howard BAMOD, stated that the overall maximum density was 233 units, however,,he would hesitate to even answer that question because we'are not really talking about specific at this point. He further stated that the project has already been approved subject to a number ' of conditions, and the public will have a chance at the public hearings to take an in -depth look at each development individually. Ella Honeycutt asked the Director if he had seen the paper before on the.sewer district. She stated if the matter wasn't addressed in the EIR, then we need to go back and take a look at it. Planning Director Hays commented that what;we are doing. right now is approving a minor sub- division. Upon hearing no further comments for.or against the proposed_lot split, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing closed. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and carried with two "no" votes, Lot Split Case No. 81 -361 was approved subject to the 9 conditions listed in Minor Subdivision Committee Action, dated June 10, 1981, with the'addition #10 . as follows: "That all of the,conditions required this date also be adhered to." PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 81 -362, "OAK PARK ACRES" DEVELOPMENT. (KVIDT). Planning Director Hays advised that the applicant has submitted a lot split_ application to divide approximately_ 10 -1/2 acres into three individual parcels. The property is located approximately at the corner of Oak Park Boulevard and West Branch Street immediately adjacent to the overpass exit on Highway 101. He further advised that this particular lot is.one of the originally approved parcels in the Oak Park .Acres area. The parcel map is before the Commission a specific type of development, which.is 13.a on the agenda, the companion to this application. He reviewed that it is. proposed on parcel A that approximately a 72,000 sq. ft. K -Mart store be . developed;. Parcel B, immediately adjacent, would be retail shops and offices. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6 -16 -81 Page 8 Parcel C is a site for possibly a financial institution or somebody that requires a separate parcel. Mr. Hays advised that the Lot Split Committee reviewed the application and recommended approval subject to the 4 conditions listed in their report. Mr. Hays pointed out that all parcels will share parking facilities, easement and access in common. Upon being assured by Planning Director Hays that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 81 -362 had been duly published, posted and property owners noti- fied, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing open. Mr. Jim Wood, Koenig and Wood Development Company, briefly reviewed the proposed development. He advised that the purposes of the parcel map is that K -Mart is going to own Parcel A, and Koenig and Wood is going to own Parcels B and C. He stated what they are proposing overall is a 114,000 sq. ft. shopping center. It will consist of the K -Mart Store, and it will have 23,000 sq. ft. of retail, and 8,200 sq. ft. of offices, and two free standing pads will be used for financial and /or restaurant type uses. He advised there will be parking for 585 cars; with a ratio of 5.1 per thousand sq. ft., and the access will be mainly three retail access roads and a service road. The architecture will be basically emphasizing a Spanish traditional type theme. Barbara Sisson, representative of K -Mart Stores, spoke with regard to the proposed K -Mart Store, the tax base for the community, and potential employment opportunities for approximately 110 personnel for the store. Mr. Paul Hsu inquired if the K -Mart developers have paid an assessment district for the project for the sewer and water ?_ Mr. Reuben Kvidt, developer, advised with regard to the sewer bond, they were assessed some $86,000, and at the time the P.U.D. was approved by Ordinance 140 C.S., they were promised certain things they could do, in exchange for certain things they would do for the City, and one of those things was to improve Oak Park Road for a distance of about one mile at an approximate cost of one million dollars, and it was their understanding when they did that, they would have certain rights to water and sewer. Judy Peterson, Printz Road, stated she doesn't feel we need a K -Mart Store in Arroyo Grande. Judith Wheeler, Corbett Canyon Road, stated she feels everyone in this area could benefit with the addition of a K -Mart Store. Frances Schmandle, Pismo Beach, stated she feels that we need a K -Mart Store in the area very much. She also requested that the Commission make a motion to reconsider Item #4 at the end of the Agenda. Upon hearing no further comments for or against the proposed lot split, Chairman Gorsline declared the hearing closed. After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington, and unanimously carried, Lot Split Case No. 81 -362 was approved subject to the 4 conditions recommended in Minor Subdivision Committee Action dated June 10, 1981. ARCHITECTURAL .REVIEW CASE NO. 81 -248, PROPOSED SHOPPING CENTER OAK PARK ACRES. Commissioner Moots questioned if the paving of the parking lot and land- scaping would be completed with the construction of the K -Mart facility. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner seconded b Moots, and unanimously carried, Architectural ReviewCase No: 81 -248 was approved subject to the conditions recommended in Architectural Committee Action, dated June 10, 1981, and amended by adding the following conditions: 14. Total parking lot paving - to be completed- with - the- constructio_n_of___ the K-Mart facility on Parcel A. ATTEST: 15. Landscaping of the entire site will be completed with the construction of the K -Mart facility on Parcel A. COMMUNICATIONS On motion by Commissioner Pilkington, seconded by Commissioner Cole, motion lost on a 3 to 2 vote, to re -open Agenda Item No. 4, Use Permit Case No. 81 -320. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 10:30 P.M. Secretary Chairman 337