Loading...
PC Minutes 1999-06-291 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 29, 1999 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Greene presiding. Present were Commissioners Costello, Keen, London and Parker. Also in attendance were Interim Community Development Director Henry Engen, Contract Planner Tom Buford and Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of May 18, 1999 were unanimously approved as written with Chair Greene stepping down for the vote. He was not present at the May 18, 1999 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1 Memorandum from Kathleen Fryer: Planning Commission Summer Vacation Schedule 2. Letter dated June 21, 1999 from William Schoeffler, owner of the Casa Grande Inn, regarding the proposed Kennedy Health and Fitness Club. Henry Engen, Interim Community Development Director, introduced Kim Romano, Associate Engineer from Public Works. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98 -572 APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN 11,335 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JAMES WAY AND OAK PARK BOULEVARD. RUSSELL SHEPPEL, APPLICANT. Contract Planner Tom Buford reviewed the staff report dated June 29, 1999. He reviewed the history of the project and prior reviews before the Commission. He noted that the Planning Commission has two projects before them concerning the development of the Oak Park Health Plaza. The first is the item introduced which is the office building proposal by Russell Sheppel, and the second is the next item on the June 29, 1999 agenda, which is a project proposed by Kevin Kennedy, Conditional Use Permit 98 -573 to construct an 18,925 square foot Health and Fitness Club. He explained that Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Sheppel have been associated on this project site since the 1980's. There has been recognition in the past by the Planning Commission that planning for the entire site made sense in terms of access, drainage, parking and circulation easements. This came about because there had been an initial indication from the applicants that they wanted to have the access for the project from Oak Park Blvd. When it was determined this was not feasible and they would have to have access from James Way, it was decided to adopt a Master Plan for the entire site. The last revision of the Master Plan was in 1996. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 2 Mr. Buford summarized the staff report with special attention given to the issues of traffic and parking. He further stated that Mr. Sheppel's and Mr. Kennedy's cases are separate issues and joint action does not need to be taken on both cases. However, many of the aspects in terms of site planning, involve both projects. Commissioner London's first concern was that in the staff report it stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission act on the Use permits without assuming that Parcel 6 would eventually provide an exit onto James Way. In looking at the site map, there is only one way in and he was concerned about people stacking up as they are trying to get in and out of the one driveway. Mr. Buford replied that Staff felt having one ingress and egress would work for the following reasons: 1. The Fire and Police Departments had both taken a look at the project and they were satisfied with the safety requirements on site. 2. Staff had an update of the Traffic Study done to make sure someone from the outside had looked at the project and determined its safety. 3. From a design standpoint, there are design standards for parking lots and parking spaces and these have been satisfied. Commission London asked if it was the guess of staff that the circulation and parking would work for the project? Mr. Buford replied that it was more than a guess. Staff has a lot of respect for Penfield and Smith who did the traffic study as well as Public Works who had looked at the project. Commissioner London asked if a portion of lot 6 could be obtained for a parking easement? Mr. Buford replied that the City did not have the authority to condition a project on an easement over property that is not under control of the applicant. If the applicant proposed this they would be required to show that they had the owner's consent. Commissioner London asked if there had been any discussion between the applicants and the owner of lot 6? Mr. Buford answered that he was not aware of any discussion. Commissioner Parker stated that she assumed that since the owners of the adjacent parcels were not present at the meeting that they had not entered into the agreement of the reciprocal parking? Mr. Buford replied that as far as he knew they had not and that there was no agreement. It had been contemplated that if there was no agreement at the time of approval the City could make that a condition with the applicants. The owners of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 3 parcels 5 and 6 would not be a part of any agreement. Mrs. Parker wanted to make sure that she was clear on the existing Master Plan. She stated that she understood that the Master Plan had already been approved several years ago. So, was she understanding it correctly that the footprint of the proposed building is being increased at this time? Mr. Buford replied that that was correct. Mrs. Parker then asked if the Master Plan were to come back at a later date and another applicant asked for an increase to the footprint of the buildings on the remaining parcels from another Commission could they grant that? Or, once the Master Plan has been approved are changes allowed? Would they be entitled to a 7,200 square foot building whether it complied with the City's established codes or not? Mr. Buford replied that it was clear from the previous Planning Commission minutes and resolutions that this Master Plan was viewed as a planning tool for the site. It did not indicate that there was any entitlement granted with this Master Plan. As the different owners came forward with their projects, they would make their application for the appropriate permits and satisfy the Development Code requirements at the time they make the application. He went on to say that this was not stated specifically on the Master Plan. However, because this is not a Planned Development Permit, which does designate specifics and is a permit, there is no indication that this Master Plan was anything other than a planning tool. To be very clear, Mrs. Parker asked if, at a later date, the size remaining buildings could be changed to meet Development Code standards? Mr. Buford replied that that was true. Commissioner Costello had questions about the parking. He stated that the original staff report from 1996 stated that the standard parking spaces were 10 feet by 20 feet with compact spaces being 9 feet by 18 feet. The revised Master `Plan includes spaces that are 9 feet by 18 feet. Have the standards for spaces gotten smaller? Craig Campbell, Contract Engineer, replied that they are 9 feet by 18 feet. He has never seen 10 feet by 20 feet spaces allowed since he has been here. Mr. Costello asked if the parking agreements that had been proposed were revocable? Mr. Buford answered that it would be subject to the approval of the Planning staff and this issue had never come up. Staff would intend that these agreements would be irrevocable. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1999 Page4 Mr. Costello asked what would happen if three years from now someone else bought the property and did not want to be part of the agreement any more? How binding would the agreements be? Mr. Buford replied that it was not intended to be irrevocable. The question that has come up is that, the developer of parcel number 6 would have a parcel that is shown on the Master Plan as having 7,200 square feet of building space and has . forty -five parking spaces and this may not be correct. He believes that with this Master Plan that is before the Commission tonight would be a relevant concern. Chair Greene asked if City Staff was aware of any complaint by the Sheffler's, the owner's of the Casa Grande Inn, of any unauthorized use of their parking lot as access to James Way? Mr. Campbell was not aware of any. Chair Greene had some questions about the Resolutions that had been submitted for the Commission's approval. On page one, under Conditional Use Findings, Finding 2 refers to Village Commercial District, is this correct? Mr. Buford replied that it was supposed to be Highway Commercial. Mr. Greene asked about Page 6 of Exhibit A, Condition 11 that refers to a soil report. He asked if the soils report that was submitted in the packet was the soils report the Commission should be referring to, or would the applicant have to do another one? Mr. Campbell answered that there was a letter in the Commission packet that updates the soils report and this was adequate to satisfy that Condition. He asked if in the Sheppel Conditions, number 50 and 57 were being deleted? Mr. Buford stated that was correct. Mr. Greene then asked about Condition 58, on page 12 of the Conditions. This was the Condition that talked about reciprocal easements. This Condition stated that the project was to be approved by the City Council on July 13, 1999. He wondered if this date should be left open? Mr. Buford answered that that date should be removed. Mr. Campbell wanted to add that the reciprocal easements applied to drainage, utilities, and so forth. Mr. Greene asked about the Master Plan and stated that there is language on the revised Master Plan showing the changes from the original Master Plan. With respect to the Parcel that Dr. Sheppel wants to develop, this is Parcel 2, AG 95- Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 5 108, which Mr. Buford has been referring to as Sheppel 2? The original Master Plan showed a building of 7,200 square feet and now the _applicant is proposing to build a building of approximately 11,300 square feet. Then, looking at Parcel 2 AG Al 92 -027 that would be the Kennedy Parcel? Again, the original Master Plan designated 16,000 square feet and the new proposal is almost 19,000? If or when the property owner for Sheppel 3 makes an application to develop that parcel, is that person required to go through the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval? Mr. Buford replied that any further development would be required to go through the application process. Mr. Greene asked how the Commission could be assured that any decision tonight by the Commission to approve the Sheppel and Kennedy projects is not some de facto approval of that 7,200 square foot building on Sheppel No. 3. Mr. Buford replied that having this stated in the minutes and findings would help. However, the best way is to have this in the Conditions of Approval or as a deed restriction, which is recorded, or, assuming that the Commission asked the applicants and they agreed that this was not an entitlement for Parcel No. 3, notice on the Master Plan would be appropriate. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Kim Hatch, Pults and Associates, the representative for Mr. Sheppel spoke to the Commission. He stated that he hopes the Commission would approve the project and recommends approval to the City Council. He felt all the topics that needed to be discussed had been. He stated that the Master Plan was probably the most controversial aspect of this hearing. In answer to one of Commissioner London's questions, the topography of this project make it difficult to plan where the parking and the exits should go. The site access and egress is located to the furthermost point east of the site, so if it is the furthermost it can be located from the corner of James Way and Oak Park. Given the constraints of the site, they have done the best they can do without interfering with someone else's site. He stated that the Traffic Report was favorable to this as well as the levels of service. He explained that the Parcels five 5 and 6 were not being changed at all. The three sites that are the subject of this discussion have not been revised to any extent. He discussed why the applicants had designed the parking as they had. He stated that the new parking plan: gives landscaping that was not part of the original plan; handicapped parking; allows for the topography of the site; and allows better access to the building. The parking is acceptable to the Fire and Public Works departments, as is the drainage. Mr. Hatch finished by saying that he was in agreement with the Staff Report. He Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 6 had a change in the Staff Report on page two; the acreage should read 3.74 versus 9.74. He would like the words "James Way and Oak Park intersection " added to Condition No. 45. It was his understanding that they were required to contribute to this intersection only. Commissioner Costello stated that his only concern was the parking agreement and his desire to make sure it was not revocable. He understood that the Commission had had a recent bad experience with this kind of easement agreement. Mr. Campbell answered that the City has done Grant Deeds for easements. He felt there should not be a problem if the Deeds are written carefully and then reviewed by the City Attorney. Commissioner Keen stated that the City Council had made a determination that there would be no compact parking spaces allowed in the City. Therefore, the parking spaces shown are for any vehicle. Commissioner London asked if any one had had any contact with the owner of Lot No. 6? Mr. Hatch replied that they had not had any contact with the owner. Commissioner London then asked if there was a change of grade between the parcel that Mr. Kennedy was building on the Lot No. 6? Mr. Hatch answered that he was not sure what the difference of grade was. However, with the grading that will be done it will bring the two lots closer in grade. Commissioner London asked why no contact had been made with the property owner? Mr. Hatch replied that they did not see it necessary for the development of their site to contact the owner. They did not feel they had made major revisions to the Master Plan beyond increasing the size of the buildings. Furthermore, the owners have been notified through the public hearing noticing process. They have not come forward to ask the applicant or the City any questions. Chair Greene stated that the colors for the new building were a little different than the existing building. He asked Mr. Hatch why those colors had been chosen? He also asked if the buildings were architecturally similar? Mr. Hatch explained that the colors were a little darker. He said that the colors were a little light, they were dated and showed dirt easier. The buildings were similar by volumes, by the actual shapes and location in the site. This building is a little more refined. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 7 Mr. Greene asked if Mr. Sheppel, the applicant, and also the owner of the adjacent Parcel No. 3, had any development plans for that parcel? Mr. Hatch explained that Mr. Sheppel was aware of the "risk" and problems with the square footage of that site. He has no plans in the immediate future for development. Carol Florence, Oasis Landscaping, landscape architect for the projects, spoke to the Commission and explained the landscape design to them. She told the Commission that she had designed the projects to go together. Commissioner London asked if the vegetation on Parcel No. 3 would stay green after it was planted? Was there going to be an irrigation system of that Parcel? Chair Greene asked if language could be added to Condition No. 14 that would require an irrigation system be installed? Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Keen was concerned about the entrance off James Way. He felt it was too difficult to get in and out of and presented a hazard. The driving lane east bound on James Way is right against the curb, and if someone is driving out of the driveway it is impossible to turn into it. The fire hydrant is too close. He proposed the following: 1. Move the fire hydrant. 3. Install a radius curb. The driveway has to be modified to make the ingress and egress work. He had spoken to the Fire Chief and he was told it would not be a problem to move the fire hydrant. Mr. Keen questioned the Conditions Nos. 16 and 20. The language was contradictory about the times construction was allowed. He was concerned about the times because of the motel in such close proximity and the church if construction was allowed on Sunday. He proposed eliminating one of the conditions. He had a concern with the parking issue and the fact that the applicant had not asked for a 30% reduction in parking because of different times and types of use. His concern was that when the next applicant came in they would ask for the 30% reduction. Finally, Mr. Keen suggested that if the motel has a problem with people driving through the easement to their motel, which is there for a fire access, he suggested they put in a "break down" fire barrier. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 8 Addressing what Mr. Keen had suggested concerning Conditions 16 and 20, Mr. Buford said Condition No. 20 should be deleted. The time in Condition No. 16 will be changed to 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The words "Noise generating" will be eliminated from the Condition. Commissioner Parker had a question concerning the EIR. She asked if Page 8, No. e) had to be marked? Mr. Buford replied that it should be marked and it will be changed. Mrs'. Parker stated that she was concerned about the combined parking easements that were proposed. She stated that in the Development Code standards for Common Parking Facilities, page 359, Section 9- 12.050 it stated "Common parking facilities may be provided in lieu of individual requirements if the total number of parking spaces is the sum of the requirements for individual uses and the parking facilities are located within 200 ft. of the associated use." It was her understanding that since the buildings do not themselves provide the required spaces, the Commission may consider this section. This would mean that the Kennedy facility combinedYwith the three (3) Shepp'el facilities would require a total shared parking lot of 172 spaces. The four (4) facilities are offering is a combined total of 140 spaces, which means they are • 32 spaces short. The Development Code also says: "The total parking requirement may be reduced to 70% of the required standard, if a parking study, prepared by a licensed engineer or architect, can clearly show that the shared uses have different hours of operation and would not conflict in their time of use." The draft Negative Declaration uses a duration of peak hours for Kennedy Nautilus Center as from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. However, at the November 17, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Hamrick, representing Kevin Kennedy, stated that the peak hours for use of the club were from 4:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. Since offices usually close around 6 p.m., this leaves a cross over time of about 2 to 2 /12 hours. Since our Development Code specifically requires that to earn the 30% reduction in shared parking, "it must clearly show that the shared uses have different hours of operation and would not conflict in their time of use." This development does not conform. She further stated that the Negative Declaration would need to be redrafted to conform to the accurate information. As for the peak time of use for the Kennedy Health Club, the Negative Declaration cites the Urban Land Institute parking demand data. According to this data, at non - peak hours, the office parking demand would be approximately 51 spaces or 81 % of its peak, dropping off to 23% of office peak, to 13, but only after 6 p.m. This would mean that during the hours of 4:30 and 6:00 p.m., the center would need a combined total of 166 spaces. This covers all three (3) buildings including the future building of 7,200 square feet. The Development Codes calls for a Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 9 combined shared total of 172 parking spaces, even taking into consideration peak and off -peak shared spaces, 166 parking spaces are required according to the data provided by the Urban Land Institute. This development offers 140, not nearly enough for the four (4) buildings to share. According to a letter from the current tenant in Sheppel Building 1, there is already inadequate parking for afternoon hours, forcing patients to park in the fire lane. Commissioner Parker stated that to approve a further deficiency in parking would be unsafe and not competent. The only way she can see that this would work with the shortfall of 26 to 32 spaces, is to bring the Sheppel No. 3 building project in with less square footage. She further stated that she could not find it possible to approve the sharing of parking sites on Development Sites five (5) and six (6) which are owned by another part. Mrs. Parker stated that it was difficult to make decisions based on what might happen instead of based on current studies. It seems to her, that in the future if a study was made and then building 3 was brought before the Commission, the applicant could use the study between the times of actual use and what the third building would require. Mrs. Parker stated she was concerned with leaving the Parcel 3 building at 7,200 square feet. She had worked out the numbers and said that considering each space to be 9 feet by 18 feet with 24 feet between each, two spaces would work out to be 540 square feet. For each 1,000 square feet taken off the building footprint, four Tess spaces are needed and four spaces are also gained by the available square feet. This means that the future building could be 5,200 square feet. She would like to propose language to state that the building size, shown on the Master Plan as 7,200 square feet, is limited to 5,200 square feet. Commissioner Costello's question was, after reading Condition No. 4, and finding that parking is inadequate, what recourse does the City have? Mr. Buford stated that it would not be in the applicant's best interest to build a project that doesn't work. He feels that the applicants are honest people and the intention of both parties has been to fully park the site. In fact, they are fully parked with regard to the Development Code. The Commissions best protection is to determine that the project is adequately parked. Mr. Buford explained to the Commission that Mr. Kennedy has a great deal of experience in running Health Clubs. In 1988 he had a project approved by the Planning Commission. At that time a Traffic Study was done by Garing, Taylor and Associates and he gave very concrete data to them at that time. Penfield and Smith updated the study just recently and staff is confident that the numbers are correct. Commissioner London asked if the double striping could be a Condition as well as Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 10 making sure that Parcel No. 3 had an irrigation system? Craig Campbell stated that both things could be written into the Conditions of Approval. Chair Greene stated that the Architecture Review Committee had reviewed the designs and approved them. He felt the new design was very good and that the building would be an asset to the Community. His concerns were related to the driveway. He asked if language could be added to the Conditions of Approval that would address Mr. Keen's concern with the driveway. Mr. Campbell suggested the following language be added to the Conditions of Approval: "The driveway entrance should be constructed with curb returns, concrete cross gutter and spandrels. The existing fire hydrant shall be relocated." Chair Greene also had a concern about parking. He would like some language added to the Master Plan and the Conditions of Approval to make sure that the Commission was not approving the 7,200 square foot building on Parcel No. 3. Mr. Buford stated that the Master Plan should be revised to reflect the changes the Commission wanted. The notes on the Master Plan should include a provision that reads: "The revised Master Plan is a planning tool and is not an entitlement for future development. Future proposed buildings on Parcel 3 AG 95 -108 and Parcel A, AG 79 - -38 must receive required review and approvals and must satisfy parking and other Development Code requirements then in effect. Chair Greene suggested that this be added to the Conditional Use Permit findings as Finding No. 6. Commissioner Parker had a comment on the Negative Declaration that was to be approved. She stated that on page 15 the information was incorrect. Or, the Planning Commission minutes of November 17, 1998 were incorrect because the times of peak hours at the Health Club from the two documents do not coincide. Mr. Buford explained that the hours of use for Kennedy Health Club start to build up at 4:30 p.m. and actually peak at 6:00 p.m. Therefore the highest use at the Health Club is 6:00 p.m. when the parking for the office building is lower. The language in the Negative Declaration was changed to read: Health Club parking requirements begin increasing significantly at 4:30 p.m. and peak between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m." Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 99 -1699 of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and approve Conditional Use Permit Case No. 98 -572, applied for by Russell Sheppel located at Oak Park Boulevard and James Way including Attachment A and the following changes of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 11 the Planning Commission: 1. Condition of Approval #58 - omit date of July 13, 1999 2. Add the following language as No. 6 in the Conditions of Approval findings: "The revised Master Plan is a planning tool and is not an entitlement for future development. Future proposed buildings on Parcel 3 AG 95 -108 and Parcel A, AG 79 - -38 must receive required review and approvals and must satisfy parking and other Development Code requirements then in effect. " 3. Delete Conditions of Approval Nos. 50 and 57 4. Add James Way and Oak Park intersection to Condition of Approval No. 45 5. Master Plan to be revised to reflect the language from Conditions of Approval findings: "The revised Master Plan is a planning tool and is not an entitlement for future development. Future proposed buildings on Parcel 3 AG 95 -108 and Parcel A, AG 79 - -38 must receive required review and approvals and must satisfy parking and other Development Code requirements then in effect. " 6. Condition of Approval No. 14 to include the following language: "This vegetation shall be irrigated and maintained on a regular basis." 7. A new Condition of Approval shall be added that states: "The driveway entrance should be constructed with curb returns, concrete cross gutter and spandrels. The existing fire hydrant shall be relocated if the Public Works Department deems it necessary." 8. Condition of Approval No. 16 to be modified with the words "Noise generative" removed and the time changed to 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m." 9. The Negative Declaration was modified on Page 14 to read: "Health Club parking requirements begin increasing significantly at 4:30 p.m. and peaks between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m." 10. Check box 7.e, on Page 8 of the Negative Declaration shall be checked. 1 1 . A new Condition shall be added to the Conditions of approval that will state that "Double striping would be required between parking spaces." - Commissioner London seconded the motion. There being no further comments, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1699 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98 -572, APPLIED FOR BY RUSSELL SHEPPEL, AT OAK PARK BOULEVARD AND JAMES WAY. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 12 AYES: Commissioners Costello, Keen, London, Parker and Chair Greene NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 29th day of June, 1998. Chair Greene called for a 10 minute recess. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98 -573 APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN 18,925 SQUARE FOOT HEALTH CLUB FACILITY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JAMES WAY AND OAK PARK BOULEVARD. KEVIN KENNEDY, APPLICANT. Contract Planner, Tom Buford, presented the Staff Report for the project. He explained that the planning for this project, although separate from the Sheppel Conditional Use Permit 98 -572, was done in tandem with : that .project. • Mr. Buford explained that the Conditions for the Kennedy CUP 98 -573 were not exactly the same as the Sheppel CUP 98 -572, however they are very similar. Ba on the Commissions discussion and subsequent changes to the Sheppel Conditions of Approval, Mr. Buford had the following changes that should be made to the Conditions of Approval for the Kennedy CUP 98 -573: 1. Delete Conditions of Approval 51 and 58. 2. Change Condition of Approval No. 45 to indicate that the Opticom device the applicant needs to pay for is at the Oak Park Boulevard and James Way intersection. 3. Include the language on the Master Plan. 4. Add a finding on the Resolution regarding the same. 5. Add to Condition of Approval #14 the language for irrigation and landscaping. 6. Add the Condition for curb and moving hydrant. 7. Delete Condition of Approval No. 20 and change Condition No. 16 by eliminating the words "Noise generating." 8. Check box 7.e on Page 8 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 9. Change the Mitigated Negative Declaration on page 15 to include the following language: "Health Club parking requirements begin increasing significantly at 4:30 p.m. and peaks between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m." 10. Add a Condition to the Conditions of Approval to require double striped parking in the parking lots. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Warren Hamrick, Hamrick Associates, representing Kevin Kennedy, addressed the Commission. Mr. Hamrick stated that he had read the Staff Report and had some Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 13 questions for Staff. He asked if, in Condition No. 45, they were responsible for one intersection or two? It wasn't clear from the wording in the Condition. Mr. Campbell replied that he would have to look at the SAC minutes to determine exactly what was intended. Mr. Hamrick asked if the changes made to Condition No. 14, the irrigation and landscaping on the adjacent undeveloped parcel, applied to the Kennedy project as well? Mr. Buford replied that it would be best to refer that question to the Planning Commission for their decision. Mr. Campbell told the applicant that the SAC minutes stated the Opticom device was for the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and James Way only. Mr. Hamrick questioned Condition No. 50 and asked if the landscaping needed to be done by a registered Engineer. He also questioned Condition No. 57 concerning the public utilities easement. He wondered if that was in addition to the - six -foot easement that was already there? In Condition No. 69, talking about the fees for all City departments, under Item J, street tree planting fees, will they be charged for those? He also wondered, in connection to Condition No. 69, Item M, what Strong Motion Instrumentation was? Mr. Campbell stated that the landscaping does not need to be done by a registered engineer; the six foot easement was the one shown on the map; they would not be charged a fee for trees that were already there; and Strong Motion Instrumentation was a building code that deals with earthquakes. Commissioner London asked what the anticipated number of members would be at the Health Club? Mr. Hamrick stated that he .would let Mr. Kennedy answer that question. Also, to address Mr. London's question about the owner of the neighboring parcel, the owner has been contacted and they were not interested in taking part in this project at all. Commissioner Keen commented that since Mr. Kennedy was sharing the Sheppel parking, he felt Mr. Kennedy should not worry about sharing the planting, maintenance and irrigation of the neighboring parcel. Chair Greene asked what the screening between the parking lot and the pool was made out of? Mr. Hamrick stated that it will be a retaining wall about two feet above the pool deck and then an open ornamental iron work above the retaining wall covered with landscaping material. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 14 Kevin Kennedy, Kennedy Health Club, told the Commission that his history with this property went back about 13 years when he first purchased the property. At one time they had the property approved and the permits pulled, however because of a moratorium on building in this area because of the Oak Park overpass, they did not build at that time. He explained that it had been a long and frustrating battle to get this project up and going. He told the Commission that he was concerned about having to move the fire hydrant. Commissioner Parker again expressed her concern about the parking issue stating that she hoped this did not give the applicant's a false sense of security by having the parking easements and hoped they did not have a problem with this. She felt that she had a good understanding concerning the peak time of operation hours. Commissioner Costello asked if Mr. Kennedy would be interested in expanding his business on to Lot 6? Mr. Kennedy replied that he was interested in that and had contacted the owners of the other properties. Chair Greene asked Mr. Campbell to comment on Mr. Kennedy's comment concerning moving the fire hydrant. Just because it was made a Condition, did it mean that it has to be moved? Or, could the Public Works use their discretion and delete this Condition if they found out it did not have to be moved? Mr. Campbell replied that if Public Works found the hydrant did not have to be moved they would delete this as a Condition. Chair Greene explained to the applicant that easier access to their project would benefit them in the long run. Mr. Hatch spoke to the Commission again and asked if the driveway and fire hydrant issues would be reviewed by Public Works and they would make the determination if these things needed to be addressed? Mr. Campbell replied that the Condition is directed towards using corporate turns to the driveway entrance as opposed to a driveway apron. He stated that he supports this change which does take some added width. He is not sure if the fire hydrant needs to be moved. If it did not need to be removed, would it be determined that the applicants had met that Condition. Commissioner Keen spoke again to the problem of the entry to the driveway and stated that he felt very strongly that it needed to be changed. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner London stated that he likes the project and felt that it would look good in this area. He was concerned about the cars stacking up at the entry and wanted Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 15 to see the changes made to the driveway. Commissioner Costello stated simply that he echoed Mr. London's comments. Commissioner Keen wanted it put in the minutes that the access to the motel was their problem to resolve. He also felt this was a very good project. Commissioner Parker stated that she was in favor of the project. She was very glad to see a pool going into the area. Chair Greene stated that Mr. Hamrick questioned the language in Condition No. 50 concerning the landscaping and irrigation language. He asked if that could be deleted? Mr. Buford replied that it would be deleted. Chair Greene stated that with regard to the fire hydrant, he feels that by enhancing the entrance and making it user friendly, it will be a benefit to all owners and tenants. Commissioner Keen moved to adopt the following Resolution with Attachment A and modifications: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -1700 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF .THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98 -573, APPLIED FOR BY KEVIN KENNEDY, AT OAK PARK BOULEVARD AND JAMES WAY. Seconded by Commissioner Costello and with the following roll call to wit: AYES: Commissioners Costello, Keen, London, Parker and Chair Greene NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 29 day of June 1998. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS At the request of Commissioner Keen, an item for discussion about the billboard at the entrance to the Village was placed on the agenda. The Commission discussed the billboard and their mutual dislike of it and possible Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 16 solutions to doing something about it. The Commission directed Staff to find who the property and sign owners are and find out if there was anything that could be done about it. Commissioner Parker had major concerns about the grading that had been done on Tract 1834 area and felt the developer should have to restore the area. Mr. Buford stated that because of the Brown Act these issues could not be discussed at tonight's meeting. If Mrs. Parker wanted, this could be put on a future agenda for discussion. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS Henry Engen, Interim Community Development Director, discussed the Project Tracking List with the Commission. • He explained that the Arroyo Linda Crossroads Specific Plan is on the "verge" of being issued and will be coming up in the near future. The next agenda will have the project for the "AutoZone" on Grande Avenue. James Way Annexation is going through revision including meeting with the Lucia Mar School District to try and develop a school site on the property. There has been a request from the Applicant and the School District to expedite this project as quickly as possible. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ATTEST: x.4 •' Kathleen Fryer, Commis on Clerk AS TO CONTENT: P D ev to Henry Engen, JAIC Interim Community pment Director Laurence Greene, Chair 1 1 1