PC Minutes 1996-12-171
1
1
ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 17, 1996
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met with Chair Tappan presiding. Present were
Commissioners Lubin, Keen, Titus and Deviny. Community Development Director Doreen
Liberto - Blanck, Associate Planner Scott Spierling and Craig Campbell of Public Works were in
attendance. Interim Associate Planner Helen Elder and Dave Moran of Crawford, Multari and
Starr were also in attendance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Continued) - Special Joint meeting July 30, 1996 (City Council,
Planning Commission and Traffic Commission), August 20, 1996, September 3, 1996,
September 17, 1996, October 1, 1996 and October 15, 1996.
On a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, the minutes of the
meetings of August 20, September 17, and October 10, 1996 were approved as presented.
On a motion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Keen, with Commissioner
Lubin abstaining, the minutes of September 3, 1996 were approved as presented.
On a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Lubin, with Chair Tappan
abstaining, the minutes of October 15, 1996 were approved as presented.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
Chair Tappan asked for consensus to hear Item III.B. Non - Public Hearing Item after Item II.A.
The Commission concurred and it was announced to the audience.
PUBLIC HEARING - ECONO LODGE MOTEL; REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 96-547 FOR REMODEL AND ADDITION OF
1,615 SQUARE FEET TO THE EXISTING MOTEL AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 96-200
TO REDUCE THE STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 15 FEET TO ZERO FEET
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A PORTE COCHERE; APPLICANT - NARESH
PATEL; LOCATION - 611 EL CAMINO REAL
Community Development Director Liberto -Blanck introduced Helen Elder who will present the
staff report.
Ms. Elder discussed the project; presented the request for conditional use and variance; utilized
the overhead projector and explained the request would add architectural interest to the building;
explained that the porte cochere is a common architectural feature in hotel /motels; reported that
the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) had reviewed the project and added three (3)
Conditions of Approval (COA); noted that the Staff Advisory Committee had reviewed the
project and recommended approval based on COA attached; stated that a Negative Declaration
was attached for Planning Commission Review; and, noted that the neighbors had been notified
of the project but no response had been received.
Commissioner Lubin asked about the conditions added by the AAC; if the applicant agreed.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2
December 17, 1996
Chair Tappan asked if there was a proposal to change the sign. Staff replied that the sign would
remain as it is.
Chair Tappan opened the public hearing.
Naresh Patel, 611 El Camino Real. applicant - expressed appreciation for staff assistance and
noted that he was concerned with the requirement to repair all sidewalk, curb and gutter when
he was undertaking such a small addition, but stated that he would comply.
With no further comments from the audience, Chair Tappan closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Deviny asked why the height of the porte cochere was reduced by the AAC; he
remarked that at the proposed height it matched the existing structure.
The applicant replied that one person on the AAC felt it should be changed. Staff noted that the
AAC was looking for variation in the architecture by recommending the changed height.
Commissioner Titus stated that the proposal will improve the area and she favors it.
Commissioner Lubin stated that the AAC requirement appeared to be a personal preference and
should not be a COA.
Commissioner Keen stated that he had no problem with the zero setback in that location; noted
that he was concerned with the fact that a small addition would require massive public
improvements, but assured the applicant that it is normal policy and he was not being singled
out.
Chair Tappan asked about only one awning being proposed and felt it might be out of scale, and
discussed the proposed height of the porte cochere.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1594
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF
DETERMINATION, AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CASE NO. 96 -547, APPLIED FOR BY NARESH PATEL AT 611 EL
CAIVIINO REAL
Change COA #27:
....... ...........
The height of the porte cochere shall y e reduced to the minimum height required for Fire
Department access. More specifically a m nimum clearance of 13' -6" from finished grade and
i x 1 i1 to the bottom of the roof structure shall be e rovided unless otherwise
s
approved by the Director of Building and Fire.
1
1
1
1
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3
December 17, 1996
On a motion to approve the resolution with Attachments A, as corrected, and B, by
Commissioner Lubin, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and by the following roll call vote, to
wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lubin, Keen, Deviny, Titus and Tappan
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Then, additional action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1595
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 VARIANCE CASE NO. 96-200
FOR THE REDUCTION IN STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 15
FEET TO 0 FEET FOR THE ADDITION OF A PORTE COCHERE,
APPLIED FOR BY NARESH PATEL AT 611 EL CAMINO REAL
On a motion, to approve the Resolution with Attachment A, by Commissioner Lubin, seconded
by Commissioner Keen, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Deviny, Titus, Lubin, Keen and Tappan
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Planning staff advised the public of the approval process for this project.
NON - PUBLIC HEARING - (TAKEN OUT OF ORDER PER PC CONSENSUS)
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 87-392, AMENDMENT NO. 4, REQUEST FOR
APPROVAL OF A 200 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO A "PATIO HOME" IN THE
ROYAL OAKS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT; APPLICANT - MARK NICODEMUS;
REPRESENTATIVE - CHRIS THOMAS; LOCATION - 360 MESQUITE LANE
Helen Elder presented the staff report. She stated that the request required Architectural Review
by the Planning Commission due to the reduced lot width; noted that the project will also have
to be approved by the City Council; stated that three (3) similar additions have been approved;
noted that AAC & SAC have both reviewed the project and recommend approval based on the
findings and Conditions of Approval contained in Attachment A.
There was discussion regarding the slope of the property on the north elevation.
Although this was not a public hearing, Chair Tappan invited the applicant to address the
Commission.
Chris Thomas, applicant representative - stated that he is the project designer and is available
to answer any questions.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4
December 17, 1996
Chair Tappan asked if the adjacent neighbors had been contacted; Mr. Thomas replied that they
had and had no concern with the addition.
Commissioner Keen asked about construction of the fence between the properties; Mr. Thomas
stated that it was a retaining wall with a fence over it and it would remain.
With no further comments from the audience, Chair Tappan asked for Commission comments.
Commissioner Titus stated that she felt that since the addition followed the line of the garage it
would not be noticed from the street, she stated that she could support the project since the
neighbors didn't object.
Commissioner Lubin had no problem with the project.
Commissioner Keen had no problem since other similar projects had been approved.
Commissioner Deviny had no additional comment.
Chair Tappan noted that the only reason the Planning Commission was reviewing this was due
to the Planned Development (PD) designation.
The following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1596
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 87 -392, AMENDMENT 34.
LOCATED AT 360 MESQUITE LANE, APPLIED FOR BY MARK
NICODEMUS
On a motion by Commissioner Titus, seconded by Commissioner Lubin, and by the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Titus, Lubin, Deviny, Keen, and Tappan
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 2207
TO CREATE 39 LOTS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 96 -543 (P.U.D.
PERMIT) TO SUBDIVIDE A 57 ACRE PARCEL INTO 39 CLUSTERED LOTS AND
ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW; APPLICANT: BUSICK /GEARING
DEVELOPMENT; REPRESENTATIVE - HAYTHEM DAWLETT; LOCATION - SOUTH
OF ORCHARD STREET /WEST OF HIGHWAY 101
Community Development Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck introduced Dave Moran of Crawford,
Multari and Starr who will present the staff report. She noted that a letter had been received
from the Lucia Mar School District and presented to the Commission this evening.
1
1
1
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5
December 17, 1996
Dave Moran presented the staff report; explained the specifics of the proposed development as
discussed in the staff report; noted that previous proposals had contained a larger number of
units; stated that the proposal satisfies the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) regulations; stated that the primary access is from Orchard Street; noted that the proposed
lots are clustered to provide lots ranging in size from 20,000 sq. ft. to 5 acres; mentions the
ERRATA sheet that was distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting which
addresses revisions to the Conditions of Approval (COA); noted that a draft mitigated Negative
Declaration is recommended for approval; stated that if the issues in question can be resolved
this evening, staff would recommend approval of the project rather than continuance as noted
on the agenda; and commented that the letter from Lucia Mar had not been previously reviewed
by staff.
Chair Tappan opened the public hearing.
Haythem Dawlett, applicant representative - stated that he has been involved with this project
since 1988; noted that they will accept all the proposed COA's; and is in agreement with all of
the findings. He is available to answer any questions about the project.
Jim Garing. engineer for the subdivision - stated that he has been involved with the project since
1976. He discussed the proposed cul -de -sacs; noted that the letter from Lucia Mar had not been
reviewed but didn't feel it would affect the project; and, stated he is available to answer any
questions.
Commissioner Keen asked about an alternative access for the project; Mr. Garing noted that
there may be a future ROW through an existing road in Falcon Ridge if the adjacent County
project is approved. Commissioner Keen expressed concern with single access and there was
discussion regarding circulation for the project.
Mr. Garing noted that the adjacent proposal in the County contains 16 lots. He stated that there
are on -going negotiations with the residents of Falcon Ridge regarding access.
Haythem Dawlett, applicant representative - stated that the future alignment of the collector road
is shown in the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Circulation Element; noted that the
applicant must adhere to City regulations; stated that the adjacent property is in concurrent
process in the County for development approval;. and noted that it is intended to have a "crash
gate" for emergency access between the City and County parcels.
Commissioner Keen asked about the adequacy of the proposed holding pond; Mr. Garing noted
that the proposed pond would adequate mitigate the drainage from the project. Commissioner
Keen expressed concern with utilizing Orchard Street for construction traffic and suggested the
possibility of a construction road on adjacent property; Mr. Garing indicated that the option had
not been explored but it could be investigated.
Ted Hyatt. representing Sunrise Terrace Mobile Home Park - expressed the concern of the
residents of the mobile home park with connection with Valley Road; and stated the connection
was explained via the overhead site plan and Mr. Hyatt agreed that it would not impact their
properties.
Kelly Kimball, 270 Pleasant Hill - discussed "errors of omission" that she sees in staff report;
reported on Board of Supervisors meeting wherein the County project was reviewed; stated her
opinion that traffic issues were in violation of findings; and, asked Commission to remove the
private roads in Falcon Ridge from consideration of access to Tract 2207.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6
December 17, 1996
Herman Olave. 222 W. Cherry Avenue - stated that he was representing residents of the Jones
Tract; noted that existing residents oppose access through Orchard Street; discussed traffic
problem and need for traffic light at Orchard Street and Fair Oaks; expressed concern with
drainage in the area; and opposed access to the tract by utilizing Orchard Street.
Joyce Neal. 172 Falcon Crest Drive - noted that the roads in Falcon Ridge are private and
owned by the property owners, it is a gated community and they are opposed to the added traffic
the adjacent tracts would entail.
Alex Ratery. 202 W. Cherry Avenue - noted that he was not notified of the meeting; stated that
there would be a large impact on his neighborhood; stated that additional vehicle trips are
beyond the ability of Orchard Street to absorb; and, agreed with the concept of an alternative
construction road being constructed.
Jan Ratery, 202 W. Cherry Avenue - expressed concern with not being notified; stated that the
impact on the neighborhood would be substantial due to traffic and construction; and, expressed
hope that more meetings would be held to discuss project.
Chair Tappan noted that the property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified as
required by law.
Marie Burt - 414 Orchard Street - invited the Planning Commission to drive Orchard Street
between 8:00 a.m. & 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. during the weekdays; suggested
the possibility of gating Orchard Street; stated that Orchard Street is not designed for heavy
construction traffic; and expressed her opinion that the development should be accessed by
Valley Road not Orchard Street.
Jarrod Hoover. Pastor of First Assembly Church - commented on drainage problems; stated that
he has no opposition to the project, but is concerned with the drainage; noted that there are three
(3) creeks which flow into the church property; stated that development on the east side of the
freeway had exacerbated the drainage problem; expressed willingness to work with the
developer; stated that their site permit allows a maximum of 200 students and that they now have
130 so they have room to grow in their school facility; and stated he would like to see drainage
resolved prior to development.
Scott Lathrop, Lucia Mar School District representative - discussed the letter that he presented
to the Commission which talks about the impacts on the school district; discussed how school
fees are determined and that they don't mitigate school impacts; discussed cumulative impacts
of developments on the schools; showed how school district would like to see future collector
street split their property; and discussed potential long range use of the adjacent property.
Jim Garing. Engineer - addressed some of the issues raised; stated that the developer had
attempted to annex the County portion but it was denied; stated that to access Highway 101 the
ROW would have to go up a 40% slope which is covered with Oaks; stated that regarding
secondary access through Coast View Drive in Falcon Ridge is proposed for a crash gate and
gravel road; stated that the traffic study indicated that Orchard Street was impacted at specific
hours not all of the time; noted that the tract would pay Traffic Mitigation Fees; stated that the
drainage of this particular tract represents 4% of the watershed in the area, 96 % is from outside
the City; noted that the drainage facility provided will completely mitigate drainage from the
tract; noted that area drainage requires a regional solution; noted that when the traffic study was
done June of 1996, school was in session; and stated there was discussion of what constitutes
a 100 year flood.
1
1
1
1
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7
December 17, 1996
Alex Ratery, 202 Cherry Avenue - asked why the project was being routed through Orchard
Street. Staff replied the applicant did not own the property necessary to require access through
Valley Road.
Kelly Kimball. 270 Pleasant Hill - stated that both projects are fraught with issues and suggested
that the Commission walk the project to view the severe erosion, oak trees, and the drainage
problems.
Chair Tappan made a point of clarification that the Falcon Ridge development is in the County.
Herman Olave. 222 W. Cherry Avenue - suggested that the Commission look at Orchard Street,
it is already in need of paving.
Jarrod Hoover, Pastor of 1st Assembly Church stated again that drainage will go through the
Church property.
Haythem Dawlett, applicant representative - noted that all of the Oak trees on the property were
to be preserved except one (1); discussed the street pattern in the tract; and talked about the
historic drainage flow.
John Runels, Valley Road - asked what will happen to excess water. Mr. Garing explained how
a retention basin operates.
With no further comment from the audience, Chair Tappan closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lubin expressed concern with access to the property; stated that there seem to
be problems with every available access; expressed concern with drainage and traffic; noted the
problems with Orchard Street . beyond the temporary construction usage; stated that although he
understand why the access to Valley Road cannot be a condition he would like to see it studied
further; acknowledged the concern of Falcon Ridge residents; and asked about the use of the old
highway.
Commissioner Keen discussed the Design Guidelines for the project and asked when they had
been prepared; staff replied that they had been updated as the project evolved and the current
set was for the current project. Commissioner Keen stated that he felt the evolution from 150
proposed homes to 37 was a great improvement.
Commissioner Deviny noted that drainage and access appear to be major concerns; discussed
suitability of Orchard Street to support tract; discussed fact that connection to Valley would go
through private property not owned by applicant; and expressed concern that a collector street
would be directed to a private development.
Commissioner Titus expressed disbelief in the traffic study; stated that the area is a nightmare
now, and construction would only increase the problem; expressed concern with ability of
emergency vehicle to access homes; expressed difficulty one has in exiting freeway and turning
onto Orchard Street; and stated would like to see further study of access onto Valley Road.
Chair Tappan asked staff options on denying project access to Orchard Street; Craig Campbell
noted that Orchard Street is the only public ROW serving the project if the project were
conditioned to provide another access, the City might have to pursue condemnation procedures
against the private property. Mr. Campbell discussed off -site ROW requirements.
There was more discussion regarding property rights and difficulty of obtaining agreement.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8
December 17, 1996
The Commission took a break from 8:40 p.m. to 8:50 p.m.
The Commission went through the Conditions of Approval and made the following changes:
Change #23 —
Concurrently with recordation of the final map, the developers shall dedicate lot 39 to
the City of Arroyo Grande pursuant to condition no. 50
Change #31 —
The project may receive credit toward the project's park-in-lieu fee requirement by
dedicating lot No 39 and 4O if ..tattatt to the City
Add to #50 --
The open space easement areas currently designated for lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, and 12,
shall be reconfigured as a separate lot (lot 40) to be owned and maintained the
homeowners association. An offer f dedicatton shall be provided for a future potentiaI
Add to #56 —
Delete #87
R etV.41:
...
Change #62 —
Prior to recordation of the final map, the retardation basin shall be fully constructed in
accordance with approved plans or bonded for, but shall be constructed and functional
prior to occupancy of MONWgiiiatigldi01:00kitkOt any parcels within Tract 2207.
Add to #88 --
The developer shall be responsible during construction for cleaning city streets, curbs,
gutters and sidewalks of dirt tracked from the subject site. The flushing of dirt and
debris to storm drain or sanitary sewer facilities shall not be permitted. The cleaning
shall be done after each day's work or as directed by the Director of Public Works or
the Community Development Director.
: . .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,,,,:::,..
:a . responsible tug '99P
... existing i sa c
.:
Add #108 --
e mergency - • otorii.gteigtiiiti5jiii6tted
Add #109
e apphcant shall wor1. with adjacent property owners to route a temporary construction
" frorn ValIey Road to the subject propert, dunng construction of tract uprovemen'ts
construction traffic is discouraged
.........
Craig Campbell addressed issues of drainage; 100 year storm; and concept of traffic calming
along Valley Road.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
December 17, 1996
The Commission amended the following Mitigation Measure:
add to #11 --
Schedule operations affecting the roadways f o r off -peak hours L 1 j at. :: _ ::::: . : > ,
acent> cl c o
The following action was taken, to approve the Resolution with Attachments A & B as revised:
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1597
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO.
2207 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 96-543 AND
ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, LOCATED SOUTH OF
HIGHWAY 101 AT THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF ORCHARD
AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY BUSICK AND GEARING DEVELOPMENT;
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION
MEASURES, AND INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
On a motion by Commissioner Lubin, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and by the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lubin, Keen, Deviny, Titus,and Tappan
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Staff advised the audience of the appeal procedure for the project.
Mr. Dawlett thanked the Commission for the approval.
Page 9
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 9- 01.110 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE
APPOINTMENT PROCESS AND TERM OF OFFICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS
Community Development Director Doreen Liberto -Blanck presented the staff report. She
discussed the background of the proposed amendment and stated that the Planning Commission
would be making a recommendation to the City Council.
Chair Tappan opened the public hearing.
Jean Beck - stated her objection to individual nominations by the City Council, she felt it was
not a wise idea. She also stated that seven (7) members were preferable to five (5) in obtaining
an quorum.
With no further comments from the audience, Chair Tappan closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lubin stated that he appreciates Ms. Beck's comments; stated that he had no
problem with a five (5) member board; noted that originally he had concerns with the political
nature of the appointments but had changed his mind and feels that the Commission would be
in concert with the City Council; and is not opposed to the plan as suggested.
1
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 10
December 17, 1996
Commissioner Keen noted that he first thought that a seven (7) member Planning Commission
was necessary to obtain maximum viewpoint and input and was in favor of the City Council
appointing person to reflect their view; . noted that he had changed his mind and that five (5).
members work well; expressed concern with the proposed appointment process, sounds good in
theory but he is concerned with political appointment; stated that the decisions should be based
on good planing theory for the community; and asked staff why a Resolution was being sent to
the Council when the Ordinance hadn't been passed.
Commissioner Deviny stated that he was more comfortable with a seven (7) person Commission;
agreed that sometimes meetings last too long with that many members; noted that the first year
on the Commission was spent reviewing the process and learning how to be productive; noted
that experienced members provide good historical information; stated that the Commission
should represent the City Council and that it is an advisory board; expressed his agreement with
a five (5) member board; and noted that he is not in favor of short terms for commissioners.
Commissioner Titus agreed that five (5) is a workable number and that it makes for shorter
meetings; noted that she agrees with longer terms which overlap to maintain productivity; and,
felt it would be appropriate for the Councilmember to appoint a Commissioner.
Chair Tappan noted that the survey conducted by the APA regarding the number of members
would support seven (7).
There was discussion regarding appointment vs. nomination; concept of Council appointment of
Commissioner for four (4) years; idea that Planning Commission serves at the pleasure of the
Council at all times; and need for update of. Planning. Commission by -laws.
The following action was taken, to approve the Resolution:
The motion fails.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE NOT RECOMMENDING AMENDING PORTIONS OF
THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE TO RESTRUCTURE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Finding #4 - There are no environmental impacts.
On a motion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Tappan, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Deviny and Tappan
NOES: Commissioners Titus, Lubin and Keen
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Lubin stated that he could not support a blanket Resolution of denial.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 11
December 17, 1996
The following action was taken, to approve the Resolution as revised:
C.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE
ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE TO RESTRUCTURE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Change Section 9- 01.110
B. Membership
The Planning Commission is hereby recreated and re- established, and shall continuously
succeed the Commission previously existing under the provisions of this Section
heretofore existing, except as modified by the provisions of this Section. The
Commission shall consist of five (5) members, who shall be qualified electors of the
City, but who shall not otherwise be officials of the City. The Mayor and each
respective member of the Council shall appoint a representative to the Planning
C. Members of the Planning Commission shall serve a tcrm ending the January 313t
1997.
There was discussion regarding appointment of Commissioners, how it is done now and how it
is proposed to be done. In either case, the majority of the Council must approve.
The motion and second were amended:
Change Section 9- 01.110
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
B. Membership
The Planning Commission is hereby recreated and re- established, and shall continuously
succeed the Commission previously existing under the provisions of this Section
heretofore existing, except as modified by the provisions of this Section. The
Commission shall consist of five (5) members, who shall be qualified electors of the
City. The Mayor and each respective member of the Council shall
appoint a representative to the Planning Commission subject to approval by a majority
of the Council. All Commission members shall serve at the pleasure of the Council.
eEInn1n
e
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
December 17, 1996
Members of the Planning Commission shall serve a term cnding the January 31st
1997.
On a motion by Commissioner Lubin, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and by the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lubin, Deviny and Titus
NOES: Commissioners Keen and Tappan
ABSENT: None
The motion failed.
The following action was taken, to approve the Resolution as revised:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE
ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE TO RESTRUCTURE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Change Section 9- 01.110
Page 12
B. Membership
The Planning Commission is hereby recreated and re- established, and shall continuously
succeed the Commission previously existing under the provisions of this Section
heretofore existing, except as modified by the provisions of this Section. The
Commission shall consist of five (5) members, who shall be qualified electors of the
City, but who shall not otherwise be officials of the City. The Mayor and each
respective member of the Council shall appoint a representative to the Planning
Commission subject to approval by a majority of the Council. All Commission members
shall serve at the pleasure of the Council.
C. Members of the Planning Commission shall serve a term ending the January 31st
following expiration of the term of the respective appointing Mayor or Council Member.
Members of the Planning Commission may be removed by a majority vote of the
Council. Terms for all current Planning Commission Members shall end on March 31,
1997.
On a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Titus, and by the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Keen, Titus and Lubin
NOES: Commissioners Deviny and Tappan
ABSENT: None
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 13
December 17, 1996
The motion failed.
A motion was made, to make no recommendation on the item, by Commissioner Lubin,
seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and agreed to unanimously.
PLANNING COM IISSION /COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEMS AND
COMMENTS
A. Letter of Appreciation to Lori Rosenstein - On a motion by Commissioner Keen,
seconded by Commissioner Lubin, the Commission accepted the letter of appreciation.
B. Update of Projects -
• The appeal of the Community Development Director's finding of substantial
conformance on the Central Coast Town Center project will be heard by the City
Council on January 14, 1997;
• The Larry Gin appeal of the Planning Commission decision regarding access on
Farroll Road was denied by the City Council;
• The Kawaoka appeal of the Planning Commission decision upholding the staff
determination of incomplete application was denied by the City Council; and,
• Staff will present the update of the Planning Commission By -laws in January.
C. Planning Commissioner Comments -
Discussion of the letter from the owner of the Sizzler regarding the condition for the
restaurant to be moved prior to the shopping center development to proceed; and
Discussion regarding the building permit comparison chart provided by staff.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -
1. Agenda Item 11.B. - Errata Sheet prepared by David Moran
2. Agenda Item II.B. - Letter from Scott Lathrop of Lucia Mar Unified School District
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner Keen,
seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at
10:45 p.m.
1
1
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
December 17, 1996
ATTEST:
ASrTO CO T:
Lucille c reese, Commission Clerk
Doreen Libe • Blanck, Community Development Director
William Tappan, ` Chair
Page 14