Loading...
PC Minutes 1995-06-06ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION June 6, 1995 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairperson Keen presiding. Present are Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Carr, Deviny and Beck. Commissioner Hatchett is absent. Planning Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck and Current Planner Scott Spierling are in attendance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by Commissioner Beck, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously carried, the minutes of May 2, 1995 and May 16, 1995 were approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 95 -115 FOR THREE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 95 -189 FOR VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS, MAXIMUM SIGN AREA, SIGN HEIGHT, AREA OF A SINGLE SIGN FACE, AND THE USE OF FLAGS, 920 PALOS SECOS, APPLICANT IS OTTSE, INC. Current Planner Spierling gave an overview of this item using the overhead projector to depict the proposed signs and the billboards which were approved by the City Council in 1984 and indicated the locations of these on a posted map. Mr. Spierling discussed the proposed signs and flags, noting the colors, and stating these would be long -term in use. Current Planner Spierling said the Staff Advisory Committee (SAC) and the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) recommended approval of both the variance and planned sign program. After a few questions by the Commissioners, responded to by Current Planner Spierling, Chairperson Keen opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant to address the Commission first. Jeff Ferber of RRM Design Group, representing the applicant stated Dierdre Calloway of RRM Design Group, who prepared the application and Carol Keller, representing Ottse, Inc. in the marketing aspects of the project, were in the audience. Mr. Ferber stated they were primarily asking for signs and flags that were already on the site and the two new signs were the welcome signs shown on the overhead by Current Planner Spierling. He said past leadership installed signs and flags without prior approval and, working with the Planning Department, he was desirous to have all of these under proper approval. Mr. Ferber said these signs, flags, and billboards were vital because the project was not visually accessible to the public. He said the applicant was in agreement to all the conditions and they were committed to keeping all the signs and flags in good condition. With no further comments from the audience, Chairperson Keen closed the public hearing. After a discussion by the Commissioners, the following action was taken, adding the words "to the City Council" at the end of the title of the resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 95 -1509 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VARIANCE CASE NO. 95 -189, APPLIED FOR BY OTTSE, INC. TO THE CITY COUNCIL On a motion by Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Carr, Deviny, Beck and Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hatchett Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 June 6, 1995 the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of June 1995. Then the following action was taken, adding the words "to the City Council" at the end of the title of the resolution: RESOLUTION NO:1510 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 95 -115, APPLIED FOR BY OTTSE, INC. TO THE CITY COUNCIL On a motion by Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Carr, Deviny, Beck and Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hatchett the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of June 1995. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDED PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 94-114A AND AMENDED VARIANCE CASE NO. 94-186 REVISING AN APPROVED PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM AND VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE AREA OF THE FACE OF A SIGN FROM 86 SQUARE FEET TO 290 SQUARE FEET AT 525 TRAFFIC WAY, APPLICANT IS KHATCHIK H. ACHADJIAN Current Planner Spierling gave the background of this item, stating the applicant has opened his business. Mr. Spierling used the overhead projector explaining the requested change and pointing out statistics from two tables, the second reflecting comparisons of this project and three other service stations in town. Chairperson Keen opened the public hearing. Reynolds Ritchie, 571 South Traffic Way, spoke against the proposal, saying from his home the view of the sign was obtrusive. Mr. Ritchie presented three colored photographs to the Commission which viewed the present sign from his house. Khatcho Achadjian, applicant, said the proposed sign would be less offensive than the previous Union 76 sign and gave reasons for approval of this item. With no further comments from the audience, Chairperson Keen closed the public hearing. The Commissioners discussed the project, asking various questions of Staff, then took the following action: The following action was then taken: RESOLUTION NO. 95 -1511 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING AMENDED VARIANCE CASE NO. 94- 186 FOR SIGN DEVIATIONS, APPLIED FOR BY KHATCHIK H. ACHADJIAN, AT 525 TRAFFIC WAY On a motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Tappan, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Beck and Keen NOES: Commissioners Carr and Deviny ABSENT: Commissioner Hatchett the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of June 1995. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 June 6, 1995 RESOLUTION NO. 95 -1512 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING AMENDED PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 94-114A FOR APPLIED FOR BY KHATCHIK H. ACHADJIAN, AT 525 TRAFFIC WAY On a motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Tappan, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Beck and Keen NOES: Commissioners Carr and Deviny ABSENT: Commissioner Hatchett the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of June 1995. Planning Staff apprised the public of the appeal period on this project. Chairperson Keen said the next public hearing item was Vons Companies, Inc. along with two non - public hearings, but the Oak Park Foursquare Church requested to be heard first to which Vons agreed. The Commissioners agreed to this arrangement. NON - PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF WHETHER RELOCATABLE CLASSROOMS ARE BEING PERMITTED UNDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 84 -368 AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 85 -328 AT 900 OAK PARK BOULEVARD, APPLICANT IS OAK PARK FOURSQUARE CHURCH Planning Director Liberto - Blanck presented this item to the Planning Commission stating a CUP was approved in 1984 for a two phased church facility, that an ARC for phase I of construction was approved by the City Council in 1985, but before building permits could be issued, the CUP expired. Ms. Liberto - Blanck said the applicant resubmitted the CUP which was re- approved by the City Council in January of 1986. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck gave the rest of the background of this project stating that Mr. Zimmerman approach staff early this year regarding installing relocatable classrooms on the site and was advised a CUP would be required. She identified other similar projects that required a CUP and provided reasons CUP's were necessary for such requests. Ms. Liberto - Blanck advised the Commissioners that they would be making a recommendation to the City Council, as this was in a Planned Development Zone. Mike Zinunerman, representing the applicant, gave reasons why he felt they should not be required to submit another CUP, and that these modular units should be considered as part of phase I of their original CUP. Chairman Keen asked Mr. Zimmerman where on the property he proposed to put these units to which Mr. Zimmerman replied on the East end of the lower parking lot replacing ten parking spaces. Chairman Keen asked Mr. Zimmerman how many classrooms there were at the present time. Mr. Zimmerman stated there were 9 classrooms and there was no office at the present time, but an upstairs sound room is being used for a make -shift office. Commissioner Tappan asked the applicant regarding the school at this time and Mr. Zimmerman said they have had a preschool for the past six years and a grade school up to the eighth grade for the past couple of years. Commissioner Tappan asked what the nine classrooms would be used for if it was only up to grade eight. Mr. Zimmerman responded that they only had about 80 students now and they want to have appropriate size classes for each. Also, he continued, they needed more classroom space for the Christian Education Department for Sunday morning and so forth. Mr. Zimmerman stated it would be a combined use plus office space. Chairman Keen asked Mr. Zimmerman if the grades would be extended beyond the eighth, to which Mr. Zimmerman replied it would remain at the eighth grade level, and they did not anticipate over 150 students at any one time. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 June 6, 1995 Commissioner Deviny asked the size of the proposed units and applicant responded 24 ft. by 50 ft. Phil Coleman, pastor of the church, also spoke in favor of the project. The Commissioners questioned the applicants at length regarding different aspects as to number of classrooms, offices, size of proposed modular units, and so forth. Some of the concerns of the Commissioners were: • Would the number of parking spaces still be sufficient? • How would the units look from the street? • Would emergency vehicles have appropriate access to these units? • Would the proposed increase in students involve a traffic impact? • Would the present alarm system be connected to these units? • Would the neighbors have any opposition to the added units? The consensus of the Commissioners who were at the initial Planning Commission hearings in the 1980's was that the Sunday School was part of the CUP, but that a weekday school was not. The applicants continued to state that they were opposed to filing for another CUP. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck then suggested that the applicant provide the names and addresses of neighbors within 300 feet of the project and another non - public hearing would be held for an interpretation. The applicants said they did not want notices sent to their neighbors. The Commissioners continued to discuss with the applicant ways they might review this proposed addition without a CUP including architectural amendment with property owner notification, but the applicants stated they preferred a denial by the Planning Commission and they would go to the City Council. Commissioner Carr made a motion: "After due research and deliberation the Planning Commission finds that the proposed relocatable classrooms, subject to design and siting approval of the AAC, City Engineer, and Planning Director, will take the place of classrooms not constructed with phase I of the previous approvals and that now therefore be it resolved that the Planning Commission hereby makes the interpretation that installation of two relocatable classrooms for a period not to exceed five years is permitted under Conditional Use Permit Case No. 84 -368 and Architectural Review Case No. 85- 328." Mr. Zimmerman stated it was two modular units, not two classrooms, for a total of four additional classrooms. When Commissioner Carr further questioned the applicants about the units, the applicants responded they were double -wide, split in half trailer units. Commissioner Carr withdrew his motion. The following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 95 -1513 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING AN INTERPRETATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT INSTALLATION OF RELOCATABLE CLASSROOMS REQUIRE SUBMITTAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR OAK PARK FOURSQUARE CHURCH, 900 OAK PARK BOULEVARD On a motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and by the following roll call, to wit: Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 June 6, 1995 AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Carr, Deviny and Keen NOES: Commissioner Beck ABSENT: Commissioner Hatchett the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of June 1995. PUBLIC HEARING - VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 95 -524 FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LAND INTO FIVE COMMERCIAL PARCELS WITH A MINIMUM AREA OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET AND A MAXIMUM AREA OF 231,734 SQUARE FEET, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 95-537 TO CONSTRUCT A 83,908 SQ. FT. SHOPPING CENTER AND APPURTENANT FACILITIES ON A 7.5 ACRE PARCEL INCLUDING WIDENING ALONG GRAND AVENUE, COURTLAND STREET AND OAK PARK BOULEVARD AND A VARIETY OF DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, VARIANCE CASE NO. 95-190, FOR WIDTH OF LANDSCAPED AREA ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC STREET, AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 95 -116 FOR BUILDING "E" OF THE PROPOSED SHOPPING CENTER AT 1650 GRAND AVENUE, APPLICANT IS THE VONS COMPANIES, INC. Current Planner Spierling began his presentation by stating in November of 1993 the Planning Commission approved applications submitted by Vons for construction of a new market and pad building, and the applicant proposed construction of three landscaped retention basins and an underground ponding area to solve the drainage problems. However, Mr. Spierling stated, as the applicant began work on the construction drawings they began to explore other methods of resolving drainage concerns. Current Planner Spierling explained the new concept, pointing out that a bleeder pipeline which the City has needed for several years would be included in the proposed plan. Mr. Spierling stated another advantage that resulted was the ability for the applicant to increase buildings on the site to a main building and four pad buildings. Current Planner Spierling briefly discussed the four applications being proposed. Then Staff answered questions presented by the Commissioners. Chairperson Keen opened the public hearing. Tom Courtney, project architect and planner for the applicant, began by mentioning others present for this item who would be available to respond to questions: Tom Whalen from Vons, Jim Halferty from Halferty Development, Dan Lloyd for off -site and on -site engineering, and Marshall Ochylski the landscape architect. Mr. Courtney expressed appreciation for the cooperation from Planning Department Staff, John Wallace, and both the SAC and the AAC. Mr. Courtney, using a posted rendering, presented the architectural aspects of the project. He said they agreed with most of the conditions but wanted to discuss some conditions and mitigation measures that were of concern to them, such as: • Parcel Map - Conditions 13, 14, 17, 18, and 22 • CUP - Condition 6 and 28a • Mitigation measures - Items 16, 18, 27, 29 Dan Lloyd discussed several of the items mentioned above and responded to questions from the Planning Commission. Jim Halferty stated he appreciated the hard work, extra hours, and harmonious working relationship with the Staff of the City of Arroyo Grande, and especially Scott Spierling's coordination and holding it together when it began falling apart. Mr. Halferty said that some items simply needed clarification. He discussed these items with the Commissioners. Les Henderson of 332 North Oak Park Road, Grover Beach, gave the Commissioners a letter from the Citizens for Responsible Development, dated June 16, 1993, to the attention of Mr. Thomas Courtney of Courtney & Associates. He spoke his concerns of traffic impact, especially on Courtland Street. Don Hilliard, President of the Peace Lutheran Church, said he was pleased with the preliminary Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 June 6, 1995 plans of Vons, but had a few concerns which he presented, and the applicant and Staff responded to these. The applicant also stated he would be meeting with Mr. Hilliard to be sure all concerns were taken care of. Mr. Hilliard ended by saying he felt the new project would be an asset to the community and hoped that there would not be any on- premises liquor licenses involved in the future uses of the shops. Mildreene Kirby of 1825 Brighton, Grover Beach, stating her concerns about increased traffic, especially on Oak Park between Brighton and the project, saying there were no sidewalks on either side of Oak Park which was a danger to children and pedestrians in general who would be going to the project site. Susan Reade of 332 North Oak Park, Grover Beach, distributed a Courtland Avenue Median Layout, stamped as received by the City of Arroyo Grande Planning Department, August 16, 1991. Ms. Reade expressed her concerns regarding traffic impact, and inquired if there was an EIR for Vons or was it adopted from the proposed bowling alley EIR. Current Planner Spierling responded that there was an expanded initial study which incorporated the bowling alley EIR plus the previous environmental studies that were done for the previous Vons, and that Staff took the bowling alley EIR information plus the studies for the previous Vons that were still applicable. Mr. Spierling stated the only item not applicable was the traffic and circulation study and therefore the City commissioned a new traffic and circulation study be prepared for this proposal, which was prepared and that the recommendations of the traffic engineer have been incorporated in the mitigation measures. With no further comments from the audience, Chairperson Keen closed the public hearing. Lengthy discussion was held by the Commissioners regarding the presentations of the applicants and members of the public and other concerns they had. Interim Public Works Director John Wallace spoke regarding conditions 13 and 14 under the Parcel Map, which the applicant mentioned were potential concerns. Regarding #13, Mr. Wallace said an asphalt sidewalk was not good from the standpoint of high maintenance and without curbs and gutters it would not be safe and therefore a potential liability to the City. Mr. Wallace said all the particulars of these conditions would have to be worked out with the City of Grover Beach. Discussion continued on several other items of the proposed project. Then Staff, in accordance with the wishes of the Commissioners, recommended the following wording for various conditions and mitigation measures, to wit: Tentative Parcel Map • Condition 13, revised to read as follows: The applicant shall improve Courtland Street to a full local road standard from Grand Avenue to the north property boundary. The applicant shall construct roadway improvements along Courtland Street from the north property boundary to Brighton Avenue to the satisfaction of the Interim Director of Public Works in consultation with the Community Development Director of Grover Beach. • Mitigation Measure 8 will have the same wording as Condition 13 above. • Mitigation Measure 9 - bus stop will be relocated to between Pad "B" and the Grand Avenue project entry and no turnout will be required. • Mitigation Measure 12 - the first sentence will be changed to read as follows: Within six months of the opening of the first store, the APCD shall review 12 and approve a trip reduction plan submitted to them by the applicant. • Mitigation Measure 18 - the second sentence amended to read: If deliveries must be made between the hours of midnight to 6:00 A.M., deliveries shall be made at the front of the store. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 June 6, 1995 • Mitigation Measure 20 - shall be amended to read: Conditional Use Permit Parking lot sweeping shall be limited to the hours between 6 A.M. and 8 P.M. in the back of the store and 6 A.M. to midnight in the remainder of the parking lot. • General Condition 6 - the following sentence (in parenthesis next to Building "A ") to be added to Pad D wording: (May be converted to other uses allowed in the zone by following the appropriate procedure outlined in City Code at the time of conversion.) Condition 15, g. with "on private property" added, to wit: Additional shopping cart storage shall be provided on private property in proximity to the bus shelter. • Condition 33 to be worded as amended in Tentative Parcel Map, Condition 13. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck suggested to Chairman Keen that Staff would amend any Conditions or Mitigation Measures to be consistent with the changes made by the Planning Commission should something be overlooked in this meeting. The following action was taken with changes as noted by Staff: RESOLUTION NO. 95 -1514 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 95 -524, LOCATED AT 1650 GRAND AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY THE VONS COMPANIES, INC.; ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MEASURES; AND INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION On a motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Tappan, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Carr, Deviny, Beck and Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hatchett the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of June 1995. The following action was taken with changes as noted by Staff: RESOLUTION NO. 95 -1515 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 95 -190, APPLIED FOR BY THE VONS COMPANIES, INC. AT 1650 GRAND AVENUE, VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENT FOR A 15 FOOT LANDSCAPED STREET SETBACK FROM OAK PARK BOULEVARD TO BUILDINGS "D" AND "E" On a motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Tappan, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Carr, Deviny, Beck and Keen NOES: None Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8 June 6, 1995 ABSENT: Commissioner Hatchett the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of June 1995. The following action was taken with changes as noted by Staff: RESOLUTION NO. 95 -1516 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 95 -537 AND THE ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR TWO BUILDINGS, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 7.49 ACRE SHOPPING CENTER WITH A 58,225 SQUARE FOOT MARKET, 3281 SQUARE FOOT FAST FOOD RESTAURANT, 22,399 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE, AND APPURTENANT IMPROVEMENTS AT 1650 GRAND AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY THE VONS COMPANIES, INC.; ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MEASURES; AND INSTRUCTION THAT THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION On a motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Carr, Deviny, Beck and Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hatchett the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of June 1995. Then the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 95 -1517 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 95 -116 FOR BUILDING "E" APPLIED FOR BY THE VONS COMPANIES, INC. AT 1650 GRAND AVENUE On a motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Carr, Deviny, Beck and Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hatchett the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of June 1995. Planning Staff apprised the public of the appeal period on this project. NON - PUBLIC HEARING - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A 3,280 SQUARE FOOT FAST FOOD RESTAURANT AT 1650 GRAND AVENUE, PAD "D ", APPLICANT IS BOSTON MARKET (BOSTON WEST L.L.C.) Current Planner Spierling gave a brief presentation of this item, stating that Staff recommended approval. Mr. Gonzalez, representative for the applicant, spoke in response to a question regarding stacking, stating there would be no stacking problems. He said most of their trade is walk in and sit down. A brief discussion was held by the Commissioners and the following motion was made: Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 9 June 6, 1995 RESOLUTION NO. 95 -1518 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR BOSTON MARKET LOCATED AT 1650 GRAND AVENUE, PAD "D" On a motion by Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Carr, Deviny, Beck, and Keen NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hatchett the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of June 1995. NON - PUBLIC HEARING - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A 7,0008 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL SHOP AT 1650 GRAND AVENUE, PAD "B ", APPLICANT IS HOLLYWOOD VIDEO (W.L. BUTLER, INC.) Current Planner Spierling presented this item to the Commission, stating that the AAC reviewed this item on May 25, 1995, giving special attention to the proposed neon lighting. He stated that the AAC did not feel that the proposed lighting was excessive and would not detract from the overall Center and therefore recommend approval. Commissioner Deviny asked Current Planner Spierling if there was still an ordinance about no neon lighting to which Mr. Spierling responded that the sign code prohibited exposed neon tubing used for signage, pointing out that the AAC felt that the proposed neon lighting for this project was an architectural feature as opposed to signage. Mr. Courtney stated that the neon would be recessed on the left and right sides of the building, but in the corporate logo on the front depicting the hills of Hollywood is exposed. Chairman Keen asked Mr. Courtney if the neon tube referred to as recessed was visible and Mr. Courtney responded the tubing could be seen. Chairman Keen said it looked as though the front neon tubing was part of the sign, not part of the building, and Commissioner Deviny concurred. Mr. Courtney stated that it was an integral part and they had worked that out with the AAC, in that they tried to tie it in with the architecture. Chairman Keen said the jagged neon tubing in front could be addressed when the applicant came in for a planned sign program, if it was part of the sign. The other would be architectural accents, Chairman Keen stated, and could be addressed differently. Chairman Keen expressed his concern that the Commission had just recently denied neon tubing for another applicant, which was appealed to the City Council, who upheld the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Courtney responded they were not going around the building with it and it was discussed at the AAC meeting that this neon tubing was done very discreetly. Chairman Keen pointed out that the AAC had also approved the previous applicant's neon tubing. Chairman Keen said the reason he wanted clarification on the jagged part was because if it was part of the signing, then that can be addressed in the sign program. However, the ones on the building needed to be addressed at this time and if the applicant wanted them as part of the building, then that would need to be addressed now. Mr. Courtney said perhaps they should then consider the front jagged tubing and get that approved. Current Planner Spierling clarified that the signage would not necessarily have to come before the Planning Commission, as it is a free - standing building and they can go through an Administrative Sign Permit, provided they meet code requirements and could then be approved by the Planning Director. Mr. Courtney stated that Hollywood Video would be very upset to have it denied as it was part of their corporate logo to which Chairman Keen responded that the other applicant, Jack- in -the- Box, had presented the same argument. Mr. Courtney asked if Jack -in- the -Box was unanimously approved by the AAC to which Chairman Keen answered in the affirmative. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 10 June 6, 1995 Commissioner Deviny mentioned that Pad B was not called out specifically for that business, but given a multi - purpose designation, and stated he did not feel comfortable with calling neon lighting as part of architectural treatment, and yet the building can be considered for different types of services such as retail, professional offices, and so forth. Commissioner Carr said he felt there was no cut and dried answer for neon lighting and that in this particular case, being part of the logo, he would approve this item as presented. Commissioner Tappan said he could not in good conscience support the neon lighting, because the Planning Commission had recently denied Jack -in- the -Box, and recalled that applicant had also stated that what they were requesting was because of their corporate logo. Commissioner Beck said she felt foolish stating we would not allow this until some of these types of issues were resolved with the City Council, knowing it would be appealed and then the City Council would allow it. Commissioner Soto stated he voted yes for Jack -in- the -Box and he would probably vote yes for Hollywood Video also. Mr. Soto said he did not feel it was a "Las Vegas" type of lighting, that it was company logo, and it did not present a safety problem, as perhaps Cody's Restaurant in Grover Beach, because it interfered with the stop lights. Commissioner Tappan said he did not recall ever approving neon lighting in the City, except perhaps for small 'Open' and 'Closed' signs and if there were any they were probably not by permission. Commissioner Carr asked Mr. Courtney where the sign would be facing and Mr. Courtney said it would be facing into the Center. Mr. Carr asked about the expanse widths in front and the two sides , to which Mr. Courtney responded it was about 28 feet at the front and about 18 feet each on the sides. Commissioner Carr said he saw no reason it should not be approved as part of the architecture rather than signs. The following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR HOLLYWOOD VIDEO LOCATED AT 1650 GRAND AVENUE, PAD "B" On a motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Soto, Carr and Beck NOES: Commissioners Tappan, Deviny and Keen ABSENT: Commissioner Hatchett the foregoing Resolution failed due to a split vote. Chairman Keen asked if there were any other motions, stating that he would be willing to approve this item with the neon tubing at the front along their logo, but not on the sides as it was not fair to disallow one and approve another of very similar requests. Mr. Courtney again gave reasons why he felt it should be approved as proposed. During further discussion by the Commissioners, Current Planner Spierling suggested amending General Condition #3 to read: Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting of June 6, 1995 and marked "Exhibit A ", except as modified by eliminating the neon accents on either side of the main entryway and the neon accents above the entryway, but retaining the neon that is part of the front facia. The following action was taken with the amendment to General Condition 3 as stated by Staff. 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 11 June 6, 1995 ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. 95 -1519 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR HOLLYWOOD VIDEO LOCATED AT 1650 GRAND AVENUE, PAD "B" On a motion by Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Carr, and by the following roll call, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Carr, and Keen NOES: Commissioners Deviny and Beck ABSENT: Commissioner Hatchett the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of June 1995. Planning Staff apprised the public of the appeal period on this project. PLANNING COMMISSION /PLANNING DIRECTOR ITEMS AND COMMENTS Current Planner Spierling advised the Commission that the Day Care Center under CUP 94 -527 was to be reviewed within six months of issuance of the CUP or in June 1995. However, he stated, the applicant has not yet occupied the site and Staff recommended delaying the review until January 1996. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to delay the review with Commissioner Soto abstaining. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Agenda Item No. II.C. - an addition of condition 28a, on Conditional Use Permit 95- 537, condition 28a. 2. Agenda Item No. III.C. - two(2) revised Resolutions for Oak Park Foursquare Church Interpretation 3. Agenda Item No. II.B. - three colored photographs presented by D. Ritchie who spoke in opposition to this item. 4. Agenda Item No. II.C. - letter from Citizens for Responsible Development, dated June 16, 1993, signed by and presented by Les Henderson during his discussion opposing this item. 5. Agenda item No. II.C. - "Courtland Median Layout" stamped as received on August 16, 1991 by the Planning Department and given to the Commission by Susan Reade during her talk. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned on Wednesday morning at 12:45 A.M. to the next scheduled meeting on June 20, 1995.