Loading...
PC Minutes 1994-06-211 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session and found that the Chairman and Vice Chairman were absent and therefore Commissioner Soto presided as Acting Chairman by unanimous consent of the Commissioners present. Present are Commissioners Deviny, Hatchett, and Keen. Absent are Commissioners Tappan, Reilly, and Chairman Carr. Current Planner Scott Spierling is in attendance. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING - LOT MERGER CASE NO. 94-518, AMENDED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 73 -067, PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 94 -114, VARIANCE CASE NO. 94 -184 AT 251 GRAND AVENUE, APPLICANT IS CHEVRON PRODUCTS USA Commissioners Deviny and Hatchelt stated they had listened to the tape of the previous meeting regarding this item. Current Planner Spierling gave a review to the Commission showing on the overhead projector that the required dedication was, in fact, 10 feet. He stated the recommendation was to approve of the three Resolutions and a Minute Motion on the Amended Architectural Review. Mr. Spierling then invited questions from the Commission. After several questions directed to Current Planner Spierling, Acting Chairman Soto opened the public hearing. Bruce Greenfield, representing the applicant, stated that Chevron was in agreement with all the conditions except for the dedication. He said they hired a surveyor to verify the existing conditions and the surveyor confirmed an existing 38 foot right -of -way and that the traffic plans would result in a 48 foot right -of -way, thereby confirming the 10 foot dedication requirement. Mr. Greenfield informed the Commission that the owners of the property requested that it would be more appropriate to attach this dedication to a future project that might require a Conditional Use Permit or at least a more substantial project. He continued, stating that the owners felt that this project is merely a tenant doing what is required by law and that the lot merger is really a technicality because of the need to move the tanks. Leroy Saruwatari of 512 Latina Lane, Arroyo Grande, one of the owners of the property, said he did not attend the last meeting as he was out of town. He stated that Chevron has been there 40 years and that they are now doing some upgrading as a benefit to the community and suddenly the City is demanding 10 feet of frontage. Mr. Saruwatari further stated that it was not a new project, nor were they increasing traffic. He also mentioned that about three years ago the City talked about purchasing that 10 feet, but the funding was not available because of the recession. He said perhaps the City feels that now they can just get it free, and that he felt troubled and uncomfortable about this dedication. When Acting Chairman Soto queried Mr. Saruwatari about possible future plans for the property adjacent to Chevron's station, Mr. Saruwatari said they had no plans at this time, but when it was developed, it night be something to tie in with the service station. If that was so, he went on to say, it would create more traffic and then they would be glad to do their share of dedication of whatever was necessary at the time. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 June 21, 1994 With no further comments from the audience, Acting Chairman Soto closed the public hearing. Acting Chairman Soto asked Current Planner Spierling what his opinion was of a time frame of Grand Avenue being redone. Current Planner Spierling stated that realistically two years would be the minimum time frame. He told the Commission that the City has improvement plans ready for expanding this portion of Grand Avenue and all that was needed to begin the work was the funding. Commissioner Deviny said that in his mind he did not feel this was a level of development that would require such a dedication. One reason was that he felt that way was that these upgrades were being made for regulatory reasons. Commissioner Keen asked Current Planner Spierling regarding the Development Code requirements on this condition. Current Planner Spierling responded that the Development Code allows the Commission to either make it a condition or to delete the requirement. Mr. Spierling suggested that if it was waived, a finding should be adopted stating the project is not significant enough to require it. Commissioner Keen said he would vote to dedicate the property and would not tie it to another project only because that other project may never occur and was therefore unrealistic. Commissioner Hatchett stated that he agreed with Commissioner Keen. Acting Chairman Soto reiterated what he had said at the last meeting in that he felt the owners were being penalized for a minor update of a commercial business. He said that the City did not have the money now to purchase this 10 feet and perhaps when funding was acquired, there could be some negotiating compensation to the Saruwatari family for this 10 feet. Acting Chairman Soto went on to say that originally this 10 feet was to be a compensated dedication as far as the City was concerned. Then the City withdrew the contract and now, on a minor upgrading of a commercial business, they are being required to freely dedicate it. Commissioner Keen then said that he personally felt the property owners should be compensated for this dedication. However, he did not feel that the Planning Commission should make the decision to commit the City to waiving the opportunity to have this property. Therefore, Commissioner Keen said he felt the dedication should be required and then the Saruwatari family could appeal to the City Council for that is where the decision needs to be made. Acting Chairman Soto suggested that if the Saruwatari family appeal the decision, perhaps a letter could be presented to the City Council stating the Planning Commission recommends that either compensation or delayed dedication be considered, as it is a minor project, but a major improvement to the City. All the commissioners concurred and when Current Planner Spierling was asked about it, he stated such a letter could be drafted. Discussion followed regarding the quickest way to assist Chevron in getting their project under way, whether through a deadlock or an approval with right to appeal. Current Planner Spierling indicated in either case it would probably go to the City Council for the July 12, 1994 meeting. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 June 21, 1994 The only issue was that an appeal would cost $95. After further discussion, Mr. Greenfield stated that though their preference would be to put the dedication onto a future project, he would appreciate a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council stating the project was of minor scope and that they uphold the appeal. After Mr. Greenfield's statement, Current Planner Spierling suggested to Acting Chairman Soto that perhaps it would be best to approve the project and after the project is approved that a separate motion could be made authorizing Acting Chairman Soto to sign a letter to the City Council discussing the Planning Commission's feelings about the dedication. The following action was then taken: RESOLUTION NO. 94 -1475 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT MERGER CASE NO. 94 -518, LOCATED AT 251 GRAND AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY CHEVRON PRODUCTS USA On motion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Hatchett, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Deviny, Hatchett, Keen and Acting Chairman Soto NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Tappan, Reilly and Chairman Carr the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 21st day of June 1994. On a motion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and unanimously carried, to amend the Architectural Review Case No. 73 -067 to incorporate the plans as shown by Chevron at the meeting of June 7, 1994. The following action was then taken: RESOLUTION NO. 94 -1476 A RESOLUTION OF TILE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING VARIANCE CASENO. 94-184, APPLIED FOR BY CHEVRON PRODUCTS USA, AT 251 GRAND AVENUE On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Deviny, Hatchett, Keen and Acting Chairman Soto NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Tappan, Reilly and Chairman Carr the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 21st day of June 1994. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 June 21, 1994 Then the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 94 -1477 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 94 -114, APPLIED FOR BY CHEVRON PRODUCTS USA, AT 251 GRAND AVENUE On motion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Hatchett, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Deviny, Hatchett, Keen and Acting Chairman Soto NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Tappan, Reilly and Chairman Carr the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 21st day of June 1994. On a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and unanimously carried, that if the Condition regarding dedication is appealed, Acting Chairman Soto is authorized to make a recommendation that the City Council consider eliminating the dedication because it is such a minor project. NON - PUBLIC HEARING - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 87 -392 AMENDMENT #2 FOR THE ADDITION TO ONE OF THE "PATIO HOMES" IN TIIE ROYAL OAKS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, 337 MESQUITE LANE, APPLICANTS ARE CHUCK & MARIAN FIORENTINO Current Planner Spierling presented the highlights of the staff report, showing the proposed addition on a posted blueprint and on photographs taken by the applicant. Although a non - public hearing, Acting Chairman Soto invited the applicant to speak to which the applicant declined. Acting Chairman Soto asked Current Planner Spierling if the dates would be filled in at the City Council meeting to which Mr. Spierling answered in the affirmative. After a brief discussion by the Planning Commission, on a motion by Commissioner Deviny, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and unanimously carried, recommending approval of Architectural Review Case No. 87 -392, Amendment #2, at 337 Mesquite Lane to the City Council. NON - PUBLIC HEARING - ANNUAL REVIEW, LOPEZ CONTINUATION SCHOOL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 92 -502, 227 BRIDGE STREET, APPLICANT IS LUCIA MAR SCHOOL DISTRICT Current Planner Spierling gave a brief report, pointing out the loitering and vandalism increase in Kiwanis Park and other areas in the creeks noted by the Parks and Recreation Director, indicating however that it was not considered a problem at this time. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 June 21, 1994 Commissioner Keen asked if this would be coming before the Commission again in the future to which Current Planner Spierling replied that the permit was only for three years and would then need to be discontinued or to come back for another Conditional Use Permit. Because there had been no complaints by the neighbors since the original approval, the consensus was that no action was necessary. However, Cormissioner Deviny suggested that the Parks and Recreation Director advise the school district of the increase in loitering and vandalism. NON - PUBLIC HEARING - ANNUAL REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 93 -507, 201 BRISCO ROAD, APPLICANT IS FIVE CITIES AMBULANCE Current Planner Spierling briefed the Commissioners on the highlights of this item, pointing out that the bio- hazard waste was being taken care of and noting that an annual review would ensure it. He stated that Staff recommended that the Traffic Commission be asked to take a look at the sight distance problem noted by the Fire Chief. Although this is a non - public hearing, Acting Chairman Soto invited a representative of Five Cities Ambulance to speak. Paul McKenzie approached the podium, stating he was the owner of Five Cities Ambulance, and that his concern regarding the sight problem was that, though they could see coming out of their driveway, other drivers might not have good view of them coming out. On a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and unanimously carried, it was recommended that the Traffic Commission take a second look at red curbing the street frontages of the project and the adjacent property to the east of 201 Brisco Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS Acting Chairman Soto noted the upcoming meeting on July 9, 1994 at 10:00 A.M. to the Frederick's Property. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ADJOURNM ENT 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 8:35 P.M. ATTEST: ) � Nancy Brow Commission Clerk Jo oto, Acting hairman