PC Minutes 1985-03-19r
1
1
ARROYO GRAICE PLAMNING O . IISSIati
March 19; 1985
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman
Gerrish presiding. Present are Commissioners Fischer, Carr, Moore, Soto, Boggess
and Olsen. Planning Director Eisner is also in attendance.
MIl`WT.PE APPROVAL
Chairman Gerrish corrected the minutes of the meeting of March 5, 1985,
second line, to read "....the minutes of the regular meeting of February 5,
1985... ". Hearing no further additions or corrections, the minutes of the Planning
Commission meetings of February 19, 1985 and March 5, 1985 were approved by the
Chairman as corrected.
CL TII`�IATIC Y - (PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED) - USE PERMIT CASE 85 -389, &DPPING PLAZA
INCLID11%AliAlaDVARE S1ORE, STATICNIVAYAT TRAFFIC WAY, IN THE '7-3 -S" LUGMAY SEIVICE
DISu ICT. ( aDc ASr LAND 0T1PA .
Planning Director Eisner reviewed that the public hearing on this matter
was held at the meeting of March 5th and, at that time the issue was raised relative
to the adjacent parcel of property being landlocked. He advised that the issue has
been reviewed by the staff and a determination was made that the issue is not
relevant to the question of a hardware store receiving a Use Permit. He pointed out
that the Planning Commission had previously determined that a hardware store is a
permitted use in the H -S zone subject to use permit procedure. He noted that a
hardware store is shown on the plans in Building B, and staff, after reviewing the
criteria, is recommending approval of the use permit request.
Chairman Gerrish reopened the public hearing,
Keith Gurnee, representing the applicant, pointed out that this site has
been the subject of a number of development proposals and the present proposal now
has two commitments to users in Building B, one of which is a hardware store. Mr.
Gurnee reviewed the proposed plan. He commented that if the project did not contain
a hardware store, there are many other uses that could be developed there that would
not require a use permit.
Gene Saruwatari, 1054 The Pike, spoke on behalf of the Saruwatari family,
stating that the family objects to the architectural plan on the basis that it denies
adequate protection for their property for police and fire protection. He
commented that their property pays City taxes and should be allowed police and fire
protection without being blocked by the proposed building.
Mr. Gurnee pointed out that Building B has to be the size that it is and in
the location that is proposed in response to the tenants that want to go in there.
He noted that they have deleted the rear windows, which meets the requirements of the
Police and Fire Departments.
Leroy Saruwatari, 512 Launa Lane, stated the family feels they are entitled
to access, and there is noway the FireDepartment can cross the creek, and at a later
date if they did have something down there and needed a fire truck or whatever to get
in, there would be no access.
Mr. Gurnee stated the developer is dedicating an easement along the creek
for access by the City and for flood control purposes. The issue of the access is
that one property owner is trying to make another property provide access to it, and
all the applicant is requesting is a building permit and architectural approval.
He further stated that in going to Cal Trans, they found that Cal Trans negotiated a
settlement with the Sartnvatari's to compensate for severence damage for this piece
of property and, in his opinion, the City should not get involved in this sort of
issue, hut should look at the project purely on the basis of its design.
Hearing no further corrrents from the audience, Chairman Gerrish declared
the hearing closed. He pointed out that the two issues the Planning Commission is
dealing with right now are the use permit for the hardware store and architectural
review. Commissioner Boggess commented he does't see how the Planning Commission
can deal with rights of way; it is clouding the issue and making it quite difficult.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
RES�CLLWICN W. 85 -1033
A P,EsckurIa (IF '[1-;E PLANTING CZI` AISSIQ OF 'III
CITY CF ARRCPrO GRAD, GRANITNG A USE PE:INIT,
C:ASTi M. 85 -389_
16'
168
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -19 -85
Page 2
On motion by Ccmmissione_x Carr, seconded by Chairman Gerrish, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Cornnissioners Boggess, Soto, Olsen, Moore, Carr, Fischer
and Chairman Gerrish
IS: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 19th day of March 1985.
ARCHrIECIURAL REVIEW CASE to. 85 -325.
Planning Director Eisner advised that the reconmended conditions of
approval have been reviewed by the applicant and their originally submitted
drawings have been revised and now comply with all of the conditions as set forth by
the Staff Advisory and Architectural ReviewCommit tees . Mr. Eisner pointed out that
with the Planning Commission's adoption four weeks ago of an expanded Village design
definition, staff approached the applicant and their design representatives
relative to this, and the design now reflects the Village architectural style as
staff has been able to define it so far. To that end, staff is receuulending that
conditionNo. 17 be added to specifically state "sidewalks, street lights and other
design features, shall be consistent with the Arroyo Grande Village ".
Also, relative to condition No. 2, staff is recommending the condition be
revised. Originally, staff wrote that the developer should be responsible for the
design and installation of a traffic signal at StationWay andTrafficWay. After
discussion with the Traffic Engineer, the City Manager, our own staff and
consultants, it has been agreed that a more reasonable approach to that signal is
that the City, at the expense of the developers, hire an independent consultant who
would be working for the City to determine thewarrants, the traffic generations for
the shopping center, and isolate those from the traffic already generated on Traffic
Way, and with that, then determine a proportional share of the cost of that traffic
light to be paid by the applicant. The applicant has agreed to that solution and is
prepared to post the amount of money required to hire the consultant. Therefore, we
are recommending that Condition No. . 2 bemodified to read "That the developer shall
be responsible for the proportionate share of a fully actuated traffic signal at
Station Way intersection with Traffic Way as determined by independent
consultation, to be paid for by the applicant through the City,"
Ccumissioner Fischer pointed out that, during architectural review there
was a question regarding the lack of necessary parking. Mr. Eisner noted that the
parking was corrected; there was a loss of some property along Fair Oaks Avenue
because the City required a 15 ft. dedication for the widening of Fair Oaks Avenue,
so the designers have reduced the floor area of Building C to compensate, and they
now have one more parking space than is actually required. He pointed out that the
only thing that would change that, and the applicant is aware of this, is that there
are some uses outside the definition of retail use, such as a restaurant.
Commissioner Soto inquired if a condition should be added to cover restaurant, etc.
in the shopping center. Planning Director Eisner suggested if the Commission is
concerned, a condition could be added to read "If a use other than one requiring 1 to
200 off street parking is contemplated, it would require a permit from the Planning
Corrnissi on" .
In answer to Conmissioner Fischer's question regarding Station Way,
Planning Director Eis advised that Station Way is a City street, and the
extension from Station Way down to Fair Oaks will be built to City standards, with
special requirements for no on- street parking, for sidewalks in certain areas and
for landscaping subject to the Parks and Recreation Director review.
Commissioner Carr stated, in his opinion, the issue of the access to the
Sarwautari's property is critical and needs to be dealt with. He further stated
that if the Commission does not condition architectural approval to provide access
to the property, then it should be made clear that the property owners could appeal
to the City Council. Mr. Eisner clarified that the right to appeal any decision of
the Planning Commission is inherent in the law. The appeal procedure is set forth
in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days of the Comnission's decision.
Commissioner Carr questioned the wording in a number of the recorrrnended
conditions, stating they were not clear. Mr. Eisner apologized for the briefness
of some of the condi tions, pointing out that the information that was intended is
still par of the conditions, and they have all been noted on the drawings that are
before the Commission, and staff will re -write the conditions to clarify than or
reference there specifically to the drawings. Commissioner Carr referred to
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 3 -19 -85 Page 3
Condition No. 7 and recommended it be amended to read "Landscape plan be submitted
for Parks Di rector and Planning Ccmmission approval prior to issuance of a building
permit." With regard to the access issue, Chairman Gerrish s tatedhe is inclined to
approve the architectural review and have the Saruwatari's appeal the issue to the
City Council. He further stated he thinks this is an attractive project and is well
laid out.
Af ter fur ther discussion, Commissioner Carr moved to approve Architectural
Review Case No. 85 -325, subject to resubmittal and approval of the final conditions
as discussed, and with the deletion of Condition No. 16, the addition of Condition
No. 17, andwith the added condition that would require an additional permit for any
use requiring anything other than one parking spaces for 200 sq. ft. Also, the
requirement for the restricted area be expanded from 150 ft. to the retaining wall.
Motion seconded by Chairman Gerrish. The motion failed by a 2 to 5 vote.
After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by
Commissioner Boggess, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No. 85-
325 was approved subject to amending the conditions as discussed, including No. 17
and 18, and adding ConditionNo. 19 to read as follows: "Emergency vehicle access
to be provided to adjacent property subject to the approval of the Fire and Police
Departments ".. The amendment was seconded by Commissioner Boggess. Motion
unanimously carried. It was noted that this emergency access remains in the
control of the shopping center owner ancldoes not constitute the basis for any right
of additional permanent access or percriptive right of access.
Planning Director Eisner reviewed the conditions that were to be revised,
stating
1r' # ^
g �, staff would re -write the conditions as previously discussed.
There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by
Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Soto, the meeting was adjourned at
9:15 P.M.
ATTEST:
" Chairman
169