Loading...
PC Minutes 1973-11-07Arroyo Grande Planning Commission November 7, 1973 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in adjourned session with Chairman Pope presiding. Present are Commissioners Calhoon, Goulart, Gullickson, Jones, Porter and Spierling. Also in attendance are City Administrator Butch and Planning Director Gallop. MINUTE APPROVAL On motion by Commissioner Gullickson, seconded by Commissioner Spierling, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the regular meeting of October 16, 1973 were approved as prepared. REFERRAL FROM ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE USE PERMIT CASE NO. 73-216 USED CAR LOT, 109 FAIR OAKS AVENUE (MASSEY Chairman Pope referred to the Resolution which was passed at the last regular meeting and the nine conditions of that resolution, and requested Commissioners Jones and Goulart to bring the Commission up to date as to what took place at the Architectural Committee meeting. Commissioner Jones advised there were several items of concern to the Architectural Committee and they did feel they could act independently of the whole Commission. One of the items of concern was Item #4 which requires the used car lot be based and surfaced with A.C. paving. He advised - that the area was based and oiled, but it was not A.C. paving, and it was their under- standing from the Planning Director that this meets the requirements of the City's ordinance, however, the Committee did not feel they wanted to change the Commission's action on this. He pointed out another item of concern was #6 requiring that "Any office structure on the property be approved the Architectural Review Board, who would also consider landscaping and plans prior to occupancy of the development He stated that access was discussed at the last meeting and was referred to the Architectural Committee, and they were under the impresssion they could designate where the access would be, however, they were informed that the Public Works Director would not approve an access opening on Fair Oaks Avenue. Commissioner Goulart pointed out that one of the main reasons this was referred back to the Commission was the item of A.C. paving, in that one of the conditions of the resolution was A. C. paving and they felt that since the condition was not met, that a decision should be made at the Commission level. Commissioner Jones advised there was considerable discussion about the fence, which was also a condition of the resolution. He stated normally a fence would be recommended and approved by the Architectural Committee, however, since this fence was up before the Committee met and was not one they could approve, they feel it should stand for six months until it is reviewed. Commissioner Goulart stated that the Commission stressed that Mr. Massey understand that the fence would not be accepted as a perma- nent type fence, and would be reviewed in six months, With regard to the A.C. paving, Commissioner Porter stated it was his understanding that the City does not require A.C. paving on parking lots. Director Gallop advised that there have been two basic types of surfacing required in the past. On display lots such as used car lots, and on the recreational vehicle. storage lot, and such developments where there is not a great deal of traffic, the ordinance states that such areas be dust free and weatherproof. He further stated he felt he should take some blame for interchanging this terminology in different types of uses, and that A. C. paving was inadvertently put in the staff report. He further pointed out that in a commercial use where there is continual traffic, then A. C. paving is required by the Director of Public Works. Commissioner Spierling stated that when the resolution was passed at the last meeting, the Commission recognized at that time that there was a three week interval before the next meeting and would, therefore, be putting the owner at a handicap and the Commsission was attempting to help him get started. The Commission agreed at that time that we did not have adequate information and 1 attempted, in my motion for the Resolution, to include all of the requirements that we believed would cover all contingencies lnVolved. He stated he felt the A. C. paving issue is a minor issue, but with regard to the driveway area, he would like to see some type of substitute proposal if it is impossible to develop a driveway on Fair Oaks Avenue. He stated he felt the Cosiimiss on a11 agreed that parking could not be allowed on Fair Oaks Avenue in th s area , :e, ,hF ref ;r., an a'. _gnat; would have to be provided. 35 36 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 11 -7-73 Page 2 Director Gallop advised that the alley is public property and is a City adopted right-of-way. Several years ago the operator and owner of the Log Cabin Market had asked for a drive apron on that side of the street to allow circulation through the property, and at that time the City was constructing the drainage facilities from the east side of Traffic Way past this particular property and down to the 101 right -of -way. Because of the existing probblems and the traffic control problems, Director of Public Works Anderson felt that an additional intersection of the street would create additional problems, a rad that the property did have access from a public right -of -way and, based upon this he would not consent to that access in the front of the property. Commissioner Goulart stated there is quite a bit of traffic Fair Oaks Avenue, and he felt there should be another driveway since the Bedloe Lane access will not allow two cars, and stated it would be a hazardous situation if we leave just one opening. Director Gallop pointed out there is alternate access on Traffic Way between the garage and Log Cabin Market, and that there is a circulation pattern there also. Commissioner Goulart stated it is - n©t a normal traffic pattern, Commissioner Spierling stated that inasmuch as the Commission diced require A. C. paving, he would agree with the point that Mr. Gallop brought up, in that this is a lot where vehicles are parked and is a different type traffic problem than where vehicles are moving constantly. He further stated he was more con- cerned about the traffic pattern in and out as far as the driveway is concerned. With regard to the A. C. paving, Commissioner Goulart stated it has been a normal condition of this Commission that any time we have a paving area, the Commission has required concrete asphaltic paving and since this was the condition set out, he felt that this should be left in. On motion by Commissioner Goulart, seconded by Commissioner Gul to adopt e resolution amending the original Resolution No. 73 - 317 U, Use Permit Case No. 73 -216. After discussion of the proposed conditions, on motion by Commissioner Goulart, seconded by Commissioner Gullickson, that the conditions in the proposed Resolution be amended, motion defeated by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Goulart, Gullickson and Chairman Pope NOES: Commissioners Calhoon, Jones, Porter and Spierling ABSENT: None Chairman Pope reiterated his understanding of the proposed resolution was that at the end of six months, there will be an automatic review of the Use Permit by this Commission and at that time, if the business is to be continued, A. C. paving of the lot will be automatically installed; a permanent type fence will be installed; but that immediately there will be installation of a concrete type driveway. Director Gallop pointed out that the City approach is the responsibility of the City, and not Mr. Massey, and he recommended that the matter of the access on Bedloe Lane be referred to the Parking and Traffic Commission for a decision. Commissioner Goulart stated he would like to amend his proposed resolution in that the Commission require a two -way access on Bedloe Lane for the access and exit to the used car lot parking area in back, subject to a recommendation from the Parking and Traffic Commission. After the above discussion, a roll call vote was taken on the originally proposed Resolution as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 73 -318 U A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 73°317 U, USE PERMIT CASE NO. - 73 -216. On motion by Commissioner Goulart, seconded by Commissioner Gullickson, and by the following roll call vote to wit: Arroyo Grande Planning Co m ission, ll-7 --73 Page 3 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner uoulart Commissioners Calhoon,.Gullickson, Jones, Porter, Spierling and Chairman Pope None The foregoing Resolution was defeated this 7th day of November 1973. Mr. Massey, the petitioner, stated he misunderstood the term "A`.C. ", and that he put a double chip surfacing on the lot which is not a temporary surface ing, but is a hapd 11 inch surface that is flexible with the weather. He stated that he could have gotten the black for the same price as the double chip, however, he chose the double chip because there is very little traffic through the lot and the water will absorb into the double chipped surface, but will run off of the black top. Mr. Massey further stated he felt the most feasible and safe access to the car lot and off - street parking,at,the. rear of the car lot Is off: of Bedloe, Lane. Commissioner Goulart advised that, although he has not measured the apron on Bedloe Lane, he would still maintain that there is not room for two way traffic on the existing apron, and if we are going to consider keeping the existing apron on Bedloe Lane, we should set aside making it a minimum two way drive. After further discussion, Commissioner Calhoon moved to adopt a resolution requiring that the fence be improved and approved by the Commission within one year, and that Item 4 of Resolution No. 73-317 U be deleted. Motion lost for lack of a second. Commissioner Spierling moved to adopt Resolution 73 -319 U and, after discussion of this proposed resolution, 'Director Gallop suggested that the Commission request the Parking and Traffic Commission to review the problems of access on Bedloe Lane, and that this request be by separate action rather than included as a condition of the Resolution. He further suggested that rather than attempting to amend the Resolution, that a new Resolution be written . which would nullify the original Resolution No. 317 U, and would also supersede the Architectural Committee action, dated October' 24, 1973, and those actions would also becomee a part of the new Resolution. After discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 73-319 U A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE NULLIFYING RESOLUTION NO. 73-317 U, AND ADOPTING A NEW RESOLUTION GRANTING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO. 73-216. On motion by Commissioner Spierling, seconded by Commissioner Porter, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Calhoon, Gullickson, Porter and Spierling NOES: Commissioners Goulart, Jones and Chairman Pope ABSENT: None The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7th day of November 1973. REPORT - COASTAL VALLEY PLANNING COUNCIL Director Gallop advised that as Secretary of the Coastal Valley Planning Council he had met with Mr. Mark Parreira, Chairman of the State Scenic Highways Commission; Mr. Ronald Lernmon, Scenic Highway Program Coordinator for the Division of Highways; and Mr. Henry Engen of the County Planning Office, on the 25th of October and reviewed the scenic highway program that was proposed from the beach to Lopez Lake. He advised that under the present Scenic Highway policy, they felt they could not participate in the corridor study on that portion of Grand Avenue from the ocean to Highway 101, in that as of this time they do not have any policy or legisuative means of making an urban corridor study. Director Gallop advised that "he Fall Seminar had been set for 6th in the Grover City Council Cha mber's and IA 1 ! be dealing with the Coastal Commission Proposition 20. In addit c:. to the F.J13 Seminar, they are planning a Winter Seminar, tentatively set for Febroar 14th, for discussion of Environmental Impact Reports. 37 38 Arroyo Grande Pla ,:erns Commission - D_ ISCUSSION RE: LOT SPLIT COMMITTEE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Chairman Pope stated he had discussed the actions of the Lot Split and Architectural Review Committees with Administrator Butch and Director Gallop, and noted that copies of these Committee's actions had been included with the Agenda material. Chairman Pope stated he felt thia is a step in the right direction. Commissioner Goulart stated he felt that actions are taking place, specifically on the Lot Split Committee, that the Commission doesn't know anything about, and that from these actions, the Commission is led in a direction, as an example, in the case like the one tonight regarding the used car lot. He stated it was his feeling that the lot splits should perhaps be done by this Commission because there are two many things that go before this Committee where the Commission has no say in the actions. He suggested perhaps changing the procedure or making a larger representation on the Commr'ttee, or maybe just getting rid of it and taking on the action by the Commission. Commissioner Gul l ickson stated he was in disagreement with the idea of the Planning Commission taking on the action of these Committees. Commissioner Sperling stated he is a member of the Lot Split Committee and after having served on that. Committee for almost a year now, it was his feeling that they do a lot of ground work. He further advised that these are not closed door sessions and that anyone is welcome to attend, and the petitioners involved are invited to attend. Commissioner Gull°rckson stated that the petitioner requesting the lot split should be considered, and pointed out that the change to the Lot Split Committee procedure was made about ten .y.ears ago and up until that time, sometimes it took six weeks to get on the agenda, and he didn't feel this is fair to the and owner. Commissioner Jones stated he didn't see anything wrong with the way the cases are being handled now, end he did think it will be beneficial to get a copy of the committees' actions. Commissioner Goulart stated he wasn't implying that the Committees were not doing a good job; what he was questioning is that when a crucial situation is evident, such as the used car lot, if that had been brought before the Commission as a whole, possibly there would have been some other thoughts that may have come out of this Commission and, in fact, did come out of this Commission after the Committee meeting, that were pertinent to the case, and these thoughts threw the matter into a referral to another special committee, which is all very time consumming. Director Gallop advised that the reason the Committee was set up to meet "on call" was to expedite cases and make it as easy as possible on the public, and if it is desirable that these be made public meetings, this can be done. Commissioner Goulart suggested that perhaps something could be set up whereby if an item is a controversial type thing, a decision would not be made by the Lot Split Committee, but would be referred to the Planning Commission. Chairman Pope thanked the Commission for their thoughts on the matter and suggested the subject be carried over to,a later date. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by Commissioner Calhoon, seconded by Commissioner Spierl°rng, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 P.M. ATTEST: J � Secretary Pege 4