Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2001-10-16MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ARC) OCTOBER 16, 2001 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER Chair Costello called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 7:15 p.m. ROLL CALL Planning Commission: Commissioners Brown, Fowler, Guthrie, Vice Chair Keen, and Chair Costello present. Architectural Review Committee: Committee Members Fellows, Hodges, Ohler, Vice -Chair Kielan, and Chair Hoag present. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Fowler led the Flag Salute. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Planning Commission approved the minutes of May 1 and July 25, 2001, as written; the minutes of September 18, 2001 were approved with amendments. The Planning Commission and ARC approved the minutes of the June 20, 2001, Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and the ARC, as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Items handed out after the agenda preparation: 1. Letter from "Preserve the Village" Committee referencing the Village Design Guidelines. 2. Letter from Chuck Fellows referencing the Village Design Guidelines. ARC Committee Member, Chuck Fellows, requested to step down from commenting on item II A due to a possibility of a conflict of interest. I. PUBLIC COMMENT All speakers approved of the changes to the Design Guidelines with the following comments: 1. Nick Alter, 354 Corbett Canyon Road — Stated he would like the guidelines to go even further than the CEQA requirements if necessary. 2. Al Sperling, 299 Miller Way — Said he does not like the Village Centre building and strongly supports the statement on Page 4, last paragraph, regarding demolition of historic structures. 1. Nancy Loomis, 220 Miller Circle - Stated that she likes the Village as it is now. MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 16, 2001 PAGE 2 DRAFT 2. Erin O'Conner, 224 Mckinley Street - Stated that development should continue carefully and thoughtfully so as not to lose the small town character. 3. June Waller, 1098 Huasna — Said she doesn't like "cutesy "; likes the old time look. 4. Patty Welsh, 1151 Pradero Court - Stated she does not want the Loomis buildings to go and she would like the Village to stay as it is. 5. Cindy Christie, 624 Stagecoach Road - Stated she does not like the Village Centre building and does not want this to happen again on the site where the Loomis buiding is. 6. Scott Wachenheim, 1015 Ditmus Wav - Referred to page 4, second paragraph, change the word "should" to shall" to strengthen this. Page 7, Architectural Styles, change wording to say these styles represent much of the existing architecture in the Village; also he would like to see the stage coach logo changed to show a picture of the Pacific Coast Railroad. 7. Chuck Fellows, 507 Le Point Street- Thanked Staff for all the work they did on the guidelines. He referred to his memo distributed to the Planning Commission earlier, in which he stated that a majority of the Community wants the Village to remain as it is and if we want to promote a turn -of- century (nineteenth - twentieth), rural, small town character, then we need to consider limiting the scale, prohibiting new stucco, new aluminum, modern glass doors, visible cinder block building walls, plastic signs (internally illuminated), building materials that are obviously fake (stone, wood, brick), glaringly modern sign lettering. 8. Allen Olivera, 808 Inneslev — Stated she wants the Village to remain as it is. 9. Mark Vasquez, 307 South Mason Street — Stated that the guidelines were an improvement, but stated his concerns were: • Page 13, Building Design (Residential), where it states that ...garages shall be detached or located to the rear of the residence ... there could be potential problems with the way this is written. It should state "garages shou /d be located to the rear; the detached part may or may not be applicable. If a remodel is being done getting a garage to the rear and meeting the health code requirements is sometimes impossible. Some provision needs to be allowed for modification to this standard. In many cases in the Village you cannot put a two -car garage on the sites. • Every time you put in the word "shall" and don't provide some language for adjustment in the ordinance or guidelines you can get boxed into a corner, especially as Variance findings are sometimes very difficult to make. 10. Mary Guernsv, 567 Crown Hill — Stated she wants to preserve Village as it is. 11. Cathy Hughes, 547 Crown Hill — Stated she would like to see the old -time flavor maintained. 1 2 . Lynn Parks, 1 146 Maple - Stated she wants to preserve Village as it is. 13. Susan Flores, 529 East Branch — Stated her home, which was built in 1905 is within walking distance of the Village and homes of this age can be restored. 1 MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 16, 2001 PAGE 3 DRAFT She had to apply for a variance to build a single car garage and agreed that care should be taken in the wording of the guidelines. Public Comment Closed. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 01 -003 — DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — VILLAGE OF ARROYO GRANDE Ryan Hostetter, Planning Intern, said the proposed Guidelines are consistent with the 2001 General Plan- section LU -6 and are intended to sustain, enhance and expand the historic village core, including maintaining a distinctive visual and physical environment for the southern gateway streetscape along Station Way and Traffic Way. The Guidelines, incorporated by reference in Section 9-01.160 of the Development Code, are intended to provide a variety of design choices and flexibility for both the development of new projects and renovations. Projects are evaluated by applying the Development Code standards, supplemented with the design guidance criteria specified in the Guidelines for the applicable overlay district. The proposed Guidelines apply to two districts: Village Core Commercial and Village Core Residential (Design Overlay 2.4) and the historic design overlay district along Traffic Way (2.11). The Village Residential and the Village Commercial district guidelines remained relatively intact, with the "shoulds" having been changed to "shalls ", making the Guidelines more definitive. Each section summarizes the existing character of the district and appropriate guidelines to maintain a "sense of fit" for historic character preservation. Design Overlay District 2.4 was expanded to include residential neighborhoods along Le Point, Whiteley, South Mason, Short, and Allen Streets, which were previously excluded from the Guidelines. For historic districts, aesthetic standards are an important component of land use regulation. The purpose of the Guidelines is to let design professionals know in advance which standards are acceptable for the applicable district. However, the Guidelines are meant to provide direction without dictating specific design solutions. Any specific property development standard proposed for an overlay district must be processed as a specific amendment to the appropriate section of the Development Code. MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 16, 2001 PAGE 4 DRAFT Committee Member Hoag asked if the areas outlined in black were being added to the Design Guidelines for the first time? Ms. Hostetter said Rob Strong recommended these areas as possibly being included because they are very visible from the highway. Commissioner Guthrie asked staff to clarify the difference between design overlay 2.4 and 2.1 1 . Ms. Hostetter stated they are distinctly different areas even though they are both called "Village Core ", and separate guidelines have been written for each area. Commissioner Brown stated that the two -car garage requirement in the guidelines is a modern -day requirement and does not necessarily fit with the historic Village area. Many of the houses in the Village were not built for two -car garages. Kerry McCants, Community Development Director stated if there are inconsistencies in what the Development Code requires and what the Design Guidelines recommend it will necessitate a subsequent amendment to the Development Code. Commissioner Costello- referred to page 18 of the guidelines and asked which period it refers to where it states "sign materials and lettering styles of the historic period ... ". Melonie Hodges said the ARC had recommended fonts for the banners, but not for signage. Commissioner Guthrie stated: • Font types are referred to in the guidelines, but there is no reference to which font types. • In the introduction in the middle of paragraph three, second sentence, ...preserve only... should say ...preserve not only... • Where is the bar going to be set on preservation of historic buildings, which buildings would be put on the survey? • We need to establish what the character of the Village is, what the historic era is. • We need to establish what the scale is; the guidelines are very vague. • It should be clarified where exposed aggregate on streets /sidewalks shall be allowed. • It should be established which historic period is being referred to in the guidelines. Teresa McClish, Associate Planner said: 1 MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 16, 2001 PAGE 5 DRAFT • In reference to the support structures regarding historic buildings and demolition of them, we refer to the 1991 survey in the guidelines and we could tie this survey to that paragraph. The language would have to remain regarding public health and safety. • With reference to the definition of the center of the Village on Page 15, second paragraph, under the heading Existing Character, it mentions many of the historic commercial buildings as being erected in the period 1885 to 1910.; further in the guidelines it says that we would like to keep within the existing character. We can tighten up the language, but caution that it may become too restrictive. • Staff would like to add some language regarding scale. Commissioner Guthrie stated commercial real estate seems to be moving toward large buildings. If we want to maintain character we have to be quite direct in mentioning that we do not want large buildings or maybe large buildings could be made to look like the rest of the Village. Committee Member Hoag stated that it depends where you are in the Village and the size of the parcel. Most of the lots in the Village are less than 30 feet wide. He referred to the language on page 15, third paragraph, that does provide some direction and could be made more specific as a guideline. On the large lots we may need to look at amending the Development Code to establish a maximum lot size in the VC district. After further discussion regarding scale Committee Member Hoag summarized: • Maintain the human scale of the buildings of the Village. • Keep zero sideyard setback. • Keep a sense of enclosure and closeness to the pedestrian — keep zero setback on the streetscape. • Create a look that makes the building feel above a persons normal line of site (such as by not having a flat roof). • Details such a volume of windows to walls can be specified, but first put the teeth back into the guidelines then maybe later take the guidelines and improve them to include more details. Commissioner Fowler referred to: • Page 13- language that was in the original guidelines regarding having drought resistant trees has been left out of these amended guidelines and I suggest this be included. • Page 19,- second paragraph- why should the awnings not be stretched taut? MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 16, 2001 PAGE 6 DRAFT Committee Member Hoag said that the ARC has been recommending that the awnings should not have the modern angular look to them, so they should not be stretched taut. Committee Member Hodges described the turn -of- the - century awnings as being loose looking. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see some sections of the residential guidelines address one -car garages. Committee Member Hoag suggested that staff could have some language that would allow an 'adjustment' in the Village area rather than a Variance. Kerry McCants said staff would look at some kind of an exception provision that would not require a Variance. Committee Member Kielan stated: • Construction materials — He would like to see more specific requirements stated. • Page 13- He would like to see the number of colors used on a building be more than three. • He did not believe the requirement for exposed aggregate sidewalks would be beneficial in the Village. He would prefer to see solid concrete, such as is on the sidewalks that go up the side streets. Melonie Hodges stated that solid concrete is historic and part of our history. Commissioner Brown stated that the sidewalks are narrower than the code requires. Committee Member Hoag said the exposed aggregate with colored cement was put in during the 1960's and is consistent over two blocks of the Village. The issue is do we want to continue this on the side streets? Commissioner Costello stated that this document is a guideline, and it needs to have some flexibility to enable us to work with an applicant. Committee Member Ohler made reference to: • Page 13, Building Design, he would like to see a more specific reference, maybe a reference to the Development Code. • Page 13, referencing garages— Buildings should be made to function and off - street storage is desirable, but there needs to be some flexibility. He suggested 1 MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 16, 2001 PAGE 7 DRAFT a statement at the beginning of the guidelines saying that these are just guidelines and subject to interpretation. • Colors — some buildings in commercial section are too bland and need more contrasting colors. • Design- it should be realized that the Village grew out of many individual designs and this is what gives it the individual flavor. Committee Member Hodges also made reference to: • Building colors- three colors may fit for styles such as Craftsman, but for styles such as Queen Anne Victorian, where adding colors would enhance the details, there should be more choice. We do have many different styles in the Village so based on this fact three or fewer colors would be too restrictive. Committee Member Hoag stated the guidelines are very good and staff did a remarkable job completing them in the short time and resources they had. We should try to get these guidelines in place as soon as we can and then explore the possibility whether the City as a whole wants to budget something more elaborate. He further stated: • Page 3, 2 " column, the s that begins with Elevations... we are mixing two different things. We need architectural elevations of the building itself and then a sectional drawing that shows the scale of the building in relation to the neighboring buildings. • Page 3, second column, the paragraph that begins "Any other data requested..." should state "Any other data such as mode /s or digital images on disc can be requested by the Community Development Department, Planning Commission, or Architectural Review Committee when required". • Page 19, sign illumination- if we do not want internally lighted signs we should state this. • Page 21, third paragraph under Building Design- roof structure and roofing material are two different things; we need to clarify this. • Page 24, we should try to define the historic period and what is meant by "historic" and it should be consistent throughout the document. Commissioner Guthrie further stated: • Establish historic buildings as those being on the existing survey and how establish how the survey would be developed. • Page 13- the residential section of the guidelines encourages the use of architectural styles from the 1870's - 1930's; a consistent historic period needs to be established throughout the guidelines. • Page 1- Introduction, it should be stressed that new Architectural ideas are not being sought, but rather creative ways to use old ideas on new buildings. MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 16, 2001 PAGE 8 DRAFT Commissioner Guthrie referred to a checklist he had handed out that references what specific elements of a project are going to need to be analyzed and how they would fit into the guidelines. The checklist was put together after the last joint meeting. Commissioner Guthrie further stated that the Spanish Eclectic style, listed under Architectural Styles, be eliminated as he did not believe this style fitted with the period that the guidelines refer to. Committee Member Hoag replied that Spanish Ecliptic before 1939 should not be excluded as this is part of the heritage of Central California and is quite a distinctive style. There is a beautiful Spanish 2 -story house that adds to character to the village and can be seen in the Village Residential area. Commissioner Guthrie referred to Page 9 where it states "Future renovations and development within the Village Core area..." should state that "renovated buildings should be recreated to look like the original. In addition he would like to see stucco eliminated as a building material for commercial buildings. Commissioner Keen said he disagreed with eliminating stucco as quite a few of the buildings in the Village are stucco. Commissioner Guthrie then stated that the use of simulated materials would be acceptable if the guidelines included a definition of simulation and that it could be demonstrated that the materials do not look simulated. Committee Member Hodges replied that it is tough to define simulation; some simulated materials really look good, but it is hard to define. Chair Costello stated that it could be requested that the simulated materials be approved by the ARC, and stated that approval of materials is something that the ARC has already built in. After further discussion about the commercial buildings in the Village Core Committee Member Hoag suggested: • Language be included in the guidelines that says the "commercial emphasize should be on vertical massing as opposed to horizontal ". • Page 15, under the heading "Sense of Experimentation ", change the word experimentation to diversity. Commissioner Guthrie went on to state: • He would like to see more than three colors on buildings, especially on large buildings. MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 16, 2001 PAGE 9 DRAFT • Page 18- regarding historic lettering on signs, there should be some sort of definition and maybe some examples like the banners. Committee Member Hodges reminded the Commissioners that all new sign designs do come before the ARC. Committee Member Hoag said for the banner fonts they had given five examples of specific fonts, but cautioned against picking specific fonts for signs and did not think it a good idea to be that rigid. Ms. McClish stated that within the Village Core district there is residential also; so this would be 'mixed use' and these standards have not yet been determined. Commissioner Keen stated that on page 17 there are three different paragraphs that require ARC approval. He thought it was too pricey to bring small changes such as a door material to the ARC. Committee Member Hoag said if a project requires a Plot Plan Review (PPR) and comes to the Committee, a substitute material can be approved the same time. Ms. McClish said that a PPR can be approved by Staff and may not have to go to the ARC. Commissioner Keen stated: • That stucco can be made to fit into the look that we want and to say stucco does belong in the historic period we are trying to simulate is not correct, even missions were stuccoed. • On page 19, where it states "neon tubing signs that approximate the appearance of historic neon signs... ", this is a matter of interpretation and who can say what was in a certain period. He went on to say it would be better to say no neon as in the long range we can do without this. He would not exclude 'open' signs etc, just signs on buildings. • He had looked through the guidelines at changing the shoulds to shalls and he did not find anything that he disapproved of but he would hate to give a blanket approval to this idea. Committee Member Hoag stated that neon tubing can be made to look of the period if it is on the inside of windows and if it is to scale. Commissioner Fowler said she would like to see numbering added as it was in the old guidelines. Commissioner Brown said he had a concern over lot sizes versus building sizes. MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 16, 2001 PAGE 10 DRAFT Chair Costello said he saw no major problems with the Historic Guidelines as they were drafted. Commissioner Brown said he would like to see the changes discussed included in the guidelines before recommending approval. Commissioner Keen referencing the aggregate sidewalks said he did not see a reason to disturb existing sidewalk. It should be decided where we should stop the aggregate sidewalk. Ms. McClish said it should be decided how historical structures should be defined, by the 1991 survey or by the period from 1870 - 1939 (or prior to 1939). Chair Costello said Staff should make the changes then to come back before the ARC, then the Planning Commission, and if there are still major disagreements they could hold another joint meeting. ARC Chair Hoag thanked Staff for the excellent job they had done on the guidelines. Chair Costello said this would be the Community Developments Director's last meeting and thanked Kerry McCants very much for his service to the City and Community. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Fowler and unanimously carried. ATTEST: Alam L44— Lyn Reardon - Smith, Commission Clerk oseph Costello, Chair AS TO CONTENT: )Z9 Kerr r McCants, Community Development Director