Loading...
PC Minutes 1989-09-19ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION September 19, 1989 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Gerrish presiding. Present are Commissioners Moore, Soto and Brandy. Commissioners Flores, Gallagher and Carr are absent. Planning Director Liberto- Blanck and Current Planner Spierling are also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL Upon hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meetings of July 18, 1989 and August 1, 1989 were approved as submitted on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and unanimously carried. Chairman Gerrish announced that public hearing agenda it numbers II(1), III(1), III(2), III(3) and V(1) will be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 3, 1989 due to the lack of a quorum on these items. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 88 -418, MIDAS MUFFLER AND TRANS -KING TRANSMISSIONS, 509 GRAND AVENUE - REVISION TO APPROVED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW. Current Planner Spierling reviewed scree of the background of this project. He advised that the project was approved by the Planning Commission on February 7, 1989, and building permits were issued on July 11, 1989 and construction had begun. Within the last two weeks, staff noticed that the construction drawings appeared to be slightly different fra, the Planning Commission approved plans. At first these differences were thought to be minor, however, upon closer inspection, it was found that the applicants had made, what staff felt were significant changes from, the Planning Commission approved plans. He stated that staff was also concerned about the cumulative impact of the changes on the project. Mr. Spierling pointed out that at the Commission meeting of August 15, 1989, while reviewing other proposed revisions for this project, the Planning Commission made it clear that this project was approved as a complete design concept. The Commission indicated that any change to that project affected the original approval. Therefore, staff felt that the changes made on the construction drawings would have to be reviewed by the Commission to determine their level of significance. Mr. Spierling reviewed the proposed revisions, and the alternatives to each proposal recommended by staff. In reviewing the proposed revision, Mr. Spierling that advised the Commission could 1) Determine that the attached plans are in substantial conformance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission on February 7, 1989; 2) Determine that the changes listed are of a nature that can best be resolved at a staff level; or 3) Determine that the changes are substantial in nature and choose to review each change and approve or deny each revision. Planning Director Liberto -Blanck advised that the changes the Planning Commission looked at back in August are different than the changes being proposed tonight. She stated there is a building permit issued on a plan that was plan- checked at the time the application was made. Since that time, staff has been working with the Building Department on this issue, and as a result, no future building permits will be issued until the Planning Commission has approved the project, if required. Tony Orefice, architect for the project, stated it is the normal process in his office not to have standard working drawings until the Planning Commission has approved the plans. He stated it is his feeling that the plans are within the same design concept and that they are in compliance with the original architectural approval. Mike King, 910 McCloud, Santa Maria, one of the applicants, apologized for the misunderstanding, stating it was their feeling that the changes were insignificant and, therefore, they did not feel it necessary to bring these minor changes back to the Commission. Mr. Orefice stated he hopes the Cormiission finds that the working drawings are in conformance with the design drawings and will grant approval to continue the project. Commissioner Soto expressed concern over the fact that there have been two recent projects where a building could not be constructed the way it was approved. However, in this case, he felt the changes were minor. He stated he is concerned about the sign and the landscaping. Chairman Gerrish stated hi concurred with Commissioner Soto, and he doesn't see the changes to be substantial enough to revise the plan. 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 9 -19 -89 Page 2 After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Moore, and unanimously carried, the revised Architectural Review Case (Revision #2) No. 88 -418 was accepted as being substantially in conformance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission at their meeting of February 7, 1989 with the following findings: 1) The proposed revision is in keeping with the "General Architectural Review Guidelines" of the City of Arroyo Grande. 2) The proposed revision will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the area of. the proposed revision. COUNTY GROWTH PVT PLAN Planning Director Liberto -Blanck briefly reviewed the County Growth Management Plan ordinance that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors. She noted that it is an urgency ordinance effective for 45 days, and advised that there will be another public hearing on the matter on October 3, 1989 at which time the Board will consider extending the ordinance. INFORMATION ON GRAFFITI RESISTANT SURFACING Mr. Spierling referred to the staff report dated September 19, 1989 containing information regarding graffiti resistant surfacing requested by the Planning Commission at their meeting of September 5, 1989. INTERPRETATION OF PARKING ORDINANCE FOR SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE Mr. Spierling advised that staff has received a request to allow two single car garages to meet the parking requirements for a single family home. The request is for an existing hcxr that is being remodeled and has limited space to construct a garage. He noted that Section 9- 4.2605(a)(1) of the zoning ordinance requires one (1) 2 -car garage with door per unit. Staff is requesting an interpretation from the Planning Commission on whether the intent of this section is to provide a two car garage, or only to provide two covered parking spaces. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that if it is a new structure, then the ordinance should apply. However, if it is a remodel, then two single car garages would meet the intent of the ordinance. PROPOSED DECK AT 137 BRIDGE STREET Current Planner Spierling advised that the owners of the property at 137 Bridge Street have converted the building to a combination cafe /bakery and are requesting permission to construct a 14 foot by 16 foot deck in the front yard. Chairman Gerrish stated, in his opinion, the proposal seems a little inappropriate and should be required to undergo architectural review before the Planning Commission. The Commissioners were in agreement with the Chairman. PROJECT STATUS REPORT Planning Director Liberto - Blanck referred to copies of the Project Status Report, stating that there are about 53 outstanding projects, which are either incomplete applications or in the process of staff review. ADJOURN ENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 8:40 P.M. ATTEST! Pearl L. Phinney, Secretary liam Gerrish, Chairman 8 `