PC Minutes 1988-02-02Arroyo Grande Planning Qimiasion
February 2, 1988
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Carr
presiding. Present are Commissioners Flores, Boggess, Moore, Gerrish and Soto. Commissioner
Olsen is absent. Planning Director Liberto- Blanck and Current Planner Lanning are also in
attendance.
USE PERMIT CASE NO. 88 -433, REVISED SIGN PLAN, VILLAGE CREEK PLAZA, STATION
WAY. (CN SIGNS & GRAPHICS).
Planning Director Liberto- Blanck pointed out that this is an area where there is an
existing center and there is an existing sign program that was previously approved by the
Commission.
Current Planner Lanning reviewed that the applicant is proposing to allow for additional
signage along the freeway frontage of the project in order to provide tenant identification for
this side of the buildings. This proposal will result in the project having signage on two
frontages; the area facing the parking lot on Station Way and along Highway 101. This type of
planned sign program is authorized by Section 9- 4.2407c of the Zoning Ordinance.
After a detailed review of the proposed sign plan, Mr. Lanning advised it is staff's
recarmendation that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the proposed sign
program, subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report dated February 2,
1988.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Use
Permit Case No. 88 -433 had been published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr
declared the hearing open.
Jesse Licia, CN Signs & Graphics, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the
Use Permit being granted. He stated that they are trying to work out a program that allows
tenants freeway visibility. He coamented it is their feeling that the plan is going to look nice
and still be very reasonable in terms of square footage and colors. In answer to a question
from the audience as to whether or not there has been anything designed into the plan for the
merchants in Building A to be seen from the freeway, Mr. Lanning advised that there is no sign
change proposed for the rear side of Building A.
Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chairman Carr declared the hearing
closed.
Chairman Carr commented that the new signage would be designed basically the same as
the signage on the front. Carmissioner Soto stated that, in this case, it is going to be an
improvement and will help identify the building and not look like a warehouse.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1150
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A USE
PERMIT, CASE NO. 88 -433, APPLIED FOR BY CN
SIGNS & GRAPHICS.
On motion by Cam» ssioner Flores, seconded by Carmissioner Soto, and by the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Flores, Boggess, Moore, Gerrish, Soto and Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Cannissioner Olsen
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of February 1988.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 87 -384, RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER, GUIDETTI
SQUARE, W. BRANCH STREET AND WESLEY AVENUE. (RICHMOND, ROSSI AND
MONTGOMERY, AGENTS FOR J. AND J. GUIDETTI).
Current Planner Lanning reviewed that during the last meeting regarding this project on
December 1, 1987, the Cammission expressed some concerns regarding the project. The item was
continued to this meeting to allow . the applicant a chance to respond to these concerns. The
concerns expressed by the Commission largely revolved around the issues of building height, and
whether the project was consistent with the individual storefront character of the Central
Business District.
407
408
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 2 -2 -88 Page 2
With regard to building height, Mr. Lanning advised that the applicant has responded to
the Commission's concerns by reducing the overall height of the building so that the average
height as measured by the Zoning Ordinance is thirty (30') feet. The building is 33 feet high
at its tallest point from adjacent grade. This point is located at the southwest corner of the
site and is set back approximately 35 feet from the property line. The redesigned building now
conforms with the height requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Also, the Carmission has expressed concerns regarding the architectural style of the
proposed building, questioning whether it was compatible with the Village area and the Villsge
Design Guidelines. Concerns were expressed regarding the use of a peaked roof as opposed to
a flat roof, and there was a desire to see the use of a variety of materials such as wood,
masonry or other products to provide relief to the stucco areas, and other portions of the
building. In response, the applicants have created a building which might best be described as
rural contemporary in style. The design of the building has attempted to catch the flavor of
the village by echoing several of the design features found in this area. Mr. Lanning pointed
out that the building facade with the vertical elements provided by the pillars and pilastars
picks up the tall, narrow storefronts found in the village and provides a sense of individual
storefronts along the building. This is further highlighted by the use of tall, narrow doors and
windows which tend to pull the eye up toward the roof. The triangular elements above the
doors and the entablatures set above the pillars flanking the doorways also emphasize this
effect.
Mr. Lanning pointed out that the peaked roof areas pick up the theme provided by
Amanda's to the east, commenting that it would appear that the applicant is attempting to make
his project's roof feature compatible with the neighboring building rather than trying to imitate
the buildings found further down the street. This provides a transition as you enter or leave
the village area, and also provides a place to screen roof mounted equipment. The various
parapets featured on the building also pick up on the roof theme and provide plans to screen
roof mounted equipment. These parapets also echo a feature of the village area where a
number of buildings utilize parapet features in their design.
With regard to setbacks from the street, Mr. Lanning noted that by setting the building
back further from the sidewalk it allows for a stronger pedestrian orientation which is
encouraged by the Village Design Guidelines. It softens the building through the use of
landscape in this area. By increasing the setback it provides a greater sense of proportionality
and avoids having a building "loaning!' over the street. This increased setback also allows for
staggering of the building frontage which provides greater articulation through variations of wall
planes, increased use of shadow lines and more visual interest. The greater setback also insures
that Amanda's building remains visible thus preserving the view of one of the most
architecturally significant buildings for people entering the village.
Also, an additional feature of the proposed project which picks up on a characteristic
of the village area is the use of awnings. The awnings provide an area for signage, give a
sense of an arcade along the street, and serve to provide visual interest which breaks up the
building mass. Awnings can provide a "human scale" to a larger building as they give
pedestrians a sense of an "intermediate ceiling" instead of causing them to relate to the top of
the building.
With regard to parking, Mr. Lanning pointed out that approximately 6 of the proposed
parking spaces are located on the adjacent property. This area is controlled by the applicants
through a long term lease arrangement. The project has sufficient parking even if the spaces
on the lease area are removed.
Mr. Keith Gurnee, RRM Design Group, representing the applicant, stated that since
the last meeting they have endeavored to provide sane additional drawings and have done some
additional work on the height, variety of store fronts and possible insertion of additional
materials into the architecture.
Carmissioner Soto inquired if the parking calculations were based on 1 parking space
per 200 sq. ft. of floor area? He suggested that no restaurants or bars be permitted if this is
the case. Mr. Gurnee stated that 1 space per 200 sq. ft. is typical; and at this time there is
no immediate interest in having a restaurant there, however, he would not want to see
restaurant uses precluded. Chairman Carr stated that if the project is approved and the rest of
the Commission feels a similar concern regarding parking, perhaps staff could work with the
applicant on the parking. Ca rnissioner Gerrish stated, in his opinion, it is unreasonable for the
Commission to prohibit a certain type of use in a shopping center, and he feels there is a
possibility that there will be some sort of food service in there, but he doesn't think that the
parking is a significant issue.
Carmissioner Flores stated he feels that the alternative building styles look too busy.
He pointed out that the only thing that has been changed in the drawings is that the roof has
been dropped 3 ft.
Arroyo Grande planning Q ninission, 2 -2 -88 Page 3
Carmissioner Soto commented with regard to the newer materials being used, stating, in
his opinion, the awnings and that type of treatment will more or less make the buildings unique.
Commissioner Soto inquired if the Commission's decision is final. He commented he would like to
have the City Council share in the decision. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck stated that
architectural review action is final with the Planning Commission, however, one of the things
that staff does is send out an "answered" agenda to the Council showing Planning Commission
actions on each item listed.
Carmissioner Boggess stated he would like to have seen some kind of comparison in a
rendering. Chairman Carr stated that the °omission has previously discussed some kind of
assurance that colors and materials approved by the Commission somehow be locked into the
design. Planning Director Liberto-Blanck suggested referring to the colors and materials board
as Exhibit "C" as part of the approval.
After considerable discussion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by
Commissioner Gerrish, that Architectural Review Case No. 87 -384 be approved subject to all of
the staff recorrnendations and subject to the condition that the project be in conformance with
the colors and materials board labelled Exhibit "C ". A split vote (3 to 3) constituted no action
by the Commission. Commissioner Flores stated he didn't feel that the applicant's resubmittal
was responsive to the concems previously expressed by the Carmission. Commissioner Gerrish
stated he doesn't like the architectural statement that the project makes; he feels it is too
massive for the location.
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck advised that there is a provision in the Zoning
Ordinance whereby if the applicant is not satisfied with the action of the Commission, the
applicant can appeal the decision to the City Council. She noted the applicant's options are to
appeal to the City Council, or change the design of the project and come back to the
Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION DELEGATING . TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR THE
DISCRETION TO APPROVE MINOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ITEMS.
Planning Director Liberto-Blanck briefly reviewed the proposed resolution delegating to
the Planning Director the discretion to approve architectural review items that are minor in
nature. She listed the four facts that would be considered in making the determination.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1151
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DELEGATING TO THE
PLANNING DIRECTOR THE DISCRETION TO APPROVE
MINOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ITEMS.
On motion by Cammissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Gerrish, Soto, Flores, Boggess, Moore and Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Olsen
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of February 1988.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT/DISCUSSION
Planning Director Liberto- Blanck reported on City Council action at their last meeting.
She advised that the Council had approved the three variance applications on height restrictions
for Berry, Landini and Jones.
The Planning Director also referred to a letter dated January 22, 1988 from Los Padres
eers, Inc., stating they have a client interested in developing a multi -story senior citizens
complex with some care facilities on the Grace Bible Church property on Bridge Street.
Chairman Carr commented that such a development is not now allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Soto commented he agrees with the density and would like to see a four story
building vs. covering a large piece of property to give more open space.
Planning Director Liberto- Blanck advised the Carmission that staff is working on the
height ordinance for viewshed and parking space sizes. Also, in March a General Plan
Amendment on the Scolari-Loanis project and the Circulation Element will be heard by the
Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Carmission, the meeting was adjourned by
the Chairman at 9:05 P.M.
409