PC 08.a. Appeal 16-001 for ARCH 15-012 MEX 15-008 East Village PlazaMEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: 'KELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO.
16-001; ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 15-012 AND MINOR EXCEPTION 15-
008; REVISED PLANS FOR TWO MIXED-USE BUILDINGS; LOCATION -
PAULDING CIRCLE (EAST VILLAGE PLAZA); APPLICANT - DEBLAUW
BUILDERS; APPELLANT - DILLER RYAN
DATE: MARCH 15,2016
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case
No. 16-001 and approving Architectural Review 15-01 2 and Minor Exception 15-008.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
None.
BACKGROUND:
Location
The subject property is zoned Village Mixed-Use (VMU), is part of the D-2.4 Design
Overlay District, and is located near the eastern gateway to the Village.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO. 16-001
MARCH 15,201 6
PAGE 2
In 2003, the City Council approved a ten (10) lot Planned Unit Development (PUD) 02-001
for East Village Plaza (EVP) with a provision that individual projects submitted for each lot
be evaluated for consistency with the approved conceptual plans (PUD conceptual plans are
included as Attachment 1). Deviations from the PUD standards require either a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) for substantial modifications or an Architectural Review Permit for minor
changes as determined by the Community Development Director. A change in use would
automatically trigger the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit.
To date, Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 of EVP have been developed and Lots I, 2, 8 and 9 are
currently vacant. The project site consists of Lots 8 and 9. In 2005, the property owner
submitted plans for architectural review of structures proposed on Lots 1, 2, 8 and 9.
Proposed on Lot 8 was a two-story mixed-use building consisting of 688 square feet of
office space and a garage on the first floor, and a two-bedroom residence on the second
floor. The floor plans for Lot 9 were almost identical to Lot 8 with Lot 9 being slightly
larger. Plans for all four (4) lots were approved.
The property owner submitted an Architectural Review Permit to redesign the previously
approved structures for Lots 8 and 9, and a Minor Exception to deviate from the maximum
building height. The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) considered the project on
December 7, 201 5 and recommended approval with conditions related to landscaping (see
Attachment 2 for ARC meeting minutes). Neighbors of the project were in attendance at
the ARC meeting and voiced concerns about parking issues.
Pursuant to Development Code Section 16.16.100, notice of approval for the Minor
Exception was sent to property owners located within 300' of the project property. An
appeal of this decision was submitted on February 16, 2016. The appellant has submitted
a statement, included as Attachment 3, that the proposed buildings are too large for the
neighborhood.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Proiect Description
The proposed project consists of constructing two (2) attached three-story mixed use
buildings on adjacent Lots 8 and 9. The first story of both buildings will be commercial
office space and the second and third stories will be residential apartments (two units per
building; four units total). Both lots are located on the creek side of the property. All lots
on the south side of Paulding Drive are subject to a twenty-five foot (25') creek setback,
limiting the amount of buildable area.
Below is a comparison between the previously approved and proposed plans:
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO. 16-001
MARCH 15,201 6
PAGE 3
EVP PUD Proposed
Lot 8 Building Area (sq. ft.): Building Area (sq. ft.):
Commercial: 1,228 Commercial: 1,092
Residential: 802 Residential: 2,499
Total: 2,030 Total: 3,591
Height: 23' (2-stories) Height: 33' (3-stories) 1
Building Area:
Commercial: 1,092
Residential: 859 Residential: 2,499
Total: 2,622 Total: 3,591
Height: 23.5' (2-stories) Height: 33' (3-stories)
The project meets Development Code Standards for lot coverage, floor area ratio,
setbacks and parking. The Minor Exception is required to allow a building height of 33'.
All residential units include two bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms.
Architecture: For both buildings, the previous architectural design was craftsman with
horizontal batten board siding, smooth trowel cement plaster, composition asphalt shingle
roofing, wood trim, wood panel doors and vinyl windows. The proposed building design is
also craftsman, and includes both vertical and horizontal batten board siding on the upper
two stories, and stucco siding on the first story (except for the south elevation, which uses
horizontal lap siding). Building colors are pale blue for the vertical batten board, white for
the horizontal lap siding and trim, and a soft green for the stucco. Consistent with the
Craftsman design, divided lite windows and porch columns are included on all elevations.
Because of the grade difference, the height of the building on Lot 8 is offset 3.5' higher
than Lot 9. The colors and materials are the same for both structures.
Parking: Required parking is met as shown in the table below:
Because this is a mixed-use project, garages or carports are not required for the
residential units. Per existing parking agreements, handicapped parking is shared with
adjacent lots. The proposed parking allows for four (4) additional spaces above the
requirement to assist with overall parking for EVP. Because the dwelling units are allowed
Lot 8
Lot 9
Total:
Proposed Parking
Residential:
4 spaces
Residential:
4 spaces
Required Parking
Commercial:
5 spaces
Commercial:
5 spaces
Residential:
4 spaces
Residential:
4 spaces
18 spaces
Commercial:
3 spaces
Commercial:
3 spaces
14 spaces
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO. 16-001
MARCH 15,2016
PAGE 4
to have open spaces, the extra spaces facilitate parking for the rest of the site, even
though there are two (2) more units from what was originally approved. Included as
Attachment 4 is a review of the parking requirements for EVP prepared by the applicant.
Building Height: The Development Code allows three story buildings up to a maximum of
30'. The purpose of the requested 3' height deviation is to retain a 3:4 pitched roof, which
is consistent with a typical Craftsman design. A flatter roof would not be consistent with the
Craftsman architectural style. As further justification, the site is constrained by its proximity
to Arroyo Grande Creek and the required 25' creek setback, which creates a narrow
building envelope and therefore provides limited development potential.
Landscaping: The conceptual landscape plan includes White Alder trees and California
Wild Rose shrubs on the creek side of the property, and Southern Sword Fern and Black
Matipo are proposed in the front. Of these, only the California Wild Rose is considered to
be a low water use plant. Although White Alders naturally grow in riparian areas where
there is plenty of immediate ground water, the planting site is above the top of creek bank
and therefore all of the water needs must be met with irrigation. As conditioned, the
applicant is required to replace the Alder trees with drought tolerant native species,
preferably Coast Live oak trees. The project is also conditioned to meet the requirements
of the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (per Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
Chapter 16.84) if more than 500 square feet of landscaping is installed.
Easements: The project is subject to a 25' creek setback requirement. The project
redesign places the southeastern corner of the building on Lot 8 at the creek setback line.
Given that the development is outside of the Willow tree canopy, the redesign will not
impact riparian vegetation.
The project requires realignment of an existing sewer line and public utility easement
(P.U.E.). The project will be conditioned to submit a substantial bypass plan prepared by a
Civil Engineer prior to issuance of building permit. An encroachment permit is also
required (see Attachment 5 for P.U.E. diagram).
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for the Planning Commission's consideration:
Adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 16-001 and approving
Architectural Review 15-01 2 and Minor Exception 15-008;
Modify and adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 16-001 and
approving Architectural Review 15-01 2 and Minor Exception 15-008;
Do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to approve Appeal Case
No. 16-001, and provide direction for staff to return with an appropriate resolution
including findings for denial of Architectural Review 15-012 and Minor Exception 15-
008; or
Provide direction to staff.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO. 16-001
MARCH 15,2016
PAGE 5
ADVANTAGES:
Denying the appeal will allow the project to move forward, thereby helping to complete the
buildout of EVP. This will improve the context of the existing structures within EVP and
promote investment and occupation within the neighborhood and greater Village Area.
The project is consistent with the City's Housing Element by providing additional housing
units, and is consistent with the City's Economic Development Element by providing
additional commercial office space. Finally, allowing a three foot (3') height increase
allows the proposed structure to retain a proper roof pitch consistent with the Craftsman
style of architecture, and the additional parking spaces will assist with the overall parking
for the development.
DISADVANTAGES:
Denying the appeal will allow development of a structure that is taller than most structures
in the immediate vicinity. Although development of Lots 1 and 2 would screen the building
given the topographic differential, plans have not been submitted for these two lots and will
likely be constructed after Lots 8 and 9 are developed.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The environmental review for this project was completed as part of PUD 02-001 for EVP.
The project is also categorically exempt under Section 15332 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines involving infill development.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, March 10, 2016. The agenda
and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, March 11, 2016. In addition,
notices were mailed to residents and owners within 300' announcing the appeal and public
hearing date ten (10) days in advance of the public hearing.
Attachments:
1. 2002 PUD plans for East Village Plaza
2. Architectural Review Committee Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2015
3. Appeal Form
4. EVP Parking Review
5. P.U.E diagram
6. Project plans
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING THE APPEAL (APL 16-001) OF
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO
APPROVE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 15-012 AND MINOR
EXCEPTION 15-008; LOCATION - PAULDING CIRCLE (EAST
VILLAGE PLAZA); APPLICANT - DEBLAUW BUILDERS;
APPELLANT - DILLER RYAN
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director of the City of Arroyo Grande approved
Architectural Review 15-012 and Minor Exception 15-008 on February 5, 2016 in
accordance with the Municipal Code of the City of Arroyo Grande; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is consistent with
the City's General Plan, Development Code, and categorical exemption under the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, the following circumstances do exist:
Required Findings:
Architectural Review Findings:
1. The proposal is consistent with the architectural guidelines of the city, or
guidelines prepared for the area in which the project is located.
The Architectural Review committee reviewed the project with the guidance of
the 0-2.1 I Design Guidelines and determined the project to be consistent with all
applicable guidelines.
2. The proposal is consistent with the text and maps of the Arroyo Grande general
plan and this title.
The proposal is consistent with the text and maps of the Arroyo Grande general
plan and the Development Code, as recommended by the Architectural Review
Committee, The location falls within the 0-2. I I Overlay District and is subject to
compliance with the 0-2.1 I Design Guidelines.
3. The proposal will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and general
welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed
project.
The proposal is not detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, as recommended by the
Architectural Review Committee. Conditions of approval developed for the
original Planned Unit Development for East Village Plaza (EVP) will ensure that it
is not detrimental to the public.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2 of 6
4. The general appearance of the proposal is in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood.
The Architectural Review Committee reviewed the project with the guidance of
the 0-2.11 Design Guidelines and determined the project to be consistent with
the Village character.
5. The proposal is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of
the city.
The project is consistent with the Planned Unit Development for EVP, which was
approved with a finding that the overall development will not be detrimental to
the orderly and harmonious development of the City.
6. The proposal will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the
neighborhood.
The proposal will help complete a partially developed mixed use project (EVP),
which will improve the context of the existing structures within EVP and promote
investment and occupation within the neighborhood and greater Village Area.
Minor Exception Findings:
1. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship.
Limiting the building height to 30' will create a roof pitch that is not in character
with the proposed Craftsman style of architecture or with other structures within
the EVP development. The proposed height of 33' is less than the 36' height
limit allowable through the Minor Use Permit process.
2. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to
other properties in the same district.
The site is constrained by its proximity to Arroyo Grande Creek and the required
25' creek setback, which creates a narrow building envelope and therefore
provides limited development potential.
Because of its location, the site is at a lower elevation than the EVP lots that
front on East Branch Street. The building will therefore appear lower when
viewed from East Branch Street. Visual impacts of the building will be further
reduced after construction of Lots I and 2, which front on East Branch Street.
3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3 of 6
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the
same district.
The strict or literal interpretation of the 30' height limit will deprive the property
owner of constructing a taller structure enjoyed by other property owners within
the Village Area.
4. The granting of the minor exception will not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district
and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The granting of the minor exception would not constitute a grant of special
privilege because there are buildings with comparable heights within the Village
Area, and at least one building that is taller.
5. The granting of a minor exception is consistent with the objectives and policies of
the General Plan and the intent of Title 16 of the Municipal Code.
The objectives of the General Plan are implemented through the Municipal Code
and the proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent statement of
the Minor Use Permit-Minor Exception provisions in the Municipal Code which
provide flexibility to allow adjustments to development standards that are
compatible with vicinity uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande hereby denies the appeal of the Community Development Director's
decision to approve Architectural Review 15-012 and Minor Exception 15-008 with the
above findings and subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion by Planning Commissioner , seconded by Planning
Commissioner , and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15'~ day of March, 2016.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4 of 6
ATTEST:
DEBBIE WEICHINGER
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
TERESA MCCLISH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
LAN GEORGE
CHAIR
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 5 of 6
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 15-01 2
MINOR EXCEPTION 15-008
PAULDING CIRCLE (LOTS 8 & 9 OF EAST VILLAGE PLAZA)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans on file in the
Community Development Department. Any modification to the proposed project
shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department and may require
additional review by the Architectural Review Committee andlor Planning
Commission.
3. This application shall automatically expire on February 5, 2018 unless a building
permit is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the
applicant may apply to the Community Development Director for an extension of
one (1) year from the original date of expiration.
4. The applicant shall agree to defend at hislher sole expense any action brought
against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of
said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant
shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs
and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but
such participation shall not relieve applicant of hislher obligations under this
condition.
5. The project shall comply with the current editions of all California Codes, including
the issuance of a building permit prior to commencement of work.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
6. The parking for Lot 4 contained in the existing garage shall remain open for shared
parking within the development.
7. The Alder trees shall be replaced with drought tolerant native species, preferably
Coast Live oak trees.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 6 of 6
8. If over 500 square feet of landscaping is installed, the project will be subject to the
provisions of the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (per Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code Chapter 16.84).
ENGINEERING DIVISION CONDITIONS:
9. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall record a realigned P.U.E.
for the sewer line and obtain an encroachment permit for any work performed in
the P.U.E. A substantial bypass plan prepared by a Civil Engineer shall also be
submitted.
ATTACHMENT
EAST VILLAGE PLAZA
Planned Commercial, Office & Residential Complex Vie ofhyo Grande, CA
EAST VILLAGE PLAZA' I
- --
Comme~, Office & Residential Complex Vi Project Description
Vie ofhyo Grande, California
East Village Plaza is a proposed planned development of retail, office and
Owners DB&M Properties, LLC residential uses on 10 existing parcels totaling 2.4 acres. The site is lo-
411 El Camino Real cated along the south side of East Branch Street in the Village of Arroyo
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Grande, with Arroyo Grande Creek on the south, residential uses and
Paulding Middle School to the east and commercial uses and the Village
Planning & Joseph Boud & Associates Simon-Puglisi CO. Core on the west. The rectangular shaped site gently slopes from East
Architecture 1009 Morro Street, Suite 206 226 Encanto Avenue Branch Street to the creek and is bisected by Sterling Drive, a private one
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Shell Beach, CA 93449 way looped street which is proposed to be renamed "East Village Circle"
805.543.0565 805.773.0151 to better identify the location of the project within the Village area.
Engineering Vaughn Surveys, Inc. Through the Planned Development process, the property owners will have
1101 Riverside Avenue the ability to develop the entire project themselves, or sell off parcels with
Paso Robles, CA 93446 the subsequent owners developing each parcel individually. The approved
805.238.5725 Planned Development would control all proposed development with the
intent that future development would be constructed in a manner consis-
Property Legal Ptn Lot 53,54 & 79 of the resub of a ptn of tent with the approved conceptual plan and architectural scheme. The
Description Rho Corral de Piedra, Pismo, and Balsa de Chemisal, use of common and private driveways, individual and shared parking ga-
in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo rages and spaces, defined building footprints and maintenance easements,
Assessor Parcel No. 007-501-005.006 & 007 results in a cohesive pattern of urban development without compromising
ZoningVillage Commercial, Design Overlay (VC-D-2.4) or precluding an adjacent parcel's ability to develop at its full potential.
Site Area 104.767.1 sq It This enables property owners the flexibility of developing a parcel with
Open Space Area 56,687 sq ft (54% in open space) their choice of commercial, office andlor residential uses, or even a mix of
land uses, provided they are consistent with the approved plan and the
Index of Plans Description Pg # applicable regulatory standards.
Site Statistics / Project Description 1
Architectural Elevations 2 Likewise, a uniform architectural theme would be established through the
Architectural Site Plan 3 Planned Development process. This accomplishes the objective of blend-
Technical Site Plan 4 ing the project into the adjacent residential neighborhood through the use Lot 3 - Floor Plan & Elevations 5 of similar architectural elements, compatible roof styles, scale and mass- Lot 5 - Floor Plan & Elevations 6
Lot 7 - Floor Plan & Elevations 7 ing of structures. The proposed architectural concepts also satisfies the
Conceptual Landscape Plan 8 intent of the City's Design Guidelines for Historical Districts for Village
Grading & Drainage Plan 9 Core fringe area properties, by capturing essential architectural detailing,
Sewer, Water & Utility Plan 10 character, scale and style in the development of the parcels within the
Parcel Map /Lot Dimensions 11 site.
Zoning Map /Assessor Parcel Map 12
Total commercial or office square footage on the entire 2.4 acres would be
approximately 25,000 square feet and exceeds the City required 81 park-
ing spaces. If a portion of the development on any single parcel were to
develop with a residential unit(s), the plan accomodates this by providing
the required number of covered parking spaces and the guest spaces
without redesigning the plan or compromising the overall development
potential on the site. A creek easement has been recorded along the
Arroyo Grande Creek and setback area which will provide passive recre-
ational opportunities for the commercial establishments and residential
uses within the project.
Developer DBgM Propen'ies, LLC -41 1 E/ Camino Rea/ Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 805489.7448 Design/P/anning Joseph Bod& Assocf2?fes 7009 Morro Street, Ste 2060 San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 805543.0565
iRCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
veloper DB&MPropedes, LLC 47 1 E/ Caho Rea/ Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 .805 489.7M8 Design/Planning Joseph Bod& Associates . 1009 Morro Sfreef, Sfe 206 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805543. 056
Minutes: ARC ATTACHMENT 2
Monday, December 7,2015
Warren Hoag made a motion, seconded by Bruce Berlin, to continue the project at an
unspecified date to allow the architect time to revise the design with community input. The
motion passed on a 5-0 voice vote.
6.c. CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-002; LOCATION - HUEBNER
LANE (RESERVOIR NO. 4); APPLICANT - VERIZON WIRELESS; REPRESENTATIVE
- TRlClA KNIGHT (HEFFERNON)
Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report recommending the Architectural Review
Committee review the proposed project and make a recommendation to the Planning
Commission.
Associate Planner Heffernon responded to questions from the Committee.
The Committee provided comments on the project.
John Rubatzky made a motion, seconded by Mary Hertel, to recommend approval of the project
to the Planning Commission as submitted. The motion passed on a 5-0 voice vote.
6.d. CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 15-013; DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR
22 NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES IN TRACT 3048 (HEIGHTS AT VISTA DEL
MAR); LOCATION - TERMINUS OF CASTILLO DEL MAR;
APPLICANTIREPRESENTATIVE - JASON BLANKENSHIP (HEFFERNON)
Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report recommending the Architectural Review
Committee review the proposed design guidelines and make a recommendation to the
Community Development Director.
The Architectural Review Committee provided minor edits to the proposed design guidelines.
Warren Hoag made a motion, seconded by Bruce Berlin, to approve the design guidelines with
the minor modifications. The motion passed on a 5-0 voice vote.
& 6.e. CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 15-012 AND MINOR EXCEPTION
15-008; REVISED PLANS FOR TWO MIXED-USE BUILDINGS; LOCATION -
PAULDING CIRCLE (EAST VILLAGE PLAZA); APPLICANT - DEBLAUW BUILDERS
INC.; REPRESENTATIVE - DUANE DEBLAUW; ARCHITECT - M.W. ARCHITECTS
(HEFFERNON)
Michael Peachey recused himself due to possessing a conflict of interest as a member of M.W.
Architects.
Minutes: ARC
Monday, December 7,2015
PAGE 4
Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report recommending the Architectural Review
Committee review the proposed project and make a recommendation to the Community
Development Director.
Associate Planner Heffernon responded to questions from the Committee.
The applicant spoke and responded to questions from the Committee.
Susan Flores, 529 Branch Street, raised concerns about parking issues. Street parking on
Branch Street is difficult, and many of the homes along Branch Street are historic and lack
driveways. Residents and business owners of East Village Plaza are currently parking on
Branch and impacting the parking for residents across the street.
Mike Flores, 529 Branch Street, seconded the previous concerns, and stated that he was told
by the applicant that the project would not impact street parking, which has not been the case.
The Committee provided comments on the project.
Bruce Berlin made a motion, seconded by Mary Hertel, to recommend the Community
Development Director approve the project and minor exception with the following modifications:
Replace the Alder Trees with drought tolerant species; and
Further enhance planting in the creek area.
Discussion on the motion included that the City and property owner would further evaluate
parking concerns in the area and potentially provide temporary parking on the still vacant lots on
Paulding Circle,
The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote, with Michael Peachey recused.
7. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None.
8. COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS
Mary Hertel attended the East Branch Streetscape Stakeholder's Group meeting, and reported
on the discussion that included bike lanes, more safe pedestrian crossings, and other traffic
calming measures.
Warren Hoag will not be available for the ARC meeting on January 4'h
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY QF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Diller Ryan
INrnb)
P.O. Box 863 San Luis Obispo, CA
(Adb;rss) WQf)
MELItIVEU
FEB 16 2016
OlTY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Feb 16,201 6
93406 ~zfpcodc
Project Appd Name and Case Number 1 5-008
Project ApprovcdlDmicd by Commuaity Development Director on u nd i~cl osed
watt)
Project ~o~ti~n Pauling Circle, lots 8 & 9 I - p;h \i- 0Q 8
Rwan for Apped The "Notice of Approval" specified approval of a 3 foot height deviation (increase) from the 30
foot standard. The plans show the height to be 34' 6". Either of those heights is too large for this historic district
neighborhood.
The Planning Department told me future buildings would hide the proposed edifice from East branch Street. That
does nothing to alleviate the effect on residents. Furthermore, if future buildings are required to shield the scale of
the proposal, they should be built first.
The bigger problem is that the plans, dated 10-15-2015, are for a very wide three-story building. The plans 1 was
given by the Planning Department in June 2015 show a staggered 2-story building. I never received any notification
of any changes in the time since I purchased adjacent property in February of 2011. There are multiple problems
with the plans of 10-15-2016, and they should receive the full consideration of the Planning Commission, and, if
- -
Mailing Address P. 0. Box 863 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Community Developmen
INCORPORATED
ATTACHMENT 4
October 13,201 5
City of Arroyo Grande
214 East Branch Street
Attn: Teresa McClish
Re: East Village Plaza Parking Review, Lots 1,2,4,6,7,8,9,10
Dear Teresa,
RECEIVED I
OCT 13 2015 I
Enclosed is our review of the parking requirements for the lots owned by DeBlauw Properties, LLC. The
attached spread sheet checks both the past and current Municipal Codes for comparison. The current code
allows for some more flexibility and the result is the most lenient on required spaces. The four spaces on Lot
4 that have been taken out of use for parking and utilized for storage and wedding flower arrangement have
been excluded from the "Parking Provided tallies. Since the space is being used similar to a warehouse or
wholesale space, the use of 800sflparking space was calculated for the current use of the space.
The end result is that with or without parking reductions and past or current code calculation, the parking
appears to be compliant.
President, R.C.E. 48,215
Commercial Space, With Shared Use Reduction
East Village Plaza Parking Study for DeBlauw Properties, LLC
CURRENT MUNICIPAL CODE Page 1
Lot 4 Parking value determined by (1633-
Commercial Space, No Shared Use Reduction 51-51)/300 and 8941800
-
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 4 *
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 8
Lot 9
Lot 10
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 4 *
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 8
Lot 9
Lot 10
Total Eight Lots 62 73
Residential
Notes
1 space on Lot 10 per parking agreement
Parking Std. met on its own Parcel
1 H.C. space shared with Lot 3 per pk'g agrmt.
2 spaces on Lot 3 per parking agreement
3 spaces on Lots 8 & 9 per parking agreement
Parking Std. met on its own Parcel
2 spaces on Lot 7
1 H.C. space shared with Lot 8 per pk'g agrmt.
1 space on Lot 6 per parking agreement
Parking Std. Met on its own Parcel
Parking Std. Met on its own Parcel
1 H.C. space shared with Lot 9 per pk'g agrmt.
*This area includes 894 sf of downstairs enclosed parkingspaces and th Total
ORcefRetail
Gross Floor Area
4023
3087
2527
4326
1195
1092
1092
798
48
Shared Use
Reduction Factor
80%
80%
80%
None
80%
80%
80%
80%
Lot 4
Lot 7
Lot 8 (proposed)
Lot 9 (proposed)
Lot 10
54
S
59
Number of
Spaces Req'd.
11
8
5
13
3
3
3
2
Required Parking
Value (3005rperrpace)
10.58
8.08
4.98
13.00
3.04
2.60
2.60
1.97
Number of
Spaces Req'd.
2
2
4
4
2
14
Number of
Bedrooms per Unit
2
2
2
2
2
59
/ 13
,/ 10
6
13
4
3
3
2
parking value is calculated based upon warehouse use of 894 sf1800.
Residential
Spaces
Provided
12
10
3
16
3
5
5
5
Required Parking
Value (300rf per space)
13.22
10.10
6.22
13.47
3.80
3.25
3.25
2.46
Less
Restrooms
56
56
101
284
56
116
116
59
12
10
3
16
3
5
5
5
Spaces
Provided
2
2
4
4
2
14
Difference
of GFA & RR
3967
3031
2426
4042
1139
976
976
739
Notes
Covered
Covered
Uncovered
Uncovered
Covered
Lot 4
Lot 7
Lot 8 (proposed)
Lot 9 (proposed)
Lot 10
Covered
Covered
Uncovered
Uncovered
Covered
Total Eight Lots 68 73
Number of
Bedrooms per Unit
2
2
2
2
2
14 14
Number of
Spaces Req'd.
2
2
4
4
2
Spaces
Provided
2
2
4
4
2
East Village Plaza Parking Study for DeBlauw Properties, LLC
12002 MUNICIPAL CODE
Lot 4 Parking value determined by
Page 21
1633/300 and 8941800
Commercial Space, With Shared Use Reduction
Lot 7
Lot 8
Lot 9
Lot 10
Residential
I I Number of I Number of I Spaces 1 I
1195
1092
1092
798
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 4 *
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 8
Lot 9
Lot 10
I Bedrooms per Unit I Spaces Req'd. 1 Provided I
Lot 4 I 2 I 2 2 Covered
*This area includes 894 sf of downstairs enclosed parkingspaces and th Total
1195
1092
1092
798
I L- A-
Total Eight Lots 63 73
59
49
Shared Use
Reduction Factor
80%
80%
80%
None
80%
80%
80%
80%
Lot 7
Lot 8 (proposed)
Lot 9 (proposed)
Lot 10
3.98
3.64
3.64
2.66
59
parking value is calculated based upon warehouse use of 894 sf/800.
Residential
59
Number of
Spaces Req'd.
11
8
5
14
3
3
3
2
Required Parking
Value poosfperspace)
10.73
8.23
5.25
14.00
3.19
2.91
2.91
2.13
Spaces
Provided
12
10
3
16
3
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
3
Lot 4
Lot 7
Lot 8 (proposed)
Lot 9 (proposed)
Lot 10
lA
3
5
5
5
Total Eight Lots 73 73
Spaces
Provided
2
2
4
4
2
14
1 A
2
4
4
2
Covered
Covered
Covered required 2002
Covered required 2002
Covered
14
Number of
Bedrooms per Unit
2
2
2
2
2
Number of
Spaces Req'd.
2
2
4
4
2
2
4
4
2
Covered
Uncovered
Uncovered
Covered
~ND FLOOR
LOT2
SPACE A
L 0 T 2 FLOOR PLANS
IST FLOOR
REFERENCE
I : f EAST VILLAGE PLAZA i4 2
$9 LOT 4
~ND FLOOR PLAN
I b
EAST VILLAGE PLAZA
id =
pB LOT 4 N
IST FLOOR PLAN
RAVEL NOTES
m-
~AUIPRWEO
GENERAL NOT1
A PRORHEO. NlPROPUIT*UHESE*SMNTs ARE OH rm 5
B ACONCRElEUlYDWS)(ULBEL%!
REFERENCE N
3 CUW REFER TO FLOOR RM
4 EXSRIOGURER
I ~~sIK1mmw
6 PARIIC. STRlPlNG PER UW STAND
I -TPAVMG. REFER TOW
I C(HaRmPAmClWlTl4UREW
II CONCRElEWIEEl STOP
11 REVITOR WER TO FLODR RIU
I7 WATER YTER REFER 10 CNL DRL
LOT 8 & 9 CONCEPT
EAST VILLAGE PLAZA
ARROYO GRANDE, CA
Arroyo Grande, CA Code of Ordinances
16.56.060 - Off-street parking requirements by land use.
The following off-street parking requirements shall apply to all buildings erected and new or
expanded uses. Where the total requirements result in a fractional number, a fraction of 0.5 or greater
shall be rounded to the higher whole number.
For any use not specifically set forth in this section, the planning commission shall determine the
amount of required parking based upon similar uses, or evidence of actual demand based on traffic
engineering or planning data. The applicant shall provide the necessary data and background information.
OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
1. RESIDENTIAL USES
I a. Single-family homes I I
I Conventional size lot I 2 spaces per unit I
enclosed garage
and 0.5
Small lot (PUD)
spacelunit for f
visitor parking.
within an
enclosed garage.
2 spaces per unit
within an
b. Duplexes 2 space per unit
within an
enclosed garage
and 1 uncovered 1 space per unit.
c. Second residential units 1 uncovered
space per unit.
d. Townhouse and condominiums (Attached ownership units)
Arroyo Grande, CA Code of OrdEnences
I RESIDENT AND VISITOR PARKING
Studio 1 space per unit
within an
enclosed garage.
1 bedroom 1 space per unit
within an
enclosed garage
and .5 uncovered
spaces per unit
for developments
over four units.
2+ bedrooms 2 spaces per unit
within an
enclosed garage
and 0.5
uncovered space
per unit for
developments
over four units.
I e. Apartments and multifamily dwellings
I RESIDENT PARKING: I
Studio 1 covered space
per unit.
1 bedroom
1 Z+ bedrooms
1 covered space
per unit and 0.5
uncovered space
per unit for
developments
over four units.
er unit and+
unit for F
developments
/a ed
Arroyo Grande, CA Code of Ordinances
(Ord. 600 § 2, Exh. A (part), 2008: Ord. 557 § 3, Exh. C (part), 2004; prior code § 9-1 2.060)
h. Bowling alleys and billiard halls
about: blank
b. Manufacturing industrial distribution centers 2 parking
spaces/3
employees on the
largest but not
less than 1
space/2,000 sq.
ft. of area used
for allowed uses.
J
r
f. Schools I I
Grade schools, elementary, junior
high schools
I
I
Vocational, business, trade I 1 parking space13 students of the maximum classroom capacity /
1 1 parking space/classroom and office for faculty and employees.
!
High schools, colleges
schools I and 1 space/faculty, staff and employee.
1
I I
1 parking space/classroom and office for faculty members and
'
employees, and 5 parking spaces/classroom for students. i
I r 1
3. COMMERCIAL USES
I I
g, Child care facilities
a. General retail, services, office
and commercial
1 parking space/ernployee or teacher and 1 space15 children.
1 parking space1250 sq. ft, of gross floor area.
b . General retail office, services, 4T@t~w4p3gg/~ .-. gross ,floor wea ac!!!&ibte t~ud!!
&~~dh&restroOmS.) Up to six (6) chairs for outdoor seating
11 restaurants and bars in the Village permitted without additional parking. For beauty salons, one :ore Downtown (VCD); Village additional parking space required for every 3 beauty stations Mixed Use (VMU) I exceeding the first three.
parking ipace/unit, and 2 parking spaces for the manager'
c. Hotels and motels office.
-- ----i I_" ----_I_.-___- I__-__ __I
d. Restaurants and bars (outside 1 parking space/100 sq. ft. of public area (any area accessible by /
VCD/VMU districts.) the public). i i
I
1 parking space175 ft. of public area (any area accessible by the 1 Fast food restaurant I public.) i I
Page 3
e. Outdoor sales and rental areas,
including nurseries, auto, RV, boat
sales
1 parking space/2,000 sq. ft. open area for the first 10,000 sq. ft. !
then 1 space/5,000 sq. ft. over 10,000 sq. ft. 1
I
16.56.050 - Common parking facilities.
Common parking facilities may be provided in lieu of individual requirements if the total number of
parking spaces is the sum of the requirements for individual uses and the parking facilities are located
within five hundred (500) feet of the associated use.
7tEqri~m~W:
ses if a parking study,
ow that the shared uses have different
hours of operation and would not conflict in their time of use. A conditional use permit shall be
required to be reviewed and approved by the planning commission for such a reduction.
2. As a condition of allowing common parking facilities, parties using common parking facilities shall
provide evidence of such joint use by a proper legal agreement approved by the city attorney.
Such agreements when approved shall be filed with the planning and building departments and
recorded with the county recorder.
(Ord. 557 8 3, Exh. C (part), 2004; prior code 9-12.050)
Page 1
ARROYO Gw D~E~PMPCT CODE Chapter 9-12
dosed garage and 0.5
uncwered space per unit
Second residential units 1 covsred~ceperurrlfand 1 UMxWeredspace
I d. Townhouse and condominim (Attached msrship unik)
I H Il RESIDENT PARKING: ! Il
Studlo 1 space per unit withi an endosed garage
1 bedroom 1 space per unit within an end- garage and 1
&rsd space per unit
2 + bedrooms 2 spaces per unit within an endosed garage and 0.5
unamd space per unit for each additional
VlSFTOR PARKING: 05 uncovered space per unit 1' e- Apartments and mutti-famly
a Studio
I
1 bedroom 1 covered space per unit and 0.5 uncovered space
perd
I I
living I
RESIDENT PARKING:
4 a studio I I mered space per unit II
I1 1 tuadroom 11 cov~spaceperunit I1
I 1 mered space per unit and 0.5 uncovered space I
VISITOR PARKING:
1 h. Mobile home parks 1 25 unmuered spaces per unit II
per unit
0.5 uncovered space per unit
g- Sdor Housing - assisted
living
Effective June 13, 1991
I
1 uncawed space per 3 beds and 1 space per
employee on the largest worlc shift
ARROYO GRANOE DEY~LOPMENT CODE Chapter el2
==w' cdudiing aumxium spscel50 sq. ft of floor am designed for public
Effective June 73, 1997
ATTACHMENT 5
LOTS 8 & 9
EAST VILLAGE PLAZA
ARROYO GRANDE,CA
SITE SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION PARKING REQUIREMENTS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCELS 0 6 O OF PARCEL MAP AGAL WKO5 RECOROED IN BOOK
54 OF PARCEL MAPS. ATPAGEQ, IN THE CITY OFbRROYO
GWNDE, COUNWOF SUI LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF WFORNIA
TWO SMALL MUCED USED PROJECTS 'MTH COMMERCW ON THE FIRST FLOORLND
RESIDENTIN. ONTHE SECONO FLOOR &THIRD FLOOR LOT 0 6 O SPACES REQUIRED (WE CALCULATION FOR EAC
OFFICE GROSS FLOOR ARM -
kES9 RESlROOMl
1m
1119
DIFFERENCE 971 SQ. FT.
APN:
LOCAL ZONING: VMUVILLAGE MIXED USE BUILDING SUMMARY COMMERCIAL- 1 PERSW SQ. FT. -r 3 REQUIRED
RESIDEMUL - 2 PER UNIT -r 4 REQUIRED
TOTAL REQUIREDPER LOT 7 REQUIRED
ADJACENT USE: NORTH PAUUIINO MRIF
PROPOSED use OFFICEIRETAIL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
NUMBER OF DWNG UNITS: LOT8:2 LOT8:Z
NUMBER OF STORIES:
LOT 0 3
LOT O 3
. - - - . . - som ARROYO GWNOE CREEK
EAST FUNRE MCiED USED
WEST FURIREMWUSE
PROPOSED USE: OFFlCElRETIlL6SlNQLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
MISTING USE: VACANT LAND
GROSS LOT AREA:
- LOT B: 11.M0SQ.FT.
LOT O: 11.111 sQ. FT.
SPACES PROVIDE0
LOT E- O wll ACCESSIBLE (I REQ)
LOTS 0 WI 1 ACCESSIBLE (1 REP)
BUllDlNG HOT: 35' 0.
BUILDING AREA:
LOT 8 FIRST FLOOR:
COMMERCIAL
SECONO FLOOR:
VICINITY MAP
B
SEmmKS - FROM REQD : 0.0. ACTUU: 4'Ur
SIDE REQD.: (Y-0' ACTUU: U-10.
REARREQ'D. U4. ACTUAL: ISn'
RESlDENlUL 1.367 SQ.FT.
THIRD FLOOR:
RESIDENIVU. 1.112 SQFT.
LOT COVERAGE:
LOT 8
5074 SQ.FT. (BUILDINGS, LANDSCAPING AND PAW) I11.W SQ. FT. - 48%
LOT 9
*,OM SQ. FT (BUILDINGS. WDSCAPINGM PAW 111.111 SQ FT. = 45%
LOT 9 FIRSTFLOOR:
COMMERCIAL
SECOND ROOR:
RESIOENFIN 1.987 SQ.FT.
THIRD FLOOR:
RESIDENTIN. 1.112 SQFT.
RE :::; n.; I VZVld I :uz=Bii: 3SV17lA rsva <::"o-.- ;+;!a:;
NUsDI 1q 6- =
'm/jrm JO asn amoqasm uodn pasrq pa3elml-rl anlenBuWled
6s E 1401 I s~~drSulvsd pasopus ulelsu~op~o sapnpul aaerlu.
'War 8,ld~ad 6 1'4 'UIM p"I.19 aedr J.HI 5 Z 97 I 6U s 1 6s 1 86L I
IWJW UMO Sil UOJW 'PlS8uAld m 3'4
E SZ'E 9L6 [¶TI Z6M 1611
umaq~ uom'msau~*led 5 E SZP I 9L6 Im1 z6m. 1 8 lol
I
REFERENCE NOTES ,
SlDEWILK
2 ACCESSIBLE PARKING
3 UTILITYWEMENT
4 PROPWTYUNENP.
5 ACCESSIBLE PATH OFTRAYUVEL
8 CREEK SETBACK
7 2-W PARKING OMRHANG TYP
PARCEL 9
IIIIIOSQFT PARCEL 8 I
I
I
L.-= I"
I I
I
SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN
TRUE G
SECTION "B"
SCHEMATIC SITE SECTION
THIRD FLOOR
6- g1 W.2. DI v+
SECOND FLOOR
.ML.(.~IC~'.
m.4. Z'U ! r
1
FIRST FLOOR
SCHEMATIC FLOOR PLANS
TRUE
8