Loading...
PC 08.a. Appeal 16-002 306 Short Street (2)TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: SAM ANDERSON, PLANNING INTERN SUBJECT: CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION 16-002; ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 15-011 AND MINOR EXCEPTION 16-001; NEW TWO STORY RESIDENCE AND ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT; LOCATION - 306 SHORT STREET; APPLICANT - CINDY NOTT; REPRESENTATIVE - MICHAEL FISHER DATE: MAY 17,2016 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying Appeal 16-002 and approving Architectural Review 15-01 1 and Minor Exception 16-001. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: None. BACKGROUND: Location 1 Subject Property 1 The subject property is zoned Multi Family (MF), is located in the D-2.4 Historic Character Overlay District, and requires a Minor Use Permit - Architectural Review Permit for new construction in the D-2.4 Historic Character Overlay District. PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION 16-002 MAY 17,2016 PAGE 2 Pursuant to Development Code Section 16.16.100, notice of approval for the Minor Exception was sent to all property owners within 300' of the project site. An appeal of the project was submitted on April 6, 2016 (Attachment 1). The appellant has indicated reasons for appeal based on the size of the project, the front-facing garages, the monolithic architecture, and not keeping with the character of the Historic Village. Appeal 16-002 was originally scheduled to be heard on May 3, 2016. However, before the hearing, appellant Dave Frazier noted issues with Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations that needed correction. The applicant submitted revised designs on May 3, 2016 to conform with FAR calculations as specified in the Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District. The project originally required a Minor Use Permit - Minor Exception to reduce front and side yard setbacks; however, the reductions in size necessary to meet FAR requirements eliminated all setback violations. The Minor Exception, as part of the approved project description, remains part of the project but is not necessary for the project to move forward. Architectural Review Committee On January 11, 2016, the ARC reviewed the project (Attachment 2). Due to concerns with front facing garages conflicting with the Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlav District, the ARC voted 5-0 to continue this ~roiect to a future . . date to allow the applicant time to submit additional information in support of the front facing garage. On February 22, 2016, the ARC reviewed the revised design and were not able to reach a majority opinion on the project, and voted 4-0 to continue this project to a further date to allow for a full member vote (Attachment 3). On March 7, 2016, the ARC recommended to the Community Development Department approval of the project, including a Minor Exception for front and side yard setback requirements (Attachment 4). The motion carried on a 3-2 voice vote. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Proiect Description The applicant is proposing to construct a new three (3) bedroom, two (2) bathroom singlefamily residence wih an attached secondary dwelling unit containing one (1) bedroom and one (1) bathroom. The lot is 6,777 square feet. Single family homes are permitted in the MF zone on lots less than 10,000 square feet. The project proposes a 2232 square foot home with a 432 square foot two (2) car garage. The proposed project is located on a fifty foot (50') wide lot, thirty feet (30') less than the minimum width required for a new lot in the MF zone. The MF zone has side yard setback requirements of ten feet (10') on both sides, creating a buildable area on the lot only thirty feet (30') wide. The proposed project meets all applicable development standards with regards to lot coverage, setbacks, floor area ratio, height restrictions, and parking. General Plan PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION 16-002 MAY 17,2016 PAGE 3 The Land Use Element and Housing Element of the General Plan each contain objectives and policies that support the proposed project. Land Use Objective LU3 states: the City shall accommodate a broad range of Multi Family Residential (MFR) and special needs housing types and densities within the City. Additionally, Housing Element Policy A.2 states: that the City shall utilize incentives for the production of affordable housing including allowing secondary dwelling units under specified criteria. Architectural Character The proiect is designed in the Craftsman style, with classic hardboard siding and . . pitched gables. hee east face of the home is dominated by garage doors with deck placed above. A staircase is visible on the northern side of the home providing access to the secondary dwelling unit located on top of the garage. A Catalina Cherry tree will obscure the view of the staircase to a degree. To the south of the garage is a paved parking space providing the required uncovered parking space for the secondary dwelling unit. Both the southern and northern elevations show varying roof lines and faces in order to break up the long stretches created by the narrow lot. The main entrance is located on the southern side of the home behind the paved parking spot. The pathway will be shaded by another Catalina Cherry as well as assorted shrubs and vines shown on the site plans. Liberal uses of windows serve to create a more interesting facade along both sides of the home. There are two second stories on the project - the secondary dwelling unit is located above the garage and in the rear of the home with two more bedrooms and a bathroom. The two second stories are separated in order to provide a degree of privacy to the secondary dwelling unit, as well as create a more visually appealing roofline. The rear second story also has gables facing in all directions for additional variety. The home is long and narrow due to the physical restrictions of an unusually narrow lot. The stairway and chimney shown on the northern elevation are permitted to enter the setback by up to five feet (5') (50% of the setback) in accordance with Municipal Code Subsection 16.48.030.6. The Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Characfer Overlay District state that "one and two car garages shall be detached if feasible. If infeasible, proposed attached garages are preferred to be side or rear-loaded or, if street facing, shall be recessed from the front building elevation a minimum of five feet with deep roof overhangs and smaller single bay doors." The applicant did consider both side-loading and rear-loading garages on the proposed home. However, at the size desired by the applicant, side-loading or rear-loading garages would be infeasible with the existing restrictive setbacks. Any attempt to relocate the garage entries would require the destruction of the majority of landscaping PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION 16-002 MAY 17,2016 PAGE 4 on property. The side yard and rear yard of the property would need to be almost entirely dedicated to pavement in order to provide adequate widths and backups for vehicles. For these reasons, rear loading or side loading garages would be infeasible on this property. The two-story architecture and density provide a zone of transition between the commercial development to the west of the project site and the existing single-family neighborhoods to the east and south. The applicant has provided a color board for the project, which will be available at the meeting. The hardboard siding that makes up the exterior of the home will be a dark blue grey with white trim with detail work done in a lighter gray. The asphalt roofing shingles are gray with some red color influences. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are identified for the Planning Commission's considerations: Adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal No. 16-002 and approving Architectural Review 15-01 1 and Minor Exception 16-001; Modify and Adopt the Attached Resolution denying Appeal No. 16-002 and approving Architectural Review 15-01 1 and Minor Exception 16-001 ; Do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to approve Appeal No. 16-002 and provide direction on specific findings for denial of Architectural Review 15-01 1 and Minor Exception 16-001; or Provide direction to staff ADVANTAGES: Denying the appeal will allow the project to move forward. The proposed project will provide additional units to the City's housing stock, is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and the Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay Districf, and would provide two (2) dwellings on a MF zoned property that is too small for traditional multi-family development. DISADVANTAGES: The Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District are intended to help protect the historic buildings and character, architecture and sites that reflect the heritage of Arroyo Grande and to ensure that new construction and renovation of existing buildings are compatible with the historic character of the Village area. Front facing garages, although not explicitly prohibited in the Design Guidelines, are strongly discouraged due to their anachronistic appearance. The garage doors will be highly visible from the street and will impact the character of the surrounding neighborhood. However, multiple homes in the vicinity are also constructed with front facing garages setback from the front of the residence. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION 16-002 MAY 17,2016 PAGE 5 The project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined to be Categorically Exempt per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines regarding construction of one single family residence. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A public hearing notice was mailed to all property owners within 300' of the site, was posted in the Tribune, and was posted at City Hall and on the City's website on Friday, April 22, 2016 for the May 3, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to a date certain of May 17, 2016. The agenda and staff report were posted at City Hall and on the City's website on May 13, 2016. The appellant submitted a letter detailing his comments on April 28, 2016 (Attachment 5). No further comment has been received. Attachments: 1. Appeal form 2. Minutes of the January I I, 2016 Architectural Review Committee meeting 3. Minutes of the February 22, 2016 Architectural Review Committee meeting 4. Minutes of the March 7, 2016 Architectural Review Committee meeting 5. Letter from appellant 6. Project plans (available for public review at City Hall) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPEAL CASE NO. 16-002 AND APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 15-011 AND MINOR EXCEPTION 16-001; LOCATED AT 306 SHORT STREET; APPLIED FOR BY CINDY NOm APPEALLED BY DAVE FRAZIER WHEREAS, on October 14, 2016, the applicant submitted an application for Architectural Review 15-01 1 and Minor Exception 16-001 for a one foot (1') reduction of side yard setback and a two foot (2') reduction of front yard setback for a new two story residence and attached secondary dwelling unit at 306 Short Street; and WHEREAS, on March 7, 2016, the Architectural Review Committee recommended approval of Architectural Review 15-011 and Minor Exception 16-001 based upon the findings for approval of the permit WHEREAS, on March 16, 2016, the Community Development Director approved Architectural Review 15-011 and Minor Exception 16-001 based upon the findings for approval of the permit; and WHEREAS, notice of the Community Development Director's determination were mailed to all property owners within 300' of the project site to alert them of the approved request; and WHEREAS, on April 6, 2016 an appeal of the approval was filed with the Community Development Secretary by Dave Frazier; and WHEREAS, on May 3, 2016 revised plans were submitted addressing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) violations; and WHEREAS, on May 3, 2016 the public hearing was continued to a date certain of May 17, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has determined that the project is exempt per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines regarding construction of a single family residence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing on May 17,2016; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, that the following circumstances exist and findings can be made: RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 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 proposal meets and is consistent with the Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District, particularly in regard to garage location and design based on site restrictions. 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. Additionally, the location falls within the Historic Overlay District and is in compliance with the Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District. 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 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood due to conditions of approval developed for the project ensuring that it is not detrimental to the public and will enhance the project and the neighborhood. 4. The general appearance of the proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood; The proposal is consistent with the Guidelines of the Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District, particularly in regards to garage location and design based on site restrictions. 5. The proposal is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the city; The proposal will not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the Village area due to the proposal being consistent with the Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 6. The proposal will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood. The proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District and therefore the proposal will promote investment and occupation within the neighborhood. Minor Exception Findings: 1. That the strict or literal interpretation and endorsement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship; The project is located on a legally non-conforming lot in regards to width. Additionally, the project is a single-family home located on a properfy zoned Multi- Family, a zone with stricter setback regulations than the traditional Single-Family zones. Strict interpretation of setback regulations would result in practical difficulty and unnecessary physical hardship due to large setback requirements on a narrow lot. 2. That 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 parcel's legally non-conforming width and the Multi-Family zoning requirements create an exceptional circumstance not generally experienced by other Multi-Family zoned properfies of conforming width. 3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same district; The strict or literal interpretation of large setbacks on a narrow lot would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properfy owners of the same district by requiring a structure size that would leave the residential lot underutilized. 4. That the granting of the minor use permit for a minor exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege 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 Use Permit - Minor Exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsisfenf with the limitations on other properfies classified in the same district due to the unique narrowness of the property not generally RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 experienced by other properties in the Multi-Family zoning district. 5. That the granting of a minor use permit for a minor exception is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and the intent of this title. 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 provides flexibility to allow adjustments to development standards that are compatible with adjoining uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies Appeal Case No. 16-002 and approves Architectural Review 15-011 and Minor Exception 16-001 as set forth in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. On motion by vote, to wit: , seconded by , and by the following roll call AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17" day of May 2016. ATTEST: DEBBIE WEICHINGER SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: LAN GEORGE, CHAIR TERESA McCLlSH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 5 EXHIBIT "A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 15-01 1 MINOR EXCEPTION 16-001 306 SHORT STREET This approval authorizes the construction of a new single family residence with attached secondary dwelling unit at 306 Short Street. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project including obtaining a building permit. 2. The project shall occur in conformance with the application and plans on file in the Community Development Department. 3. This application shall automatically expire on May 17, 2018, unless a building permit is issued. Thirty days prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply to the Community Development Director for an extension of one year from the original date of expiration. 4. The applicant shall agree to indemnify and defend at hislher sole expense any action brought against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of this approval, or in any way relating to the implementation thereof, 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 applicant shall comply with the current California Codes including the specifically adopted City of Arroyo Grande. 6. The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to any construction. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 6 EXHIBIT "B" FINAL PLANS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 15-011 MINOR EXCEPTION 16-001 306 SHORT STREET ATTACHMENT 1 \ APR 0 6 'LO16 1 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DECISION TO PLANNING COMMISSION (Name) (Date) %Z SL,-~- ?A. , LA I34Zn (Address) (City) (Zip Code) Project Appeal Name and Case Number Project ApprovediDenied by Community Development Director Project Locat~on - Mailing LL s'. Axro,fi G,&, LA 95470 I Address 32 I - Telephone (-\ %5 - 62% 7 I ATTACHMENT 2 ACTION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE JANUARY 11,2016 CITY HALL SECOND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, 300 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CA 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Peachey called the Special Architectural Review Committee meeting to order at 2:30 2. ROLL CALL ARC Members: Committee Members Bruce Berlin, Michael Peachey, Mary Hertel, and John Rubatzky were present. Chair Warren Hoag was absent. City Staff Present: Associate Planner Matt Downing, Planning lntern Sam Anderson, Administrative lntern Patrick Hoiub and Community Development Director Teresa McClish were present. 3. FLAG SALUTE Bruce Berlin led the Flag Salute. 4. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Associate Pianner Downing introduced lntern Patrick Holub to the Committee 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Bruce Berlin made a motion, seconded by Mary Hertel, to approve the minutes of December 21, 2015 as submitted. The motion passed on a 3-0-1 voice vote with Warren Hoag absent and John Rubatzky abstaining. 6. PROJECTS 6.a CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 15-014; LOCATION - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH COURTLAND STREET; APPLICANT - MFI LIMITED: REPRESENTATIVE - RRM DESIGN GROUP (DOWNING) Associate Planner Downing presented the staff report and recommended the Architectural Review Committee review the proposed project and make a recommendation to the Community Development Director. Associate Planner Downing responded to questions from the Committee Scott Martin, Darin Cabral, and Josh Roberts, RRM Design Group, representatives, spoke in support of the project and responded to questions from the Committee. The Committee provided comments on the project. Bruce Berlin made a motion, seconded by John Rubatzky, to recommend approval of the project as submitted to the Community Development Director. The motion carried on a 4-0 voice vote. Minutes; ARC Monday, January 11,2076 PAGE 2 Planning lntern Anderson presented the staff report recommending the Architectural Review Committee review the proposed project and make a recommendation to the Community Development Director. Planning lntern Anderson responded to questions from the Committee Michael Fisher, Greg Soto, and Dick Keenan, representatives, and Cindy Nott, applicant, presented the proposed project and responded to questions from the Committee. The Committee provided comments on the project Mary Hertel made a motion, seconded by Bruce Berlin, to recommend denial of the application and allow the applicant to modify the proposal before returning. Associate Planner Downing recommended that rather than a denial recommendation, the Committee should consider continuation of the item to an unspecified date and provide specific direction on modifications the Committee is interested in seeing in the project. Further discussion from the applicant and applicant's representatives occurred. Mary Hertel revised her motion to continue the project at an unspecified date to allow the architect time to revise the design. Bruce Berlin seconded the motion and the motion passed on a 4-0 voice vote. Bruce Berlin made a motion, seconded by Mary Hertel, to continue the project at an unspecified date to allow the applicant to be present. The motion passed on a 4-0 voice vote. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS None 8. COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS None 9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Associate Planner Downing informed the Committee of the upcoming schedule for the month of February. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:54 pm to a meeting on February I, 2016 at 2:30 pm iswarren Hoag, Chair ATTEST: Patrick Holub, Administrative lntern (Approved at ARC Mtg 02-01-2016) ATTACHMENT 3 ACTION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22,2016 CITY HALL SECOND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, 300 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYOGRANDE.CA 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Hoag called the Special Architectural Review Committee meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL ARC Members: Committee Members Warren Hoag, Michael Peachey, Mary Hertel, and Bruce Berlin were present. John Rubatzky was absent. City Staff Present: Associate Planner Matt Downing, Planning lntern Sam Anderson and Administrative lntern Patrick Holub were present. 3. FLAG SALUTE Michael Peachey led the Flag Salute. 4. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS None. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Bruce Berlin made a motion, seconded by Mary Hertel, to approve the minutes of February 1, 2016 with the following modification: Page 4, eighth paragraph, should read "Bruce Berlin made a motion, seconded by John Rubatzky, to approve the revised project as submitted and recommend that the Public Works Director review the mitigation requirements regarding the removal of one (1) Coastal Live Oak to allow for replacement with a different species in order to increase native species diversity." The motion passed on a 4-0-1 voice vote with John Rubatzky absent, 6. PROJECTS 6.a. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 15-011 AND MINOR EXCEPTION 16-001: ONE FOOT (1') REDUCTION OF SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE; LOCATION - SHORT STREET; APPLICANT - CINDY NOTT: REPRESENTATIVE - MICHAEL FISHER (Anderson) Planning lntern Anderson presented the staff report and recommended the Architectural Review Committee review the proposed project and make a recommendation to the Community Development Director. Planning lntern Anderson responded to questions from the Committee Minutes: ARC Monday, February 22, 2016 PAGE 2 Cindy Nott, applicant, and Greg Soto, architect, spoke in support of the project and responded to questions from the Committee. The Committee commented on the four design options provided, stating that option 4 was most fitting of the Village Design Guidelines. Bruce Berlin made a motion, seconded by Warren Hoag, to recommend approval of the project as submitted, including both minor exceptions based on option 4 being the most consistent with development standards. The motion failed with a voice vote of 2-2 with Michael Peachey and Mary Hertel dissenting. Mary Hertel made a motion to continue the item to a future meeting to allow the applicant to provide plans including a rear-loaded garage. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Warren Hoag made a motion, seconded by Bruce Berlin, to continue the item to a future meeting with full committee in attendance. The motion carried on a 4-0-1 voice vote with John Rubatzky absent. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS None. 8. COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS None. 9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Associate Planner Downing gave a project update on the Branch Street Hotel Project 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m. to a meeting on March 7, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. Iswarren Hoag, Chair ATTEST: Patrick Holub, Administrative Intern (Approved at ARC Mtg 03-7-2016) ATTACHMENT 4 ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETlNG OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMIlTEE MONDAY, MARCH 7,2016 cln HALL SECOND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, 300 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CA I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Hoag called the Regular Architectural Review Committee meeting to order at 2:30 2. ROLL CALL ARC Members: Committee Members Warren Hoag, Michael Peachey, Mary Hertel, Bruce Berlin, and John Rubatzky were present. City Staff Present: Community Development Director Teresa McClish, Associate Planner Matt Downing, Planning lntern Sam Anderson and Administrative lntern Patrick Holub were present. Chair Hoag adjourned the meeting to the Council Chambers, 215 East Branch Street at 2:37 p.m. 3. FLAG SALUTE Bruce Berlin led the Flag Salute. 4. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS None. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mary Hertel made a motion, seconded by Bruce Berlin, to approve the minutes of February 22. 2016 as submitted. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 voice vote with John Rubatzky abstaining 6. PROJECTS 6.a. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 15-011 AND MINOR EXCEPTION 16-001: ONE FOOT (1') REDUCTION OF SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE: LOCATION - SHORT STREET: APPLICANT - CINDY NOW: REPRESENTATIVE - MICHAEL FISHER (Anderson) Planning lntern Anderson and Associate Planner Downing updated the Committee on the previous ARC meetings regarding the project, summarized proposed options from the applicant, and recommended the Architectural Review Committee review the proposed project and make a recommendation to the Community Development Director. Minutes: ARC Monday, March 7, 2016 PAGE 2 Planning Intern Anderson responded to questions from the Committee The Committee commented on the project Bruce Berlin made a motion, seconded by John Rubatzky, to recommend to the Community Development Director approval of Option 4 of Attachment 2, including minor exceptions for front and side yard setback requirements. The motion carried on a 3-2 voice vote with Michael Peachey and Mary Hertel dissenting. 6.a. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE E. CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (R~ckenbach) Consulting Planner John Rickenbach presented the preliminary East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan. Consulting Planner Rickenbach responded to questions from the Committee Carol Florence (Oasis Associates), Scott Martin and Josh Roberts (RRM Design Group), Andy Mangano (Mangano Homes), and Margaret lkeda (Japanese Welfare Association) spoke in support of the project. Chair Hoag called for a break at 4:37. The Committee reconvened at 4:47 Bruce Berlin made a motion, seconded by Mary Hertel, to allow the meeting to continue past 5:00 p.m. per the ARC bylaws. The motion carried on a 5-0 voice vote. Chair Hoag opened the meeting for public comment. Shirley Gibson spoke in support of the Japanese Welfare Association and voiced her concern that the project would lead to additional traffic concerns in the area around Allen Street. Hearing no further public comments, Chair Hoag closed the public comment period. The Committee commented on the project. No formal action was required. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS None. 8. COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS None. 9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Community Development Director McClish updated the Committee on the Bridge Street Bridge project. Minutes: ARC Monday, March 7, 2016 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 547 p.m. to a meeting on March 21, 2016 at 3:30 p.m IsMlarren Hoag, Chair ATTEST: Patrick Holub, Administrative intern (Approved at ARC Mtg 03-21-2016) City of Arroyo Grande, California Planning Commission & Staff ATTACHMENT 5 RE: Appeal Case No. 16-002 Architectural Review Case No. 15-011 Minor Exception Case No. 16-001 RECEMD Location 306 Short Street APRR 28 2618 Appellant Dave Frazier CITY OF ARROYO GRAND@ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Commissioners and Staff, My name is Dave Frazier, I live at 302 Short Street in the historic Village of Arroyo Grande. I have filed an appeal regarding the proposed development of the lot next to my house. I strive to be a good and accommodating neighbor and I expect the same consideration in return. While I appreciate some of the steps the developers of the project at 306 Short Street have taken to try to lessen the impact of their proposed development, after thorough review and some reflection with my family I cannot support the proposed design. I do not think this design meets the "Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District (D-2.4)" (DG&S for the Historic Character) for several reasons. One area of concern are the proposed setbacks, which do not meet the required 10 feet minimum for the type of dwelling proposed in this area. The entire length of the proposed dwelling next to my house would be built on or over the 1 foot minor exception. Please keep in mind that when the lot my house was built on over a hundred years ago was recently spilt the property line was drawn leaving a setback of just over 5 feet from the existing one-hundred- year-old structure so any incursions on the standard setback would have an exaggerated effect. Addi.tionally, there are two areas along that length of the proposed development which are well in excess of the 1 foot exception. There is a 4' 4" long outcropping towards the back of the lot that has a setback of just 6' 6". Also, the staircase to the second story of the second unit is not compliant. The entire length of the stairs with support footings and landings which totals 31' 4" long has a setback of just 5 feet which does not comply with 10 foot setback and would also be well in excess of the 1 foot minor exception. The combined length of the areas which would be well in excess of the 1 foot minor exception total 35' 8" or just over 41% of the total length of the north facing side of the structure. It appears that this design exceeds the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) described on page 25 of the DG&S for the Historic Character, which states, "New buildings or renovations shall adhere to the following lot coverage and floor area ratio requirements displayed in Table 1:. The City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code definition 16.04.070 (B)1 states that "The word 'shall' is mandatory and not discretionary." Table 1 clearly states that the "Maximum Floor Area Ratio (Gross Floor Area is inclusive of all roofed structures including garages, loggias, balconies, decks, patios, and porches; and excluding eaves, awnings and trellises)". The FAR calculated in the site plan is 0.39, only 0.01 under the maximum allowed for a lot 0-11,999 square feet net. However, this calculated FAR does not include the roofed structure that is the garage. When the garage is included, the correct calculated FAR becomes 0.50 which is in clear violation of the mandated FAR maximum. 2 Another aspect of this design that I do not believe conforms DG&S for the Historic Character is the proposed orientation and design of the garage. Page 26 of the DG&S for the Historic Character directs that "one and two car garages shall be detached if feasible". Though narrow, it is not infeasible to fit a detached garage on this lot. In fact, during the review process, someone submitted an alternative plan for the lot locating the garage in a way that would satisfy the DG&S Historic Character Standards. With minimal research designs can be found which would easily accommodate a detached garage and would also comply with DG&S for the Historic Character (please see Madrona Home Plan at rosschapin.com). Even with this proposed design as it stands, the parking garage for the secondary unit could be located in the 10 foot side setback which would allow an entry to a living area with a "facade design" that "dominates the structure and streetscape" as encouraged on page 22 of the DG&S for the Historic Character. Page 26 of the DG&S for the Historic Character also states that any dominate, street facing garages "shall be recessed from the front of the building a minimum of 5 feet with deep roof overhangs and smaller single bay doors". The small, false, gables dressed with exposed beams, as shown in the current design, does not satisfythese requirements. It is obvious that the current proposed design do not meet the DG&S for the Historic Character. The gradingldrainage plan proposal is also troubling and I believe, renders this design non-complaint with the DG&S for the Historic Character. As drawn, half of the runoff from the roof would be directed to downspouts along the side yard facing my house. The grading appears to direct that water between the two structures towards the rear of the lot to a "basin." As my house was built over 100 years ago, the land on which it was built does not appear to have been graded. My lot appears to follow the natural existing contours, which flow toward the back of the lot and to the south. The 3" fill proposed in the plan would elevate the development above the low points on the southern boarder of my property, where water already naturally gathers, causing even more water to runoff onto my property and could lead to possible flooding of my property in a storm event. The proposed fill, which is not required to develop the property, would also increase the height of the proposed development above the maximum height allowed in this area. The height shown on the plans appears to be incorrect given the data on the plans: 9'-1" 1" floor + 12" floor + 8'-1" upper floor +lo" rafter assumed + 22 ft/2 roof slope at 6:12 = 5.5ft = 24'-6" max height from the finished floor or 137.5 elev. This is 25' 3" from the back of the sidewalk, 26' 11" above the natural grade and 26' above proposed finished grade, all of which exceed the maximum allowable height in this area. The linear, vertical designs only accentuates the proposed projects height. This is counter to the directives in the DG&S for Historic Character called for on page 26 section 6 to provide variations "to create interest and promote a small-scale appearance". Another issue that a design of this nature creates is inadequate parking which is already a major problem on this block of Short Street. The Multi Family Zone that this lot is in allows for Single Family and secondary residences. However, I would argue that the nature of this design is more like a Multifamily Duplex due to the fact that the secondary residence and garage are the most prominent features from the street view. The actual residence is barely visible from the street. A Multifamily Duplex requires 2 spaces per unit in a garage and 1 open space per 3 unit for guests, a total of 6 spaces. In addition, the 20 foot wide driveway this design necessitates actually subtracts at least one street parking spot when more available street parking is clearly needed on this block. This design violates the DG&S for the Historic Character in many ways. In fact, there are violations on each page of the DG&S for the Historic Character that addresses the "Village Residential Districts (VRD)". This design does not match the "common elements" of the "Existing Character" namely height, mass, and scale as mentioned on page 22. As I have pointed out, the number and size of the exceptions to the setback requirements does not "adhere to the site development standards of the Development Code" as directed on page 23.1 have shown that the height of the project violates the edict on page 23 that "the height of new buildings shall not exceed 25 feet." The strategies to "avoid 'boxy' structures that have unrelieved exterior wall planes extending in height for two stories, and to promote vertical articulation of wall planes" as described on page 24 have been ignored for the entire north facing side of the structure. The FAR of the design, if calculated as directed on Table 1 on page 25 to be "inclusive of all roofed structures, including garage" does not comply with the mandate on page 25 that "new buildings or renovations shall adhere to the following lot coverage and floor area ratio requirements displayed in Table 1:". As I have shown and others have proved, it is indeed feasible to have a detached garage on this lot with the right design. This would satisfy the mandate on page 26 "one and two car garages shall be detached if feasible". In conclusion, I ask that the development of the project at 306 Short Street as currently designed not be allowed to move forward. The proposed design for this lot pushes the limits, and in fact exceeds the limits in many cases, imposed by the DG&S for the Historic Character. These standards and guidelines were carefully crafted to maintain the historic character of the Village of Arroyo Grande. This historic character is, in large part, what makes the Village of Arroyo Grande unique. It is the main reason why I chose not only to live in the Village, but to buy and carefully restore a historic home when so many other options were available. If projects like the current proposed design are allowed many exceptions from the standards and guidelines, the cumulative effect would be the eventual loss of the historic character of this neighborhood. Please help preserve the historic character of this neighborhood by applying the Design Guidelines and Standards For The Historic Character Overlay District (D-2.4) to the proposed design for this lot within this district. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, '-,$ l-.- b----- Dave Frazier 302 Short Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 April 27, 2016