PC 08.a. APL 16-003 PPR 15-013 159 Brisco Rd.TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: SAM ANDERSON, PLANNING TECHNICIAN
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION 16-003;
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 15-013; DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING
RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO (2) NEW TWO-STORY
DUPLEXES; LOCATION - 159 BRISCO ROAD; APPLICANT - JOYCE
BAKER; REPRESENTATIVE - MICHAEL DAMMEYER; APPELLANT -
LAUREL WORTHINGTON
DATE: JUNE 21,2016
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying Appeal
16-003 and approving Plot Plan Review 15-01 3.
BACKGROUND: sublsnPropemi1
Location
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the Linda Drive and Brisco
Road intersection and is zoned Multi-Family Apartments (MFA). The proposed project
requires a Minor Use Permit - Plot Plan Review for multi-family residential
development.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION 16-003
JUNE 21,2016
PAGE 2
Architectural Review Committee
The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) reviewed the project on December 5, 2016
(Attachment 2). Due to public comments heard at the meeting, the ARC voted to
continue the project to a future date to allow time for the applicant to meet with
concerned neighbors and consider revised designs. The project returned to ARC on
February 1, 2016 with revisions including lowering structure heights, shifting structures,
second story location, architectural style modifications, and modifications to
landscaping. After hearing public comments, the ARC recommended approval of the
revised project as submitted with a condition to clarify tree removal mitigation
requirements (Attachment 3). This motion carried on a 5-0 voice vote. After the ARC'S
recommendation, the architect requested additional time prior to final determination to
further revise designs with input from the neighboring community. Final plans were
submitted on May 6, 2016, and were found to be in substantial conformance with the
plans reviewed by the ARC on February 1,2016. The changes made involved modifying
the deck on the south east side of duplex two (2) to lessen the visual impact upon the
neighboring community. These changes were not required by the ARC, and the
modifications were intended as additional measures to reduce the visual impact of the
project.
Following the recommendation from the ARC and the review of revised plans that
further alleviated viewshed impacts, submitted on May 6, 2016, the Community
Development Director approved the project on May 12, 2016. An appeal of the project
was submitted on May 20, 2016 (Attachment 1). The appellant has indicated reasons
for appeal based on the removal of a regulated oak tree, loss of neighboring property
values, parking issues in the neighborhood, architectural character concerns, water
availability and landscaping concerns.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Proiect Description
The applicant is proposing to construct two (2) new two-story duplexes, with Duplex 1
containing one (1) I-bedroom unit and one (1) 3-bedroom unit, and Duplex 2 containing
one (1) bedroom unit and one (1) 2-bedroom unit. The proposed minor use permit will
allow development of two (2) new multi-family residences. Both of the residences will
be developed in the "multi-family attached" style, which is defined in Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code (AGMC) Subsection 16.04.070.C. as "a building designed and used as
a rental residence for two or more families living independently of each other. It includes
apartments, duplexes and multiplexes that have not been subdivided for purposes of
independent sales of individual units". The development standards for the MFA district
and the proposed project are as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION 16-003
JUNE 21,2016
PAGE 3
! Maximum / 14.0 / Acre / 3
1 Density I Minimum / 12,447 i Code met
/ depth / 0 Minimum front 20' I
Building Site
Minimum lot
width
Minimum lot
/ yard setback
1 Minimum 1 10' 1 10' / Code met
80'
100'
1 yard setback 1 4o0,0
Maximum lot
interior side
/ 31% / Code met
pp
-71'
1
i
Existing lot width
yard setback
Minimum street 10'
I side yard
setback
-1 96' / Code met
1 Area Ratio
Maximumheight
for buildings
The proposed project meets all applicable development standards of the AGMC.
1 distance
between
buildings
Residential Density
Municipal Code Subsection 16.32.030.A identifies residential density equivalents for
residential projects located in the multi-family zoning districts as follows:
! 1 1
I
TI
Residenfial Dwelling Unlt Type ] Density Equivalent ]
30' or 2 stories,
whichever is less
1 Minimum I 10' 33' / Code met
23' Code met
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION 16-003
JUNE 21,2016
PAGE 4
Based on the proposed development, the total residential density is as follows:
The AGMC allows residential densities up to fourteen (14) dwelling units per acre for
multi-family residential projects located in multi-family districts. The lot is 12,447 square
feet, or ,286 acres, allowing a density of four (4) residential dwelling units. Based on the
density equivalencies outlined above, the proposed project is within the maximum
allowable density requirements.
General Plan
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: the City shall continue to enable and
encourage multiple-family, rental apartments, senior, mobile home, and special needs
housing in appropriate locations and densities. These multiple family residential
alternative housing types tend to be more affordable than prevailing single-family
residential low and medium density developments.
Architectural Character
The proposed residential buildings are designed in a modern style composed of a
unique combination of weathered steel panels, cream stucco highlighted with dark
textures, and vertical concrete panels to create visual diversity and prevent expansive
walls. The buildings have flat, modern roofs, and vary in height to provide interest to the
roof line. All doors and windows are framed in metal with a dark bronze finish, including
garage doors. The surrounding area is mostly craftsman and cottage style apartment
buildings and single family homes; therefore the modern-styled development would be
unique for the area. The applicant has also provided color elevations contained in the
plan set.
Access
Duplex 1 will have vehicular access from a driveway from Linda Drive, with access to
one (1) single car garage and one (1) two car garage attached to the driveway. Duplex
2 will have vehicular access from a driveway from Brisco Road, with access to one (1)
single car garage and one (1) two car garage attached to the driveway. Pedestrian
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION 16-003
JUNE 21,2016
PAGE 5
access to Duplex 1 will be from Linda Drive, and Duplex 2 will be accessible from Brisco
Road. The two duplexes will be separated by a vegetative buffer area between the two
structures. Two (2) existing driveways and curb cuts will also need to be removed and
sidewalk repairs done, one on Linda Drive and one on Brisco Road.
park in^
Parking requirements for the development are identified in AGMC Section 16.56.060.E,
which includes one (1) space per unit in an enclosed garage for the single bedroom
apartments, and two (2) spaces per unit in an enclosed garage for the two and three
bedroom apartments. The proposed development is four (4) units, and therefore does
not require additional uncovered guest parking, in accordance with the AGMC. The
developer has provided all necessary enclosed garage parking spaces (for a total of six
(6) enclosed spaces), therefore meeting the requirements of the AGMC.
LandscapinaIOpen Space
The proposed conceptual landscape plan includes both perimeter and interior trees and
screeninglground cover plant material. The proposed project does require the removal
of one (1) regulated Coast Live Oak tree. According to the AGMC 12.16.070, a
regulated tree can only be removed if it meets one of five (5) requirements specified.
The diameter at the base of the tree is 42 inches. The AGMC allows for removal of
regulated trees under the requirement that the removal was necessary due to "the
necessity of the requested action to allow construction of improvements or otherwise
allow economic or other reasonable enjoyment of property." The applicant considered
alternative designs, but any design including two structures would require the removal
of at least one (1) of the three (3) Coast Live Oaks on the property. Based upon the
ARC'S recommendation, the applicant shall plant two (2) new Coast Live Oaks on the
property as well as a similar tree of a differing species in order to increase native
species diversity.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are identified for the Planning Commission's considerations:
0 Adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal No. 16-003 and approving Plot
Plan Review 15-01 3;
Modify and adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal No. 16-003 and
approving Plot Plan Review 15-013;
Do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to approve Appeal
No. 16-003 and provide direction on specific findings for denial of Plot Plan
Review 15-01 3; or
e Provide direction to staff
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION 16-003
JUNE 21,2016
PAGE 6
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 would provide three additional (3) dwelling units on an under-
utilized MFA-zoned property.
DISADVANTAGES:
Development of this currently under-utilized lot will obscure some views on neighboring
properties. The applicant has mitigated these impacts through building location and roof
design choices. Additionally, removal of a regulated tree is necessary for the
development proposed on this site.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and determined to be Categorically Exempt per Section 15303(b) of the
CEQA Guidelines regarding construction of duplexes or similar multi-family residential
structures.
PUBLIC NOTlFlCATlON AND COMMENTS:
A public hearing notice was mailed to all property owners within 300' of the site, was
published in the Tribune, and was posted at City Hall and on the City's website on
Friday, June 10, 2016. The agenda and staff report were posted at City Hall and on the
City's website on June 17, 2016. With the exception of the appeal letter and the
previously mentioned comments at the ARC meetings, no other public comment has
been received.
Attachments:
1. Appeal from Laurel Worthington
2. Minutes of the December 7, 201 5 Architectural Review Committee meeting
3. Minutes of the February I, 2016 Architectural Review Committee meeting
4. Project plans
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPEAL
CASE NO. 16-003 AND APPROVING PLOT PLAN REVIEW
15-013; LOCATED AT 159 BRISCO ROAD; APPLIED FOR
BY JOYCE BAKER, APPEALED BY LAUREL
WORTHINGTON
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2015, the applicant submitted an application for Plot Plan
Review 15-01 3 for demolition of an existing residence and construction of two (2) new two-
story duplexes at 159 Brisco Road; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Committee recommended approval of Plot Plan
Review 15-01 3 on February 1,201 6; and
WHEREAS, on, the applicant submitted revised designs for the project on May 6, 2016 in
substantial conformance with plans recommended for approval by the Architectural
Review Committee; and
WHERAS, the Community Development Director approved Plot Plan Review 15-013 on
May 12,2016; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Community Development Director's decision was filed on
May 20,2016; 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(b) of the CEQA Guidelines regarding construction of
duplexes or similar multi-family residential structures; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the
project at a duly noticed public hearing on June 21, 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
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - PLOT PLAN REVIEW
1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs
of the Arroyo Grande General Plan;
Residential projects of up to four dwelling units in the MFA zoning district are
permitted with approval of a Minor Use Permit - Plot Plan Review. Approval of a
Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review certifies that the land use or development will
satisfy all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and allows the Community
Development Director to develop reasonable conditions to ensure compliance. The
project site is designated for Multi-Family High Density Residential Development.
LU3-3 of the Arroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Element defines the Multi-
Family High Density area as an area designed to accommodate the development of
apartment buildings as well as condominium and townhouses. The ~roiect as . ,
recommended by'ihe ARC, is consistent with the General Plan.
2. The proposed project conforms to applicable performance standards and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare;
The Municipal Code mandates performance standards to ensure the public health,
safety or general welfare. The proposed duplexes meet the requirements of the
Municipal Code. Conditions of approval developed for this project ensure
compliance with the Municipal Code and the protection of public health, safety or
general welfare.
3. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
The subject property is located within an established residential area in the MFA
zoning district. This district is intended as an area for development of single-
family attached and multifamily attached residential dwelling units in high
densities. The duplexes will be located in an established multi-family residential
neighborhood that is compatible with the intent of the MFA zoning district. Following
a recommendation for approval from the ARC, the applicant elected to further
modi& designs in order to lessen impacts on the neighboring property, including
removal of an exterior deck in order to preserve view lines for neighboring
residences. Updated designs remain in substantial conformance with &n sets
recommended by the ARC and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande hereby denies Appeal Case No. 16-003 and approves Plot Plan Review
15-013 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.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21S' day of June 2016.
ATTEST:
DEBBIE WElCHINGEF?
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
LAN GEORGE, CHAR
TERESA McCLISH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLOT PLAN REVIEW 15-013
$59 BRISCO ROAD
This approval authorizes the demolition of an existing residence and construction of two
(2) new two-story duplexes.
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.
2. The project shall substantially conform to the plans and descriptions on file in the
Community Development Department dated May 6, 2016.
3. This permit shall expire on June 21, 2018 unless a building permit is issued for
the project. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant
may file for an extension of one (1 ) 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 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 the applicant of hislher obligations under
this condition.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:
5. Landscaping shall be managed and maintained by the applicant to not outgrow
the structures as shown on the submitted plans.
6. Prior to removal of the oak tree on site, a Tree Removal Permit shall be approved
by the Public Works Director. Removed trees shall be replaced as directed by the
Public Works Director.
BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY DIVISION:
7. The applicant shall comply withthe current California Codes including
the specifically adopted City of Arroyo Grande provisions.
8. The applicant shall apply and be approved for a building permit prior to any
construction or demolition at the site.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 5
ENGINEERING DIVISION:
9. The applicant shall use City Standard Driveway details for all new driveway
installations.
10. Ail repaired sidewalks shall conform to City Standard details.
11. The applicant shall provide blow-off and air vacuum release valves on the
proposed waterline per City Standard.
12. The applicant shall provide a single 1" water service to each individual water
meter. Manifold connections shall not be used.
13. Evaluate the existing curb ramp at the intersection of Brisco and Linda and
confirm ramp meets ADA standards. Replace curb ramp if not compliant.
14. Install a new City Standard sidewalk underdrain. Do not core through existing
sidewalk.
15. Existing water meter boxes must be removed and replaced with new City
Standard water meter boxes.
16. The project must comply with the new Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance.
17. The applicant shall use Evergreen Pear trees instead of Silk Floss trees.
18. Provide tree protection plan with future construction documents.
19. Trash enclosures shall be screened from public view with landscaping or other
appropriate screening materials, and shall be made of an exterior finish that
complements the architectural features of the main building. The trash enclosure
area shall accommodate recycling container(s).
20. Provide trash enclosures in compliance with Engineering Standard 9060 with a
roof.
21. Submit as-built plans at the completion of the project or improvements as
directed by the Community Development Director. Provide an electronic version
on flash disk in AutoCAD and PDF format. Provide one paper copy.
22. Record Drawings ("as-built" plans) are required to be submitted prior to release
of the Faithful Performance Bond.
23. Provide a new vertical control survey bench-mark, per City Standard, at Linda
Drive and Brisco Road.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 6
Improvement plans (including the following) shall be prepared by a registered
Civil Engineer or qualified specialist licensed in the State of California and
approved by the Public Works or Community Development Department:
a. Grading, drainage and erosion control.
b. Street paving, curb, gutter, and sidewalk- plan and profile.
c. Public utilities - water and sewer - plan and profile.
d. All plan sheets must include City Standard title blocks.
e. Engineers estimate for construction cost based on County of San Luis
Obispo unit cost.
The applicant shall be responsible during construction for cleaning City streets,
curbs, gutters and sidewalks of dirt tracked from the project site. The flushing of
dirt or debris to storm drain or sanitary sewer facilities shall not be permitted. The
cleaning shall be done after each day's work or as directed by the Public Works
Director.
Prior to approval of an improvement plan, the applicant shall enter into an
agreement with the City for inspection of the required improvements.
All work within the public right-of-way shall be constructed to City standards,
Install tree wells with root barriers for all trees planted adjacent to curb, gutter
and sidewalk to prevent damage due to root growth.
The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of the final project-specific Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or a Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP)
consistent with the San Luis Obispo Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWCB) requirements.
All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm flow.
The 100-year basin outflow shall not exceed the pre-development flow.
Non-potable water is available at the Soto Sports Complex. The City of Arroyo
Grande does not allow the use of hydrant meters.
All sewer laterals within the public right-of-way must have a minimum slope of
2%.
Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all
conditions of approval shall be satisfied.
Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit, all new residential construction
requires posting of a $1,200.00 performance bond for erosion control and
damage to the public right-of-way. This bond is refundable upon successful
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 7
completion of the work, less expenses incurred by the City in maintaining andlor
restoring the site.
35. The applicant shall provide bonds or other financial security for the following. All
bonds or security shall be in a form acceptable to the City.
a. Faithful Performance, 100% of the approved estimate cost of all
subdivision improvements.
b. Labor and Materials, 50% of the approved estimated cost of all
subdivision improvements.
c. One Year Guarantee, 10O/0 of the approved estimated cost of all
subdivision improvements. This bond is required prior to acceptance of the
subdivision improvements.
36. The applicant shall comply with the regional Water Quality Control Board's Post
Construction Requirements including requirements for:
a. Storm Water Control Plan
b. Operations and Maintenance Plan
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CONDITIONS:
37. The applicant shall plant two (2) new Coast Live Oaks on the property as well as
a similar tree of a differing species in order to increase native species diversity.
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DECISION
TO PLANNING COMMISSION
Lduuel //ii"0~#1, y? 4 4234
(Name) 7 .(Date) brlrn /$(I&/?. u 6; fit ~/tc~?il M 4L3@ (7
(Address) (Clq) (ZIP Coae)
Project Appeal Name and Case Number P WI d 414!?-~j13
Project ApprovedDenied by Community Development Director on L? ' 17. / [fl
(Date)
Project Locatio
Receipt Number ate se--/d3
Appeal of CDD Director to PC 1 Rev. 1011 9101
Reason For Appeal
Linda Vista coiido owners were never advised of the pians that were drawn up for 159 Brisco. There
were no letters to the public or banners at the buiiding site advising that new buildings were being built
& .the demoiition of the existing dweiiing was being done. No one was notified that this project was
proposed untii the plans were drawn up. Why when 189 Brisco (4 Units) were afforded this notice, was
159 Brisco (4 Units) not affoi-ded this notice?
ihe CEQA Environmentai impact Study was riot done on the 159 Brisco property, but was done on the
189 Brisco property. A CEQA Review Letter was not received prior to the plans being drawn up, but was
done for 189 Brisco.
When meeting with the architects regarding the 2 structures and the height of each, the response was
that they couid still go back and change it to a pitched roof instead of the revised plan for the fiat roof.
The Linda Vista Condo owners & tenants feii threatened by these remarks and were afraid it couid get
worse.
There was no advance notice given to the tenants with respect to the 2 poles being used for viewing the
heights of the proposed structures. The owner's boyfriend was holding one of the poles &then left
abruptly when questioned about the heights of proposed structures.
They are going to destroy a 100 plus year old protected Caiifornia Live Oak Tree to fit the buildings on
the property. That oalc has new growth on it. 2 Individuals said the tree was aiive & 1 said no. There are
new birds nesting in the tree as weli as other various species of birds living in that tree. The owner,
Joyce Baiter, cannot build the 2 story structures without cutting down this tree.
Pernlanent loss of property valuesto all owners
Traffic is now baclted up into the Linda Vista Complex when school children are picked up. A no doubie
parking sign is up on iinda Vista, which means people are blocking the entrance/exit at certain times of
the day &tenants callnot get out. This sign went up approximateiy 1 week ago. More vehicles on the
street wiii make it even more congested.
Double parlting is currently happening in front of Linda Vista Condos and at times it backs up from Grand
Ave, to Linda Vista.
Buiidings do not fit with surrounding architecture
Water shortage and sewer impact. Drought, landscaping, etc.
What is the maximum occupancy in these units'?
25 Foot Trees being planted at 159 Brisco
The space between the existing buildings at Linda Vista Condos and 159 Brisco is almost nonexistent.
With these new buildings being placed so close to the existing, it will make the Linda Vista condos very
hot and sauna-like during the summer months and very cold in the winter.
ATTACHMENT 3
ACTION MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 7,2015
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 1:30 p.m
2. ROLL CALL
ARC Members: Committee Members Bruce Berlin, Michael Peachey, Mary Hertei, John
Rubatzky, and Warren Hoag were present.
City Staff Present: Associate Planner Keily Heffernon, Planning lntern Sam Anderson and
Community Development Director Teresa McClish were present.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Bruce Berlin led the Flag Salute.
4. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Bruce Berlin made a motion, seconded by John Rubatzky, to approve the minutes of November
16, 2015 as modified on page 1, under item 6.a, replace "sign" with "signs" and "cohesive with
the Village" to "cohesive with what is on the site." The motion passed on a 5-0 voice vote.
6. PROJECTS
6.a. CONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SlGN PERMIT 15-017: TWO NEW WALL
SIGNS: LOCATION - 135 TRAFFIC WAY; APPLICANT - ERIK TURREY; SlGN
CONTRACTOR - CT SIGNS: REPRESENTATIVE - RAFFl KALOOSIAN (ANDERSON)
Pianning lntern Anderson presented the staff report and recommended the Architectural Review
Committee review the proposed signage and make a recommendation to the Community
Development Director.
Pianning lntern Anderson responded to questions from the Committee
Raffi Kaioosian, business owner and representative, spoke and responded to questions from
the committee.
The Committee provided comments on the project
Minutes: ARC
Monday, December 7,2015
PAGE 2
Warren Hoag made a motion, seconded by John Rubatzky, to recommend denial of the project
to the Community Development Director due to the proposed signage being inconsistent with
the Village Design Guidelines. The motion carried on a 5-0 voice vote.
6.b. CONSIDERATION OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 15-013; CONSTRUCTlON OF TWO (21
MULTI-FAMILY DUPLEXES: LOCATION - 159 BRISCO; APPLICANT - JOCE BAKER;
REPRESENTATIVE - MICHAEL DAMMEYER (ANDERSON)
Planning Intern Anderson presented the staff report recommending the Architectural Review
Committee review the proposed project and make a recommendation to the Community
Development Director.
Planning Intern Anderson responded to questions from the Committee.
Michael Dammeyer, representative, and Steve Puglisi, Steven Puglisi Architects, presented the
proposed project and responded to questions from the Committee.
Mike Fornaro, Linda Vista Condos, spoke in opposition to the project
Erin Ford, Linda Vista Condos, spoke in opposition to the project.
Nancy Jay Brown, Linda Vista Condos, spoke in opposition to the project.
Erik Stein, Linda Vista Condos, spoke in opposition to the project
Dan Harris, Linda Vista Condos, spoke in opposition to the project,
Laurel Worthington, Linda Vista Condos, spoke in opposition to the project.
Linda Anderson, Linda Vista Condos, spoke in opposition to the project
Jake Jacobs, Linda Vista Condos, spoke in opposition to the project.
Melissa Harris, Linda Vista Condos, spoke in opposition to the project.
The Committee provided comments on the project.
Steve Puglisi, architect, requested that the project be continued to the next possible meeting,
and offered to meet and work with the concerned neighbors in regards to design issues,
including minimizing view blocking, possible landscaping changes, softening of the architectural
style, and other expressed concerns.
Minutes: ARC
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 ~assed 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
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 wouid 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 Hertei 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 4th
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None.
Minutes: ARC
Monday, December 7,2015
PAGE 5
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 pm to a meeting on December 21, 2015 at 3:30 pm.
SAMANDERSON WARREN HOAG, CHAIR
PLANNING INTERN
(Approved at ARC Mtg 12-21-2015)
ATTACHMENT 2
ACTION MINUTES
MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1,2016
CITY HALL SECOND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, 300 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Hoag called the Regular Architectural Review Committee meeting to order at 2:30
2. ROLLCALL
ARC Members: Committee Members Warren Hoag, Michael Peachey, Mary Hertel,
and John Rubatzky were present. Bruce Berlin was absent.
City Staff Present: Associate Planner Matt Downing, Planning lntern Sam Anderson,
Administrative lntern Patrick Holub, and Community Development
Director Teresa McClish were present.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Warren Hoag led the Flag Salute
4. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mary Hertel made a motion, seconded by John Rubatzky, to approve the minutes of January
11, 2016 as submitted. The motion passed on a 3-0-1 voice vote, with Bruce Berlin absent
and Warren Hoag abstaining.
Bruce Berlin now present.
6. PROJECTS
6.a. CONSIDERATION OF ADMlNlSTRATlVE SlGN PERMIT 15-014; ONE NEW WALL
SlGN AND REFACING OF EXISTING POLE SIGN: LOCATION - 139 TRAFFIC WAY;
REPRESENTATIVE - TOM DIAZ; SlGN CONTRACTOR - NORTON SlGN AND DESIGN
(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 1,2016
Tom Diaz, representative, and George Peterson, owner, spoke in support of the project and
responded to questions from the Committee.
The Committee provided comments on the project
1) Mary Hertel made a motion, seconded by Bruce Berlin, to recommend approval of the
project to the Community Development Director with the following modifications:
1. Changes shall be made to the wall sign to include angled corners;
2. The wall sign will be lowered to the bottom edge of the header; and
3. The pole will remain black in color.
The motion carried on a 5-0 voice vote.
6.b. CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 15-004 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-
007; CONSTRUCTION OF A 54-ROOM BOUTIQUE HOTEL; LOCATION - 325 EAST
BRANCH STREET; APPLICANT - NKT COMMERCIAL: REPRESENTATIVE - STEVEN
PUGLlSl ARCHITECTS (Downing)
Associate Planner -Downing presented the staff report and recommended the Architectural
Review Committee review the proposed project and make a recommendation to the
Planning Commission.
Associate Planner Downing responded to questions from the Committee
Nick Thompkins, applicant, Michael Dammeyer, and Steven Puglisi, representatives, spoke
in support of the project and responded to questions from the Committee.
Chair Hoag opened the meeting for public comment,
Shirley Gibson spoke in support of the construction of a hotel in the Village with the
condition that no new architectural styles be implemented other than those already present
in the Village. She also stated that she prefers a courtyard in front of the hotel, rather than a
parking lot.
Denise Andreini spoke in support of the project, citing the potential for increased number of
visitors to the Village and the development of the eastern end of the Village.
Ron Myer, James Way, spoke in support of the project, citing the uptick in vitality in the
Village lately and that the second rendering gives a "homey" feeling.
Frank Schiro, Miller Way, spoke in support of the project.
Hearing no further public comments, Chair Hoag closed the public comment period
The Committee provided comments on the project.
Minutes: ARC
Monday, February 1, 2016
PAGE 3
Bruce Berlin made a motion, seconded by John Rubatzky, to recommend to the Planning
Commission approval of the project as submitted.
The motion carried on a 5-0 voice vote.
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 called for a break at 4:25 p.m. The Committee reconvened at 4:35 p.m.
6.c. CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 16-001; COMMERCIAL FACADE
MODIFICATIONS; 303 E. BRANCH STREET; APPLICANT - WILLIAM HALES:
REPRESENTATIVE -TEN OVER STUDIO (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.
Joel Snyder, representative, Frank Schiro, and Bill Hayes, applicants, spoke in support of
the project and answered questions from the Committee.
Chair Hoag opened the meeting for public comment
Denise Andreini spoke in support of the project and favors the idea of constructing a roll-up
window on the western side of the building.
Hearing no further public comments, Chair Hoag closed the public comment period
The Committee provided comments on the project.
John Rubatzky made a motion, seconded by Michael Peachey, to approve the project as
submitted.
The motion carried on a 5-0 voice vote.
Minutes: ARC
Monday, February 1,2016
6.d. CONSIDERATION OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 15-013; CONSTRUCTION OF TWO (2)
MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS; LOCATION - 159 BRISCO ROAD: APPLICANT -
JOYCE BAKER; REPRESENTATIVE - MICHAEL DAMMEYER (Anderson)
Planning Intern 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 Intern Anderson responded to questions from the Committee
Michael Dammeyer, representative, spoke in support of the project and responded to
auestions from the Committee.
Chair Hoag opened the meeting for public comment
The following people of Linda Vista Condos spoke in opposition to the project: Erik Stein,
Laurel Worthington, Nancy jay Brown, Erin Ford, and Melissa Harris.
Hearing no further public comments, Chair Hoag closed the public comment period.
The Committee provided comments on the project.
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 (I) Coastal Live Oak to allow for replacement with a different
species in order to increase native species diversity.
The motion carried on a 5-0 voice vote.
6.e. CONSIDERATION OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 16-001; NEW TWO (2) STORY
RESIDENCE; LOCATION - 567 CROWN HILL; APPLICANT DUANE DEBLAUW
(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.
Duane Deblauw, applicant, spoke in support of the project and responded to questions from
the Committee.
Warren Hoag made a motion, seconded by Bruce Berlin, to recommend approval of the
project to the Community Development Director with the following modifications:
Minutes: ARC
Monday, February 1, 2016
1. Consider a stone veneer for the fireplace;
2. Designing the garage with the appearance of two doors;
3. The front deck not be extended across the full width of the fa~ade and provide
additional details; and
4. Recommend the Public Works Director adjust the mitigation requirements for the
removal of one (1) Coastal Live Oak.
The motion carried on a 5-0 voice vote.
7. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Associate Planner Downing presented a modified color scheme for a project at 309 S.
Mason Street. The Committee did not have objections to the modified colors, as they are
substantially conformant to the approved project.
8. COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Hoag thanked Vice-Chair Peachey for leading the previous meeting in his absence.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Associate Planner Downing thanked the Committee for their patience during the lengthy
meeting.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:56 to a meeting on February 22, 2016 at 3:30 p.m,
IsWarren Hoag, Chair
ATTEST:
Patrick Holub, Administrative Intern
(Approved at ARC Mtg 02-22-2016)