Loading...
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)