PC Minutes 2008-09-161
1
1
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session
with Chair Ray presiding; also present were Commissioners Barneich, Keen and Ruth.
Comissioner Tait was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community
Development Director, Rob Strong and Associate Planner, Teresa McClish.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
AGENDA REVIEW: No changes requested.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chair Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Barneich, to approve the minutes of September 2, 2008 as submitted. The motion was
approved by a 3/0 voice vote.
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AFTER AGENDA PREPARATION: None.
II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 08 -003; APPLICANT — CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION - THE VILLAGE D -2.4 HISTORIC
CHARACTER OVERLAY DISTRICT. (Continued from the August 19, 2008
meeting.)
Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, presented the staff report for consideration of
possible changes to citywide Development Code definitions for gross floor area and lot
coverage and amendments to the 'Design Guidelines and Standards' specific to
residencies in the Village regarding Floor Area Ratio, Lot Coverage, Setbacks and
Building Heights in the Historic Character Overlay District D -2.4. She discussed
changes suggested by Mark Vasquez, including: a schematic to be added showing that
porches are not to be covered by second stories (on file at Community Development
Department), an alternative definition for Gross Floor Area, alternative wording for the
Garage /Parking standards to add "deep roof overhangs" for more clarity, and a wording
change under Spanish Eclectic adding "S -tile or 2- piece" clay tiles.
In response to Commissioner questions, Ms. McClish further discussed: the second
story setback definition, existing requirements for additional 5' rear yard setbacks on
second stories, the Minor Exception(MEX) process, architectural details that are
encouraged (whether or not an applicant requests a MEX), some history on wording
changes, setback measurements per Mr. Vasquez's graphic, MEX's for straw bale
houses and lot coverage standards, flat 2 -story walls, and additional definitions for
"Spanish Eclectic" design style.
Chair Ray opened the public hearing for public comment.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
PAGE 2
Mark Vasquez, 101 W. Branch Street, made extensive comments. He commended
staff, committees and the commission on their work. This will be a good change for the
Village area. The definition of lot coverage will affect the City as a whole (not just the
Village), and the "uncovered" patio or deck structure wording addition may not be as
important in the rest of the City. The gross floor area definition works well. In regards
to the Design Guidelines and Standards ":
• Building Design #1 — Restrict wall height at a 20' maximum to allow for different
roof heights and architectural styles.
• #2 - On a corner lot, the front setback should be clarified to include both the front
and side of the house, so there's no ambiguity. Also, there should be additional
side setbacks on second stories in the Village and /or some form of horizontal
articulation. In addition, cantilevers do not belong in the Village.
• #3 — Lot Coverages and Floor Area Ratios should match to encourage single
story design.
• #4 — No comment.
• Garage /Parking: Proposed wording should work to encourage more authentic,
period doors. He suggested encouraged tandem garages, as well to soften the
street views.
• Spanish Eclectic: He suggested adding "2- pieced or s- shaped clay tile" as a
requirement.
He felt all the other changes will help so that open space standards aren't necessary,
except there should be provision for a certain percentage of yard space to be at least
10' wide (5' is too small.) He clarified front yard setbacks are measured to the front of
porches per building department standards, and 15' is for the rear yard setback.
Commissioner comments:
Barneich
• She was in favor of:
o a 27.5' maximum building height (30' is too tall), but she'd rather cap it at
25'.
o the additional defining of "Spanish Eclectic" style.
o the graphic of the cantilevered porch.
o adding "deep roof overhangs" to give applicants a better idea of what to
expect.
o adding "2 -piece S shaped tiles ".
o #2, maybe change to "front and street sides" instead of "and /or"
o 2nd story setback of 2.5' (or even 5'), so that if newly built, will be good for
people living next door.
o #4, add parentheses for clarification.
o setting maximum wall height at 20'.
o moving wording "these features shall be used in conjunction" to end of
section.
Keen
• He was concerned with the second story setback between houses, and preferred
the 75% definition for second floor to first floor square footage.
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
PAGE 3
o It's important that the sides have some consideration. Ms. McClish
responded that ARC's suggestion was adding 2.5' at Commissioners'
discretion.
• Green building is being encouraged. As much as he supports it, it's not
appropriate to have huge solar panels visible from the street in the Village. Mr.
Strong replied there's nothing currently in place to prevent it; and it may be
inconsistent.
• He's in favor of:
o the 20' maximum wall height.
o the 2.5' sideyard setback.
o #2 — he wants to make sure that fits with the 20' wall height and isn't a
different standard.
o #3 If open space is required, it could help the design of the house and
further restrict the house size.
o #4 of alternatives should be passed.
o the overhang wording.
o adding "2 -piece tiles ".
o adding recessed windows as part of Spanish Eclectic design.
Ruth
• She's in favor of:
o the FAR definition that includes garages and takes out the word "covered ".
o making sure sloped lots aren't penalized with the height restriction. Ms.
McClish responded they are already taken into consideration by averaging
the slope across the lot.
o 30' height maximum for specific types of architecture or 20' maximum wall
height.
o preventing "canyonization" between 2 -story houses, by requiring the
additional 2.5' sideyard setback or additional articulation.
o #4 add parentheses and delete some wording for clarification.
o add wording "deep roof overhangs ".
o including tandem garages as an option in the Village.
o adding "2 -piece or s- shaped tiles ".
o not adding additional open space requirements.
Ray
• She's in favor of:
o using wording "roofed structures, including ..."
o wording "deep roof overhangs ".
o not adding additional open space requirements.
o 20' wall maximum or 25' height restriction, with no granting of minor
exceptions above 25'.
o including the diagram showing cantilevers are discouraged.
o requiring additional 2.5' sideyard setback for 2- stories, as well as
additional articulation.
• She suggested deleting the words "vertical and /or horizontal" before
"articulation ", because it's redundant.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
PAGE 4
Mark Vasquez suggested an allowance for a 27.5' maximum building height for
Victorians, because if the wall height is 20', a 5' roof isn't tall enough for that style.
Commissioner Barneich made a motion, seconded by Chair Ray to approve
Development Code Amendment Case No. 08 -003 with the following modifications:
• Accept Exhibit A as is.
• Change Exhibit B as follows:
o Building Design #1:
• Maintain the normal maximum building height at 25'.
• Only allow minor exceptions for building height up to 27.5', and
then only for Victorian style homes.
• Add a maximum wall height of 20'.
o Building Design #2:
• Delete the "or" where it reads "front and /or street sides ".
• Require 2.5' sideyard setbacks for second stories.
o Building Design #3:
• Change 'Table 1' definition to read: "Maximum Floor Area Ratio
(Gross Floor Area is inclusive of all roofed structures including
garage, severed loggias, balconies, decks, patios and porches.)
o Building Design #4:
• Change first part of first sentence to read: "To be consistent with
the historic character of the Village, the following features should be
used in all structures ‘and shall be used in conjunction with the
Community Development Director's grant of Minor Exceptions in
accordance with Development Code Section 16.16.100 -B (6)1:
Incorporate architectural details ..."
o Garage /Parking, Pg. 24:
• Change to read: "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. Smaller single bay doors or other similar architectural
treatment to minimize the dominance of front garages is
encouraged. The materials and architectural detailing of garage
doors shall be consistent with the historic character of the Village
and the architectural style of the house. Prominent visibility of
garage doors requires ARC approval. (Development Code Section
16.56.020 provides that a Minor Exception may be granted for the
provision of on -site parking when a change or expansion in use is
proposed.)"
• Add "Tandem garages are encouraged to soften the facade of the
home."
o Spanish Eclectic, Pg. 18
• Require "S- shaped or 2 -piece unglazed clay tile"
• Incorporate the graphic provided by Mr. Vasquez showing that porches are not to
be inset.
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
PAGE 5
Discussion: John Keen asked what "deep roof overhang" would mean specifically.
Commissioner Barneich suggested that Mr. Vasquez could add a graphic as an
example. Chair Ray suggested that it isn't too vague a description, since ARC would
have to review these projects anyways.
and adopt:
RESOLUTION NO. 08 -2071
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA-
08-03 AND AMEND CHAPTER 16.04 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE
DEFINITIONS FOR FLOOR AREA AND LOT COVERAGE APPLICABLE
CITYWIDE AND CHAPTER 16.08 AMENDING THE DESIGN GUIDELINES
AND STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS TO MODIFY FLOOR AREA
RATIO (FAR), LOT COVERAGE, SETBACK, BUILDING HEIGHT AND
COVERED PARKING PROVISIONS AND CLARIFY DESIGN FEATURES FOR
"SPANISH ECLECTIC" STYLES APPLICABLE TO RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN THE HISTORIC CHARACTER DESIGN OVERLAY
DISTRICT D -2.4
The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Barneich, Ray, Keen and Ruth
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tait
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16 day of September, 2008.
Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Chair Ray to direct staff to review
citywide standards for FAR and lot coverage for non - conforming (small antiquated lots)
or proposed PUD developments with small lots. The motion was approved by a 4/0
voice vote.
III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None.
IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION/
NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: SINCE SEPTEMBER 2, 2008.
None.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
None.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS:
Commissioner Barneich requested that the new landscape plan for bulbouts near
Rancho Grande be checked. Though bushes would affect sight distance, there should
still be trees, at least, and not just dirt.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP:
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. on a motion by Chair Ray.
ATTEST:
1 ,
KATHY MENIDOZA FOR L` REARDON- SMITH, CA(ZEN R Y, CHAIR
SECRETARY TO THE CO
AS TO CONTEN
ROB STRONG,
COMMUNITY DEVEL
PMENT DIRECTOR
(Minutes approved at the PC meeting of October 21, 2008)
PAGE 6
1