Loading...
PC Minutes 2002-02-051 1 1 CALL TO ORDER The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Costello presiding. Present were Commissioners Brown, Fowler, Guthrie, and Keen. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Rob Strong, Associate Planner Teresa McClish, and Public Works Engineering Assistant Rodger Olds. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of January 15, 2002 were approved on a motion by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Brown, with one correction, and unanimously carried with a 5/0 voice vote. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 2002 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. A signed petition referencing Public Hearing Item II. A., received February 5, 2002, in opposition to the proposed Variance 01 -005; Applicant - Brian Stote, Location - 1249 Montego Street. 2. Correction to Public Hearing Item II. B. • Insert new resolution reflecting change in title of Resolution No. 02 -1820, and additional reference to Exhibit 'B'. • Replace first three pages of the proposed City Council Ordinance to reflect change in title. 3. Notes from "Preserve the Village" members Scott Wachenheim and Chuck Fellows referencing the Village Design Guidelines for Historic Districts. 4. A letter from Mark Vasquez, dated February 5, 2002, referencing Village Design Guidelines for Historic Districts. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE 01 -005; APPLICANT — BRIAN STOTE; LOCATION - 1249 MONTEGO. Staff report — Teresa McClish, Associate Planner Ms. McClish presented the staff report. She explained that the proposed residence is located on one of the last remaining lots on Montego Street. The site is in a Single Family zoning district with a design overlay restricting the height to eleven feet. The applicant is proposing to exceed the City's floor area ratio (FAR) standard of .40 for a new 3,225 square foot residence on a 6,048 square foot lot, with a proposed FAR of .53. Lot sizes on Montego Street range from just over 5000 square feet to over 8000 square feet. City building records show at least two residences in the neighborhood exceed the FAR standard of .40 and nearly all the residences on Montego Street were built prior to the FAR requirement. The FAR standard was implemented with the 1991 Zoning Ordinance revision. Prior to that, only the lot coverage standard of 40% applied, which is not exceeded by the proposed residence. There was a Planning Commission interpretation made in 1996 and upheld by the City Council when appealed that clarified that the FAR standard MINUTES Planning Commission February 5, 2002 Page 2 applies to all residential Tots irrespective of whether the previous lot coverage and setback standards are applied. The variance can be approved only if all the required findings can be met. The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) reviewed the project on January 7, 2002 and concluded that and the project incorporates an appropriate design solution given site constraints, and the north elevation is compatible with neighboring homes on Montego Street. We have received a petition today signed by twenty neighbors in the vicinity of the site opposing the Variance. Commissioner Guthrie asked if the ARC had reviewed the findings in addition to reviewing the appearance of the building. Ms. McClish answered that the ARC reviewed the design and at the same time were looking for unique circumstances in the site design in order to make the findings. Commissioner Keen asked if the ARC looked at the height etc. Ms. McClish stated the applicant made an argument for meeting the findings creating the unique circumstances with respect to the slope of the lot, height restrictions, and the City's requirement from Public Works for access only being from Montego Street, and not from Newport Avenue as they originally had on the design. Rob Strong commented that the ARC had been supplied with the same information as the Planning Commission and had considered the issues of the findings, but the ARC it is not an "advertised" public hearing nor is the ARC empowered to make the findings for a variance. PUBLIC COMMENT Jamie Ohler, Architect, 1147 Grand Avenue, gave a detailed overview of the project stating that the lack of ability to use the garage entrance on Newport Avenue basically dictates design of the house; the lot has an extreme slope, but the house conforms with the setbacks and height limitations. The overall home has a very small footprint, a 55 by 55 square foot area, which encompasses the garage; he believed all the findings for a variance had been met. Larry K. Harlan, 1315 Hil!crest Drive, spoke saying he was representing the neighbors who had signed the petition against the project, and it was his belief that only one of the findings had been met. If the Planning Commission grants this Variance any further requests for a variance on Montego Street would also have to be granted because they are all similarly situated. Carie Randolph, 1310 Sierra Drive, spoke saying she agreed with Mr. Harlan's comments. She believed that the City's Ordinance should be upheld and that such a large home should not be built on this site. END OF PUBLIC COMMENT 1 1 1 1 MINUTES Planning Commission February 5, 2002 Page 3 Each of the Commissioners commented on the project and agreed that all the findings for the variance application could NOT be made, specifically: 1. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not otherwise shared by others within the surrounding area. 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zone. 3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zone. The following action was taken: Commissioner Guithrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to deny Variance Case No. 01 -005, based on findings Nos.1., 2., and 3. NOT being met. The motion was unanimously approved on a 5/0 vote. AYES: Commissioners Brown, Fowler, Guthrie, Keen and Chair Costello NOES: None ABSENT: None Rob Strong informed the applicant of the appeal process. PUBLIC HEARING - PUBLIC HEARING — DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 01 -003 — DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — VILLAGE OF ARROYO GRANDE. Staff Report — Teresa McClish, Associate Planner. Ms. McClish said the original "Design Guidelines for the Arroyo Grande Village" were adopted in 1985 by Resolution No. 1844 and subsequently repealed and replaced by the current Guidelines with Resolution No. 3059 on November 22, 1994. At its March 13, 2001 meeting the City Council reviewed the Guidelines and requested Staff review comments made by the public, strengthen the guidelines and present them back to the City Council. The Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) discussed the Guidelines in a joint Public Hearing on October 16, 2001. The ARC recommended approval of the revised Guidelines, with modifications, at their January 28, 2002 meeting. There are five significant changes to the revised Guidelines: 1. It is proposed that separate Guidelines apply to the districts along Traffic Way. The City is working on a Master Plan for the Traffic Way area which may include amendments to the separate design guidelines for that area. 2. The geographical boundary of the Village Residential district. 3. Language was changed throughout the document both to strengthen and make the guidelines more definitive. MINUTES Planning Commission February 5, 2002 Page 4 4. Incorporation of a flowchart describing how the Guidelines fit in with the Community Development Department's project review process. 5. The Guidelines were expanded to include more examples of acceptable materials and designs to better inform applicants. Commissioner Guthrie asked if all the comments from the ARC minutes were included in the Guidelines? Ms. McClish said all the ARC comments were included in the Guidelines. Commissioner Brown stated at the joint meeting of the ARC and the Planning Commission he had addressed an issue regarding one -car garages given the historical context of the Village. At present Page 14, No. 5, relates back to the Minor Exception /Development Code. He would like to see some language in this paragraph that says one -car garages would be acceptable given the historical context of the Village. Ms. McClish said staff had considered this, but these are guidelines and not parking standards, so we refer to the Development Code for specific standards. Commissioner Brown said the Development Code does not describe the intent of the Historical Guidelines and he would like to see some different language. Rob Strong advised that the Development Code could address more specifically whether two -car garages are required for each residence. He emphasized that the Design Guidelines are meant to primarily address design at this time, but suggested that some modification could be made to a degree that it still deals with design. He suggested the wording such as "garages whether one car or two" be added to Page 14, No. 5. Chair Costello had the following questions: 1. Page 1, the flow chart- what happens when a project comes forward and after ARC review it does not comply. 2. Page 5, under the heading "Projects Not Subject to the Guidelines" who determines this? 3. Page 11, "Examples of Construction Materials ", paragraph two ...materials that will fit within the character of the Village, where is this defined; what if someone comes forward with a design from the correct historical era but it does not fit with the Village? Ms. McClish answered: 1. The applicant would be requested to redesign and then it would go to the Planning Commission 2. The Building Department will usually review the project first and refer it to the Community Development Department if there is any doubt. 3. The description of construction materials is not all- inclusive, but as discussed at the ARC some materials not presently included in the guidelines could be allowed with the consensus of the ARC or Planning Commission. The intent is to provide "guidelines ". Chair Costello said because of the potential for conflict, he wanted to be assured that there would be a means for the public to appeal from the ARC to the Planning Commission and then if necessary to the City Council. 1 1 1 1 MINUTES Planning Commission February 5, 2002 PUBLIC COMMENT Page 5 Chuck Fellows, 507 Le Point, spoke saying that the changes made to the guidelines were a huge improvement, but the "Preserve the Village" committee had a few more changes to make them more effective. He went through a list, already received by the Planning Commission after agenda preparation, of 18 suggested changes and corrections to the Design Guidelines. Heather Jensen, 569 May Street- • Pages 12, 14, 16 and 18 there is reference to "...no use of exposed aluminum on doors and window frames ", and this needs to be clarified as to whether this is the dark metal bronzed look or the shiny aluminum look and not just eliminate all of them. Some of the new doors and windows are very attractive and certainly durable. • Page 14, No. 3., referencing landscaping and design; who is going to uphold a difference of opinion and decide what is the right choice. • Page 20 and 21, Nos. 1 & 2, referencing the use of exposed aggregate on the sidewalks. Some people may like the appearance, but the downside is the maintenance. It is very difficult to clean and with so many food establishment along Branch this should be taken into consideration. In addition, it is very uncomfortable to walk on. Ms. Jensen further stated that she had a concern about how much responsibility is being put on the ARC. She hoped that these guidelines would not make it more difficult getting a project approved and once the guidelines are adopted and fine -tuned they should not be continuously reviewed and micro - managed. Nick Alter, 354 Corbett Canyon Road- • It seems that the changes have turned the Guidelines into real standards. • Page 5, last paragraph, with reference to demolition permits, he would like to see requests not only subject to review by the Community Development Director, but also the ARC. Richard DeBlauw, 411 El Camino Real— • Considers guidelines too restrictive. Property owner should be allowed to remodel with their own tastes, but are being forced to follow these guidelines at the wishes of a small group of people in the community. He would like to property owner to be able to have a larger say. Scott Wachenheim, 1015 Ditmas Way, Vice Chairman of the "Preserve the Village" committee, said they had a few additional items for the final revision. He outlined the items reading from a list already received by the Planning Commission after the agenda preparation. Howard Mankins, 200 Hillcrest Drive spoke at length saying he owns property on Branch Street and Bridge Street in the Village. He has lived in Arroyo Grande all his life and he sees new people come into the area wanting to preserve everything "like it used to be ". He went on to say the town is nothing like it used to be when he was a child. He has MINUTES Planning Commission February 5, 2002 Page 6 great interest in preserving the Village and puts a lot of energy into the Historical Society helping restore historic buildings. It is important that the Village be preserved, but rules and regulations can get preventive, burdening and discouraging to business and increasing rents. It would be more effective if the focus is on encouraging people by being more friendly, not looking for another regulative body. He does not think the rules have to be as strict and defined as are being sought to keep the Village viable and historic. Ed Dorfman, 285 La Cresta Drive- • Some flexibility is needed in what we do to encourage people. • With reference to the section on one -car garages, requiring garages in the back yard, many studies show people prefer garages in the front and this section shows no flexibility. • The most efficient windows today are vinyl and they come in many colors and unlike wood are low maintenance. • If the Guidelines serve to discourage investment and upgrades by people they will fail us all and the Village will not benefit. END OF PUBLIC COMMENT Commissioner Guthrie applauded all the work done in preparing the guidelines, especially the work the ARC had done. He went on to say that there is a need for flexibility for property owners, but giving more information up front gives more certainty. He further commented that: • The change in boundaries makes more geographic sense. • There are a lot of non - conforming designs in some of the areas. • Page 16, second column, the emphasis on the vertical to maintain Village character and scale had been addressed, but he would like to see the following language added after Buildings are also made to appear larger by creating a series of structures "of narrow mass "... • Page 11, second column, add language after "Stucco buildings require "extensive" detailing... ". • Concrete block — should be discouraged as a structural material. • A list of historic structures and the methology as to how they should be included in a list of buildings. • The suggestions from "Preserve the Village" committee were excellent. Commissioner Keen- • The language now in the document for the definition of historic structures is too vague. He agreed with Commissioner Guthrie. • He agreed with Mr. Mankins that property owners are losing a lot of rights and need to have some say as to what is done with their property. • He noted that the vacant property between Short, Nelson and Mason Streets was listed as "Park" on the map. He believed that this piece of property had been a discussed at City Council and it had been decided to use as this as a park but not designate it as "Park ". • He had no real problems with all the changes and thought the guidelines had been improved a lot with the help of the "Preserve the Village" committee. 1 1 1 MINUTES Planning Commission February 5, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Fowler- • Page 13 & 16, in the section that starts- Similarity in scale... it says "most homes are one or two story's high" and it should just say "homes are one or two story ", as we have no three story buildings. • Page 19, No.2, under Colors, "signs should be allowed to incorporate more than three different colors. Victorian buildings often used more than three colors as mentioned by the ARC. • Sidewalks - agreed with Heather Jensen that they hard to keep clean. • Considers the guidelines a little too restrictive. The Guidelines should be fluid. We need to accept some changes, be flexible, and encourage the Village to be viable. Chair Costello said when we amend the guidelines and they go into the Municipal Code what weight do they carry. Ms. McClish replied that they are guidelines, but the process needs to be followed because they are incorporated by reference into the Development Code. The approving bodies still have the ability to approve a project if it does not infringe upon the historic integrity of the District. Commissioner Brown said he did not believe the Guidelines would interfere with commerce in the Village. Page 5 gives building owners flexibility to maintain and keep a commercial enterprise ongoing. 1. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guthrie to add language to page 5, end of paragraph two, stating "Any request for the demolition, or relocation of an historic building requires notice be given to the ARC and the Planning Commission ". The motion passed with a 3/2 vote, with Commissioners Keen and Fowler voting against. 2. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Chair Costello to add language to pages 11,14, and 18, which states that "where possible concrete block in residential districts shall be faced with materials recommended within the Design Guidelines ". The motion failed with a 4/1 vote, with Commissioners, Fowler, Guthrie, Keen and Chair Costello voting against. 3. Commissioner Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to add language to Page 11, under the heading Brick and Concrete Block that states, "that the use of exposed plain concrete block material is discouraged in the Historic Village Commercial District. The motion was unanimously approved with a 5/0 vote. 4. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guthrie to change the language on Page 14, No. 5 that states, "one and two car garages shou /d be detached or located to the rear of the residence where feasible and where such placement is in keeping with the existing character of the neighborhood. The motion was unanimously approved with a 5/0 vote. MINUTES Planning Commission February 5, 2002 5. Commissioner Keen made a motion seconded by Commissioner Fowler to strike the language on Page 22, "Definitions ", under the heading "Historic Structure ", second sentence that states A structurc con also be considered historic if it is associated with . The motion failed with a 3/2 vote with Commissioners Brown, Guthrie and Chair Costello voting against. Page 8 6. Commissioner Fowler made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown that on Page 19, second column under heading "Colors ", No. 2, language should read "signs shou /d incorporate no more than four colors and strike "Too much contrast dilutes the effectiveness of the sign and crcctcs an appearance of "busyness ". The motion passed with a 4/1 vote, with Chair Costello against. 7. Commissioner Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown to add to page 19, under the heading "Materials ", No. 7, language that states "Heatform plastic signs are not permitted ". The motion was unanimously approved with a 5/0 vote. 8. Commissioner Guthrie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown to add the language on Page 20, under the heading Awnings and Canopies, No. 3, to state "Materials stretched taut over rigid framework is not permitted ". The motion passed with a 3/2 vote, with Commissioners Fowler and Keen against. 9. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guthrie, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to amend Title 16, Chapter 16.08 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code and Design Overlay 2.4 revising the Design Guidelines for Historic Districts, including Exhibit 'B' as amended by the Planning Commission and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 02 -1820 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND TITLE 16, CHAPTER 16.08 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE AND DESIGN OVERLAY 2.4 TO REVISE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS AYES: Commissioners Brown, Fowler, Guthrie, Keen and Chair Costello NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 5th day of February, 2002. NON - PUBLIC HEARING - EAST GRAND AVENUE MASTER PLAN, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE- Prepared by Rob Strong Rob Strong distributed a copy of the newly produced draft of the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan to the Planning Commission. He said he was providing this preview to 1 1 1 1 MINUTES Planning Commission February 5, 2002 the Planning Commission as a follow -up on a year long process of design workshops intended to implement the 2001 General Plan that created a concept of Mixed -Use corridor. The intent is to try to distinguish the corridor from other commercial districts. He went on to describe each segment of the Enhancement Plan in more detail, focused on "streetscape" improvements to East Grand Avenue. DISCUSSION ITEMS Rob Strong described a County referral project MUP /Development Plan to allow a 2,100 square foot (including garage) secondary handicapped dwelling at 468 Hansen Hill Road. The Planning Commission had no comment. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS - None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS Rob Strong reviewed the upcoming projects and told the Planning Commission that the Community Development Department is moving forward on many major projects with a small, but professional staff. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. on a motion by Chair Costello, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: Lyn Reardon - Smith, Commission Clerk Rob Strong, Community Development Director Page 9 seph Costello, Chair c''' 1 1 1