Loading...
PC Minutes 1990-10-1621:8 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission October 16, 1990 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice - Chairman Soto presiding. Present are Commissioners Moore, Gallagher, Souza and Boggess. Absent are Chairman Carr and Commissioner Brandy. Also in attendance are Planning Director Doreen Liberto -Blanck and Current Planner Scott Spierling. Vice - Chairman Soto welcomed Commissioner Boggess back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Brandy entered the meeting at 7:35 P.M. and is now present. PUBLIC HEARING (CONT.) - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 90 -492, 130, 136, 202 ALLEN STREET AND 137 -1/2 CELL AVENUE (DICK KELSEY.) Current Planner Scott Spierling advised that Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 90 -492 was continued from the Planning Commission meetings of July 17 and September 18, 1990 to allow the applicant time to file a Variance application, or revise the location for access to one of the lots. He stated that the applicant filed an application for a Variance on September 5, 1990, however, the Variance application was not complete. Staff is, therefore, recommending that the project be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 20, 1990. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and unanimously carried, Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 90- 492 was continued to the meeting of November 20, 1990. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 90 -455, 124 SO. HALCYON ROAD, CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,455 SERE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING (RICHARD RAMIREZ.) Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated October 16, 1990 regarding the subject project. He advised that the project site is currently developed with an older residence in poor condition. The applicant intends to remove the residence and construct a two story, 3,455.5 square foot commercial office building. The proposed building will be constructed on the rear portion of the lot with parking in front. The architecture is spanish mediterranean with stucco walls columns, and pilasters, ceramic tile inserts, a tile roof, arch top windows, and fabric awnings. The Architectural Advisory Committee recommended that the portion of the parapet at the front of the building be angled to match the pitch of the roof. The Committee felt that this will help to tie the parapet into the building to an even greater extent. The site currently slopes down from Halcyon Road to the rear of the lot. A retaining wall exists on the south side of the property and the applicant has proposed a new retaining wall on the north side of the property. These walls will allow the lot to be filled so that water will drain to the street. Landscaping is provided along the north and south sides of the parking lot, in front of the building, and along Halcyon Road. The north side landscape strip will vary in width up to seven feet. Landscaping in this area will consist of drought resistant lawn with trees. The south side landscape strip will be three feet wide with small shrubs and small trees. The landscaping adjacent to the street and in front of the building will consist of small shrubs and ornamental strawberry ground cover. A sign is shown with the building elevations and on the site plan to give the Commission a feeling for the type of signage which may be proposed. No application has been submitted for this signage. A separate sign permit application will need to be reviewed and approved prior to construction of the sign. Approval of this architectural review application does not approve the signage shown on this plan. Mr. Spierling advised that the height of the building is 28 feet 6 inches from average finished grade. Lot coverage is 19 %, and the floor area ratio is 0.37. The applicant has provided 14 parking spaces, and 1112 square feet of landscaping. These figures meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the proposal on October 1, 1990, and recommended approval of the project with sane modifications which have been included as conditions of approval. Several of these conditions require the applicant to return to the Committee prior to issuance of building permits with more specific information or designs than were submitted with the architectural review package. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -16 -90 Mr. Spierling stated that the Staff Advisory Committee and Architectural Advisory Committee recommend that the Planning Commission approve Architectural Review Case No. 90 -455 by minute motion with the findings and subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report dated October 16, 1990. Richard Ramirez, 4210 Lantana Court, applicant, spoke in favor of the project. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Boggess, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No. 90 -455 was approved with the findings and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in the staff report dated October 16, 1990 -. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 90 -460, 1400 GRAND AVENUE, ADDITION OF A WINDSCREEN IN FRONT OF THE GARDEN SHOP, AND MINOR PARKING LOT REVISIONS (PAYLESS DRUG STORE.) Current Planner Spierling stated that Payless Drug Store is one of two major tenants in the Arroyo Town and Country Square Shopping- Center, and they have -just recently completed a -major interior remodel of the store and now wish to add a windscreen -in front of the garden department door and re-stripe the parking lot. The proposed windscreen wi l 1 be 1 ocated -in front -of -the garden shop door between two existing colummns. The -will be nine -feet from the front of - the building and approximately -14 -feet frame . the nearest parking space. - Staff has proposed -two conditions of approval -to insure that the windscreen will not pose any safety problems. First, the windscreen should be designed to withstand above normal wind loads and second, the glass - should be either tempered glass or safety glass. Staff does not feel that the location of the windscreen is a problem since it is between two existing columns and 14 feet -from the parking lot. With regard to re- striping of the parking lot, Mr. Spierling advised that the parking lot is currently striped using the old City standard of 10 foot by 20 foot parking spaces. The applicant proposes to re-stripe the- parking lot using the new standard 9 foot by 18-foot parking space. This will allow the applicant to gain three parking spaces, including a new handicap space, and provide new pedestrian walk- through in the first parking aisle The Staff Advisory Committee has reviewed the project and recommends that the Planning Commission approve Architectural- ReviewCase- No. -90 -460 by- minute motion with the-findings and subject to-the conditions of approval listed in the staff report dated-October-16, 1990. - George Meu, Architect, representing the applicant, briefly reviewed the proposed project. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Brandy, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No. 90 -460 was approved with the findings and subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report-dated- October •16, 1990. PLANNING DIRECTOR/PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS Viewshed Review Case No. 90 -24, 629 EMan Court (R. J. Wright.) - Mr. Spierling briefly reviewed the project, advising that a Notice of Intent to Construct an Additional Structure was sent on September 20, 1990 to property owners within 150 feet of the project, and no comments were received. He stated that the project was reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee and, based on the findings listed in the staff report dated October 16, 1990, the Viewshed Review Permit was approved subject to a 10 day appeal period. Request for Interpretation, 1555E1 Camino Real - E1 Camino Professional Building -Mr. Spierling reviewed the request for interpretation regarding the El Camino Professional Center. He stated that the site area is 17,020 square feet, and the total building area shown on the approved plans is 2,843 square feet. When the project was approved, the applicant's architect calculated the parking ratio at one per 200 square feet of office area, and one parking space for every 1,000 square feet of storage area. This resulted in the architect calculating that 12 parking spaces were required. The applicant proposed construction of 19 parking spaces, and actually constructed 23 parking spaces, so parking was really never 2 21`9 220 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -16 -90 an issue on the original project. The applicant wishes to construct an addition to the existing building without enlarging the parking lot. The applicant has requested that the Planning Commission look at the parking situation and make an interpretation of how large the building can be without adding additional parking. According to his calculations, the architect for the project concludes that the maximum area permitted for the new addition is about 3,030 square feet, for a total building area of just under 6,000 square feet. Mr. Spierling stated that the architect calculates parking for the 323 square foot storage area at the ratio required for a warehouse rather than the ratio required for an office building. This appears to be contrary to the way in which parking is normally calculated by the City. Parking for incidental uses, such as a storage area, would normally be at -the same rate as the primary use. This difference in the ratio amounts to about 1 parking space on this proposal. Staff's recommendation on the proposal is that if the project is submitted prior to adoption of the new Development Code, staff recommends that the Planning Commission require the applicant to provide one (1) parking space for every 250 square feet of floor area, as required by the current zoning ordinance. If the project is submitted after adoption of the new Development Code, the standards adopted in the new code should be adhered to. Staff also recommends that the three parking spaces on the adjacent parcel not be used in the calculation of allowable square footage. The three spaces, since they are on the separate parcel, could be eliminated, or could be claimed by the adjacent property owner when that property develops. In summary, Mr. Spierling stated that staff recommends that if the project is submitted prior to adoption of the new Development Code, the total building size be limited to a maximum of 5,000 square feet, which works out to 20 parking spaces times 250 square feet per parking space. After discussion, the Commission agreed with staff's recommendation that the three parking spaces on the adjacent parcel not be used in the calculation of allowable square footage, and that the total building size be limited to a maximum of 5,000 square feet. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by Vice Chairman Soto at 8:00 P.M. to a special meeting at 7:00 P.M. on October 30, 1990 for the first public hearing on the new Development Code. ATTEST: Le„„t( Pearl L. Phinney, Secretary 3