PC Minutes 1990-09-26Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
September 26, 1990
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in special session at 7:00 P.M.
with Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Soto, Moore, Gallagher,
Brandy and Souza. One vacancy exists on the Commission. Also in attendance are
Planning Director Liberto -Blanck and Long Range Planner Bierdzinski.
PLANNING DIRECTOR ITEM/PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS
1. Request by John Hayashi for Interpretation by the Planning Commission
Regarding Architectural Review for Building at 102 West Branch Street.
Planning Director Liberto -Blanck referred to a sketch of the former
Curiosity Corner building at 102 West Branch Street, stating that the new owner,
John Hayashi, would like to put two windows on the building. Because of some
concern about the proposed design, staff wanted to bring the matter before the
Commission for an interpretation on whether staff can work with the applicant,
or whether they would have to go through the Planning Commission. She also
stated that the applicant was told that his present non - conforming sign would
have to be removed or he would to process a Conditional Use Permit. She pointed
out that no other improvements are proposed other than putting in two windows.
Commissioner Soto commented regarding the parking credits, and recommended that
the parking also be resolved. Ms. Liberto -Blanck stated that the parking credits
in the Village are being researched and, hopefully, will be resolved in the near
future. The Commission indicated that the applicant should work with staff so
the improvements conform with the Village architecture.
After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that the
proposal is of a minor nature and there were no objections to staff working with
the applicant 'on the design.
2. Architectural Review - Deck for Mid State Bank Administrative Offices,
991 Bennett Avenue.
Planning Director Liberto -Blanck briefly reviewed a request from Mid -State
Bank for construction of a deck adjacent to the employee break roam. She stated
staff feels the review is minor in nature. The Commission had no objection to
staff reviewing the minor architectural review relative to construction of the
proposed deck. Chairman Carr commented he hoped the deck would not be made out
of redwood and would be the same color as the building.
DEVELOPMENT CODE WORKSHOP
Long Range Planner Bierdzinski reviewed the discussion items listed on the
outline for the workshop of September 26, 1990, as follows:
A.1. Density Calculation for Congregate Care Facilities. Ms. Bierdzinski
asked the Planning Commission what their thoughts were in calculating dwelling
units for congregate care facilities? The way the general plan is written, it
says the maximum density for those types of facilities is 25 dwelling units per
acre, and the question staff has is, how do we define dwelling units? It is
staff's feeling that each room should be considered a dwelling unit.
Commissioner Moore suggesting calculating density by the number of persons per
acre. Commissioner Gallagher suggested putting a limit on the number of beds per
roan, 'i.e., two beds per roam. He stated that Title 22, which governs
convalescent homes, hospitals, day care centers, etc. would probably have some
kind of criteria setting some guidelines for densities. Commissioner Soto agreed
with Commissioner Gallagher, stating his feeling that there has to be some square
foot rquirement per person. After discussion, staff was asked to do some
researh and look at the State requirements for senior care facilities.
with regard to Village Residential Zone, Chapter 9 -06, Ms. Bierdzinski
stated there are special regulations for the Village Residential zone. She
statel that second residential dwellings are a permitted use in this zone.
Commissioner Soto corrected Item 1, Page 137, stating that "commercial
greenhouses" should be specified, because private greenhouses will still be
allosd in the SF zone.
j Ms. Bierdzinski referred to the Special Regulations for the Village
Resilential Zone on Page 144. She stated that those regulations require that on
new:onstruction or exterior alterations, a plot plan would have to be approved
by he Planning Director to assure that the structure will be architecturally
comptible with the surrounding area. Another requirement is that Hoarse
Occpation Permits be reviewed by the Planning Director.
Chapter 9 -10, General Development Design Standards, Ms. Bierdzinski stated
the are two items that need to be discussed; animals and non - conforming uses.
Shrstated that the type of animal determines how many of those animals can be
ket on the property. Basically, the changes address animal keeping on a lot
sip basis rather than on a zone basis. She stated that in the definition
21
21,E
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 9/26/90 Page 2
section of the Development Code, pigs were listed as a small animal, and staff
feels it is more appropriate to list pigs and goats as large animals, because of
some of the problems that may be associated with these animals. After
discussion, a decision was reached to classify pigs, swine and goats as large
animals, and the Planning Director could make a determination that, based on the
size, a pygmy goat could be classified as a small animal.
Ms. Bierdzinski referred to the section on Non - Conforming Uses. She stated
it is indicated that a person has a right to continue a non - conforming use,
however, if they are going to make any enlargement of that use, they would not
be allowed to do that unless a variance was approved. The same criteria is used
relative to signs as in the existing sign ordinance. She pointed out that lots
have a criteria whereby as long as the development standards can be met for the
zone, the lot that is non - conforming and doesn't meet the size criteria for the
zone can still be built on as long as the building setbacks, etc. can be met.
With regard to non - conforming structures, she explained that if the building is
destroyed by 50% or more, then the building would have to be brought up to code.
Commissioner Brandy referred to Page 198, Section 9- 10.070, A.2. referring
to "A wall or fence not more than six (6) feet in height may be maintained along
any interior side yard, rear yard or street side yard provided that such wall or
fence does not extend into the required front yard." He suggested that "hedges"
also be included in this category.
It was also suggested that, on Page 201, c. (5) "Signs ", the wording be
changed to read: "Whenever a sign is totally or partially destroyed by fire or
other calamity, by act of God, or by the public enemy to an extent exceeding
fifty - percent- (5O %)- twenty' -five percent (25 %) of its replacement cost." After
considerable discussion, it was agreed to leave the percentage at fifty percent
(50 %).
Commissioner Brandy referred to Page 206, C. "Screening of Refuse Storage
Areas ", recommending that the words " maintained free of litter" be added.
Commissioner Gallagher expressed concern regarding recycling items in separate
containers and in the collection process. Ms. Bierdzinski stated there is a
space where trash enclosure standards are specified and recyclable.space can be
included as a standard and also under "requirements."
Ms. Bierdzinski referred to the section addressing "Arcades pointing out
that 4 or more video machines would be considered an "arcade" and a Conditional
Use Permit would be required. After discussion it was agreed that reference to
"arcades" be applied as a primary use and not secondary uses, such as in
restaurants, bowling alleys, etc.,
With regard to Drive -In Restaurants, Ms. Bierdzinski asked if a requirement
should be included that all drive-thru facilities have a pay window and a pick
up window similar to Carl's Jr. at Oak Park Plaza, which supposedly cuts down the
amount of time a vehicle is idling? The Commission did na feel this requirement
would be very effective in reducing air pollution caused by idling vehicles.
After discussion, it was agreed that a statement be included speci:lying that:
"Any facility providing drive -thru services must be designed no cause or
contribute to the violation of ambient air quality standards." Stafi indicated
this could be added under "Performance Standards - Air Quality ", Page 203.
Regarding Section 9- 11.090 "Interim Agricultural Uses ", A.1.b. staff was
requested to look at the number of birds allowed per acre of gross zite area.
Regarding Large Family Day Care Facilities, Ms. Bierdzinski staled that it
is staff's feeling that a discretionary permit should be required s that the
surrounding property owners could be notified of the proposal. The proess could
be set up the same as the current Viewshed Review process. After discusion, the
Commission indicated their concurrence for a special type of permit fc; a Large
Family Child Care Center.
Regarding Minimum Development Standards for Service Stations, taff was
asked to determine the feasibility of developers installing oil soaration
devices, and also report back on downstream contamination to the water.source.
There was general discussion relative to Second Residential Units,Parking
and Loading Requirements, Off - Street Parking Requirements by Land Use, PO's and
Signs. Ms. Bierdzinski gave a slide presentation showing various types ari sizes
of signs and PUD's.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 9/26/90 Page 3
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the workshop meeting
was adjourned by Chairman Carr at 10:40:P.M.
it/ i 4A.t
Pearl L. Phinney, Secretary
Robert W. Carr, Chairman
2� 1' 3