PC Minutes 1989-08-01Arroyo Grande Planning Carrnissicn
August 1, 1989
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Gerrish
presiding. Present are Commissioners Soto, Carr, Moore, GallRgher, Brandy and Flores. Planning
Director Liberto- Blanck, Current Planner Spierling and Long Range Planner Bierdzinski are also
in attendance.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 1989 -1990
Chairman Gerrish opened nominations for Planning Cammission Chairman. Commissioner
Soto nominated William Gerrish for Chairman. Motion seconded by Commissioner Flores.
Hearing no other nominations, Carmissioner Soto moved that nominations be closed, and a
unanimous vote was cast for William Gerrish as Planning Commission Chairman for the fiscal year
1989 -90.
Chairman Gerrish opened nominations for Vice Chairman. Chairman Gerrish nominated
Tony Flores for Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. Motion seconded by Conntissioner
Carr. Hearing no further nominations, Chairman Gerrish closed the nominations, and a unanimous
vote was cast for Tony Flores as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for the fiscal year
1989 -90.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -457, PLANNED SIGN
PROGRAM, 1148 GRAND AVENUE (ROBERT WILLARD)
Current Planner Spierling advised that the applicant proposes two new wall signs in
addition to the existing signs at the 5- tenant commercial canplex at 1148 Grand Avenue.
There are currently two signs at this location; a 30 square foot monument sign and a 14" x 82"
wall sign, both of which serve the Rider and Bringle Physical Therapy Clinic. He pointed out
that the single -face monument sign is located at the southwestern corner of the parcel, adjacent
to Grand Avenue; it is constructed of wood materials, and its height is 8 feet, which is within
the limit allowed in the C -2 zone. The existing wall sign is located on the south side of the
main building and is clearly visible to motorists on Grand Avenue.
Mr. Spierling stated that the new signs would be designed to serve the other four
tenants at this canplex, none of whom are presently identified with signs. The new signs will be
4' x 14' and 5' x 7', and will be affixed to the west and south sides of the main building,
respectively. The area of these signs will be divided evenly among the four tenants in a
directory fashion; the sign color and lettering will be determined by each tenant.
Mr. Spierling noted the street frontage of this parcel is 163 feet, which allows for
signs totalling up to 181.5 square feet in area. The total aggregate area of all four signs,
however, is only 129 square feet. his is well within the limits prescribed by Sec. 9- 4.2407 of
the Zoning Ordinance. Moreover, the largest sign is just 56 square feet, which is less than the
70 square feet permitted by the sign ordinance. He stated that all four signs conform to
height, area, setback and landscaping standards outlined in Sec. 9- 4.2407 of the Zoning
Ordinance as they pertain to Planned Sign Programs. None of the existing or proposed signs
will be illuminated.
Mr. Spierling advised that the application was reviewed by the Staff Advisory
Committee and they recommended that the Planning Camrission approve the planned sign program
based on the findings listed in the staff report dated August 1, 1989, and subject to the
following recommended condition:
1. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans approved by the
Planning Commission at their meeting of August 1, 1989.
In answer to Commissioner Carr's question, Mr. Spierling stated that sign colors are
going to be left up to the individual tenants in the canplex.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for
Conditional Use Permit Case No. 89 -457 had been duly published and property owners notified,
Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Upon hearing no comments from the audience for
or against the proposed use permit, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed.
The Commissioners expressed concern regarding the lack of some requirement for
uniformity of the signs such as style, structure and colors. After a brief discus a second
condition was added to the recommended conditions of approval:
2. Colors, materials and design of the proposed signs shall be consistent with existing
signs, and shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Director.
After further discussion the following action was taken:
6;5
6,6
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 8/1/89
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -1238
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING USE PERMIT CASE
NO. 89 -457, APPLIED FOR BY ROBERT WILLARD, 1148
GRAND AVENUE, FOR A PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM
On motion by Commissioner ssioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and by the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Soto, Carr, Moore, Gallagher, Brandy and Flores
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Chairman Gerrish
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1st day of August 1989.
LANDMARK TREE DESIGNATIONS
Planning Director Liberto - Blanck introduced Carolyn Bjerre Leach, Parks and
Recreation Department's City Tree Coordinator. Ms. Liberto- Blanck explained that the Tree
Ordinance states that either the Planning Commission or Parks and Recreation Commission can
recommend Landmark designations, and Ms. Leach feels that since some of these sites are
currently being developed, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation.
Ms. Leach stated that part of her responsibility is to review proposed projects and look
at the trees to determine which ones should be saved. She referred to the diagrams included
with the staff report noting it has been determined that these are significant trees. She
explained that the way the Tree Ordinance is written when someone has an undeveloped parcel
i
they have to go through the review process, and it is up to the Planning Commission at this
stage to recommend to the City Council to have the trees registered. Once a tree becomes
registered as a landmark tree, the owner is responsible to keep and maintain the tree. If that
tree is removed, destroyed or dies, a fine is levied against the owner.
Chairman Gerrish stated he doesn't have a problem with designating landmark trees,
although, with a few exceptions, some of them do not necessarily look like landmark trees. Ms.
Leach explained that what they are trying to do is register a few of the trees that are a little
bit younger to provide a population of trees in the future.
Commissioner Moore commented that this type of action has a lot to do with property
rights. In answer to Commissioner Gallagher's question as to whether or not the city attorney
has made a determination on this kind of action, Ms. Leach answered "no." Commissioner Carr
pointed out that the Commission's action would only be a recommendation to the City Council.
Ms. Leach stated she didn't know if these designated landmark trees will be recorded on the
deed, however the trees are required to be marked.
Commissioner Flores stated his concern is that the City can literally designate all of
the trees in this community as landmark trees and cause some significant problems for the
property owners and, in his opinion, infringe upon property rights. Commissioner Gallagher
stated he feels this should be referred. to the legal staff for a determination regarding property
rights. Ms. Leach expressed concern regarding the time element, stating that budding permits
are being held up now waiting for a determination.
After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner
Gallagher, and carried with one "no" vote and one abstention, that a recommendation be made
to the City Council that the trees indicated in the staff proposal be designated as Landmark
Trees, subject to notification of all the owners prior to consideration by the City Council, and
including a recommendation that a legal opinion be obtained from the city attorney.
REVIEW CASE NO. 88 -407, REVISED PARKING PLAN, 100 TRAFFIC
WAY, VILLAGE CREEK PLAZA III (MIDLAND PACIFIC)
Chairman Gerrish and Commissioner Soto excused themselves from the meeting because
of a possible conflict of interest, and are now absent. Vice Chairman Flores assumed the Chair.
Current Planner Spierling referred to the revised parking plan for Village Creek Plaza
III. He reviewed that on July 28, 1988 the City Council passed Ordinance 379 C.S. which
revised the City's parking standards. Among the revisions was a reduction in the parking stall
size from 10 feet by 20 feet to 9 feet by 18 feet with no provision for compact spaces.
Arroyo Grande Planning Conrini ion, 8/1/89 3
Mr. Spierling explained that the original plan provided 22 perpendicular parking stalls
and 17 angled parking stalls, and slightly over 30% of these stalls were for compact car parking.
The angled parking stalls encouraged one way travel through the project from the Grand
Avenue entrance to the Traffic Way exit.
He stated that the new proposal provides 41, 10 foot by 16 foot perpendicular parking
places. The applicants are proposing a two foot overhang into landscaped areas and over
sidewalks to bring the stalls up to the standard 18 foot depth. He noted that the parking
ordinance allows this two foot overhang into landscaped areas, however, it does not specifically
allow it over sidewalks. Mr. Spierling pointed out that this proposal increases the number of
parking spaces, but slightly reduces the landscape area. The amount of landscaping is still 10%
which is well above the required 5%.
Also, the new proposal shifts the parking along the westerly property line a few feet
south, and staff is somewhat concerned that this may eliminate a bench that was proposed in
front of Building 2. In addition, a bike rack that was shown near the trash enclosure on the
original plan is missing from this plan. Staff has drafted condition of approval #4 to make sure
these amenities will be included in the project.
Mr. Spierling stated there are two major issues which need to be discussed.
First, the original design of the parking area promoted one way traffic through the
project from Grand Avenue to Traffic Way. The new design would tend to encourage turns into
the project from Traffic Way. However, the Public Works Department has reviewed this parking
lot layout and feels that it is superior to the original design. Turns should be limited to right -
turns -only in, and right- turn -only out. The entrance from Grand Avenue should remain as an
entrance only.
Secondly, the two foot overhang over the sidewalk should be discussed. He advised
that the Planning Carmission should be aware that allowing the overhang may be an
interpretation which will affect the way in which future projects are designed and, by allowing
the overhang, the Planning Corm ssion may be reducing effective sidewalk widths on future
projects to a minimum of four feet. However, for this project the sidewalk overhang should not
cause a pedestrian access problem since the sidewalks are a minimum of 8 feet wide.
He stated another concern is that cars with lower ground clearance may not pull all
the way forward for fear of damaging their vehicles, thus reducing aisle width, or they may pull
forward causing damage to their vehicles and the concrete curbing.
Mr. Spierling suggested that the Planning Cammission make an interpretation that either,
1) parking overhangs are not permitted over sidewalks, or 2) parking overhangs are only
permitted over sidewalks 8 feet wide or wider, and where the asphalt thickness is increased
adjacent to the curb to provide an effective maximum curb height of five (5 ") inches.
Mr. Spierling stated it is staff's recommendation that the overhang not be permitted
over sidewalks. Where they have an 8 foot sidewalk right now, it is suggested they go to a 6
foot sidewalk with concrete bumper blocks.
Jun McGillis, Surveyor with San Luis Engineering, speaking on behalf of Midland Pacific,
stated they do not have a lot of concern one way or another with Condition #5. He commented
that shopping centers are getting away from the bumper blocks as much as they can because it
makes it more difficult to clean. Basically, the area between where the wheels stop and the
sidewalk begins is wasted.
In answer to Commissioner Carr's question, Mr. Spierling stated it is preferable not to
have the overhang at all, but if there is an overhang, staff would prefer to see the 8 foot
sidewalk, and the paving surface feathered up to reduce the curb height.
After further discussion, on motion by Corrmissioner Galingher, seconded by
Corm issioner Carr, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No. 88 -407 was
approved, subject to the original conditions and the conditions listed in the staff report dated
August 1, 1989, and the following additional condition:
"Where parking stalls overhang the sidewalk, a minimum sidewalk width of eight (8) feet
is required. Additionally, the paving surface shall be built up adjacent to the curb to
reduce the effective curb height to 5 inches, maximum ".
REVISED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 87 -384, BRANCH STREET AND WESLEY
AVENUE, APPROVAL OF PROPOSED COLORS AND MATERIALS (J. AND J. GUIDETTI)
Chairman Gerrish is now present and has assumed the Chair.
67
68
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 8/1/89 4
Current Planner Spierling reviewed that on February 16, 1988 the Planning Commission
approved Architectural Review Case No. 87 -384 subject to 20 conditions. One of the
conditions was that a new colors and materials board would be approved by the Planning
Commission, prior to issuance of building permits.
The originally proposed colors consisted of a dark grey roof, two shades of tan stucco and
a variety of brighter trim colors. The exterior design of the project was revised considerably
from the original proposal and both the Planning Commission and the project architect felt that
deeper colors might be more appropriate for the revised project. Thus, the project was
approved without specifying colors, and the Planning Commission must approve colors and
materials prior to building permits being issued.
On May 16, 1989 the Planning Commission reviewed a new color and materials board
submitted by the applicant. This board consisted of various shades of grey and green. The
Planning Commission did not feel that these colors were appropriate and that more colors were
needed to break up the face of the building into individual storefronts. On June 1, 1989 the
applicants once again returned to the Planning Commission to get more direction about
acceptable color schemes. The Planning Commission viewed some alternatives provided by the
applicant and then discussed color and material preferences.
Mr. Spierling presented the new colors and materials board, commenting that the new
board is very similar to the original board. The colors on the new board tend to be brighter,
but otherwise the two boards both have grey roofs and awnings, a two color main building and
five different trim colors. The applicants have varied the storefront trim colors while
maintaining a continuous color theme for the rest of the building. The individual store front
colors are blue- green, blue, muted red, peach and brown. These colors will be used on the
aluminum store front reveals, the window frames and doors. Underneath the windows will be
ceramic tile in complimentary colors or a painted accent color. In creating the theme for this
building, the applicants have used a charcoal grey metal roof, medium grey roof trim, light grey
canvas awnings, reddish brown handrails, grills and facies, as well as two colors of stucco. The
main body of the building will be peach color with the cornices, pillars, pilasters and window
hoods being an off -white color.
Mr. Spierling pointed out that the result of this color scheme will be that on a
pedestrian level, the store fronts will be very individualistic while, from a distance or when
driving by the center, it will be apparent that it is a single complex. It appears that the
applicants have tried to comply with the Planning Corimission's desire for individual storefronts
while maintaining, a single character for the center.
Chairman Gerrish reviewed that the Planning C,o fission has already approved the
elevations, and the matter is before the Commission tonight for approval of the colors.
After a brief discussion, the colors and materials board presented for Architectural
Review Case No. 87 -384 was approved on motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by
Commissioner Gallagher, and unanimously carried.
REVISION TO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 88 -418, 509 GRAND AVENUE, MIDAS
MUFFLER (d. W. DFSIGN.)
Commissioner Soto entered the meeting and is now present.
Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated August 1, 1989. He stated
that in acquiring construction bids for this project the applicants found that construction costs
were going to be much higher than previously anticipated. After reevaluation of their project,
they are asking the Planning Commission to consider several revisions, which will result in a cost
savings and it is the applicants feeling that the revisions will not reduce the quality of the
project.
Mr. Spierling reviewed each one of the revisions requested by the applicants. Chairman
Gerrish commented that when the project was originally presented he felt it was a well designed
project, and it is irritating that the applicants are now coming back and are requesting
substantial changes from what was originally approved. Commissioner Flores stated this is an
entirely different kind of project than what the Commission had approved.
After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner
Brandy, and unanimously carried, the requested revisions to Architectural Review Case No. 88-
418 were denied on the basis of the following findings:
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 8/1/89 5
PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT/DISCUSSION
CEQA Guidelines (Jnfcrmational). Long Range Planner Bierdzinsld reviewed the staff
report dated August 1, 1989. She stated that the City's "Environmental Review Procedures and
Guidelines" were adopted in 1981, and since that time, there have been some changes to CEQA
and the State Guidelines. The Planning staff is in the process of revising the procedures in
order to bring them in line with State law and also provide adequate direction to City staff,
Comnissions, and the City Council regarding environmental review. She stated that the City
Attorney is currently reviewing the draft.
Parking Structure (Informational). Long Range Planner Bierdzinski briefly reviewed the
draft amendment to the Parking Ordinance. She stated that the draft ordinance was reviewed
by the Staff Adiisory Committee in July, and it is being presented to the Commission for its
review and input before a public hearing is scheduled.
Determiiiataian of Off - Street Parking Requirements for Used Car Lots. Planning
Director Libertc- Blanck stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires the Planning Commission to
determine the amount of off - street parking required for uses not specifically set forth in the
ordinance. The Planning Department has received a business license for a used car sales lot
located at 319 'Grand Avenue in the C -3 zone. She advised that staff has reviewed parking
ordinances fron other municipalities and recomrmends that the Planning Commission require 1
space per 25) square feet of office area, plus 1 space per 450 square feet of
parts/sales/serlice area, plus 1 spade per 2,000 square feet of outdoor sales area. She pointed
out that this standard is in keeping with current standards for offices and vehicle repair
businesses, and the parking requirement for outdoor sales area is an average of the requirements
of the various municipalities reviewed by staff.
After a brief disctssion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner
Gallagher, an unanimously carried, the staff reconmendation for parking requirements for used
car sales lots was approved.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
the Chairman at 10:30 P.M.
ATF'FSF:
1. The proposed revision is not in keeping with the "General Architectural Review
Guidelines!' of the City of Arroyo Grande.
2 . The proposed revision will adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing
or working in the area of the proposed revision.
3. The proposed revision is not in keeping with the City standards or common design
practices within the City of Arroyo Grande.
Peirl L. Phinney, Secretary / ' 3 fIam Gerrish, Chairman
f�v
69