Loading...
PC Minutes 1989-05-1642 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING - COMMISSION, MAY 16, 1989 The Arroyo Grande .Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Gerrish presiding. Present are Commissioners Soto, McCann and Gallagher. Absent are Commissioners Flores, Scott and Moore. Also in attendance are Planning Director Liberto - Blanck and Current Planner Spierling. MINUTE APPROVAL Hearing no.additions or corrections, the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 8, 1989 and May 2, 1989 were approved as submitted, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Gallagher, and unanimously carried. COMMISSIONER MOORE ENTERED THE MEETING AT 7:35 P.M. AND IS NOW PRESENT. NON- PUBLIC HEARING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 88 -411, 110 BRISCO ROAD (JOSE RIVERA /RIVERA'S BODY SHOP) Current Planner Spierling advised that this item was continued from the last Planning Commission meeting of May 2, 1989. The Planning Commission directed that the applicant and staff provide more information regarding: 1) Storage of flammable materials; 2) Exhaust ducting for the spray paint booth; 3) Proposed security fencing; and 4) Parking. The items discussed are as follows: 1) The applicant has shown flammable storage lockers on the north easterly exterior wall of the existing building. They are located between the spray paint booth and the front opening in the canopy. The Fire Chief has approved this location and will work with the applicant to ensure that the lockers meet all applicable codes. The Fire Chief would also be agreeable to the lockers being moved inside the building. 2) The applicant has shown the exhaust duct for the spray paint booth coming through the canopy on the rear side of the roof peak. The applicant has surrounded the three (3) foot diameter exhaust duct with a metal lined ornamental wooden chimney. The exterior size of this chimney will be approximately four feet square. The Chief Building Inspector has indicated that this will meet all building codes. 3) The applicant has shown a steel roll -up security gate on the plans. This gate should provide the security that the applicant is seeking while providing the ventilation that the Fire Department requires. The Fire Chief has informed me that any loss of ventilation caused by further closure of this opening would necessitate installation of a ventilation system. 4) The applicant has shown nine (9), 9 by 18 foot parking spaces on the revised plan. Other than incorporating the standard stall size, this parking layout does not meet any type of standard of which staff is aware. The applicant has not provided any driving aisles to access the parking spaces or areas to back out of the. spaces and turn around. Three (3) of the spaces can only exit by backing out into Brisco Road. This could create a hazardous roadway situation. In order to provide the current amount of parking, the applicants had to reduce the amount of landscaping and relocate the trash enclosure. The amount of landscaping previously shown in this location was minimal and the current proposal reduces it to a point where it is unlikely that it will be seen or maintained. One other item is lot coverage, which is 60% on the new proposed structure. The Building Department has advised that this does come under UBC definition of a structure and floor area. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the revised plan, the following findings must be made in the affirmative, and a Conditional Use Permit and variance application must be processed due to the lack of parking and excessive lot coverage. 1. The site has adequate access and parking per Section 9 -4.26 of the Zoning Ordinance. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION, 5/16/89 Page 2 2. The proposed structures are consistent with the General Plan and the requirements of the C- 2•district, including lot coverage. In regards to a variance on lot coverage you have to be able to make several findings among them are: 1) Exceptional circumstances applying to the subject property including size, shape, topography, and surroundings which do not apply generally to other land, buildings or uses in the same district. 2) The granting of this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights for the applicant. 3) The granting of this application will not under the terms and conditions of this particular case materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing in or working in the neighborhood, and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said neighborhood. 4) The granting of this application will not be contrary to the General Plan. We are looking at a revised architectural review, if this revised architectural review is approved the applicant must go back to get the variance and conditional use permit. Jose Rivera, 568 Southland Road, Nipomo, advised that he wants to comply with whatever the staff recommends. Mr. Rivera had questions on parking and the canopy. Current Planner Spierling advised that backing into pubic right -of -way is not acceptable. He recommended that the applicant go back to the original plan, with the exception of allowing the exhaust duct to the spray paint booth on the roof. After further discussion, Commissioner Soto made a motion to deny Architectural Review Case No. 88 -411 with the findings of staff, and to allow the applicant to amend the prior Architectural submittal to show the exhaust duct. Motion seconded by Commissioner McCann and unanimously carried. NON- PUBLIC HEARING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 87 -384, GUIDETTI SQUARE, WEST BRANCH STREET AND WESLEY AVENUE - COLORS AND MATERIALS BOARD (J. AND J. GUIDETTI) Mr. Spierling reviewed that on February 16, 1988 the Planning Commission approved the above 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 applicants have submitted a new colors and materials board. Two concerns that staff has are; 1) the way in which this color scheme will interact with the rest of the Village area; 2) the amount of dark green that is used. Commissioners Gerrish and Soto stated they did not like the new color scheme, especially the amount of dark green, they did not feel that the marble was in keeping with the rest of the Village. The Commissioners agreed that the store fronts should be different colors, so that the building did not look so massive. Brent Wiese, Architect for Pults & Associates stated he could understand the Commissions concern on the building being to massive and not broken up enough. Mr. Wiese felt the old color scheme was hodge podge. Mr. Wiese asked the Commission for guidance. The Commissioners advised that they want the building to blend in with what is already in the Village, colors on the big building that would not stand out so much and break up the store fronts with various trim colors. Current Planner Spierling suggested the applicants submit a colored rendering, rather than just a colors and materials sample board. 4 44 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION, 5/16/89 Page 3 After further discussion, on a motion by Commissioner Soto informing the applicant that the colors are not appropriate and that they need to be revised. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McCann and unanimously carried. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT /DISCUSSION Planning Director Liberto - Blanck stated that, in regards to informal Planning Commission meetings with Planning Commissions in surrounding cities, it is recommended that two Planning Commissioners be appointed and that we start coordinating with the other Planning Commissioners. Chairman Gerrish suggested that staff correspond with Pismo Beach and Grover City to determine whether they are interested in meeting as an entire body or just two Commissioners. In regards to the. General Plan Update, the three land use alternatives were presented to the public during the Town Meetings and the Planning Commission needs to review them. The next step will be a Joint Meeting with the City Council and Planning Commission. The next step is to set up a joint study session to discuss the three land use alternatives, goals and policies. The first alternative has a population projection of 19,000 - it reduces the density within the multiply family areas, preserves all the agriculture land. The area that is right off of Grand Avenue and the Oak Park area, the strawberry fields, that are currently designated for industrial. This would designate it for agricultural use, and preserves the most amount of agriculture use. The second alternative preserves some of the agriculture, not all of it. It preserves all the prime agriculture, the ultimate build out of population is about 20,500, and the third alternative which shows some industrial use, shows more conversion of agriculture and more commercial and some annexation. Without annexation population would be about 23,000, with annexation about 23,600. The preferred land use map that will come out of our joint meeting can be a combination of the three. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 8:30 P.M. i I,/ ATTEST: Mar�''1 n Leinin iam Gerrish, Chairman