Loading...
PC Minutes 1988-05-17442 Arroyo Grande Plarmi g Qimimion May 17, 1988 The Arroyo Grande Planning Conmission met in regular session with Chairman Soto presiding. Present are Commissioners Olsen, Flores, Boggess, Moore, Scott and Gerrish. Current Planner Lanning is also in attendance. Mike Zimmerman approached the Commission stating it has been brought to his attention that there has been some confusion and possibly a mistake in the appointment of Mr. Scott to the Corormmission. He stated that according to the Ordinance, Planning Commissioners are supposed to be appointed for four year terns and, therefore, Mr. Carr's term would not expire until June 30, 1989. He commented that there could be a problem if there were a close vote, and Mr. Scott has the deciding vote, it may be deemed invalid. Chairman Soto advised that this was discussed with staff earlier and, until the Commission gets sane direction fran the City Attorney or is directed otherwise, the meeting will be held as scheduled. MINUTE APPROVAL Upon hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the special meeting of. March 10, 1988, regular meetings of March 15, 1988 and April 5, 1988 were approved as submitted, on motion by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 88 -459, 512 PLATINO LANE. (SAN LUIS ENGINEERING, REPRESENTING PATRICIA M. CAUDILL) Current Planner Lanning advised that the proposal is to subdivide the existing 22,784 sq. ft. parcel into two parcels of 10,031 sq. ft. and 12,753 sq. ft. respectively. The property is zoned R -1 Single Family Residential, which normally requires a lot size of 6,000 sq. ft., however, in this case the cross slope of the property is approximately sixteen percent (16%) which triggers off a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft. per Section 9- 3.403(a)(2) of the Subdivision Ordinance. He pointed out that this section also requires a minimum frontage of eighty (80) feet and a minimum average depth of 110 feet. The subject property is designated Low Density Residential on the General Plan, which allows for up to 4.5 dwelling units per acre. The current proposal is for 3.8 dwelling units per acre and, therefore, the proposal is in conformance with the General Plan. Mr. Lanning advised that Parcel 1 will be 10,031 sq. ft. in size with a frontage of 80.01 feet and average depth of 130 feet. Parcel 2 will be 12,753 sq. ft. in area with a frontage of approximately 151 feet and an average depth of approximately 139 feet. The proposed parcels meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, and will be able to accanmodate the proper setbacks and yard areas for development. Mr. Lanning stated that two residents in the area came in to the Planning Department about the proposed lot split. One of the residents, Mr. Tognazzini, provided a written statement, which was included in the agenda packets. The other gentleman that came into the office expressed concern as far as setting a precedent for the area. Mr. Lanning stated these concerns mainly seem to relate to the cumulative impacts possible to the co iinunity as a whole from additional subdivisions, creating traffic congestion and increasing density. With regard to the environmental assessment, Mr. Lanning advised that the proposed project is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the environment and staff has prepared a Negative Declaration on the project. Mr. Lanning noted that the Staff Advisory Canmittee, which consists of representatives from the Planning and Building Department, Public Works Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Police and Fire Departments, is recommending that the Planning Canir»ssion approve the proposed lot split and adopt the Negative Declaration subject to the findings and listed conditions. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 88 -459 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. Jim McGOlis, Surveyor with San Luis Engineering, referred to the staff report, stating that Mr. Lanning fairly represented the proposal, and he is available to answer any questions the Commission may have. Bill Harvey, 308 Oro Drive, stated he has no problem with this particular lot split, however, his concern is that this request might be setting a precedent. He further stated the area was designed for low density residential, and if this lot split is approved, is it going to be setting a precedent for more lot splits and causing more traffic and congestion in the area. He stated he is also speaking for his neighbor, Mike Miner, who was unable to attend tonight's meeting. Arroyo Grande Plannkg won, 5 -17-88 Page 2 Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed lot split, Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed. Mr. McGillis stated it is his understanding from Mrs. Caudill that the previous owners of the property kept that lot large to provide access to Dr. Wical's property in order to subdivide it. He commented, as far as setting a precedent is concerned, the only other lot that could possibly be split is Lot 12, and he is not real sure of that because of the slope. Commissioner Moore noted that there is a drainage problem on that hill, and the water moves down and hits the houses below. He stated that the drainage in this area is a little tricky and the houses along there are subject to underground drainage from this entire piece of land. Commissioner Scott commented that the subject property was part of a subdivision about 10 years ago and has nothing to do with the Wical property other than it is contiguous to that property. With regard to the drainage concerns, Mr. Lanning advised that the Public Works Director and Special Projects Engineer review all projects that are brought before the Commission and place appropriate conditions on the projects. They did not express any concern regarding grading and drainage of this particular site. After further discussion the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1173 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 88 -459, 519 PLATINO LANE. (PATRICIA CAUDILL). On motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Comnissioner Flores, and by the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Flores, Boggess, Scott and Chairman Soto NOES: Commissioner Olsen ABSTAIN: Commissioners Moore and Gerrish ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 17th day of May 1988. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 88 -122, 240 GULARTE ROAD, VARIANCE FROM HEIGHT LIMIT ORDINANCE. (JOHN AND CAROL TERRY). Current Planner Lanning reviewed that on October 29, 1987, the City Council passed an urgency ordinance limiting building height for single - family homes to fifteen feet (15') in order to preserve viewsheds. This ordinance was extended by the Council on December 8, 1987, after a public hearing. A variance application must be submitted, and necessary findings must be made by the Planning Commission to exceed the 15 -foot height limitation. He stated the Council's concerns mainly revolved around the loss of views in existing neighborhoods due to new construction or additions to existing structures. The applicant's proposed plans, which previously would not be subject to review, now require a variance, as the home exceeds the 15 -foot maximum building height imposed by the urgency ordinance. Mr. Lanning stated that the applicant is proposing to develop the subject property with a single - family two -story residence with an average height of approximately 23'3 ", as measured by the zoning ordinance (see attached plans). The maximum height permitted in this zone prior to the ordinance was thirty feet (309. The proposed home is approximately 2,400 square feet in size. The front yard setback is 20', with side yards of 5' to 11' in width. The rear yard is approximately 25' in depth. These setbacks meet or exceed the minimum yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. He pointed out that the newly developed Viewshed Ordinance, which is in the process of gaining approval from the Council, will require that only second -story additions in existing or design development residential neighborhoods be subject to viewshed review. He stated that if this Ordinance was in effect today, this proposal would not require review, since this project is a new development and is located in a new subdivision. But, under the definitions of the existing urgency ordinance, this proposed project needs Planning Commission and City Council review. Mr. Lanning reviewed that the proposed residence is located in a tract that has been or is being developed with single - family residences. Existing °views of homes which might be 443 444 Arroyo Grande Planning Conmiission, 5 -17 -88 Page 3 affected lie to the south and west. The homes to the south of the site are at a slightly lower elevation and enjoy views of rolling hills and canyon as they look across the site to the northeast. Any development of the proposed site above approximately 8' to 10' will block these homes' present views of the hills. Since the ordinance is concerned about residential building heights above 15', it does not appear that the applicant's proposal of building 8' above this height limit should add a signficant impact to the neighboring viewsheds. The homes to the west are newly constructed and lie within the same tract as the proposed home. These homes view a small hill to the east and the rooftops of homes to the south. It does not appear that the construction of the proposed home will deprive these residences of any significant views. He commented that the applicant has demonstrated a sensitivity to the preservation of views on the adjacent parcels. With regard to environmental issues, Mr. Lanning advised that the proposed variance and development are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Sections 15503 and 15305, which exempt the construction of small structures such as single- family residences, and the granting of certain variances. After review by the Staff Advisory Committee, Mr. Lanning stated it is staff's recommendation that the Planning Conmission adopt the draft resolution approving Variance No. 88- 122 subject to the listed findings and conditions of approval, and forward their decision to the City Council. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 88 -122 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. John Terry, applicant for the Variance,. spoke in favor of the variance being granted. Hearing no further comments from the public for or against the proposed variance, Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed, and the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1174 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 88 -122, APPLIED FOR BY JOHN AND CAROL TERRY AT 240 GULARTE ROAD. On motion by Commissioner Boggess, seconded by Commissioner Olsen,. and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Carrnissioners Olsen, Boggess, Scott, Flores, Moore, Gerrish and Chairman Soto NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17th day of May 1988. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 88 -123, VARIANCE FROM HEIGHT LIMIT ORDINANCE, LOT 59, PLATINO LANE, OAKCREST ESTATES (OAKCRESST ASSOCIATES). Conrrnissioner Gerrish made a motion to dispense with reading the staff report on the 8 variances for Oakcrest Estates. Motion seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and unanimously carried. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 88 -123 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. Ed Dorfman, 224 La Cresta, representing Oakcrest Associates, spoke regarding the proposed variance. He advised that there are 8 homes being built representing a continuation of the normal development of Oakcrest Estates. He stated that all of the eight (8) homes are single story. With regard to the variance filling fees, Mr. Dorfman asked for a waiver or reduction of the $2,200 in filing fees he paid for the variances. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed variance, Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Gerrish stated, in his opinion, there is no problem with any of eight variances because they are all single story homes. • After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: Arroyo Grande Piannkg Commission, 5 -17 -88 Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1175 A RESOLUTION OF THE . PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 88 -123, LOT 59, PLATINO LANE, OAKCRFSf ESTATES. (OAKCRFSr ASSOCIATES) On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Olsen, Flores, Boggess, Moore, Scott, Gerrish and Chairman Soto NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17th day of May 1988. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 88 -124, VARIANCE FROM HEIGHT LIMIT ORDINANCE, LOT 60, PLATINO LANE, OAKCRESF ESTATES. (ED DORFMAN/OAKCRFSr ASSOCIATES). Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 88 -124 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. Hearing no comments for or against the proposed variance, Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed and the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1176 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CJTY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 88 -124, 'LOT 60, PLATINO LANE, OAKCRFST ESTATES. (OAKCRFST ASSOCIATES) On motion by Con missioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Canrnissioners Olsen, Moore, Flores, Boggess, Scott, Gerrish and Chairman Soto NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17th day of May 1988. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO.' 88 -125, VARIANCE FROM HEIGHT LIMIT ORDINANCE, LOT 61, PLATINO LANE, OAKCRFST ESTATES. (ED DORFMAN /OAKCRFST ASSOCIATES). Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 88 -125 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. Hearing no comments for or against the proposed variance, Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed and the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1177 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 88 -125, LOT 61, PLATINO LANE, OAKCRFST ESTATES. (OAKCRFSr ASSOCIATES) On motion by Camvnissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: affinissicanto Olsen, Moore, Flores, Boggess, Scott, Gerrish and NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 17th day of May 1988. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 88 -126, VARIANCE FROM HEIGHT LIMIT ORDINANCE, LOT 63, PLATINO LANE, OAKCRBSF ESTATES. (ED DORFMAN/OAKCRFST ASSOCIATES) Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 88 -126 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. Hearing no comments for or against the proposed variance, Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed and the following action was taken: 445 446 Arroyo Grande Planning Comrnssion, 5 -17-88 RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1178 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 88 -126, LOT 63, PLATINO LANE, OAKCREST ESTATES. (OAKCREST ASSOCIATES). On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Olsen, Flores, Boggess, Moore, Scott, Gerrish an NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17th day of May 1988. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1179 RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1180 Chairman Soto PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 88 -127, VARIANCE FROM HEIGHT LIMIT ORDINANCE, LOT 64, LA CRFSTA DRIVE; OAKCREST ESTATES (ED DORFMAN /OAKCRESST ASSOCIATES). Upon being assured by the Planning Cctnmission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 88 -127 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. Hearing no comments for or against the proposed Variance, Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed, and the following action was taken: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 88 -127, LOT 64, LA CRESFA .DRIVE, OAKCREST ESTATES. (OAKCREST ASSOCIATES) On motion by Commissioner Boggess, seconded by.Commissioner Gerrish, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Olsen, Flores, Boggess, Moore, Scott, Gerrish and Chairman Soto NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17th day of May 1988. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 88 -128, VARIANCE FROM HEIGHT LIMIT ORDINANCE, LOT 65, LA CRESTA DRIVE, ESTATES (OAKCREST ASSOCIATES). Upon being assured by =the Planning Caren fission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 88 -128 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. Hearing no comments for or against the proposed variance, Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed, and the following action was taken: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 88 -128, LOT 65, LA CRESTA DRIVE, OAKCREST ESTATES. (OAKCREST ASSOCIATES) On motion by Coamrissioner Gerrish, seconded by Carmissioner Boggess, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Carrvnissioners Olsen, Flores, Boggess, Moore, Scott, Gerrish and Chairman Soto NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17th day of May 1988. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 88 -129, VARIANCE FROM HEIGHT LIMIT ORDINANCE, LOT 66, LA CRFSTA DRIVE, OAKCREST ESTATES. (OAKCREST ASSOCIATES). Upon being assured by the Planning Coimrission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 88 -129 had been duly 'published and property owners, Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. Hearing no comments for or against the proposed variance, Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed, and the following action was taken: Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 5 -17 -88 RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1181 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 88 -129, LOT 66, OAKCRIWT ESTATES. (OAKCRESr ASSOCIATES). On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Cormrmissioner Boggess, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Olsen, Flores, Boggess, Moore, Scott, Gerrish and Chairman Soto NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17th day of May 1988. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 88 -130, VARIANCE FROM HEIGHT LIMIT ORDINANCE, LOT 67, LA CRESSTA DRIVE, OAKCRESF ESTATES (OAKCREST ASSOCIATES). Upon being assured by the Planning Commission . Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 88 -130 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. Hearing no comments for or against the proposed variance, Chairman.Soto declared the hearing closed, and the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1182 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE CASE NO. 88 -130, LOT 67, LA CRESSTA DRIVE, OAKCREST ESTATES. (OAKCRFST ASSOCIATES) On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Olsen, Moore, Flores, Boggess, Scott, Gerrish and Chairman Soto NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17th day of May 1988. With regard to Mr. Dorfman's request for a waiver of reduction of filing fees for the eight (8) variances, on motion by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and unanimously carried, recommending to the City Council that only one (1) variance processing fee be charged, and that Oakcrest Associates be reimbursed for the other seven (7) variance application fees. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CASE NO. 88-205, ZONE CHANGE FROM HIGHWAY SERVICE (C -3) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C -2), 100 TRAFFIC WAY. (MID -COAST LAND COMPANY/MIDLAND PACIFIC ARCHTTECIURAL GROUP). Current Planner Lanning advised that the applicants are proposing to change the zoning designation on the property from Highway Service, C -3 to General Commercial and develop it with a 7,875 square -foot office /retail project. In order to develop the site, the applicants must receive approval of the zone change and architectural review. A lot line adjustment will also be required and will be heard by the Planning Commission at a later date. He stated that the items to be considered by the Planning Cormnission this evening are the zone change and the architectural review. Mr. Lanning pointed out that the Planning Commission should recognize that when considering zone changes, it is important to focus on whether the proposed zoning designation for the property in question makes sense from a land use standpoint, and to avoid becoming engrossed by the details of a particular development proposal for a site. The reason for this is that once the zoning has been changed on a site, it is possible that a proposed project may not proceed, and a future project may be proposed on the site with the new zoning designation. Therefore, the key issue for the purpose of this discussion is whether the proposed zoning is the best use of the land and in the best interests of the City. He stated that the proposed rezoning will eliminate an inconsistency between the existing General Plan and zoning designations on the property, and will provide for a consolidated block of property for development at a "gateway" area of town. The zone change will also allow for development of the site with uses that are less intensive and more aesthetically pleasing than those typically found in the Highway Service zone. The Highway Service zone permits, by right, a number of uses such as auto repair, towing services, car 4 448 Arroyo Grande PIarming Commission, 5 -17 -88 _ - . Page 7 washes, etcetera, which tend to be more intensive in nature, are less aesthetically pleasing and have more potential environmental impacts than other uses permitted in the General Commercial zone. The uses in the General Commercial zone also tend to be uses that will relate better to the creek environment and are better suited to take advantage of the pleasant surroundings offered by the creek area." He stated that the alternative of keeping the current zoning on the site does not seem to be as desirable as the current proposal. With regard to traffic circulation and parking layout, Mr. Lanning advised that access to the site will be by means of a one -way entrance on Grand Avenue with an exit -only driveway onto Traffic Way. This establishes a one -way traffic flow pattern for the site, wtfh "right -turn in -only" and "right -turn exit - only." ,.The Public Works Department is recommending that the driveway approaches be narrowed to fifteen feet (15') in width in order to promote the one -way traffic flow and discourage motorists from entering the wrong way. Parking will be located in an area at the west end of the project and off of the access route from Grand Avenue to Traffic Way. The amount of compact parking proposed is slightly over the thirty percent (30%) currently allowed by code. Two of the proposed compact stalls need to be converted to standard size stalls. A condition to this effect has been placed on the project. Mr. Lamming pointed out that Building 1 will be set back approximately twenty (20) to sixty - five (65) feet from the front property line along Traffic Way, and Building 2 will be set back approximately 150' to 170' from the property line along Grand Avenue. Due to the large right -of -way area along Traffic Way, the actual setback from the street will be approximately fifty (50) to one hundred (100) feet. The buildings. are _separated by approximately fifteen feet (15') and all the proposed setbacks meet or exceed the requirements for the C -3 and the C -2 zones. In conclusion, Mr. Lanning stated that the proposal has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee and is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the proposed zone change and architectural review, and that a Negative Declaration be adopted subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report, dated May 17, 1988. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Rezoning Case No. 88 -205 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. Brian Starr, representative for the applicant, stated they concur with the staff report, and it is their feeling that the zone being requested will be more appropriate for that particular site, and that the uses prescribed in the C -2 zone would be more suitable than those listed for the C -3 zone. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed rezoning, Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed. Chairman Soto stated his feeling that CBD zoning would be more appropriate for this area and will give the Downtown Merchants a chance to get involved. Commissioner Gerrish stated he favors the zone change to C -2 because the uses are more appropriate. He commented that the CBD zoning is less restrictive and there are more permitted uses. Mr. Lanning pointed out that under the standards in the CBD that the current project would have to be redesigned because of the setbacks. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1183 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF ZONE CHANGE, CASE NO. 88 -205, AT 100 TRAFFIC WAY, APPLIED FOR BY MID -COAST LAND COMPANY. On motion by Cammissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Olsen, Moore, Flores, Boggess, Scott and Gerrish NOES: Chairman Soto ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 17th day of May 1988. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE 88 -407, 100 TRAFFIC WAY, DEVELOPMENT OF AN OFFICE/RETAIL PROJECT. (MID-COAST LAND COMPANY). Arroyo Grande Planning Coon, 5 -17 -88 Page 8 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning won, 5 -17 -88 Page 8 With regard to the architecture, Mr. Lanning noted that the proposed design of the buildings is very similar in nature to the existing Vilinge Creek project located to the south. Maximum building height will be twenty -six feet (269, which is below the thirty -foot height limit for both the C -2 and C -3 zones. Visual interest is created by variation in wall planes and roof lines, use of planter boxes and awning details, and through window treatments. The roof material will be metal painted green to match . the existing project; walls will be wood siding painted beige to match the existing Village Creek Plaza. Windows will be - clear glazing set in aluminum frames. Mr. Lanning reviewed the proposed landscape treatment for the project. He stated that the large right -of -way area along Branch Street and Traffic Way will be landscaped and maintained by the applicant, along with the required landscape strip on their property. Approximately thirty -one percent (31 %) of the site will be landscaped or covered by walkways.. Approximately 4,700 square feet of parking lot landscape have been provided, which is well above the amount required by code. The applicants will be dedicating an easement along the creek for access and open space. The proposed creek treatment will be similar to that provided along the existing Village Creek Plaza project. He noted that the applicants are proposing to clear the creek of trash and debris, remove non - native plants, such as the large grouping of reeds, and to remove any dead plant materials. He stated the vegetation that is removed will be replaced with native plant materials. Brian Starr, representing the applicants, stated they have been working closely with staff and that they agree with all of the conditions listed. He noted that the property line is set back quite a ways from the street, creating a large landscape buffer. He also noted that the architectural theme is an extension of Villnge Creek Plaza I. Corimissioner Gerrish stated that this is a separate project from Village Creek Plaza I; there is a creek and a number of large trees separating the two developments, and, in his opinion, the project should be similar to the one approved for Guidetti Square on the other corner. Caninissioners Boggess and Flores stated they agree with Commissioner Gerrish and that the architecture should be more in line with the Village architectural theme. After further discussion, on motion by Canmissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and unanimously carried, tentative approval was granted on the site plan and the parking layout, and the architectural review was continued to the meeting of June 7, 1988 to allow the applicant time to make sane changes in the architectural style of the proposed project. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Canmission, the meeting was adjourned by chairman Soto at 9:30 P.M. Chairman 449