Loading...
PC Minutes 1988-05-03438 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 3, 1988 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chairman Soto presiding. Present are Commissioners Scott, Moore, Gerrish, Olsen and Boggess. Commissioner Flores is absent. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck, Long Range Planner Bierdzinski and Current Planner Lanning are also in attendancev IVA (.:.,€1 'Fri , .in t2I ,171L2 B :01 #limas Drfd Vice Chairman Soto introduced Planning Commissioner Charles Scott, stating that Mr. Scott has been appointed to replace Bob Carr on'the CammisMon.noVice:Chaimian Soto pointed )(Art that hi term would expire at the end of June ane recommended that elections for Chairman be held to finish Mr. Carr's term to the end of June 1988. Commissioner Olsen nominated John Soto as Chairman. Motion seconded by Commissioner Gerrish. On motion by Con nissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and carried, nominations were closed and unanimous ballot was cast electing John Soto as Chairman of the Planning Commission. Chairman Soto opened nominations for Vice Chairman. Conmissioner Boggess nominated Bill Gerrish for Vice Chairman. Motion seconded by Commissioner Olsen. Chairman Soto moved that nominations be closed and the records show that a unanimous vote was cast for Bill Gerrish for Vice Chairman. Motion seconded by Commissioner Olsen and unanimously carried. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 88 -410, EXTERIOR REMODELING OF EXISTING BUILDING, 1230 GRAND AVENUE. (RICHARD JOHNSONitENTRAL COAST NATIONAL BANK). Current Planner Lanning advised that the applicant is proposing to occupy approximately 4,128 square feet of the existing building and to remodel the exterior. The budding is currently occupied by Pacific Pride and Arroyo Grande Applicance. He stated the applicant wil be occupying the portion of the building now occupied by Pacific Pride and remodeling the existing interior space. There wil be no expansion of the building's square footage. The proposed elevations could be characterized as Santa Barbara Mission style with the primary architectural features consisting of a clock tower and an arcade along the Grand Avenue and driveway elevations. Entryways are accented with roof projections and archways. Textured paving also provides emphasis to the main entrance. The roof line is broken up by the tower element, variations in roof elements and false chimneys. The wall plane is given variation and visual interest through use of the arcade columns, pilasters, planter boxes and a variety of window treatments. The proposed colors and materials consist of spanish tile roofing, oatmeal colored stucco, dark bronze anodized aluminum windows, and stained wood elements. A color and materials board was reviewed by the Commission. It was noted that inspection of the site revealed that a trash enclosure is lacking and the landscape is in need of upgrading due to the existence of a number of weeds. Correction of these items should be included as conditions of approval. Mr. Lamming advised that the Staff Advisory Committee had reviewed the proposed remodeling and recommends that the Planning Commission approve the architectural revisions, with the following conditions: 1. A trash enclosure shall be provided. 2. Landscaped areas shall be upgraded and cleaned of weeds and debris prior to occupancy. Richard Johnson, Architect for the project representing the applicants, briefly discussed the proposed remodeling. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No. 88 -410 was approved subject to the recommended conditions. PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHMENT OF A VIEWSHED REVIEW PERMIT PROCESS. (CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE). Planning Director Liberto- Blanck reviewed that on February 16,1988, the Planning Commission held a study session regarding a potential viewshed ordinance and height limitations. At this study session, Staff presented two possible options for developing a viewshed protection ordinance; one which set a height limit and allows for variances, and another which set up an overlay zone for review of viewshed impacts. She stated that, after same discussion, the Planning Commission gave Staff some directives for preparing the viewshed ordinance, including: No change to any existing height restrictions in D override zones; Review process for all second -story additions in the City; R -1 and R -2 Zones Main buildings: Two stories not to exceed thirty feet (30') Accessory buildings :° Fourteen feet (14') Arroyo Grande Planning Coon, 5/3/88 Review process for any construction in the D-override zones; and Purpose of ordinance is to preserve viewsheds, not to review color and materials of building, density, scale and/or privacy. Long Range Planner Bierdzinski reviewed the proposed amendment. She advised that the attached ordinance establishes a viewshed review overlay zone and permit process for single- family residential properties not subject to architectural review. The intent of establishing this new permit process is tp preserve the existing scope and character of established single- family neighborhoods and to protect views in such neighborhoods. The overlay zone would cover all property zoned R -1, R -2 and R -1 -D. In the R -1 and R -2 zones, the only development subject to a Viewshed Review Perrnit would be construction of second -story additions. In the R -1 -D zones, any new construction or additions (whether second -story or lateral) would be subject to the Viewshed Review process. She stated that the Ordinance does not establish new height limits but, rather, lets the Planning Commission determine if the height proposed is suitable and consistent with the neighborhood. The Planning Cession will be assisted in its deliberation by public testimony, since the hearing will be noticed to surrounding property owners, and a notice will appear in the newspaper. In order to approve a permit, the Planning Commission has to make the following findings: 1. The proposed structure is consistent with the intent of the ordinance; 2. The proposed structure is consistent with the established scale and character of the neighborhood, and will not unreasonably or unnecessarily affect views of surrounding properties; and 3. The proposed structure will not unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with the scenic view from any other property, judged in light of permitting reasonable use and development of the property on which the proposed structure or expansion is to occur. She noted that a specific height restriction was not incorporated into this Ordinance because of the difficulty in determining an appropriate building height that could apply to property with different amounts and direction of slope. Therefore, it is proposed that the underlying height limitation established by the zone (R -1, R -2 or R -1 -D) set the maximum allowable height. The Viewshed Review Ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to impose as a condition of approval a building height that is less than the maximum allowed in order to make the required findings listed above. Ms. Bierdzinski reviewed the maximum allowable height currently in effect in the City as follows: Height is defined as the vertical distance from the average level of the highest and lowest point of that portion of the lot covered by the building to the topmost point of the roof. R -1 -D Zones Hi lcrest Drive (Ordinance 360 GS): The maximum allowable height shall be as follows: Main buildings - Two stories not to exceed thirty feet (30'), but in no case shall any main building be higher than fifteen feet (15') above the highest corner of the owner's lot. Ruth Ann Way (Ordinance 138 GS): All lots shall be limited to a building height of eighteen feet (18') from established curb height, excepting chimneys, vents, and associated appurtenances, except for Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Tract. 554, Lots 1 and 2 of Parcel Map AG 73- 383, and Lot 1 of Parcel Map AG 74 -293, which shall be limited to a building height of twenty -two feet (22') from established curb height, excepting chimneys, vents and associated appurtenances. Montego Street (Ordinance 86 CGS.): Height limit control of eleven feet (11') from top of curb to highest peak of the house, excluding any chimneys and other appurtenances. It was noted that the fee proposed for processing a Viewshed Review Permit is One Hundred Dollars ($100.00). This fee includes cost of staff review time, mailing notices, and newspaper advertisement. Long Range Planner Bierdzinsld advised that the proposed ordinance was reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and an initial study was prepared. It was determined that the Ordinance would result in no significant effects on the environment and, therefore, a Negative Declaration was drafted. Planning Director Liberto- Blanck advised that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution, which recommends to the City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration and adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Municipal Code to add Article 41, which establishes a Viewshed Review Overlay Zone and Permit Process for residential properties not subject to architectural review. 439 440 Arroyo Grande Planning Oomm , 5/3/88 Page 3 Upon being assured by the Planning Ccimnission Clerk that public hearing for the proposed amendment had been duly published, Chairman Soto declared the hearing open. Marie Cattoir, 195 Orchid Lane, asked if this viewshed ordinance would include RA -B3 zoning that has been granted Optional Design Standards? Long Range Planner Bierdzinska replied that it only pertains to R -1, R -2 and R -1 -D zones. Mrs. Cattoir stated, in her opinion, it should be included. Jim Wilcox, 155 Whitecap, Pisno Beach, stated his feelings that the proposed amendment is going in the right direction, and urged the Canrnission to also consider trees, fences and hedges because, in sane cases, these can also damage a person's view of the hills or the ocean. • Upon hearing no further comments from the audience, Chairman Soto declared the hearing closed. Commissione Gerrish stated he would like to see the other single family residential zones, and RA -B2- D and RA -B3 zones included in the ordinance. He stated he does have an objection to having new housing tracts covered by this ordinance, but he feels that the existing residential zones that are already built should be covered. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1172 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) TO ADD ARTICLE 41, ESTABLISHING A VIEWSHED REVIEW OVERLAY ZONE AND PERMIT PROCESS FOR R1 IDEN'TIAL PROPERTIES NOT SUBJECT TO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW. On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Conanissioners Moore, Gerrish, Olsen, Boggess and Chairman Soto NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Scott ABSENT: Commissioner Flores the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 3rd day of May 1988. PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT/DISCUSSION Interpretation of the Sign Ordinance - Current Planner Lanning stated that there has been a request for a monument sign using neon tube type of lighting for the sign face. Staff advised the applicant that the proposed sign was in conflict with the code, which prohibits neon tubing. Staff is bringing this matter to the Canmission for an interpretation as to whether this type of sign is acceptable or too similar to the neon to be considered in conformance with the Sign Ordinance. He stated that the applicant is present and has a demonstration of the materials. Hadley Davis, Santa Maria Neon and Electric Signs, stated the project is for Don McHaney Realtor and Colwell Banker, building ten twin homes on Brisco Road. Mr. Davis demonstrated the neon tube type of lighting being requested. He stated it is not neon, but has the same effect. He explained that there would be no light emitted from the tubing. Carmmissioner Gerrish stated he doesn't feel that this type of lighted sign belongs in a residential area on Brisco Road. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and carried with one "no" vote, the Commission found that the proposed sign is too similar to neon lighting to be acceptable under the present Sign Ordinance. Conceptual Architectural Review - Brookside Marketplace (Scolari/Loa nis) - Current Planner Lanning advised that the applicants have requested an opportunity to address the Commission in regard to their conceptual architectural theme for the proposed shopping center. He stated they are seeking Commission input regarding their proposal prior to cammencing with full working drawings. Randy Poltl, representing Scolari and Loomis, stated they are preparing to submit plans for Architectural Review of the project. They expect to be on the Commission's agenda for architectural review in June. He presented some sketches and requested the Cam»ssion's input and feelings as to whether or not they are headed in the right direction. 1 1 Arroyo Grande Plannir Commission, 5/3/88 • Page 4 COMMISSIONER FLORES ENTERED THE MEETING DURING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION. The Commissioners commented on the sketches, and thanked the representatives for their presentation. Long Range Planning Report - Planning Director Liberto- Blanck and Chairman Soto briefly reviewed the Long Range Planning Report. The report was discussed at some length among the Commissioners. Planning Director Llberto- Blanck advised that the Commission's comments would be forwarded to the Long Range Planning Ad Hoc Committee. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Can fission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 9:50 P.M. 441