Loading...
PC Minutes 1986-06-03270 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION June 3, 1986 :-L The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Gerrish presiding. Present are Commissioners Soto, Olsen, Moore, Carr and Flores. Commissioner Boggess is absent. Planning Director Eisner is also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL Chairman Gerrish advised that approval of the Planning Commission minutes of May 6, 1986 would be carried over to the next meeting. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 86 -361, REMODEL EXISTING STRUCTURE, 1234 GRAND AVENUE. (PACIFIC PRIDE/MIDLAND PACIFIC). Planning Director Eisner advised the request is for architectural approval for remodeling of an existing building at 1234 Grand Avenue. He explained that the applicant is proposing to close off the existing door fronting on Grand Avenue and shift access to the parking lot area, which lies between Great Western Savings and the existing structure. He stated they are also proposing to extend the existing planter on Grand Avenue with additional landscaping materials, and add a canopy and a sign 8'6" x 3'2". He pointed out that the application was reviewed by the Staff Advisory Board and is recommended for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall record cross access easements for common driveway prior to granting of building permit. 2. The applicant shall verify the -site plan dimensions and required parking. Re- striping may be required for compliance. In answer to Commissioner Carr's question regarding required parking, Planning Director Eisner advised if it turns out that they need additional parking, it would have to be provided before issuance of a building permit. After a brief discussion, Architectural Review Case No. 86 -361 was approved subject to the two conditions recommended by the Staff Advisory Committee, on motion by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 86 -423, 1071 FARROLL AVENUE IN THE "R -1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. (WILLIAM W. MARVOS). Planning Director Eisner advised this is a continued public hearing. This matter appeared on the Commission's agenda with a Variance request to the lot dimension requirements, and at that time the Variance was granted and the Commission directed staff to go back and prepare the necessary conditions prior to the approval of the lot split itself. He advised the matter was reviewed by the Staff Advisory Cormnttee, and the recommended 4 conditions listed in the staff report are to be a part of the recordation of the final map. Commissioner Carr inquired about the requirement for Lot A to be drained to Farroll Avenue. He stated that the lot is quite low and to properly drain it, it is going to have to be filled; then the front lot will be 4 or 5 feet higher than the lot with the existing house on it. Mr. Eisner advised that the drainage requirement was from the Public Works Department, and it is his understanding that they are trying to get all of the drainage to the Farroll Avenue drainage basin. With regard to Condition No. 3, Commissioner Carr asked what kind of mechanism would be used to implement this requirement. Mr. Eisner stated it is a simple acknowledgement that the property owner would not, at some time in the . future, protest to participation of street ,development. He noted that the city attorney has approved the condition as recommended. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 86 -423 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Mr. William Marvos, applicant, spoke in favor of the lot split being granted. He stated he has no problem with the recommended conditions. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed lot split, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Flores spoke regarding the . requirements on the map, noting that the subdivider and the real estate agent did not abide by those requirements. Chairman Gerrish explained that there was supposed to be a statement recorded on the map stating that the property was not to be further split. 1 1 Arroyo Grande Plannhg Ocmaission, 6 -3-86 ; Page 2 After further discussion, a motion was made by Cbmnissioner Carr, seconded by Cbnrnissioner Flores, to approve Lot Split Case No. 86 -423 with the conditions as recommended. Motion lost due to a split vote. Planning Director Eisner advised that a split vote indicates no action by the Planning Commission and, in this case, constitutes a denial. He noted that in order for Mr. Marvos to pursue the matter, it must be appealed to the City - Council within 10 days. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 86 -104, FREE STANDING SIGN, 501 GRAND AVENUE IN THE "C-3" HIGHWAY C M1VIERCIAL DISTRICT. (C ROCxER'S LOCKERS/CN SIGNS & GRAPHICS). Planning Director Eisner advised the request is for a Variance to permit a free standing pole mounted sign 15 ft. in height. The application has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee and is recommended for denial. The Committee felt that a sign of this height is inappropriate in terms of the overall design scheme for Grand Avenue in this area, and staff felt it would be more appropriate for a monument of pedestal sign to be located adjacent to the driveway access and 3 feet back from the property line at the street, with the sign being the same size as submitted. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 86 -104 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing open. Mr. Guy Moerman, CN Signs & Graphics, representing the owner, spoke in favor of the Variance. Mr. Moerman showed pictures of the site with cars parked along the curb. He stated they need the exception for the height in order to get the sign up to be visable over the cars that are parked there. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed Variance, Chairman Gerrish declared the hearing closed. Chairman Gerrish commented he could sympathize with C rocker's Lockers because of their location being in a "hole ", however, they knew that when they bought the property. Commissioner Carr inquired if the Variance is denied, could a recommendation be made for a monument sign of the same size. Planning Director Eisner advised that a monument sign could be approved under architectural review. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 86 -1088 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING VARIANCE CASE NO. 86 -104, APPLIED FOR BY CROC KER'S LOCKERS. On motion by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Connissioners Soto, Olsen, Moore, Flores and Chairman Gerrish NOES: Commissioner Carr ABSENT: commissioner Boggess the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 3rd day of June 1986. On motion by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and carried, architectural approval was granted for a monument sign with an overall height not to exceed 8 ft. Planning Director Eisner advised the applicant has the option to appeal denial of the Variance to the City Council within 10 days. ARCHITEC;IUHAL REVIEW CASE NO. 86 -364, SIZZLER RESTAURANT, 1160 W. BRANCH STREET IN THE "P-D" PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. (SIZZLER RESTAURANT/SC HNEIDER ARC IITECi'S). Planning Director Eisner advised that some issues were raised as a part of the Staff Advisory review of this project and, therefore, with the consent of the applicant, staff is asking that the Commission mnission review the application, allow the applicant to make comnents, permit staff to point out the issues that are in the process of being resolved and then continue the matter to the next meeting. 271 272 Arroyo Grande Planning Qmmission, 6 -3-86 Page 3 Mr. Eisner reviewed the request for architectural review, noting that a use permit was previously approved for a Sizzler Restaurant to be located to the west of the Festival Cinemas. The restaurant footprint was approved as a part of the application for four additional theaters, and included a parking provision based on the footprint and an assumption of 3500 sq. ft. of public floor area. The overall building size is 5,633 sq. ft. with an area of public assembly of 3,466 sq. ft. Under current City standards, the project as previously approved included 37 parking spaces - 2 more than the minimum required. The overall project area including the theaters requires 575 spaces; a total of .598 - spaces are provided. Mr. Eisner reviewed colors and materials for the proposed restaurant, noting that the architectural style of the proposed Sizzler would be described as contemporary, and is consistent with the colors and materials associated with the theater complex. The colors are generally earth tones with a spanish tile roof. The: awning, which has become identified with the Sizzler Restaurant operations, is a kelly green which is carried throughout the interior of the restaurant through carpeting and tile work. Mr. Eisner advised that the project has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee and the following observations were made: 1. The grading to create the building site created an approximately 5 ft. elevation over natural grade at the northwest corner of . the project. This grade plus the approximate 6 ft. wall on the north side of the building will create a visual barrier for the commercial property owners on the north (Rancho Grande). 2. The trash enclosure which is located on the northwest corner of the project is in a position to make it difficult to get to and creates -a negative visual impact on the surrounding properties. He further stated that the application for architectural - review includes a monument sign. The sign itself is 5'8" by 13'10" and is mounted on a wood structure with an overall height of approximately 11 ft. at the highest point and 8 ft. at the low point, with an average height of approximately 7 ft. Mr. Cliff Schneider, Schneider Architects, representing the applicant, pointed out that the grading of the site without a permit was not done by the applicant; it was done by the owner of the property. With regard to the situation involving the pad and the elevation, he stated he believes the finish grade is 178 ft. and staff is recommending 176 ft. He further stated that, aesthetically, the building is much more pleasing at that elevation, and he doesn't believe there is that great of an impact, from the Rancho Grande site to the north. He commented they would be willing to dispense with the idea of an additional 6 ft. wall on there. Mr. Eisner stated that the height of the pad represents a substantial face to the property and, if the Commission chooses not to require the applicant to lower the site, staff would want the 6 ft. wall eliminated; also, the trash area would be satisfactory as it is now shown. Mr. Eisner also commented that the rear elevation as shown needed something to be done to break it up because it is a rather broad expanse of plaster. Chairman Gerrish suggested planting some trees back there to break up that appearance. After further discussion, Architectural Review Case No. 86 -364 was approved on motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously carried, with the conditions that the proposed 6 ft. wall on the eastern portion of the property be- eliminated, and that landscaping be added to the rear elevation. ARCHFIECI1JRAL REVIEW CASE NO. 86 -367, SALFS ROOM ADDITION, 330 TRAFFIC WAY, IN THE, "0"3" HIGHWAY SERVICE DISTRICT. (VICK PACE FORD). Planning Director Eisner advised the request is for an addition of - a manager's office to an existing automobile sales facility located on Traffic Way north of Fair Oaks Avenue. He stated that the architectural style, materials and colors will be consistent with the existing facility. The total size of the addition is 192 square feet. The project has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee and there are two conditions recommended by the Committee should the Commission approve the request. Danny Pace, applicant, stated that the recommended dedication on Fair Oaks Avenue represents about 10 or 15 places where they place automobiles for display; it would virtually put the sidewalk at the showroom window, and about 35 .display spaces would be taken out altogether. He asked for relief of the two recommended conditions listed in the staff report dated June 3, 1986. There was considerable discussion regarding the condition for dedication and improvements as opposed to sales tax dollars to the City. Commissioner Soto moved to approve Arroyo Grande Plannkg Qomnission, 6 -3-86 Page 4 the request for additional office area deleting the two recommended conditions. Motion seconded by Commissioner Flores and was lost by a split vote. Commissioner Moore moved to approved the request with the inclusion of the two recommended conditions. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Carr and was lost by a split vote. Chairman Gerrish suggested approving the improvement and making a recommendation to the Qty Council to evaluate that area and make a determination as to what they are going to do there. Commissioner Soto commented that we seem to go out of our way to get new businesses in the City, and then we make these demands on the established ones. After further discussion, on motion by Chairman Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Carr, and carried by a 4 to 2 vote, Architectural Review Case No. 86 -367 was approved deleting the two recommended conditions, with a recommendation to the City Council that they evaluate that particular corner to determine what they are going to do there. Planning Director Eisner advised that this matter is final with the Planning Commission unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 86 -366, "PACIFIC POINTE ", SO. ELM STREET (TRACT NO. 1395 - STRAWBERRY PATCH). Planning Director Eisner advised this project was approved as a design option tract map and, at the time of the approval, there was a stipulation that the final design would have to come back to both the Planning Commission and City Council for approval. He noted that as a part of the Staff Advisory review there were a couple of things that were brought up by the Public Works Department that still need to be resolved. At the time of the original subdivision approval, less than minimum standards were approved for a street section as part of the Optional Design package, and the applicant was also permitted to place the sidewalk on the "island lots" in the area normally used for front yard setback. In their review, the Public Works Department finds that this design, with the shortfall in the driveway area, will permit cars to be parked in the driveway apron across the sidewalk. The alternative would be to move the house farther back on the lot, thus allowing the 20 ft. apron to be measured to the back of sidewalk. In so doing, however, the rear yard would be reduced from the 10 ft. required to 4.5 ft. Public Works Department is asking that these designs be modified. The options available are 1) allow the driveways to be used with vehicles potentially over the sidewalk as submitted, with the understanding it is a private sidewalk and was approved as such; or 2) advise the applicant to redesign the building on the "island lots" to accomplish a 20 ft. clear apron. Commissioner Soto inquired as to why this is a problem at the time of architectural review and not at the project review? Mr. Eisner commented that the applicants have a 57 unit project approved now, and the 4 ft. private sidewalk was a trade off for the lower density project of 42 units. Marshall Ochylski, representing the applicants, described the design of the proposed project, stating it will be similar to the project on Bakeman Lane. After discussion, Architectural Review Case No. 86 -366 was approved on motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Carr, and carried by a 4 to 2 vote, with the conditions that perimeter fencing be incorporated into the plan on the north side of the project, and that fencing (going from east to west) be provided between the homes in the "island" area. COMMUNICATIONS. Planning Director Eisner reviewed that approximately 4 weeks ago the Commission approved a 60 day temporary permit for Perry Fife to operate out of a Gazebo at Leisure Mart for the purpose of selling fruits and vegetables. They are now asking for permission to use a truck in the same fashion as they do at the Farmers' Market. Staff's recommmendation is for denial of the request to avoid setting a precedent. After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, and unanimously carried, the request was denied. Planning Director Eisner advised he would be on vacation from July 7th thru July 18th, and asked the Commission to consider cancelling the July 15th Planning Commission meeting. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that the second meeting in July would be cancelled. DISCUSSION - GREENBELT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION Chairman Gerrish continued the discussion of this item to the next regular meeting of June 17, 1986. 273 274 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 6-3-86 ADJOURNMENT 'there being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 9:50 P.M. Secretary