Loading...
PC Minutes 1998-10-06ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin presiding. Present were Commissioners Haney, Parker, Greene and Keen. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Jim Hamilton and Associate Planner Bruce Buckingham. MINUTE APPROVAL Commissioner Parker requested that the minutes of August 4, 1998 be amended as follows: 1. In her comments concerning the "PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING TO SOLICIT COMMENTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE AND DEVELOP APPROXIMATELY 27 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF JAMES • WAY AND LA CANADA IN THE RANCHO GRANDE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT 1998" please include the following: She had asked staff if there was permission to use the road on the Comer of James Way and La Canada. Staff had answered that they did not have permission to use the road except to water it down for dust. 2. On page eight of the minutes, very bottom, last paragraph, "moderate income rate" should be changed to "moderate selling rate ". Commissioner Haney moved to approve the August 4, 1998 Planning Commission minutes as modified by Commissioner Parker, and approve the August 18, 1998 minutes as written. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Colleen Martin, 855 Olive, stated that she was present to let the Commission know that the stumps in the Sizzler /Festival Cinemas parking lot are now growing back. They have 18- inch suckers growing from the stumps. The city needs to work with the center to remove the stumps because it is very painful for the citizens driving by to witness the poor little things trying to grow back. She still does not understand why the developer felt all of the trees had to be removed from that location. ITEM II. A. - PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 96 -118 (97- 124) AMENDMENT AND VARIANCE 98 -210, SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE FIVE CITIES CENTER; APPLICANT: AGRA, LLC /FIVE CITIES CENTER; LOCATION: WEST BRANCH STREET AND RANCHO PARKWAY Community Development Director Jim Hamilton informed the Commission that he would be taking Helen Elder's place on this project for the evening because she was on vacation. He would be there to assist the Commissioners in moving the project forward. He asked the Commissioners to note the Memorandum from him entitled "Five Cities Sign Program - Program Standards ". This memo is in response to the Commissioner's request for clarification on the sign standards and review process, which could be applied in reviewing future applications. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 October 6, 1998 At the request of the Planning Commission, Tim Carmel, the City Attorney was present to answer questions pertaining to his September 28, 1998 Memorandum included in the Staff Report • This Memorandum was written in response to questions posed in a Memorandum from Jim Hamilton, dated September 25, 1998. At the request of the Commission, Mr. Hamilton asked Mr. Carmel for his opinions on the following two issues: 1. Is there an approved sign program for the Five Cities Center? 2. If so, what does the approval consist of? Mr. Carmel stated that the Commission had requested an opinion from him regarding the status of the Planned Sign Program 98 -118. He reminded the Commission that his Memo was just that, his opinion. He further reminded the Commission that they are the advisory body charged by law with making recommendations to the City Council on planning matters. The Commission is entitled to their own collective opinion amongst the five commissioners. He stated that his opinion was not intended to be a roadblock or a constraint on whatever action the Commission felt was appropriate based on its analysis of the record in this matter. The Commission should not regard his opinion as any inhibition on whatever it is the Commission thinks happened with respect to the Planned Sign Program at the Five Cities Center. Mr. Carmel made it clear to the Commission that his role is not to make a decision for the Commission, but when asked for his opinion, he will give it. Commissioner Greene asked Mr. Carmel whom he consulted with before writing his memo and did he look at the minutes from previous meetings? Mr. Carmel answered that he had consulted with staff. He reminded the Commission that he reviews all Staff Reports before they are published as part of the Agenda Packet. He further stated that he had consulted with staff throughout this process. So, as the Commission can clearly see, early on in the process he had spoken with Leslie Buford, then Helen Elder and Jim Hamilton. But it is predominately his review of the materials that were in the record, consisting primarily of the council resolution and some of the supporting materials, that he based his current opinion on. Commissioner Greene asked if he had reviewed the minutes of the Planning Commission Meetings of April, May and June of 1996. Mr. Carmel stated that he had reviewed those minutes. He did explain that he looked primarily to the resolution and the documents in the agenda packet that was before the Council when he was reviewing this item. He further explained that he understood that all materials may have had an impact on what the Council ultimately determined but as the Commission knows, if this matter ever went to court, the administrative record of that meeting would be determinative. The minutes of the Planning Commission meetings would not be a part of the administrative record unless it was made a part of the Council packet, which in this case it was not. Thus, when he reviewed this matter, most of his determinations arose from the Council action and the supporting materials that were a part of that agenda packet. Mr. Greene asked if he had found anything in the Council Minutes, the Resolutions, or in discussion with any of the Council People of that time, regarding how they resolved 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 October 6, 1998 the ambiguities between the conditions of approval and some of the statements in the resolutions. Mr. Carmel stated that he had not. Commissioner Haney asked Mr. Carmel who normally had the authority, under the present Development Code, for the approval of a Planned Sign Program? Mr. Carmel stated that the Planning Commission normally had the authority for approval, with the caveat that if it is within a Planned Development, the Commission has recommendation authority only and the Council has the ultimate authority over that approval. Mr. Haney asked if, even within that Planned Sign Program, the Commission still had responsibilities for review and approval? Mr. Carmel answered that the Commission had recommendation authority. Mr. Haney wanted to review some language of the Planned Sign Ordinance with Mr. Carmel. He had prepared an overhead of "Ordinance 3157 ", with the relevant excerpts underlined as it related to the Planned Sign Program findings. What troubled Mr. Haney about Mr. Carmel's opinion was the somewhat conclusive nature about the approval of the signs themselves. As he had read the Ordinance itself he underlined the things that were bothersome to him, which were as follows: 1. "The proposed signs as conditioned...," not the approved signs as conditioned. 2. Additional review of signage by the staff and Architectural Advisory Committee is required prior to approval. 3. The first part of Condition 14 states that the signs are subject to the City's Sign Ordinance. There are items that are in conflict with what was done. For instance the Sign Ordinance limits the major entry signage to a single sign, limits it in terms of size, depth, etc. It also says that there is no tenant identification to be allowed on the entry sign. The Sign Ordinance also says there is only one major street sign per street frontage. Mr. Haney stated that as he looked at the proposed signs that were a part of the package of the conceptual sign approval, what he saw was a very preliminary sign program. Further, when he looked at Condition 132, it clearly stated that this was subject to Planning Commission approval. It does not say just materials and colors are subject to approval, it says major entry signs at West Branch St. are subject to Planning Commission approval. In looking at "Additional Attachment B" that was a part of the Resolution, he saw where it said, "The Conditions of Approval require Design Guidelines." As he looked at the sign program he felt it was conceptual in nature, and didn't even fulfill the conditions of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 October 6, 1998 the Development Code in terms of the required submissions, it was clear to him that this program was at a very preliminary stage. There wasn't anything submitted about building signs that is a requirement of the Planned Sign Program. So, this was a partial submission of a sign program and the question arises, does the Planning Commission have the authority to review that? Mr. Carmel explained first, in looking back on any action of this nature you can always pull out elements that have some degree of ambiguity. No one was saying that this was a perfect approval. Secondly, there may be some misunderstanding on the Commission's part that in Staffs perspective, this was only a partial approval. No one on Staff's level is arguing this point. In answering Mr. Haney's questions, Mr. Carmel made the following points: 1. First of all this is not an Ordinance but a Resolution and as such they have different legal meanings. 2. Mr. Haney's emphasis on the word "proposed ", may be a fundamental misunderstanding on his part. If you look at the Development Code, the findings that are required for a Planned Sign Program are couched in terms of a "Proposed" Sign Program. Mr. Carmel then went through the Development Code and read several examples of how the word "proposed" is always used in conjunction with required findings. The recitals and the findings are normally couched in future tense terms, because at that point in time, no one has taken any action to approve them. 3. With regards to the wording "the signage shall be subject to the Development Code 9 -13" the wording continues, "an exception shall be granted for this project to exceed the sign standards as follows: all Center Identifications Signs may be up to, but not exceed, twenty (20) feet in height and three hundred (300) square feet in area Mr. Carmel's interpretation of this is that this is a PD and they were establishing standards that were beyond those of the Development Code. 4. Mr. Carmel said that he took this to mean the Council had approved the size, height, and location of the signs, then what they have delegated to the Commission is everything else. Commissioner Parker said that in Mr. Carmel's letter it stated that the Planned Sign Program submitted by AGRA/LLC was generally consistent with the Arroyo Grange Municipal Code, Section 9- 03.150 C. She wondered what Mr. Carmel meant by "generally consistent ". Mr. Carmel answered that after looking at the submittal requirements in Section 9- 03.150 C and looking at what was submitted both he and Mr. Hamilton determined that the Planned Sign Program application was complete. Commissioner Keen - No questions 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 October 6, 1998 Chair Lubin - No questions Howard Mann, AGRA/LLC, addressed the Commission. He explained that with his presentation tonight AGRA/LLC had tried to take into account all of the comments that they had received from the previous Planning Commission meetings, and from Staff. He would start by addressing the signs on the buildings and then address the pylons and tenant identification signs second. He wanted the Commission to know that it was his intent for this evening to be conciliatory and try to get the sign program in a way that the Planning Commission could endorse it based on the input from the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Mann's proposals were as follows: 1. For the super -major stores with 35,000 square feet, the maximum amount of signage allowed is 225 square feet. a. For the Wall Mart building there are proposing 190 square feet, which would be under the maximum allowed amount. b. For the Lucky /Sav -On Store they are proposing 196 square feet. c. For the co- located product and service signs, they are in conformance with the exception of some of the product signs for Bank of America and Lucky. 2. For the major stores with between 24,000 and 34,999 square feet the same applies. a. Office Max - the original square footage was 294 square feet. Office Max has agreed to lower their signage to 167 square feet. b. Marshall's - the original square footage was 150. They have agreed to 108 square feet. The intent of his proposal is to minimize the square footage so it is still readable but not obtrusive, and fits within the guidelines as outlined by City. 3. For the minor stores, the proposed signage is within the square footage allowed in the current Development Code, with the exception of Hollywood Video. In summary, Mr. Mann felt that the sign program they were proposing, with regards to the building signs was within the Development Code criteria. They have designed the signs, or amended them, so that they fall within the categories in the table prepared by Mr. Hamilton. He also felt it was consistent with the direction he received two weeks ago to reduce the size and square footage of the signs. Mr. Mann introduced the representatives from Luckys and Hollywood Video to address their specific requests. Dorian Fortney, representing Lucky Stores, explained that in addition to the Lucky signs they were asking for two (2) service signs on the outside of the building to identify the two product services in the store, a Bank of America and the Save -On Drug Store. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 October 6, 1998 These would be directional signs for the customer's convenience so they would know which entrance to use. Commissioner Greene asked it there was a division in the store, or was it all one space. Mr. Courtney explained that although it was all one store, since it was so large it would be more convenient for the customers to know which entrance to use. He went on to explain to the Commission that the number of signs they were requesting was lower that the original request. Mr. Mann explained that with regard to Hollywood Video had been some discussion about having signs on three elevations. Mr. Stout explained to the Hollywood Video Corporation that it was his recommendation that they compromise with the Commission. Although Hollywood Video wanted neon signs, Mr. Stout recommended against it. Mr. Stout also took time to take pictures of the different elevations. He wanted the Commission to see that there was a fifteen (15) to thirty (30) foot grade differential and that is why they felt it was essential to have the three (3) signs. Dennis Stout, representing Hollywood Video, explained that they were concerned about this area. They have scaled down what their normal signage is by 1/3. They are willing to do this to try and work to stay within the City's code. They are part of the Variance issue because Hollywood Video feels it is necessary to have three (3) signs. They feel that in areas where they are "under signed" the performance of the store has suffered. In their minds they feel they need this signage to succeed. Commissioner Haney asked what compromise was being proposed from the last discussion? Mr. Stout replied that he would go back to Hollywood Video and strongly recommend that they forfeit the neon signs. Commissioner Parker questioned the need for a third sign on the west elevation, facing the theatre. She wondered whom they were trying to draw? Mr. Stout answered that the west elevation would draw people that entered from the theater side of the project. Mr. Mann spoke to the Commission about the Pylon Identification Signs. He explained that in Exhibit A there are two (2) "gateway towers ", one on the left side and right side. The one on the left side has the name of the center. The one on the right side has the name of the center and a place for eight (8) tenant identification signs. He explained that AGRA/LLC feels that what was approved by the City Council was what they relied on when they acquired the project. However, with the discussion that has gone on from the previous meeting and tonight's meeting, he is proposing some modifications that would be appropriate in the context of what has been discussed. 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 October 6, 1998 The modifications are as follows: 1. The "Gateway Towers" that have eight (8) spaces for tenant identification signs would be reduced to five (5) horizontal signs. This relates to the pylon at the entrance to the Five Cities Center on the Mann Theater sign facing West Branch. When the planned sign program was approved the maximum square footage of all signs was 300 square feet, and the pylon sign no higher than 20 ft. They would agree to keep that same criteria and furthermore the tenant identification signs be one (1) foot high by six (6) feet high which would be a total of six (6) square feet. The name of the center would go at the top and the total combined square footage of the sign would be approximately one hundred fifty (150) square feet, half of what was allowed in the Planned Sign Program. Commissioner Lubin questioned some discrepancies in what was proposed originally and what was proposed in April 1998. In April the proposed signs were four (4) tenant signs and a total sign area of 68.8 square feet. Now the proposal is five (5) signs and a total sign area of one hundred and fifty (150) square feet. Mr. Mann explained that the proposal for four (4) tenant signs was a legitimate error. They have five (5) major tenants and the sign should reflect that. The original proposal was for eight (8) tenant signs. This is a compromise to the original proposal. Mr. Heinrich informed the Commission that the total sign area for the pylon sign would actually be seventy (70) square feet, not one hundred and fifty (150) square feet. Mr. Lubin clarified that the Five Cities Center and the five designations for the major stores total seventy (70) square feet, including the small logo. Commissioner Keen asked if the signs were going to be lighted? Mr. Hamilton answered that the signs are punched through plexi glass. The sign cabinet matches the surrounding sign structure. The actual lettering is a plexi glass that is routed into the metal then the plexi glass is pushed through and illuminated. Commissioner Greene asked what was going to happen to the movie theatre sign? Mr. Mann answered that the movie theatre sign is not a part of the ownership of AGRA/LLC. However, because they are widening the road at that point, the sign will have to be moved further back from the road. The Sizzler sign will have to be relocated also. 2. The next description concerned the two (2) Monument Identification Signs. One of the signs is located by the retention basin and the other by St. Patrick School. The original project identification tenant signage had fourteen (14) vertical signs. They are now suggesting that this be changed to horizontal signs totaling eight (8). Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8 October 6, 1998 Commissioner Haney asked Mr. Mann about the optional entry monument signs, off of Rancho Parkway that were shown in the original proposal. He wondered if they had been eliminated? He also asked what was included on those signs? Mr. Mann replied that they had not been eliminated. They are just small monument signs at the entrance to each of those driveways. Commissioner Keen wondered if the phase two "gateway tower" was included in their proposal. Mr. Mann answered that it was not a part of the proposal. Commissioner Lubin asked the location of the monument signs. Mr. Mann replied that one was below grade, slightly below freeway level, at the corner of the Five Cities Center property and St. Patrick's School. The one at the north end is located at the retention basin. It is at grade, and because the freeway is "depressed" there, the sign can be seen from across the freeway. The measurements of the entry monument signs on Rancho Parkway are five (5) feet high by fifteen (15) feet wide. The tenant signs are one (1) foot high by six (6) feet wide or six (6) square feet. The monument identification signs at either end of the project, on West Branch, are fifteen (15) feet high by seventy -five (75) feet long, for a total of 1,200 square feet, with three hundred (300) square feet of signage. Commissioner Haney commented that on the approvals made in 96 -118, they referred to an item called "theme monumentation ". Is this what Mr. Mann was now calling "entry monument ?" Mr. Haney said that looking at 96 -118, he was trying to identify the "optional entry signs" as part of the approval. Mr. Mann replied that he was looking for some direction on this from the Commission. He explained that he felt these signs were entitled in the original PSP 96 -118 and he was there tonight to express the things that he needs and would like some specific direction as to what they wanted to see or not see. The "theme monumentation" sign is being deleted and he is asking for the "entry signs ". Mr. Mann summarized for the Commission what he was asking for as follows: 1. There are two pylon signs approved at the entry to the center; one at the Sizzler and one next to the theatre. The one next to the theatre has tenant identification, but the one next to the Sizzler does not. They are asking for direction on the one that does not have tenant identification. 2. There are two "monument tenant identification" signs at either end of the 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 9 October 6, 1998 project on West Branch. They have proposed a reduction in the number of tenant signs on each of those. 3. They are asking for three (3) five (5) foot monument signs on Rancho Parkway. In dosing, Mr. Mann told the Commission that he had tried to keep his presentation succinct and reiterated his request for direction from the Commission and a recommendation to the City Council as to what they feel would be appropriate in the presentation of the Planned Sign Program. Commissioner Greene asked Mr. Heinrich about Building K, which shows ten (10) signs facing the parking lot. Were the signs depicted on east elevation deleted? He also asked about the uniformity in sign colors. Mr. Heinrich replied that the signs on the east elevation had been deleted. There are only three colors that the tenants can choose from: red, white or yellow. Kirk Scott, 520 Via Vaquero, representing the Citizens Committee for Responsible Development, spoke to the Commission. He reminded the Commission that they were dealing with a commercial project that is located in a very unusual place. Given that the General Plan calls for a project to blend in with its neighbors, he would remind the developer that this project was surrounded by a school, library, cemetery and hundreds of family homes. Therefore, any signage in this area should be kept to a minimum and very low key. He thinks this project area and Arroyo Grande as a whole is very sensitive to the threat of garish commercialism of Southern California. Arroyo Grande's sensitivity to large offensive signage is carefully spelled out in the sign ordinance that was updated last year. He wanted to remind the Commission that the AAC voted three (3) to nothing to have the applicant follow the sign code to the letter. He agrees with Commissioner Greene's statement at the last meeting that the sign program has been virtually unchanged from the May 1998 presentation. The applicant had made very minimal effort to comply with the suggestions made by the Commission, choosing instead to follow a path of legal chicanery to achieve his goals. The CCRD has listened to the opinions of the Commissioners who were serving in 1996 during the original approval process. It is obvious from listening to these Commissioners that the intent of the approval was to have a total review of the sign program by the Planning Commission. CCRD realizes that the City Attorney has a different opinion about the approval, but please remember it is only his opinion. CCRD asks that the Commission review all the signage as a package to ensure the City of consistency in the project sign program. Specifically that there be only one "entry monument" sign on West Branch and minimal signage on Rancho Parkway given the residential character of the neighborhood. As such any signs that don't face the parking area should be eliminated, no signs should be allowed on the west side of Building I, only two signs allowed on Hollywood Video and no neon. Finally, one last point regarding the signs on Wal -Mart Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 10 October 6, 1998 and Lucky /Sav -On. If the public has to be told that Lucky has food and Sav -On has drugs, then something is wrong with their advertising. These signs are superfluous and only detract from the aesthetics of the project. It is the feeling of CCRD that if Lucky, Wal -Mart and Sav -On want to do business in Arroyo Grande that's fine. However, they have to play by our rules. We ask the developer to please not insult the people of Arroyo Grande by turning our fair city into an ugly beach town full of Southern California commercialism. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive, asked the Commission to please not make any decision without looking at the complete sign program. She does not believe the center needs such huge signs to advertise it. The Commission should consider the people across the freeway when making their decisions. Bill Tappan, 1525 Chilton, former Planning Commissioner. Mr. Tappan explained that he felt remiss at the last meeting for not stepping up and saying something about what his recollections were from April, May and June of 1996. He spent the day listening to the tapes of those meetings and felt that John Keen had been right when he said there was not a lot of discussion about this. What they did discuss were the "gateway signs" and the "monument signs ". April 16 the first mention of the sign program was by Mr. Multari where he mentioned the AAC review of the signs. The AAC concerns at the time were the height and massiveness of the signs. The discussion was limited to project signs only. At the May 26 meeting Mr. Multari brought Andy Marton with a new proposal for the signs. At that point they discussed the sign height and the proposed square footage. The exception was made for the signs to be twenty (20) feet in height vs. fifteen (15) feet. On June 4 GenCom came back with a new site plan and again signage was discussed limited to the same signs. On June 20 The "gateway towers" were discussed and the determination was made not to discuss the building signs. That information was to come back to the Commission as the building permits were processed. They did add No.132 on the Conditions of Approval to bring it back to the Commission at that time. He personally agrees with what Mr. Carmel said that with 96 -1566 which adopted PSP 96 -118, GenCom did have an approved sign proposal as far as the "gateway towers" and the monument signs. Chair Lubin closed the Public Hearing. He asked the Commission to please give some direction concerning the "monument signs" to Mr. Mann. Commissioner Keen stated that Phase One "gateway tower" on Exhibit A that shows a twenty (20) foot tower with the tenant signs is appropriate without the one on the other side of the drive. The two (2) "project identification" signs of seventy two (72) feet seem too large to him. If something could be done to scale those down a little, it would 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 11 October 6, 1998 be better. The three (3) optional monument signs on Rancho Parkway are acceptable to him. The signs for the Sizzler and the theatre are not part of this project and so cannot be considered here. Commissioner Parker stated that she likes the improvements to the "gateway tower" as far as having the total signage Tess that the original amounts. She feels that the "project identification" signs are unnecessary. She agrees with CCRD concerns that Rancho Parkway should remain uncluttered. She feels that once you were on this street it was very easy to see the Center. This would help appease the property owners and create a feeling of good will. She felt that having one entry sign would be acceptable but it should not have any tenant signs on it. Furthermore, the monument sign on West Branch at the Oak Park off -ramp is unnecessary. At that point you can see the Five Cities Center and know you are there. She also felt the Planning Commission still has the authority to deny the Variance. Commissioner Haney stated that he strongly believes that the Commission should be in concert with the current Development Code as concerns the signage at this project. It is of a size and scale that everyone from Santa Maria to Paso Robles will know all of the major tenant identities. Therefore, he does not see the need for tenant identification signs along West Branch at all. There should be a single "identification" sign for the project. The location that has been selected for that is acceptable to him. He does not see any need for the "project identification" signs. The sign to be located at the Brisco off -ramp would be merely for advertisement because of its location. He does not feel it will accomplish much except littering West Branch St. He wanted to point out that this sign is in immediate proximity to St. Patrick's School. Since they have made an effort to reduce the amount of signage that St. Patrick's is exposed to, he feels they should continue to do so. He also agreed with Commissioner Parker relative to the sign on West Branch, at the Oak Park off -ramp. Again, this sign is not in the category of identification but rather as advertisement. He is also considerate of the people who live across the freeway from the Center. He thinks that all the Commission can do to allow the project to fit in comfortably without impacting these people is an admirable objective. The size, scale and lighting that will be there will be very intrusive and will have a high level of impact on these people. He is in favor of only a Phase One "gateway tower" sign with no tenant identification. The two "monument" signs are massive as they are. There may be some benefit in having five (5) foot "theme monumentation" signs there that would be Center identification only. With regards to the signs on Rancho Parkway, he does not feel they are necessary. Commissioner Greene said he agreed with Mr. Haney's feelings regarding the "gateway towers" and the "project identification" signs. He would like to direct the applicant to review the General Plan 6.12 that states "balance the need for signs within commercial areas as a means to identify businesses with the rural small town character of the community." He wanted to speak to the issue that the meeting started out with tonight. That issue is, Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 12 October 6, 1998 does the Planning Commission have the authority to modify the "gateway towers" and the other signs that were a part of the original planned sign proposal. He believes that the Commission has that authority. They also have the authority to request modifications in the signs subject to Condition No. 14 which gives the applicant the entitlement to build "center identification" signs not to exceed twenty (20) feet in height and three hundred (300) feet in sign area. However, subject to Condition No. 132, the Planning Commission has the authority to approve the major entry signs. As Mrs. Parker pointed out, even if everyone interpreted the Conditions of Approval differently, the Planning Commission still has the authority to deny the Variance. The Variance request pertains to the wall signs. He believes these are an integral part of the appeal that the Center provides for the proposed tenants. He wanted the applicant to understand that it is his best interest to work with the Planning Commission to achieve some kind of a compromise. Essentially the Planning Commission could deny the Variance. He is not suggesting that the Commission do that, however the greater emphasis the Applicant places on tenant identification in the entry signs, the Tess need he sees for providing larger than Development Code standards for the buildings. He would like signs that are large to provide a service for the tenant to identify where the building is located and to perform an advertising service as well. Yet, not be overly large as to provide a blight. To get to that point he sees there may be a need, on the part of the applicant, to compromise. He is inviting the applicant and staff to take into consideration that the Commission does have authority to deny the Variance. Therefore, he feels that it would be prudent for everyone to sit down and come to some kind of a compromise regarding a reduction or elimination with regards to the tenant signage. The last point he wanted to make was that when the AAC met in May to review this project and the Planning Commission reviewed it on May 5 there was criticism of the choice of colors of the signs. Approval of all other aspects of the signage will be contingent upon an agreement of the attractiveness of the color of the signs. Chair Lubin stated that he believed that all the Commissioners made valid comments. First, he wanted to thank the applicant for the movement he has made in trying to address some of the issues that have been brought up. In terms of the "entrance towers" he feels there should only be one. However, he doesn't have a major problem with the five (5) tenants names on the sign. Further, he feels that the third or most northern monument sign on Rancho Parkway should be eliminated. The other two are acceptable as described tonight. The- project "identification" signs at the north and south edges of the property, he has a problem with. Chair Lubin asked Mr. Mann to please stay until the end of the meeting. The Commission would discuss the timing for next meeting when this item would again be heard. III. A. Public Hearing Item Lot Line Adjustment and Certificate of Compliance 98- 550 - Norman D. and Anna M. L. Stewart - The project will result in the addition of 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 13 October 6, 1998 3,213 square foot area of lot area to the property located at 172 Spruce Street for the purpose of creating a larger backyard. Community Development Director Jim Hamilton reviewed the staff report of October 6, 1998. He explained that he did not see any major issues on this particular item. The Public Works Department has reviewed it and there are some conditions contained in the Resolution for the item. It is in a residential district and meets all the development standards except where there is an existing nonconformance. However, the Lot Line Adjustment would not increase the extend of the nonconformity. Commissioner Haney asked Mr. Hamilton if there had been any response from the neighbors when this item was noticed for public hearing. Mr. Hamilton replied that there had been no response. Commissioner Parker questioned that the minimum lot width did not meet current Development Code standards. She asked if it was the general policy that no changes are made unless all noncompliance issues are brought up to date? Mr. Hamilton answered that the existing noncompliance could not be modified whether or not the Lot Line Adjustment was approved. The houses are existing and the adjacent property is not under the control of the applicant or the property owner. The Development Code does include some provisions for this instance because it recognizes that prior to 1991 there were existing lots that had been developed to standards that the City currently does not have. In those instances where the situation is not being made worse, it is appropriate to look at whether the Lot Line Adjustment itself creates any further nonconformity. These standards are what Mr. Hamilton used when he made the current recommendation. Chair Lubin opened the Public Hearing. Mike Ratty - 141 S. Elm- the representative for Norman and Anna Stewart spoke briefly to the Commission and asked if the Commission had any questions. Commissioner Keen asked if it was the intention of the Stewarts, now that they would have over a 12,000 square foot lot, to put a second unit on the lot. Mr. Ratty said that that was not their intent. Chair Lubin closed the Public Hearing. The Commission did not have any further comments and the following action was taken: Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 14 October 6, 1998 RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1668 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO 98 -550, INCLUDING EXHIBIT.A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, LOCATED AT 168 AND 172 SPRUCE STREET, APPLIED FOR BY NORMAN AND ANNA STEWART BE ADOPTED. On motion of Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Haney and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Greene, Haney, Parker, Keen and Chair Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of October, 1998. III. B. - Ken and Donna Pineo - Conditional Use Permit 98 -566 - Conversion of an existing 640 square foot primary residence to a second residential unit to allow construction of a new primary residence; and installation of a maximum six foot fence on top of an existing seven foot retaining wall at 736 South Traffic Way. Associate Planner Bruce Buckingham reviewed the staff report of October 6, 1998. The site is currently developed with a 640 square foot residence with an attached 3 -car garage. The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,000 square foot house and convert the existing 640 square foot home into a secondary residential unit. The City's development does allow for the conversion of an existing unit to a second residential unit subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, approval of this Conditional Use Permit is necessary to allow the construction of the proposed primary residence. He further explained that the applicant is also requesting the approval of a Variance to install a five (5) foot fence on top of an existing seven (7) foot high retaining wall along the north property line. The fence is needed in this case to provide safety on the subject's side, which is on the higher side of the two properties. The combination retaining wall /fence would not exceed twelve (12) feet as contained in the Conditions of Approval. Therefore, staff does recommend that the Planning Commission approve this item subject to the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Buckingham noted that there was a letter submitted by the adjacent property owner that the Commission received tonight. Commissioner Greene asked Mr. Buckingham which was the high side of the fence, the applicant's side or the other side. He also asked if there was a Condition of Approval that required some architectural compatibility between the existing residence and the proposed residence. Mr. Buckingham replied that the higher side is the applicant's side. He further noted that the architectural compatibility was addressed in Number 8 of the Conditions of Approval. 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 15 October 6, 1998 Commissioner Haney asked Mr. Buckingham, because of the obvious problem, why this was not addressed in 1997. Mr. Buckingham stated that his research of the records indicated that when the building permit was issued for the house no other permit was requested. A six (6) foot high retaining wall is allowed to be issued without any other review. It was issued as part of the original permit and there was no other discussion about requiring, or having, any other fence on top of the wall. Commissioner Keen stated that they could put a three (3) foot fence on top of the existing wall without any variance according to the Development Code. He was surprised that the Building Department didn't require it from the beginning. Mr. Buckingham replied that he had asked Larry Schmidt of the Building Department the same question. Mr. Schmidt had explained that this standard seemed to be applicable only in certain locations, not universally. However, because there were no exiting issues adjacent to this situation, it wasn't a requirement. Chair Lubin opened the Public Hearing. Commissioner Keen asked the applicant, Mr. Pineo, if he realized that only one (1) gas meter and electric meter was allowed for both residential units. He noticed that Mr. Stewart had two (2) electric meters on his design plans. Mr. Keen asked if having only one meter for both residences was acceptable to Mr. Pineo. Mr. Pineo stated that he had not realized this, thanked Mr. Keen for pointing it out and stated that one meter was acceptable to him. Mike Frederick, owner of the adjoining property, addressed the Commission and stated that he did not have a problem with the fence being installed on top of the existing retaining wall. Commissioner Parker asked Mr. Frederick if he felt the five (5) foot fence would be adequate. Mr. Frederick said he felt it would be. Chair Lubin closed the Public Hearing and the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1669 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98- 566, LOCATED AT 763 S. TRAFFIC WAY EXTENSION, APPLIED FOR BY KEN PINEO, INCLUDING ATTACHMENT A. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 16 October 6, 1998 On motion by Commissioner Parker, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and by the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Greene, Haney, Parker, Keen and Chair Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of October, 1998. RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1670 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VARIANCE 98 -209, LOCATED AT 763 S. TRAFFIC WAY, EXTENSION APPLIED FOR BY KEN PINEO, INCLUDING ATTACHMENT A. On motion of Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Haney and by the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Greene, Haney, Parker, Keen and Chair Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of October, 1998. Item IV. Planning Commission/ Community Development Director Items and Comments Community Development Director Jim Hamilton felt it would be appropriate at this time to address the upcoming Planning Commission meetings and the items that still need to come before the Commission. Mr. Lubin asked if the meeting of November 3, 1998 could be moved because of the upcoming elections. He also suggested that an additional meeting be scheduled, possibly on October 28, 1998 in order to facilitate the items that are scheduled including the continued Five Cities Sign Program item that still needs to be completed. The Commissioners discussed the dates that would work best for all of them and the schedule of items to be heard. Mr. Hamilton will research the availability of places to hold the meetings and let the Commission know the dates and times. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. on motion of Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Haney, and unanimously carried. 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission October 6, 1998 ATTEST: ccs44._0_>n Kathleen S. Fryer, Comm' ion Clerk AS TO CONTENT: /If L.alle James Hamilton, AICP Community Development Director Page 17