Loading...
PC Minutes 1991-11-19ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 1991 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Souza, Soto, Brandy, Moore and Groves. Commissioner Boggess is absent. Planning Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck, Current Planner Spierling and Assistant City Attorney Steve Barker are also in attendance. INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER Vice Chairman Carr introduced new Commissioner, Julie Groves, and welcomed her to the Planning Commission. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN TO REPLACE M. P. GALLAGHER. Vice Chairman Carr opened nominations for Chairman to replace M. P. Gallagher, who was recently appointed to the City Council. Commissioner Souza nominated Drew Brandy as Chairman. Commissioner Soto seconded the nomination. Commissioner Soto moved that nominations be closed and the records show that a unanimous vote was cast electing Drew Brandy as Chairman of the Planning Commission. Motion seconded by Commissioner Souza, and unanimously carried. COMMISSIONER BOGGESS ENTERED THE MEETING DURING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND IS NOW PRESENT. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 91 -490, 250 RIDGEVIEW WAY, CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE WITH SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT ABOVE (JEROME WHITE /JENSEN - LENGER SURVEYS.) Mr. Spierling reviewed that this project was approved by the Planning Commission on April 17, 1990 subject to eight conditions of approval. The old zoning ordinance stipulated that approvals granted for Conditional Use Permits were only valid for one year. Since the applicant was not issued a building permit and did not apply for a time extension prior to the expiration date, the Use Permit expired and, once a Use Permit expires, the only way the applicant could construct the second unit was to apply for a new Conditional Use Permit. He advised that the applicant is proposing construction of a 528 square foot, detached second residential unit and a two -car garage. The second unit will consist of a living /dining room, one bedroom, a kitchen, and bathroom. The two car garage will be below the second unit. There will be no interior access from the garage to the second unit. He stated that since a new CUP was required, the applicant has taken the opportunity to relocate the proposed garage and second unit. The previously approved location was 35 feet from the northwesterly property line. The new location is about 135 feet from the northwesterly property line and on the opposite side of the driveway. Moving the second unit resolves a potential conflict with a lot line that is proposed to be relocated as part of tentative tract 2074. Mr. Spierling reviewed the major issues and recommended conditions of approval as noted in the staff report dated November 19, 1991. With regard to environmental review, Mr. Spierling advised that staff does not anticipate any significant impact to the environment due to development of this project, and a negative declaration has been prepared for adoption by the Planning Commission. The Architectural Advisory Committee and the Staff Advisory Committee have reviewed the project and recommend that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the project subject to the findings and conditions of approval listed in the staff report dated November 19, 1991. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Conditional Use Permit Case 91 -490 had been duly published and property owners notified, Vice Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Jerome White, speaking on behalf of his mother, Sally White, requested approval of the proposal. He stated he is in agreement with Conditions 9 and 11, however, he would like the City to reconsider Condition #14 requiring hook -up to the public sewer system. He commented that there is an adequate private sewer septic system there now that meets code requirements. 33a Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 11/19/91 Page 2 He requested that the Commission waive that one requirement. Leonard Lenger, Surveyor, representing the applicant, stated it would be very difficult to put the sewer in now because of the large size of the parcel and at some point that parcel is going to be divided, and at this time they do not where the sewer line is going to go. With regard to the condition requiring hooking up to the sewer system, Mr. Spierling advised that the City Council is the only body that can waive that requirement. If the project is approved and the applicant wishes to have that requirement waived, they would have to go to the Council with that request. Ed Chadwell, 290 Ridgeview Way, spoke in favor of the conditional use permit. He referred to the condition requiring an all weather road, stating the road is gravel and red rock, and asked this be accepted as an all weather road; they do not want to have to pave the road. Regarding the all weather road, Mr. Spierling indicated that the Development Code required asphalt or concrete paving. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Vice Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. There was considerable discussion regarding Conditions #11 and #14 requiring an all weather surface and connection to the public sewer system. Commissioner Soto stated he feels the project : can be approved, however, in his opinion Conditions 11 and 14 do not appear to be economically feasible. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1353 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 91 -490, APPLIED FOR BY SALLY WHITE, LOCATED AT 250 RIDGEVIEW WAY TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERNIINATION. On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Souza, Soto, Brandy, Moore, Groves, Boggess and Vice Chairman Carr NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 19th day of November 1991. On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and unanimously carried, recommending to the City Council that, in the event the above action be appealed on behalf of the requirement for the sewer, that relief from the requirement to hook up to the sewer system be considered based on confirmation that the existing septic system is adequate to handle both of the units; and the Commission also recommends that the Council consider the paved driveway requirement if the applicant can demonstrate that gravel or red rock surface is adequate to support necessary fire apparatus. On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and unanimously carried, the associated architectural review case was approved. 333 33 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 11/19/91 Page 3 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - SIGN PERMIT CASE NO. 91-102/VARIANCE CASE NO. 91- 157 /PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM, 320 EAST BRANCH STREET (CHARLES DOSTER/CARLEN LANDECK (LAST CHANCE LIQUOR) Current Planner Spierling reviewed previous staff reports on this project, and the staff report dated November 19, 1991. He reviewed the exhibits attached to the staff report dated October 15, 1991 and the signs requested by the applicant one by one in numerical order. He also described the requested exceptions to the Development Code requirements. Mr. Spierling advised that to approve the variance, the findings : outlined in the Development Code must be made in the affirmative. Staff does not believe that these findings can be made in the affirmative for all the requested signs and has provided findings for denial of the project. He further advised that the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) reviewed the proposed variance and sign plan on October 7, 1991. Notice of the meeting was sent to the applicant's home and business, however, he did not attend the meeting. After reviewing the revised signs on the basis of design and aesthetics alone, the Committee made the following recommendations: 1. Sign number 1 is aesthetically appropriate provided the posts and supports are stained to match the building. 2. Sign number 2 did not have sufficient information to make a recommendation. The applicant did not indicate where the sign would be installed or how the sign would be installed. 3. Sign number 3 is aesthetically appropriate provided a frame is constructed around the sign to hide the plywood edges and hook and eyes are used instead of pegs for mounting the reader boards. On days that barbecued meat is not available, the sign should be replaced with a sign similar to sign number 2, but constructed like sign number 3. 4. Signs numbers 4 and 6 are not appropriate aesthetically. The design and lettering of the signs does not fit in with the established building motif. Lettering styles are block and cursive instead of the Clarendon and Bookman typestyles used elsewhere in the signage. 5. Signs numbers 5 and 7 did not have sufficient information on colors to make a recommendation, however, all lettering should match. Block letters are not appropriate. 6. In general, the Committee did not feel that neon signs were appropriate aesthetically. 7. The Committee would recommend elimination of the existing wall sign on the west wall if the Planning Commission wishes to reduce the number or aggregate square footage of signs. He stated that after reviewing the proposed signage, the recommendations of the Architectural Advisory Committee, the comments made at the last Planning Commission meeting and the applicant's statement, staff would recommend the following changes to the existing and proposed signage: 1. Approve sign number 1, the parking sign as modified by the AAC. The applicant has indicated that not all customers are aware of the parking lot. The parking lot is not visible from the street and the proposed signage would help the situation. 2. Approve sign number 3, the projecting BBQ sign, as modified by the AAC. The applicant has indicated that this sign is necessary to let people know what goods are available. With the recommendation of the AAC to replace the sign on non -BBQ days with a sign indicating the name of the store, this should greatly improve visibility. Staff also feels that this type of sign is very much in keeping with the character of the village. 3. Approve two (2) existing open signs. These signs are unobtrusive during the daytime and alert customers at night that the business is open. 4. Retain the existing sign on the front facia of the building. 5. Eliminate the existing sign on the west wall of the building. The applicant has indicated that this sign cannot be seen because of existing street trees. Elimination of this sign will greatly reduce the total aggregate sign area and reduce the number of signs. 6. Deny all other signs. With the above recommendations, Mr. Spierling advised that the total aggregate sign area is reduced to 73 square feet and the number of signs is reduced to 7. A variance is still needed for the number of signs and the open signs, however, staff feels that the findings can be made for approval of these signs. 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 11/19/91 Page 4 After completion of staff's presentation, Vice Chairman Carr re- opened the public hearing. Iry Pierce, owner of Central Coast Audio, 123 W. Branch Street, spoke in favor of the use of neon signs. Ken Brown, owner of Sun Spot Tanning, stated he is in favor of the concept of the historic setting for the Village area, and he does not feel that neon signs detract from that image. Charles Doster, owner of Last Chance Liquors, 320 East Branch Street, spoke in favor of the use of neon signs in the Village. He advised the Commission of comments make by other business owners in the Village in favor of the use of neon signs. He also referred to various businesses in the Village that currently utilize neon signs. Mr. Doster also reviewed the placement of the proposed signs and the type of signs. Mr. Doster commented that they did not receive notice of the Architectural Advisory Committee meeting when this project was reviewed. Of the three alternatives suggested in the staff report, Mr. Doster asked that the Commission choose Recommendation #3, "Continue the public hearing to a specific date and provide the applicant direction in drafting an acceptable set of signs." He stated he would like to get the Commission's input so that something can be worked out that is agreeable to everybody. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Vice Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. The Commission discussed the issue of neon signs in general at some length, with regard to neon vs. exposed neon, and prohibition or non - prohibition of neon signs in the Village. After discussion, Planning Director Liberto -Blanck advised that staff could do some more research and come back on December 3rd possibly with a resolution relative to the Commission's interpretation on neon signs, looking at the definition of exposed neon, and also look at the proposed sign ordinance that was contained in the Preliminary Draft Development Code. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and unanimously carried, Variance Case No. 91 -157 was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 17, 1991. Current Planner Spierling also advised that the sign revisions would be placed on the Architectural Advisory Committee's agenda of December 2, 1991. The Planning Commission instructed the applicant to submit a revised sign plan to City staff one week prior to the AAC's December 2nd meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. on motion by Commissioner Brandy, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: 335-