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-