PC Minutes 1990-12-04Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
December 4, 1990
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman
Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Soto, Moore, Gallagher and Souza.
Commissioners Brandy and Boggess are absent. Also in attendance are Planning
Director Liberto - Blanck, Current Planner Spierling and Assistant City Attorney
Shulte.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 90 -150, 169 AND 167 VARD LOOMIS COURT, 1126
AND 1127 VARD LOOMIS LANE, AND 119 AND 104 IKEDA WAY (RICHARD A. LOEW)
Current Planner Spierling reviewed the staff report dated December 4, 1990.
He stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this project at the meeting of
November 6, 1990, and at that meeting, the applicant objected to condition of
approval number 7 requiring that an engineer design the wall. Based on this
objection, the Planning Commission continued the project and instructed the
applicant to look into alternative wall designs that did not need to be
engineered. Since that meeting, the applicant has contacted an engineer and
determined that condition of approval number 7 is not a problem. It is staff's
understanding that the applicant now agrees with all the conditions of approval.
He noted that the wall will be constructed of slumpstone material to match the
existing wall as originally proposed.
Mr. Spierling explained that Condition No. 4a requires that prior to final
inspection the applicant is required to plant vines along the wall, species of
vine and spacing to be determined by the Parks and Recreation Director.
Mr. Spierling stated the Staff Advisory Committee recommends that the
Planning Commission adopt the draft resolution included. with the staff report
that approves the variance, adopts a negative declaration and instructs the
secretary to file a Notice of Determination.
Richard A. Loew, applicant, spoke in favor of the Variance. He stated that
the calculations for the wall were being reviewed by the Building Department.
Upon hearing no further comments from the audience, Chairman Carr declared
the hearing closed.
OOMMISSIONERS BRANDY AND BOGGESS ENTERED THE MEETING DURING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION.
After a brief discussion, the following action was taken:
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1316
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING C (MISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 90 -150,
APPLIED FOR BY RICHARD LOFW LOCATED AT 1126, 1127 VARD
LOOMIS LANE, 119, 104 IKEDA WAY AND 169, 167 VARD LOOMIS
COURT ALLOWING THE HEIGHT OF A WALL TO EXCEED THREE (3)
FOOT WALL HEIGHT ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
Commissioners Soto, Moore, Gallagher, Brandy, Souza, Boggess
and Chairman Carr
None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 4th day of December 1990.
PUBLIC HEARING - REPLACE EXISTING OLDER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R -3
DISTRICT, 1180 MAPLE STREET (ERNEST AND MOLLY SANTA CRUZ)
Chief Building Inspector John Richardson read the staff report dated
December 4, 1990 and reviewed the recommended conditions of approval. He stated
that the Building Official recommends that the Planning Commission make a
recommendation to the City Council that the building permit be issued with the
findings and subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report
dated December 4, 1990.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Clerk that public hearing to
construct a single family residence at 1180 Maple Street in the R -3 Zone had been
duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing
open.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 12/4/90 2
Molly Santa Cruz, 1180 Maple Street, one of the applicants, spoke in favor
of the request, stating that they agree with all of the - recommended conditions
of approval.
There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Carr declared
the hearing closed. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner
Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Brandy, and unanimously carried, that a
recommendation be made to the -City Council that a building permit be issued for
a single family residence at 1180 Maple Street in the R -3 District with the
findings and subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report
dated December 4, 1990.
PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LIQUOR
STORE IN THE CBD ZONE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE 89 -453, 320 EAST BRANCH STREET
(CHARLES DOS'TFR /C RLE7i LANDECK)
In the absence of the applicant, this item (III B) was continued to be
heard after Agenda Item VI B. On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by
Commissioner Boggess, and unanimously carried, the public hearing portion of the
agenda was closed.
REVISED ARC ITEC1URAL REVIEW CASE NO. 88 -413, ADDITION OF CLASSROOMS, 301 TRINITY
AVENUE (ST. BARNABAS EPISCOPAL CHURCH)
Mr. Spierling advised that On September 20, 1988 the.Planning Commission
approved Architectural Review Case No. 88 -413 for development of St.Barnabas
Episcopal Church. The City Council subsequently approved a Conditional Use
Permit for the project on October 12, 1988 subject to 37 conditions of approval.
He stated, however, that before building permits were issued, the applicant
requested that the Planning Commission allow the project to be divided into two
phases. The Planning Commission approved this request, but required the
applicant return for a revised architectural review before proceeding with Phase
2. He advised that the first phase of construction included the sanctuary,
parish hall, - offices parking and landscaping and is nearly completed. The
applicant is now in a position to proceed with construction of Phase 2, which
consists of 1800 square feet of classroom. space. Mr. Spierling - advised that the
architecture and floor plan is consistent with the approved architectural review
application. -He read the two recommended conditions of approval listed in the
staff report dated December 4, 1990,and-a third-condition to be added as follows:
1. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans
approved by the Pl anning Commission on September 20, 1988 and marked
"Exhibit A".
2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for
Architectural Review Case No. 88 -413 and Conditional Use Permit Case
No. 88 -439.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall install
the two windows in the fellowship hall and screen the electrical
transformer.
Mr. Spierling advised that the staff Advisory Committee has reviewed the
proposal and recommends that the Planning Commission approve the second phase of
Architectural Review Case 88 -413 by-minute motion. - -
After discussion, Revised Architectural Review Case No. 88 -413, Phase 2,
was approved on motion by Commissioner Brandy, seconded by Commissioner Souza,
motion carried by a majority vote, with Commissioner Soto abstaining.
REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -452, 100 BARNE°PT
STREET (GRAND CENTRAL STATION)
Mr. Spierling advised that Grand Central Partnership, represented by
Engineering Development Associates, has filed a request for a time extension on
their conditional use permit application and architectural review application,
which were approved by the Planning Commission on November 7, 1989 subject to 23
conditions of approval. He pointed out that Section 4.3105(a) of the Zoning
Ordinance states that a conditional use permit will automatically expire within
one year of the approval date unless a time extension is for prior to the
expiration date, noting that the applicant has met this deadline.
229-
230
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 12/4/90 3
Mr. Spierling further advised that the applicant indicates they have
experienced some difficulties in designing the project and, therefore, have not
been able to acquire the building permits. They now feel that these problems
will be resolved in the near future and expect to be granted building permits
within the next month or two.
Mr. Spierling stated the staff recommends that the Planning Commission
grant a one year time extension for these applications, subject to the previously
approved conditions.
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by
Commissioner Brandy, and unanimously carried, a one year extension was granted
on Conditional Use Permit Case No. 89 -452 and Architectural Review Case No. 88-
417, subject to the previously approved conditions.
PLANNING DIRECTOR /PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND CATS
The Planning Commission was in agreement to cancel the January 1, 1991
meeting because of the holiday.
Planning Director Liberto -Blanck advised that there are two its
coming up for special meetings in January. One is the continuance of the
development code beyond December. Another project that will be coming up is the
Rancho Grande project. After a brief discussion, January 10, 1991 and January
29, 1991 were tentatively set for the special public hearings in January.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOGGESS, AND
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE AGENDA WAS RE -OPENED
PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LIQUOR
STORE IN THE CBD ZONE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE 89 -453, 320 EAST BRANCH STREET
(CHARLES DOSTER /CIRLEN LANDECK)
Mr. Spierling reviewed the background of this project stating that on
September 4, 1990 the Planning Commission conducted the annual review for
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Case No. 89 -453 and, at that meeting, the Planning
Commission directed staff to advertise a public hearing to consider revoking the
CUP. The Commission's decision was based on the determination that the owners
may have failed to comply with the project's conditions of approval. More
specifically, condition of approval number 9 stated that "signs shall be subject
to sign permit requirements as specified in the sign (zoning) ordinance." On
April 25, 1990 the owners received a permit for signs on the front and side of
the building. The owners have installed the two signs with permits but have also
installed several signs without permits, thus violating condition of approval
number 9. Installing signs without permits also is a violation of the City's
Municipal Code.
Mr. Spierling pointed out that the owners did not object to the conditions
of approval when the conditional use permit was approved. If the owners had an
objection to this condition, the appropriate time to register the objection was
at the public hearing when the project was approved; and /or to appeal the
condition to the City Council. Mr. Spierling cited Section 9- 4.3105 of the
zoning ordinance which states:
"Any use permit or variance granted in accordance with the terms of this
chapter may be revoked by the Council in the manner set forth in this
section if any of the conditions or terms of such permits are violated."
He advised the Commission that before the City Council can revoke a CUP, the
Planning Commission must hold a public hearing on the revocation. After holding
a hearing, the Planning Commission must transmit a report of its findings to the
Council. The Council then makes the decision to revoke or not to revoke the CUP.
Mr. Spierling stated that the owners have installed several neon beer
signs, one neon video rental sign, and two "open" signs in the windows of the
building that can be seen from East Branch Street. They also use portable A-
frame type signs to advertise their products or services, and they often place
these portable signs within the public right of way. They did not apply for
permits for any of these signs and none of the signs are exempt from permit
requirements. Because of the fact that permits were not acquired for the signs,
the owners violated condition of approval number 9 of the CUP.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 12/4/90 4
He further stated that City staff has repeatedly encouraged the owners to
apply for a variance for these signs, but they have chosen not to apply, and
since this is the case, the number, type or design of signs is not the primary
issue; the primary issue is the apparent violation of the conditions of approval
for the conditional use permit.
At the Planning Commission meeting of September 4, 1990, the Commission
requested that the public hearing be delayed on this project until the Commission
had reviewed the sign provisions in the draft Development Code. The Commission
also requested more information about the safety aspects of neon signs and about
the City's current and proposed code enforcement policy. This information
requested by the Commission is contained in the staff report dated December 4,
1990
The Staff Advisory Committee recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
a resolution recommending that the City Council revoke CUP No. 89 -453 based on
the findings listed in the staff report.
Chairman Carr asked for a distinct differentiation between the subject
business and a business down the street that has four or five neon signs in the
front window. Ms. Shulte stated it is her understanding that Condition No. 9 in
this permit is a standard condition of all permits issued within the past few
years, so there are other - businesses subject -to this condition. She further
stated she doesn't feel the issue is whether or not other people have neon signs;
the issue is that this particular business has violated the sign ordinance, and
it doesn't matter what kind of signs they are. The total picture is they have
more signs than allowed and they have refused to came in and comply with the
variance procedure.--
Commissioner Soto pointed out that there are other businesses just like the
subject one that do have similar signage that are not subject to conditional use
permit review, which means that this business basically is being treated
differently than the others only because he is subject to annual review. Ms.
Liberto -Blanck pointed out that if someone brought to the City's attention that
there was another business with too many signs, staff would then write them a
letter -and indicate that they are not in compliance with the sign ordinance.
This is done based on a complaint basis.
Commissioner Gallagher stated that it is necessary to have some one make
sure that all sign standards and so forth are in compliance. Commissioner
Gallagher further stated there were other reasons why the Commission was
concerned about a yearly review of this particular business, such as sensitivity
and impact on the creek, the barbecue pit, and what the traffic impacts would be
on Branch Street. He stated his feelings that the Commission made a lot of
allowances on this project. Mr. Doster made assurances that he was going to do
many good things for the City, and it is my impression that Mr. Doster has shown
a lot of disregard and a lack of cooperation in complying with the minimum
standards that we have requested of him.
Commissioner Soto pointed out that there are numerous signs throughout the
City that are not in compliance with the sign ordinance, and the only reason
these are not being enforced is because the City does not have an enforcement
officer.
Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Clerk that public hearing for
the recommendation of revocation of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 89 -453 had
been duly published and posted, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open.
Jean Dougall, 1241 Farroll Avenue, inquired as to why the City puts these
conditions on a conditional use permit if they are not going to enforce them?
Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chairman Carr declared the
hearing closed.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
4
23`-1
232
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 12/4/90 5
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1317
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COAMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE REiDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 89 -453,
FOR LAST CHANCE LIQUORS, LOCATED AT 320 EAST BRANCH
STREET, OWNED BY CHARLES DOSmr:R AND CARL LANDECK
On motion by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Souza, and
by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Moore, Gallagher, Brandy, Souza and Boggess
NOES: Commissioner Soto and Chairman Carr
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 4th day of December 1990.
Chairman Carr and Commissioner Soto stated their reason for voting "no" on
the foregoing resolution because it would be their preference to continue the
matter and deal with it after the development code is adopted.
Relative to the discussion on the problems of code enforcement, on motion
by Commissioner Gallagher, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and unanimously
carried, recommending that the City Council consider as soon as possible the
hiring of a Code Enforcement Officer.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by
Commissioner Souza, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and unanimously carried,
the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Pearl L. Phinney
Secretary
W
Robert W. Carr
Chairman