PC R 96-1583RESOLUTION NO. 96=1583
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMNIISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 96-
. 121, APPLIED FOR BY OTTSE INC. TO THE CITY
COUNCIL
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered an
application by Ottse Inc., for an amendment to an existing Planned Sign Program for lot sales
in the Rancho Grande Planned Development; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that this planned sign program is
consistent with the General Plan and the Environmental Documents associated therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project is
categorically exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15311(a); and
WI�REAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, the following circumstances exist:
1. The proposed signs are consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of
the Arroyo Grande General Plan. The proposed signs balance the need for identification
of businesses with the rural small town character of the community.
2. The proposed signs conform to applicable development standards and provisions of the
Development Code, except as approved by Variance Case No. 96-198 and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
3. The physical location or placement of the signs are compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood and do not pose a safety risk.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RFSOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City
of Arroyo Grande hereby recommends approval of Planned Sign Program Case No. 96-121 to
the City Council, subject to the following conditions of approval:
General Conditions
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements
as are applicable to this project.
2. This application shall automatically expire on September 3, 1998 unless a building pernut
is issued and substantial construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward
completion, or a final inspection is conducted. Thirty (30) days prior to the_expiration
of the approval, the applicant may apply to the City Council for an extension of one (1)
year from the original date of expiration.
3. Development shall occur in substandal conformance with the plans presented to the
Planning Commission at the meeting of September 3, 1996 and marked "Exhibit A" .
Resolution No. 96-1583
Planned Sign Program Case No. 96-121
Ottse, Inc.
September 3, 1996
Page 2
4. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the
City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in
the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its
agents, officers, or employers, for any court costs and attorney's fee's which the City,
its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such
action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense
of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations
under this condition.
5. All signs shall be removed within 30 days of expiration of Condirional Use Permit Case
No. 93-512 for the Rancho Grande sales office. Extensions of the conditional use permit
shall automatically extend this planned sign program.
6. Flags shall be replaced when they become torn or faded.
Community Development Department Conditions
7. No sign may be installed within the public right-of-way.
Building Department Conditions ,
8. The applicant shall apply for and be granted permits for the signs; shall pay necessary
fees; and call for necessary inspections.
Public Works Department Conditions
9. Signs shall be placed in such a manner as to provide adequate site distance for vehicles.
On motion by Commissioner 'Titus, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and by the
following roll call vote to wit:
AYFS: Commissioners Titus, Deviny and Tappan
NOES: . Commissioner Keen
ABSENT: Commissioner Lubin
the foregoing Resolution failed to receive the four affirmadve votes required by the Planning
Commission Rules and Procedures to send a recommendation of approval to the City Council
this 3rd day of September, 1996.
ATTEST:
' ` I
, 0,--�
L' eese, amm' ion Clerk William Tapp , Chair
AS TO CONTENT:
-��.f�
Development D'uector