Loading...
PC R 96-1582RESOLUTION NO. 96-1582 A RESOLUTION OF T�iE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMIVV�'�:NDING APPROVAL OF VARIANCE CASE NO. 96-198, APPLIED FOR BY OTTSE, INC. TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Variance Case No. 96-198, filed by Ottse, Inc., to allow flags and allow signs that exceed the number, height, total area, and area for a single sign face allowed by the Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on this application in accordance with the City Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that this project 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 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: 1. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the sign regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not otherwise shazed by others in the surrounding area. The decline of new home sales, partly attributed to the economic recession in California, warrants an extra effort to draw people to the project site. To date, Rancho Grande has been comprised of custom lots. The addition of tract homes is not known to many people. The modifications to the exisdng signs and the addition of three new signs to identify the sale of tract homes is necessary to encourage the sale of the homes and create a diverse housing stock. 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zone. The property comprises 287 acres with 353 proposed dwelling units. This large area makes standard signage inadequate. Also, due to a lack of visibility from major public roads, Rancho Grande is precluded from easy access and viewing of the sales offices and home sites. Signs are necessary to draw attention, not only to the presence of new home sites, but also to guide interested persons to the two sales offices set up for the tract homes and the custom lots. The proposed signs are temporary and intended for identification and guidance purposes. 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the same zone. The Rancho Grande Planned Development is unique as it is the only large scale subdivision of it's size in the City. The Development Code does not contain sign provisions for projects of this magnitude. However, the Development Code does contain adequate provisions for smaller scale projects. Therefore, strict interpretation of the sign regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same zone. Resolution No. 96-1582 Variance Case No. 96-198 Ottse, Inc. September 3, 1996 Page 2 4. The granting of the .variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. Other properties in the PD District could process similar requests through the Planned Sign Program process. 5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The flags associated with the information signs will be kept in good condition and replaced when signs of fading or tearing appear. Signs will not be placed in such a manner as to impair sight distance from vehicular traffic. � 6. The granting of a variance is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan and the intent of the Development Code which aze to encourage economic vitality and business activity, protect investments while preserving the environment and character of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby recommends approval of Variance Case No. 96-198 to the City Council, subject to the standard conditions of the City and those conditions listed below: 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 permit 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 Planning Commission for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration. 3. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the Planning Commission the meeting of September 3, 1996 and marked "Exhibit A". 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 res�lt 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. . Resolution No. 96-1582 Variance Case No. 96-198 Ottse, Inc. September 3, 1996 Page 3 On motion by Commissioner Titus, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and by the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Titus, Deviny and Tappan NOES: Commissioner Keen ABSENT: Commissioner Lubin the foregoing Resolution failed to receive the four affirmative 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. ATTFST: � �� uc' e Breese, Commission Clerk William Tapp , Chair AS TO CONTENT: ")J1 Doreen Community Development Director