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