PC R 95-1511RESOLUT'I.ON NO. 95-1511
A RTSOLUTION OF TI-IE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
T�-iE CITY OT ARROYO GRAND� GRANTING AMENDED
VARIANCE CASE NO. 94-18G TOR SIGN DEVIATIONS,
APPLI�D TOR BY I{HATCHIIC H. ACHADJIAN, AT 525
TRAFFIC WAY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered
amended Variance Case No. 94-186, filed by Khatchik H. Achadjian, to allow signs that exceed
the number, heigf�t, area for a single sign face and total area allowed by the Development Code
in tl�e Hig}�way Commercial, HC-D-2.11 Zone; 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 tl�is project is consistent with the
General Plan and the Environrnental Documents associated therewitli; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined tliat the project is
categorically exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15311(a); and
WI the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, the foliowing circumstances exist:
1. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of tf�e specified regulation would result
in practical diffculty or unnecessary hardsl�ip not otherwise sl�ared by otl�ers in the
surrounding area. A survey of similar uses shows that those uses have signs similar to
those signs proposed by tiie applicant and tfiis gasoline service station is adjacent to the
freeway and depends on 50% of their business coming off the freeway at Traffic Way.
2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved vr to the intended use of tfie property that do not apply generally to
other properties classified in tlie same zone. This use is a gas station that is required by
State Law to provide certain signage. Additionally, this is a highway oriented use and
as such, requires signs tl�at can be readily visible from surrounding roads and liighways.
3. The strict or literal interpretatio�i and enforcement of tl�e speciFed regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of otl�er properties classified in tlie
same zone becai�se otl�er similar tises generaily enjoy signage that is consistent with what
is being proposed by the applicant.
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.
5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public healt}i, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
6. The granting of a variance is consistenC witli the objectives and policies of tl�e General
Plan and the inlent of lhe Development Code which are to encourage economic vitality
and business activity, protect investments while preserving the environment and character
of the City because said signs are i►nportant to the success of tl�is and similar businesses
but are not out of scale or character with other signs in this zone and vicinity.
J
Resolutioii No. 95-1511
Amended Variance Case No. 94-186
Khatchik H. Achadjian
June 6, 1995
Page Two
NOW, T��EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City
of Arroyo Grande hereby approves said variance, subject to the standard conditians of the City
and those conditions listed below:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
General Conditions
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply witli all State, County and City reguirements
as are applicable to this project.
2. This application shall automatically expire on June 6, 1997 unless a building permit is
issued. Tl�irty (30) days prior to tt�e expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply
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 at the meeting of June 6, 1995 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 reli�quish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its
agents, officers, or employees, 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. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit
Case No. 94-524 and Amended Planned Sign Program Case No. 94-114a.
On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Tappan, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYTS: Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Beck and Chairperson Keen
NOES: Commissioners Carr and Deviny
ABSENT: Commissioner Hatcllett
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of June, 1995.
ATTTST:
Nanc�—B w, Commis 'on C1 Jo een, Cha' son �
n
�U