PC R 96-1561R�SOLtJTION NO. 96-15G1
A RESOLUTION Or THE I'LANNING COMMISSION OF
TH� CITY Or ARROYO GRAND� GRANT�I�TG VARIANCT
CAS� NO. 9G-197 FOR THE R�DUCTION IN REAR YARD
SETBACIC OI' BUILDING "C" FROM 20 FEET TO lU F�ET
APPLI�D FOR BY P�OPLTS s�Lr-xrLr I
CORPORATION, AT 1G3 SOUTI-I ELM STRECT
WI-I�R�AS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo G�ande has considered
Varia,r�ce Case No. 96-197, filed by Peoples' Self-Help Housing �orporation, to reduce the rear
yard setback allowed by the Development Code in the Condomiiuu�i/Townhouse (MF) Zone
from 20 feet to 10 feet for building "C"; and
WH�R�AS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on this application in
accordance with the City Code; and
WI-I�R�AS, the Planning Commission 1�as found that this project is consistent with the
General Plan and the Env3ronmental Documents associated therewith; and
WI-I�RF.AS, the Planning Com�nission has reviewed this pro�}ect in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WkI�REAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, de3iberatiot� and public
hearing, the following circtimstances exist:
1. The strict or literal interpr�tation and enforcement of the rear yard setback requirements
for the MF zone would result in practical difficulty or unneceSsary hardsl�ip not
otherwise shared by other sites in the surrounding area. The hardship of a reduced
affordable tmit count is not shared by other sites in the area in that other sites are not
also being developed by a non-profit developer of affordable housing usi�ig public funds.
Further, otl�er sites are not impacted by tlie number of healthy, mature native Oak trees
that must be retained, and which must compete for site ar.ea with building and parking
area, and which sPecifically impact the area of the site occupied by the huildings wherein
the subject variance is requested.
2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicaUle to the
property involved or to the intended use of ti�e property tl�at do not apply generally to
other properties classified in tlie same zone. The exceptidnal or extraordinary
circumstance applicable to the proposed project site is its identification as an
appropriately located and available site for affordable housing. It is also subject to a high
population of native Oak trees, including one very large native Oak tree specifically
identified by t}�e City for preservation. Tt�ese circumstances do not apply generally to
other sites in the MF zone.
3. The strict or literal interprelation and enforcement of the speeified regulation would
deprive tl�e applicant of privileges ei�joyed by owners of otl�er properties classified in tiie
same zone. A strict or literal interpretation of rear yard setback requirements will
deprive the site's owners of tlie ability to develop d�e previously approved number of
affordable housing units eliminating the project's aUili.ty to be funded as intended.
�: \reso\peepics' .ver.lk
Resululiun Nu. 9C-1�61
Varinnce Case No. 9C-197
Peoples' Self-IIelp �Iousing Corpor�tion
June 4, 1996
Page 2
4. The granling of the variance will not conscilute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. The granting of a
variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege because it is specific to the
affordable nature of tl�e proposed development and tlte number and arrangement of
existing trees on tlie subject site.
5. The granting of lhe variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the area. The granting
of the setback variance does not generate a significant negative impact on lhe provision
of liglit, fire separation and privacy between structures on neigliboring properties. Tlie
proposed variance affects one end of one building, of one and two story construction,
constituting approximately 16% of tlie length of the subject rear property line. Opaque
fencing and intensive landscaping shall screen [he reduced-setback building from the
neighboring property.
6. 1'l�e granting of a variance is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General
Plan and the intent of the Development Code which are supportive of the provision of
affordable housing iii tlle City of Arroyo Grai�de.
Dep�rtme�it uf Tish and Game Required rindings:
l. The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an initial scudy pursuant lo Section 15063 of
the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act for Variance Case No. 96-
197.
2. Based on the initial study, a negative declaration was prepared for review by tlie public
and review and approval by the Planning Commission.
3. Afler holding a public hearing pursuant to State and City Cocles, and considering the
record as a whole, lhe Ylanning Commission adopted the negative declaration and found
that lhere is no substantial evidence of any significant adverse effect, either individually
or on the habitat upon which the wildlife depends as a result of development of this
project.
NOW, TI-II:R�I�OR�, BL' II' R�SOLV�D that the Planning Commission of the City
of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts a negative declaration, instrucls the secretary to file a Notice
of Determination and approves said variance, with lhe above findings and subject to lhe
conditions as set fortll iii Attach»>ent "A", altached hereto and incorporated herein by tliis
reference.
On motion by Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
c:lreeo\peoplee' . v nr.lk
Resolutioii No. 9G-15G1
Va�•i�nce Case No. 96-197 .
Peoples' Self-Help IIousing Corpor�tion
June 4, 199G �
I'age 3
AYES:
NOES:
ABSrNT:
Commissioners Tappan, Deviny., Carr and Keen
None
Co►nmissioners Lubin, Soto and Beck
the foregoing Resolution was adopted tl�is 4t1� day of June, 1996.
ATTTST:
�
\ �
L- ci�le Breese, Commission Clerk
\
TO �ON'T��IT�
��
J n Keen, Chai erso�i
erto-Blanck, Cornmunity Development Director
�
e:\reso\pcoples'.ver.lk
A'1°I'ACIIML+'N'I' "A"
CONDI'TIONS OF A1'YROVAL
VARIANCE CAS� NO. 96-197
163 South Elm Street
P�OPL�S' SELr-III:LP HOUSING CORPORAT'ION
G�N�RAL CONDITIONS
COMMUNITY D�VELOPM�NT' D�PARTMENT
1'his approval autl�orizes the reduction in rear yard setback fro►n 20 feet to 10 feet from rear
property line for building "C" only.
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City
reqiiirements as are applicable to tl�is project.
2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit
Case No. 94-531, Amendment #1, Conditional Use Permit Case No. 94-531 and
Associated Architectural Review and Variance Case No. 94-187.
3. Tl�is application sl�all automatically expire on June 4, 1998 uilless a building permit is
issued. Tliirty (30) days prior to tl�e expiration of the approval, tlie applicant may apply
for an extension of one (1) year from tf�e original date of expiration.
4. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the
Planning Commission at the meeting of June 4, 1996 and marked "Exhibit A".
5. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the
City, its present or former agenls, officers, or employees because of the issuance of saicl
approval, or in anyway relaling to the implementation thereof, or in the alternative, to
relinquish 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 sucil
aclion but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this
condition.
6. Pi•ioi• to final inspection, tlle applicant shall install opaque fencing and intensive
landscaping to screen building "C" from lhe neighboring property and increase privacy.
c: \reso\poop lea' . var.lk