PC R 95-1515It�SOLUTION NO. 95-1515
A R�SOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
TI3E CITY Or ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A
VARIANCE, CASE NO. 95-190, APPLI�D FOR �3Y TH�
VONS COMPANIES, INC. AT 1650 GRAND AVENUE,
VARIANCE I+ROM TI-IE R�QUIR�M�NT TOR A 15 FOOT
LANDSCAP�D STR�E'I' S�TBACK . FROM OAK PARK
BOULEVARD TO BiTILDINGS "D" AND "E"
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered
Variance Case No. 95-190, filed by The Vons Companies, Inc., to allow for a variance fro��
the requirement for a 15 foot landscaped street setback, from O�k Park Bnulevard to buildings
"D" and "E".
WI-IEREAS, the Plann�ng Commission has held a public hearing on this application in
accordance with the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission l�as found that this project is consistent with the
General Plan and the Environmental documents associated tl�erewith; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission l�as reviewed this project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and based upon tl�e Expanded Initial Study has
determined that a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures can be adopted; and
WH�REAS, ti�e Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberalion and public
hearing, the following circumstances exist:
1. The strict or literal interp�etation and enforcement of tt�e specified regulation would result
in practical difficulty or �nnecessary physical hardship not otherwise shared by others
within tl�e surrounding area. Requiring a tiniform minimum 15 fo�t landscape setback
presents a practical difficulty for construction on this property. Because the proposed
supermarket requires a large gross square footage, the parking requirement is high.
There is no practical way to meet safety and practical considerations for the parking lot
and provide efficient and safe movement of vehicles witl�in lhe property without a
reduction in the landscape setback requirements. �
2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstanees or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of tlle property that do not apply generally to
otl�er properties in the same zoning district. Development of a facility of this type results
in extraordinary construction circumstances. Site restraints on comparable properties irr
the vicinity are generally less -restrictive. Parcel configurations are generally more
rectangular, parcel depths are generally not as great, and existing slopes are flatter. In
general, a supermarket requires more parking for convenience and safety than other
commercial uses. The parking area must be large to provide the flatter slopes required
for safety and ad}�erence to tlie Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the natural slope
of the property creates a significant site constraint. In essence, a facility of this size,
placed witl�in surrounding grade that is rising more steeply than development standards
allow, cannot accommodate these extraordinary circumstances without allowing some
intrusion of parking and criU walls into the required landscape setback.
Resolution No. 95-1515
Vari�nce Case No. 95-190
Tlie Vons Companies, .Inc.
June G, 1995
P�ge 2
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. Strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of this landscape setback
requirement denies this property owner tl�e oppvrtunity to develop tlte property in a
manner enjoyed by otlier property owners in the same zoning district. The applicant is,
in effect, penalized for owning property tliat is more irregularly configured and steeply
sloping than similarly zoned properties in the vicinity. In fact, similar reductions in
landscape setbacks are common along Grand Avenue.
4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on otl�er properties in the same zoning district. Although there are
few comparable situations, similar uses in tf�e same zone liave been permitted to reduce
landscape setback require►nents due to similar site constraints.
5. Ttie 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. Reduction
of the required landscape setback would not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare since visual screening of tl�e parking lot will still be provided by the use of
extensive landscaping.
6. The granting of a variance is consistent with tl�e objectives and policies of the General
Plan and the intent of the Development Code. The granting of the variance is consistent
witl� the General Plan sand the intent of the Development Code.
Department of Tish and Game Required Findings of �xemption
l. The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an initial study pursuant to Section 15063 of
the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for Variance Case
No. 95-190.
2. Based on the initial study, a negative declaration drafted for review by tl�e public and
review and approval by the Planning Commission.
3. After holding a public hearing pursuant to State and City Codes, and considering the
record as a whole the Planning Commission adopted the negative declaration and found
that there is no substantial evidence of any significant adverse effect, either individually
. or cumulatively on wildlife resources as defined by Section 711.2 of tlie Fish and Game
Code or on the habitat upon which the wildlife depends as a result of development of this
project.
NOW, TI-IER�FOR�, B� IT R�SOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City
of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures; instructs tl�e
Secretary to file a Notice of Determination and approves said variance, subject to tlie standard
conditions of the City and those conditions and mitigations listed below:
Resolution No. 95-1515
Variance Case No. 95-190
The Vons Companies, Ilic.
June 6, 1995
Page 3
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 automa�jcally expire on June ¢, 1997 unless a building permit is
issued. Thirty �30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply
for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration.
3. Landscaped setbacks shall be developed in subsfantial cenformance with the plans
presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting of June 6, 1995 and marked
"Exhibit A", except as specifically modified by project conditions of approval.
4. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any actipn brougl�t 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 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 discre[ion, participate at its own expens� i� fhe defense
of any such action but such participation shal� not relieve applicant of ltis/her obligations
under this condition.
5. A negative declaration witil miEigation measures has been adopted for this prqject. The
mitigation measures attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Attachment
"A", shall be implemented as conditions of approval and shall be monitored by the
appropriate City department or otl�er responsible agency. Tl�e applicant slirall be
responsible for verification iu writing Uy the monitoring departFnent or agency that
the mitigation measures h�ve been implemented.
6. The applicant shall comply with all condilions of approval of Conditional Use Permit
Case No. 95-537.
On motion of Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Tappan, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Soto, Carr, Deviny, Beck and Chairperson Keen
NOES: None
ABSENT: Comm�ssioner Hatcllett
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6th day of June, 1995.
ATTEST:
Nan�� .' n, Commi ion Cle r` Jo een, Chai r.s�on
�