PC R 95-1502RCSOLUZ'ION NO. 95=1502
A R�SOLUTION OF TI PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE G�tANTING A
VARIANCE, CAS� NO. 95-188, APPLI�D FOR BY
FARROLL ROAD GItOUI', AT 1131 TARROLL AVENUE.
V�RIANC� FROM DEVELOPMI:NT COD� S�CTION 9-
15.020 TO RCDUC� TIIC ItIGIIT-0r-WAY WIDTII OF A
LOCAL STRECT TROM 52 'TO 50 FEE1'; ADOI'1'ION Or A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INSTRUCTION THAT
TIIE SECRETARY FILE A NOTICE OF D�T�RMINAI ION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered
Variance Case No. 95-188, filed by Farroll Road Group, to allow a variance from Development
Code Section 9-15.020 to reduce tlie right-of-way width of a I_ocal Street from 52 to 50 feet;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on this application in
accordance with tl�e City Code; and
WIIER�AS, the Planning Commission has found that this project is consistent with the
General Plan and the Environmental documents associated therewith; and
WHER�AS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that a Negative Declaration
can be adopted, and instructs the Secretary to file a Notice of Determination; and
WH�REAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, the following circumstances exist:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL (Based on the �pplicant's letter)
1. Tl�e strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result
� in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not otherwise shared by others in the
surrounding area because a strict interpretation of the Development Code does not allow
any adjustment of the width of lhe standard City street for a Planned Unit Development
(PUD). Tliis prevents one attempt to meet tlie PUD Performance Standard SK of lhe
Development Code whicl� promotes an attractive streetscape and discourages monotonous
streets dominated by aspl�alt. No one else in tliis area I�as proposed a zero-lot line PUD
with all single story homes using both side and rear yards. The strict application would
result in a loss of open space for ll�e proposed homes.
2. Tliere 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 properlies classified in the same zone. The intended use of the property is unique
to the City as compared to other properties in tl�e same zoning district. This is the only
project that is all single story I�omes utilizing bot}� side and rear yards in a zero lot line
project concept. In addition, the project is a redesign of an older subdivision with 40
foot wide streets.
�
�
LJ�
Resolntion No. 95-1502
V��•i�nce Case No. 95-188
T�croll Road Group
1Vi�i•ch 21, 1995
Page 2
3. The strict or literal interpretation ancl enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by. owners of other pcoperties classified in the
same zone Uecause the interpretation or enforcement deprives the applicant the ability to
maximize the open space of the lots under the proposed single slory, zero lot line
concept. It is also inconsistent with the applicant's design considerations for (he PUD
process. -
4. The granting of tl�e variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
witl� t}�e limitations on ot}ier properties classified in the same zone because a PUD has
more requirements than other �rvperties in the same zoning district.
, , s .
��
�
7
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public heallh, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The granting of a variance is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General
Plan and the intent of this title.
The granting of the requested variance will not result in the parking of vehicles on public
streets in such a manner as to interfere wilh the free flow of traffic.
NOW, TI-ICREFOR�, 1�E IT Rr.SOLVED that the Planning Commission vf the City
of Arroyo Grande hereby approves said variance, subject to the standard conditions of the City
listed below:
General Conditions
1. The applicant shall
as are applicable to
ascertain and comply with all Slate, County and City requirements
this project.
2. This application shall automatically expire on March 21, 1997 unless subslantial
construction of the roadway is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion, or
public imprvvements have been accepted. T}iirty (30) days prior to tl�e expiration of tl�e
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 wi.th the plans presented to the
Planning Commission at the meeting of March 21, 1995 and marked "Exhibit A" except
as modified herein.
4. The applicant sl�all agree to defend at l�is/I�er sole expense any action brougl�t against tl�e
City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in
the alternative, to relinquish such approval. 'I'he applicant shalt 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 lo pay as a result of suc}i
action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense
of any such action but such participation sliaU not relieve applicant of his/her obligations
under this condition.
Resolut.ion No. 95-1502
Variance Case No. 95-188
Tarroll Road Group
March 21, 1995
Page 3
Planning Department Conditions
5. Development sl�all conform with the MF zoning requirements unless otherwise approved.
6. The developer shall comply with all conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit
Case No. 94-528 and Lot I�ine Adjustment Case No. 94-521.
Public Works Depart.ment Conditions •
7. Tl�e developer sliall comply witt� all conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit
Case No. 94-528 and Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 94-521 except that the right-of-way
width for the interior street is reduced to 50 feet. The approved street section shall
consist of two 11 foot travel lanes, two 8 foot parking laiies and two 6 foot sidewalks.
I'he curb to curb dimension sl�all be 38 feet.
On motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Carr, Deviny, Beck and Chairperson Keen
NOES: Commissioners Tappan and Soto
ABSENT: Commissioner Hatchett
the foregoing Resolution was adopted tt�is 21 st day of Marcl�, 1995.
AT1 EST:
� �.s�e�.a � stAV.�r�J
Nancy Bro n Commission Clerk
Jo Keen, C irperson
I
_�