Loading...
PC R 95-1498Rr,SOLUTION NU. 95-1498 A R�SOLUTION OF T'I-IC PLANNING COMIVIISSION OF TH� CITY Or ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CAS� NO. 94-187, APPLIED FOR BY PEOPL�S' SELr-I-ICLI' HOUSING CORPORATION, AT 163 SOUTI-I ELM STRE�T, VARIANCE FOR OPEN PARKING AS OPPOSED TO COVERED PARI{ING AND R�DUCTION OI' R�QUIR�D PARICING SPACL+S. WI-IEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Variance Case No. 94-187, filed by Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation, to allow for open parking rather t}ian covered parking, and for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces; and WII�RCAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on this application in accordance with the City Code; and WI�iER�AS, the Planning Commission has found that this project is consistent with the General Plan and the Environmental doctiments associated tl�erewith; and WI tl�e Planning Commission I�as reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environ►nental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures can be aciopted, and instructs tl�e Secretary to file a Notice of Determination; and WH�REAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, tl�e following circt►mstances exist: Findings (Provided by the Applic�nt.) 1. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the speci�ied regulation would result in practical dif�iculty or unnecessary hardship not otherwise shared by others in the surrounding area. The hardship of a reduced affordable unit count is not shared by other sites in tl�e area in that other sites are not also being developed by a non-profit developer of affordable housing using public funds. Furtl�er, other sites are not impacted by the number of I�ealtl�y, mature native Oak trees that must be retained, and whicl� must compete for site area with parking and building area. 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to tl�e intencled use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties classified in tl�e same zone. The exceptional or extraordinary circumstance applicable to tlie 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. Tl�ese circumstances no not apply generally to other sites in the MF zoning district. 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcernent of tl�e specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of ot}�er properties classified in the same zone. A strict or literal interpretation of parking requirements would deprive the site's owners of tl�e ability to develop several affordable l�ousing units. Other property owners in the same zoning district wlio are not developing affordable housing are able to meet development objectives by making the market bear the effects of a lower unit cvunt. Resolulion No. 95-1498 Vari�nce C�se No. 94-187 Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corpor�tion January 17, 1995 Page 2 4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on otl�er properties classified in the same zone. The granting of a variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege because it is specific to tl�e affordable nature of the proposed development. 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. 6. The granting of a variance is consistent with the objectives and policies of tl�e General Plan and the intent of tl�e Development Code which are supportive of the provision of affordaUle housing in Arroyo Grande. 7. Tlie granting of the requested variance will not result in the parking of vel�icles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic because statistics show that the proposed two spaces per unit is an adequate amount of parking for this type of project and because tlie new curb, gutter, and sidewalk to be installed with this project will provide for orderly parallel parking off site. Department of Tisl� �nd Game Required Findings: 1. Tl�e City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an initial study pursuant to Section 15063 of tl�e Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act for Variance Case No. 94- 187. 2. Based on tlie initial study, a negative declaration was prepared for review by the public an 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 wl�ole, the Planning Commission adopted the negative declaration and found that there 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, T�ICRErORE, B� IT R�SOLV�D that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves said variance, subject to the standard conditions of the City and those conditions and mitigations listecl below: Gener�l Conditions l. The applicant shall ascertain and comply wilh all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 2. This application shall automatically expire on January 17, 1997 unless a building permit is issued and substantial construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion, or a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply to ti�e Planning Commission for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration. I �J Resolution No. 95-1498 Variance Case No. 94-187 Peoples' Self-Help I-Iousing Corporatio►� January 17, 1995 Page 3 3. Development sl�all occur in su�stantial conformance with the plans presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting of January 17, 1995 and marked "Exl�ibit A". 4. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/}�er sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of tl�e 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 wl�icli tl�e 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 sucl� action but sucl� participation sliall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. Pl�nning Depart�nent Conditio��s 5. llevelopment shall conform witli tl�e MF zoning requirements tinless otherwise approved. This variance approves: � 7 a) A reduction in tl�e number of required parking spaces from 56.5 to 40; b) The elimination oF the requirement for covered parking; The applicant shall comply with all the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 94-531. This approval sliall be null and void if Conditional Use Permit Case No. 94-531 is not approved or constructed. On motion of Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Hatchett, and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Cornmissioners Soto, Carr, Hatcliett, Beck and Vice C1�airperson Tappan NO�S: None ABSENT: Commissioner Deviny and Chairperson Keen the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted tl�is 17th day of January, 1995. ATTEST: Nancy Bro i, Commission Clerk � William Tap an, Vice Chairperson