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