Loading...
PC R 94-1483R�SOLUTION NO. 94-1483 A RESOLUTION OF TI�E PLANIVING COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING VARIANC� CASE NO. 94-186 FOR SIGN DEVIATIONS, APPLIED I'OR BY KI H. ACIIADJIAN, AT 525 TRAFFIC WAY WIiEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Variance Case No. 94-186, filed by Khatchik H. Acl�adjian, to allow signs tliat exceed the number, height, and total area allowed by tl�e Development Code in the Highway Commercial, HC-D-2.11 Zone; and WH�R�AS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on �this application in accordance with the City Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that this project is consistent with the General Plan and the Environmental Documents associated tl�erewitli; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environrnental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project is categorically exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15311(a); and WI the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: 1. Tlle strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not otherwise sliared by others in t}�e surrounding area. A survey of similar uses shows that those uses have signs similar to tliose signs proposed by the applicant. 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to tl�e intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zone. This use is a gas station that is required by State Law to provide certain signage. Additionally, this is a highway oriented use and as such, requires signs that can be readily visible from surrou►iding roads and highways. 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of tlie specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the same zone because other similar uses generally enjoy signage that is consistent witl� wi�at is being proposed by the applicant. 4. The granting of tlie variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on olher properties classified in the same zone. 5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public I�ealtf�, 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 the Development Code which are to encourage economic vitality and business activity, protect investments wl�ile preserving the environment and character of the City because said signs are important to tl�e success of this and similar businesses but are not out of scale or character with other signs in this zone and vicinity. Resolution No. 94-1483 Vari�nce Case No. 94-186 I�hatchik �I. Achadjian September 20, 1994 Page Two NOW, THERCFORE, BE IT R�,SOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves said variance, subject to the standard conditions of tlie City and those conditions listecl below: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Gener�l Couditions 1. The applicant shall as are applicable to ascertain and cotnply with all State, County and City requirements this project. 2. This application shall automatically expire on SeptemUer 20, 1996 unless a building permit is issued. T}�irty (30) days prior to tl�e expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration. 3. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting of September 20, 1994 and marked "Exhibit A" and Exhibit "B" except as modified by the conditions of approval. 4. The applicant sliall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought 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 discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any sucii action but sucli participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. 5. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 94-524 and Planned Sign Program Case No. 94-114a. On motion by Commissioner Solo, seconded by Commissioner Carr, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Solo, Carr, Deviny, Hatchett and Chairperson Keen NOES: None ABSENT: None I L the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of September, 1994. ATTEST: � Nancy IIro n Commission Clerk Jo een, i erson