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