PC R 93-1445RTSOLUTION NO. 93-1445
A RESOLUTION OF THG PLANNING COMMISSION Or
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A
VARIANCE, CASE NO. 93-1.79, APPLIED FOR BY TH�
VONS COMPANI�S, INC., AT 1G50 GRAND AVENUE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of lhe City of Arroyo Grande has considered
Variance Case No. 93-179, filed by Tlie Vons Companies, Inc., to allow signs tliat exceed tl�e
number, area and I�eight of signs allowed by the Development Code in the General Co►nrnercial
District; and
WFIEREAS, the Planning Commission has I�eld a public hearing on this application in
accordance witl� the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that this project is consistent with the
General Plan and the Environ►nental Documents associated therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission l�as reviewed tl�is project in compliance witl� tlle
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project is
categorically exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15311.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, the following circumstances exist:
l. The strict or literal interpretation of tl�e regulation would limit the number and size of
signs for the proposed project and would create a practical difficulty not shared by otliers
in the surrounding area. Limiting tlie pylon sign height to 15' would also represent an
unnecessary physical hardsl�ip not shared by others, for ott�ers in ttie i►nmediate area l�ave
pylon signage that approximates, or exceeds the 25' height of tl�e proposed signage.
Likewise, all of the other markets, and large variety stores in the area liave main
storefront signage that is in excess of tl�e 70 sq. ft. single sign maximum.
2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to ll�e
property involved or to the intetided use of tl�e property that do not apply generally to
other properties in the same zotiing district. The proposed project's size; being a very
much larger store, with more mercl�andise, and different types of inercl�andise, creates
a situation not generally applicable to otl�er properties in the zoning district, one wliere
more signs are needed to provide equity, and where a larger pylon sign is needed to be
in keeping witl� its larger neigl�bors, and where also, a main storefront sign (on par witt�
its peers in tl�e immediate area) is appropriate. Tl�e proposed market is sited on a large
parcel of land with 3 major street frontages; entry signage for each main frontage wvuld
be sufflcient to mark the ingress/egress points for automobile traffic.
3. Tl�e strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive tl�e applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning
district. Tl�ere are several existing pylon signs in tl�e area tiiat are larger tl�an tl�e
proposed pylon sign, and comparable markets in tf�e area all have main storefront signs
that exceed tl�e 70 sq. ft. limit in tl�e Development Code. Another feature of otl�er
property owners projects that would Ue deprived is that of exterior signage for significant
�
Resolutioii No. 93-1445
Variance CASe No. 93-179
The Vons Companies, Inc.
NovemUer 16, 1993
Page Two
additional services provided by the center. In ttie past, a grocery market's merchandise
and services were limited to just tliat, with otl�er uses and services such as banking, floral
shops, hot bakeries relegated to separate shops. These separate shops were all allowed
signs. Prohibition of signage for tl�ese separate services now included within the main
market would constitute a deprivation of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in
the same zoning district that have separate shops supplying these services.
4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with tl�e limitations on other properties in the same zoning district. Other property
owners in the area already enjoy main storefront signage that exceeds the 70 sq. ft.
maximum stated in the Development Code, clearly, granting of Variance for the proposed
sign of 224 sq. ft. would not represent granting of special privilege. Likewise, tliere
exist in ttie same area several signs that exceed the 15' height limit, and granting a
Variance for the proposed pylon signage t�eigt�t_would not constitute a granting of special
privilege either. And in the case of ti�e number of signs; granting a variance for the
additional signs proposed would actually be preventing adjacent property owners from
being granted a special privilege by virtue of changing arcl�itectural typology that now
includes as integral, what were in the past separate ancillary businesses entitled to their
own signage.
5. The granting of tl�e variance will not be detrimental to tl�e public health, safety or
welfare, or ►naterially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The three
main street frontages along Oak Park, Grand Avenue, and Courtland Street each have
a single sign that will announce the proposed project to the motorist. The is i�ot
excessive for the street frontages involved. The otl�er signage proposed is all on the face
of the building and does not represent a distraction to motorists. Neither does proposed
� signage interfere with other 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. Having 3 site entry signs, at eacli of the
main frontages, will help to prevent erratic traffic movements that are caused wf�ei�
motorist realizes he/she has almost passed their destination. The proposed project size,
the significant percentage of tl�e site devoted to landscaping (17.9%) tl�e established
custom of larger pylon signage for larger projects, the multiple types of inerchandise
provided under one roof (which have not been typical in Arroyo Grande), the requested
variance for pylon height, number of signs, and maximum size of sign (for main
storefront sign) are in substantial conformance with the intent of tl�e General Plan and
the Development Code.
NOW, THEREI'ORE, BE IT RI:SOLV�D that the Planning Commission of ihe City
of Arroyo Grande hereby approves said variance, subject to the standard conditions of the City
and those conditions listed below:
Resolutio�i No. 93-1445
Vari�nce Case No. 93-179
The Vons Companies, Lic.
November 1G, 1993
Page Three
General Conditions
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements
as aze applicable to this project.
2. This application sliall automatically expire on November 16, 1995 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 tl�e
expiration of the approval, tl�e applicant may apply to tl�e Planning Commission for an
extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration.
3. Development sl�all occur iii substantial conformance witl� tl�e plans presented to the
Planning Commission at tl�e meeting of November 16, 1993 and marked "Exhibit A"
except as specifically modified herein by tlie following conditions.
4. The applicant shall agree to defend at 1�is/her 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 sucli approval. Tlie applicant shall reimburse tlie City, its
agents, officers, or employers, for any court costs and attorney's fee's wl�icl� 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 tlie defense
of any such action but such participation st�all not relieve applicant of tiis/her obligations
under this condition.
Arcl�itectur�l Advisory Cominittee Conditions
5. The heigl�t of tlie pylon sign shall be reduced to 20 feet.
On motion of Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and on the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYTS: Commissioners Tappan, Reilly, Deviny, Keen and Chairman Carr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Soto and Hatcl�ett �
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted tl�is 16t1� day of November, 1993
ATTFST:
; ��
Nancy Bro' , Commission Clerk Robert W. Carr, Chairman