Loading...
PC R 93-14213 3�2 RESOLUTION NO. 93-1421 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 93-176, APPLIED FOR BY THE VONS COMPA1vIES, INC., AT 1650 GRAND AVENUE, VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 9-10.070; ADOPTION OF A NEGATIV� DECLARATION AND INSTRUCTION THAT THE SECRETARY FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Variance Case No. 93-176, filed by The Vons Companies, Inc., to allow for several retaining and sound walls in excess of the heights for walls allowed by the Development Code Section 9-10.070; and WHEREAS, 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 therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that a Negative Declaration can be adopted, and instructs the Secretary to file a Notice of Determination; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: 1. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not otherwise shared by others in the surrounding area. Limiting the use of a retaining wall to six feet in height does present a practical difficulty for construction on this property. Because the proposed facility requires a large gross square footage, the parking requirement is high. Construction of this large parking area at slopes that are safe for shopping carts and patrons (2% to 2.5%), results in the development area being lower than adjacent grade. Courtland Street rises from Grand Avenue at approximately 5%. This divergence of grade between Courtland Street and the parking lot results in the need for a 20-foot high retaining wall at the rear of the site, some 652 feet northerly of Grand Avenue. Since supermarkets require single level floors for transporting products from rear storage areas to the display racks, different floor levels cannot be used to reduce the cut at the rear of the site. Any such stepping of tl�e buildings presents an unnecessary physical hardship to this facility that other similar operations do not experience. There is no practical way to meet safety requirements for the parking lot and provide efficient and safe movement of goods within the facility without having the development area recessed below a portion of the existing surrounding grade. 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zone. Construction of a facility of this type does result in extraordinary circumstances for construction. Because the existing grade rises at 5% to the north there is no practical way to mitigate this increase in grade through development of the property. Because the use of the property requires generally flatter slopes for safety and adl�erence to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the slope of the adjacent property aggravates the ability to reduce wall height. Other types of uses within the same zoning district can more easily accommodate changes in grade relative to building floor elevations. Parcel depths in the vicinity are not as great as this particular property and existing slopes are generally flatter. In essence, a facility of this size, placed within surrounding grade that is rising more steeply than development standards allow, cannot accommodate this extraordinary circumstance without the construction of retaining walls in excess of the six foot height limitation. Resolution No. 93-1421 Variance Case No. 93-176 The Vons Companies, Inc. June 15, 1993 Page Two 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the same zone. Strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of this retaining wall height limitation denies this property owner the opportunity to develop the property in a manner enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district. The applicant is, in effect, penalized for owning property that is more steeply sloping than similarly-zoned properties in the vicinity. To address the sloping condition of the property directly across from the proposed site, the Lucky Center on Courtland Street, has a cast in-place concrete retaining wall ranging in height from 10 feet to 18 feet along the entire rear drive aisle. 4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. Other similar uses in the same zone have been permitted to exceed wall height limitations due to similar slope constraints. 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. Construction of a retaining wall greater than six feet in height would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare because safety barriers will be placed at the top of the walls to prevent access or intrusion. The walls will be landscaped to deter climbing and graffiti and can be easily monitored by on-site personnel. The landscaped criblock wall's open-face design functions both as an acoustical and landscape buffer between adjoining properties. 6. The granting of a variance is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan and the intent of this title. The granting of the variance is consistent with the General Plan and the intent of the Development Code, as the variance would provide a safe alternative to a stepped retaining wall, which would be allowed without a variance. Construction of a properly landscaped criblock wall is easier to maintain than three tiers of six-foot retaining walls; is less likely to fall than three staggered six-foot retaining walls and benches; and is more attractive because each of the six-foot retaining walls would require the installation of a safety barrier due to heights in excess of 30 inches. Since the retaining walls are minimally visible to the general public, and will receive extensive landscape and/or design treatments, they will not be visually prominent or attract adverse attention. Furthermore, Section 9-10.070(2) of the Development Code indicates that in some instances a variance for wall height may be appropriate for walls used for screening or sound attenuation. Department of Fish and Game Required Findings of Exemption 1. The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an initial study pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for Variance Case No. 93-176. 2. Based on the initial study, a negative declaration drafted for review by the public and 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 whole the Planning Commission adopted the negative declaration and found that there is no substantial evidence of any significant adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources as defined by Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code or on the habitat upon which the wildlife depends as a result of development of this project. 3�3 �: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts a Negative Declaration, instructs the Secretary to file a Notice of Determination; and approves said variance, subject to the standard conditions of the City and those conditions listed below: 3 3� 4. Resolution No. 93-1421 Variance Case No. 93-176 The Vons Companies, Inc. June 15, 1993 Page Three General Conditions 1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 2. This variance shall automatically expire on June 15, 1995 unless a conditional use permit is approved for construction of a new Williams Brothers/Vons store. If a conditional use permit is approved for a new Williams Brothers/Vons store, this application will automatically expire on the same date as the conditional use permit 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 the Planning Commission for an extension of one (1) year from the date of expiration. 3. This variance was reviewed specifically for, and applies specifically to a proposed Williams Brothers/Vons store. No other use or applicant shall be entitled to use this application as a basis for development. If the proposed store does not develop during the time period specified in condition two, this application will become null and void. 4. Retaining walls exceeding six (6) feet in height are approved for the locations shown on the plans presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting of June 15, 1993 and marked "Exhibit A". In no way does this approval allow a decrease in the setbacks or landscaping required by the Development Code. 5. Retaining or sound walls exceeding the three (3) foot height limit in a street setback area are approved for the locations shown on the plans presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting of June 15, 1993 and marked "Exhibit A" with the exception of the crib wall directiv adiacent to Oak Park Bot�levard which is denied without prejudice. In no way does this approval allow a decrease in the setbacks or landscaping required by the Development Code. 6. The applicant shall 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 employers, 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 such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. 7. A negative declaration with mitigation measures has been adopted for this project. The following mitigations shall be implemented as conditions of approval and shall be monitored by the appropriate City department or other responsible agency. The applicant shall be responsible for verification in writing by the monitoring department or agency that the mitigation measures have been implemented. Mitigation Measures 8. The proposed walls shall be extensively landscaped and/or shall receive design or architectural treatments to allow them to blend in with the project and/or site and/or vicinity. Specific wall design, colors, materials, architectural treatments, landscaping irrigation, and so forth shall be subject to the review of the Architectural Advisory Committee and the review and approval of the Planning Commission as part of the conditional use permit review of the proposed store. Ti�ne Frame: During the review and approval process for the proposed store. Responsible Department: Planning Department � I � � Resolution No. 93-1421 Variance Case No. 93-176 The Vons Companies, Inc. June 15, 1993 Page Four 9. In the event that during grading, construction or development of the project, any archaeological resources are uncovered, all work shall be halted until the city has reviewed the resources for their significance. If human burials are encountered, the County Coroner (781-4514) shall be contacted immediately. The applicant may be required to provide archaeological studies and/or mitigation measures. All grading and improvement plans shall be noted to reflect this mitigation. Time Frame: During grading, construction or development of the project. ResponsiUle Department/Agency: Building Department Planning Department Conditions 10. Development shall conform with the GC zoning requirements unless otherwise approved. 11. This variance approves wall heights in excess of heigllts allowed by City Codes. It does not approve specific design aspects of the proposed walls which shall be reviewed as specified in mitigation measure number 8. 12. All gate, fence, wall, and/or guard rail designs shall be shown on the plans presented for approval of the proposed store. All designs shall be subject to review of the Architectural Advisory Committee and review and approval of the Planning Commission. Building Department Conditions 13. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall apply for permits and pay appropriate fees. 14. 15. Protective guard rails are required anywhere that a retaining wall in excess of 30 inches high abuts a public way. The landscaped area between the cribwall and the sound wall, between the store and the church shall be gated to prohibit public access. On motion of Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Reilly, and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Reilly, Deviny, Hatchett, Keen, and Chairman Soto NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Carr the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of June, 1993. ATTEST: � Nancy Brow , Commission Clerk o n S o, Chairman 335: