PC R 93-1415320
RESOLUTION NO. 93 - 1415
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 93-174 TO ALLOW A
RETAINING WALL IN EXCES5 OF SIX FEET AND TO WAIVE A
REQUIREMENT FOR A SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL FOR A GAS STATION
AND MINI-MART LOCATED AT 100 BARNETT STREET,
ARCO PRODUCTS, APPLICANT.
WHEREAS, ARCO Products has applied for a Variance to allow a retaining wall that will
be approximately 12 feet high in places, when the usual standard is six feet, for a gas station and
mini-mart proposed on property located at 100 Barnett in the HC (Highway Commercial) zoning
district; and
WHEREA5, ARCO Products has also applied for a Variance to allow a 42-inch
decorative metal fence on the norihern properly line of said project when Section 9- 11.160 C.5
requires a six foot high masonry wall at this location; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Apri16,
1993 continued to May 4, 1993 on this project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the project pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act and has approved a negative declaration with mitigations by
separate resolucion; and
WHEREAS, based on the application materials, the various oral and written staff reports,
the expanded Initial Study, testimony at the public meetings and hearings, recommendations from
the Architectural Advisory Committee, and written correspondence finds, after due study,
deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist:
1. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulations would result in
practical or unnecessary hardship not otherwise shared by others within the
surrounding area for the following reasons:
a. The site slopes signiiicantly to the northwest and a retaining wall is necessary to
allow the rear of the site to be approximately level with the adjacent streets; and
b. Because of these topographic conditions, the use of the site is severely restricted
without a retaining wall and till; and
c. A six foot high masonry wall located on top of this retaining wall would appear
massive and unattractive and, therefore, the intent of the masonry wall which is to
improve the appearance of service station uses would not be achieved, but rather
hampered, by the installation of the masonry wall in this case; and
d. Because the adjacent property is vacant, potential compatibility impacts between the
gas station and future uses of the adjacent property can be assessed at the time of
development of that property; no existing uses will be materially affected by the
waiver of the block wa11 requirement.
e. The alternative to the masonry wall, a decora�ive metal fence with vines planted at
its base effectively achieves the desired safety and aesthetic intent of the perimeter
treatrnent envisioned in the development code in this case.
2. That 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, namely, the site topography which
necessitates a retaining wall and which prevents a six foot masonry wall from achieving
its intended purpose.
3. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classitied
in the same zone because of the site topography.
4. That, therefore, the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on the other properties classified in the same
zone.
, ,. , , .
Resolution No. 1415
Varia��ce 93-174
ARCO Products
May 4, 1993
Page Two
5. That the granting of the variance as conditioned will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
. vicinity.
6. That the granting of a variance, as conditionec�, is consistent with objectives and
policies of the General Plan and the intent of the development code which is to allow
the site to be utilized for commercial purposes and to address potential aesthetic and
compatibility impacts at the projects perimeter.
,
�
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande hereby approves Variance No. 93-174, subject to the conditions of approval listed
in Attachment A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion of Commissioner Carr, seconded by Commissioner Tappan, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Carr, Reilly, Tappan and Chairman Soto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hatchett
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Deviny
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4th day of May, 1993.
ATTEST:
Nancy Brown, Planning Commission Clerk
John Soto, Chairman
3'2 `l
3 2:�
Attachment A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VARIANCE 93-174
FOR 100 BARNETT STREET
General Conditions
The applica��t shall ascertain and comply with all state, county, and city requirement�s as are
applicable to this project.
2. This approval shall automatically expire two years from the effective date of this approval
unless a building permit is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval
of this entitlement, the applicant may apply for an extension of one (1) year from the
original date of expiration.
3. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the
City, its agents, ofticers or employees because of the issuance of this 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 fees which the City, its agents,
officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of this 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 the applicant of his/her obligations under this
condition.
4. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans and exhibits approved
by the Planning Commission at its meeting of May 4, 1993, and on file with the Planning
Depanment, except as otherwise modified by these conditions of approval.