PC R 93-14092 �9 �
RESOLUTION NO. 93-1409
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMI��ISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A
VARIANCE, CASE NO. 92-171, APPLIED FOR BY
MERILEE PECK-NEWDOLL AT 1385 BRIGHTON
AVENUE, VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF
DEVELOPMENT CODE TABLE 9-04.050-A
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anoyo Grande has considered
Variance Case No. 92-171, filed by Merilee Peck-Newdoll, to allow for a reduction in the
minimum lot size as required in the Development Code Table 9-04.050-A; 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. Specifically, surrounding properties were developed at densities
exceeding the proposed density and with smaller lots than are proposed. Requiring lot
sizes even larger than proposed would place a hardship on the property not otherwise
shared by others in the surrounding area.
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. This is the last large infill lot in this portion
of the City. All other properties in this area were developed under previous codes at
higher densities than are proposed for this subdivision.
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. Surrounding properties have been developed at higher densities and than the
proposed project and to require larger lots would deprive the applicant of the same
privileges enjoyed by those who developed surrounding properties.
4.
5.
6.
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.
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.
The granting of a variance is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General
Plan and the intent of this title.
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:
� 4j
Resolution No. 93-1409
Variance Case No. 92-171
Merilee Peck-Newdoll
March 16, 1993
Page Two
General Conditions
l. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements
as are applicable to this project.
2. This application shall automatically expire on March 16, 1995 unless Tentative Tract
Map 2109 is recorded or an extension is approved. 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 original date of expiration.
3. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the
Planning Commission at the meeting of March 16, 1993 and marked "Exhibit A".
4. 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.
Planning Department Conditions
5. Development shall conform with the SF zoning requirements unless otherwise approved.
On motion of Commissioner Tappan, seconded by Commissioner Hatchett, and on the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Reilly, Deviny, Hatchett and Chairman Soto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Carr and Moore
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 16th day of March, 1993.
ATTEST: