PC R 15-2229 I
RESOLUTION NO. 15-2229
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING APPEAL
CASE NO. 15-001 AND DENYING MINOR EXCEPTION
CASE NO. 15-003; LOCATED AT 257 LA CRESTA DRIVE;
APPLIED FOR BY FRANK GANDOLFO; APPEALLED BY
KRISTIN HAMMOND
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2015, the applicant submitted an application for Minor Exception
No. 15-003 for the construction of an eight foot (8') fence at the rear lot line of his property
located at 257 La Crest Drive, citing privacy issues due to sloping terrain; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2015, the Community Development Director approved Minor
Exception No. 15-003 based upon the findings for approval of the permit pursuant to
Municipal Code Section 16.16.100; and
WHEREAS, notices of the Community Development Director's determination were mailed
to all property owners within 300' of the project site to alert them of the approved request
to deviate from fence height standards; and
-I WHEREAS, on May 1, 2015, an appeal of the approval was filed with the Community
Development Secretary by Kristin Hammond; and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed the project at a duly
noticed public hearing on May 19, 2015, considered all written evidence and oral
testimony; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo
Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has determined that the
project is exempt per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines regarding minor alterations
in land use limitations; and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2015, the Planning Commission tentatively approved the appeal,
denying the project, and directed staff to return with a resolution approving the appeal
with appropriate findings for denial of the minor exception; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, that the following circumstances exist and findings can be made:
Minor Exception Findings:
1. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship;
RESOLUTION NO. 15-2229
PAGE 2
Strict enforcement of limiting the rear yard fence height to six feet (6')
would not result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
due to alternative screening methods being available to ensure adequate
and customary privacy between the subject property and adjacent
properties without the need for a fence higher than that allowed under the
Municipal Code.
2. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to
other properties in the same district;
The subject property and the surrounding residential neighborhood are
located in an area of sloping terrain that impacts other properties similarly
as it does the subject property.
3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the
same district;
Strict enforcement of limiting the rear yard fence height to six feet (6')
would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property
owners due to alternative screening methods being available to ensure I
adequate and customary privacy between the subject property and
adjacent properties without the need for a fence higher than that allowed
under the Municipal Code.
4. The granting of the minor exception will not constitute a grant of special
privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the
same district and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; .
The residential neighborhood surrounding the subject property is located
in an area of sloping terrain and granting the minor exception would be
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the surrounding
area.
5. The granting of a minor exception is consistent with the objectives and policies of
the General Plan and the intent of Title 16 of the Municipal Code;
The objectives of the General Plan are implemented through the Municipal
Code and the proposed project is inconsistent with the purpose and intent
statement of the Minor Use Permit-Minor Exception provisions in the
Municipal Code due to the request being incompatible with adjoining uses.
RESOLUTION NO. 15-2229
PAGE 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande hereby approves Appeal Case No. 15-001 and denies Minor Exception
Case No. 15-003 based on the above findings.
On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Mack, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Keen, Mack, Fowler-Payne
NOES: None
ABSENT: Martin, George
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of June 2015.
ATTEST:
DEBBIE WEICHINGER, HN KEEN, ICE-CHAIR
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
/V l
TERE A McCLISH,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR