09.b. Consideration of a Resolution Approving Appeal to Planning Commission 15-001MEMORANDUM
TO : PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: ~9 MATTHEW DOWNING. ASSISTANT PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING APPEAL TO
PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO. 15-001 AND DENYING MINOR
EXCEPTlON 15-003; LOCATION - 257 LA CRESTA DRIVE;
APPELLANT - KRISTIN HAMMOND
DATE: JUNE 16,2015
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving Appeal
Case No. 15-001 and denying Minor Exception Case No. 15-003.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
None.
BACKGROUND:
On April 22, 2015, the Community Development Director approved Minor Exception
Case No. 15-003 for the installation of an eight foot (8') fence near the rear property line
of 257 La Cresta Drive pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.16.100.B.1. On May 1,
2015, the appellant submitted an appeal of this determination to the Planning
Commission. At the regular meeting of May 19, 2015, the Planning Commission
reviewed the appeal of Minor Exception Case No. 15-003, considered all the facts and
public testimony, took tentative action to approve the appeal and deny the proposed
project, and directed staff to return with a resolution with appropriate findings for denial
of the project.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Staff has developed findings for approving the appeal and denial of the proposed fence.
Findings required for approval of the project that could not be made in the affirmative
based on Planning Commission discussion are indicated in bold italics in the attached
resolution.
Although an eight foot (8') fence would be denied, the applicant would maintain the
ability to construct a six foot (6') fence in accordance with Municipal Code Subsection
16.48.070.A.2., which states "A wall, hedge or fence not more than six feet in height
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING APPEAL TO PLANNING
COMMISSION CASE NO. 15-001 AND DENYING MINOR EXCEPTION 15-003
JUNE 16,2015
PAGE 2
may be maintained along any interior side yard, rear yard, or street side yard; provided
that such wall, hedge or fence does not extend into the required front yard".
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for the Planning Commission's consideration:
Adopt the attached Resolution approving Appeal Case No. 15-001 and denying
Minor Exception Case No. 15-003;
Modify and adopt the attached Resolution approving Appeal Case No. 15-001
and denying Minor Exception Case No. 15-003;
Do not adopt the attached resolution; or
e Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Adoption of the Resolution would approve the appeal and deny the construction of a
fence, wall, or hedge greater than six feet (6') at 257 La Cresta Drive, consistent with
the tentative action taken by the Planning Commission on May 19, 2015.
DISADVANTAGES:
Denying the project would not allow an application for the same or substantially similar
project to be resubmitted for one year, in accordance with Section 16.12.120 of the
Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and determined that it is categorically exempt per Section 15305 of the
CEQA Guidelines regarding minor alterations in land use limitations.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The agenda and staff report were posted at City Hall and on the City's website on June
12, 2015.
RESOLUTION NO.
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
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.
PAGE 2
Strict enforcement of limiting the rear yard fence height to six feet (67
would not result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
due to alternative screening mefhods being available fo ensure adequate
and customary privacy between the subject property and adjacent
properties withouf the need for a fence higher than that aliowed 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 limifing the rear yard fence height to six feet (67
would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property
owners due fo alternative screening mefhods being available fo ensure
adequafe and customary privacy between the subject properfy 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 limifations 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 incompafible with adjoining uses.
RESOLUTION NO.
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 , seconded by Commissioner , and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16'~ day of June 201 5.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4
ATTEST:
DEBBIE WEICHINGER,
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
TERESA McCLISH,
LAN GEORGE, CHAIR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR