PC R 96-1577RESOLUTION NO. 96-1577
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECONIlVIENDING
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, INSTRUCT THE SECRETARY TO FILE
A NOTICE OF DETERIV�VATION, AND APPROVE
VARIANCE CASE NO. 96-195, APPLIED FOR BY RUSSELL
AND PAMELA SHEPPEL AT 880 OAK PARK BOULEVARD
WfiEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered
Variance Case No. 96-195, filed by Russell and Pamela Sheppel, to reduce the minimum lot
width requirement for Parcel 1 from 100 feet to 70 feet.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on this application in
accordance with 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 the draft negative declaration under
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, the following circumstances exist:
1. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the subject regulations would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not otherwise shared by others with
the surrounding area. The width of Parcel 1 is an existing condition. Stnct or literal
interpretation and enforcement of the minimum lot width standards would result in the
inability of the owners to create a viable individual parcel for an existing medical office
building. This would result in a practical difficulty not otherwise shared by others with
the surrounding area.
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. The locat�on of the eastern property line of
Pazcel 1 is an existing condition. The width of Parce� 1 can not be increased without
approval of a lot line adjustment between the applicant and the property owner to the
east.
3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified
in the same zone. The reduction in minimum lot width for Parcel 1 will allow the
creation of a separate parcel for the existing medical office building. Without a variance
from the minimum lot width standard, the applicant will not enjoy the privileges of other
property owners in the same zone.
4. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special priviiege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. Other
properties in the same zone, with the same development potential do not have the site
design constraints of this property. Therefore, this Variance will not grant a special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zone.
5. That the granting of Variance Case No. 96-195 will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
Resolution No. 96-1577
Variance Case No. 96-195
Russell and Pamela Sheppel
August 20, 1996 � � � �
Page 2
6. That the granting of a Variance Case No. 96-195 is consistent with the objectives and
policies of the General Plan and the intent of this Title.
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. 96-195.
2. Based on the inidal study, a negative declaration has been drafted for review by the
public and the Planning Commission and review and approval by the City Cauncil.
3. After holding a public hearing pursuant to State and City Codes, and considering the
record as a whole the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
negative declaration and find 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the negative declaration, instruct
the Secretary to file a Notice of Determination, and approve said Variance Case No. 96-195,
with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Attachment "A", attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion of Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Lubin, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Keen, Lubin, Titus, Deviny and Tappan
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of August, 1996.
ATTEST:
Breese, Commission Clerk
AS TO CONTENT:
G'U�.4�.-.
� " (D�G���
c
William Tapp , Chairperson
Doreen Liberto-Blanck, Community Development Director
ATTAC�IlVIENT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Variance Case No. 96-195
880 Oak Park Boulevard
GENERAL CONDITIONS
COMMUNTTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
This approval authorizes the reduction in minimum lot width for Parcel 1 from 100 feet to 70
feet.
1. The applicant shall as�ertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit
Case No. 88-435, Amendment #2 and Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 96-530.
3. This application shall automatically expire on August 20, 1998 unless the final map for
Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 96-530 is recorded or an extension is granted pursuant
to Section 9-02.140.C. of the Development Code.
4. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the
Planning Commission at the meeting of August 20, 1996 and marked Exhibit "A".
: 5. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the
City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said
approval, or in anyway relating to the implementation thereof, 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 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.
DEVELOPMENT CODE
6. Development shall conform with the PD 1.1 zoning requirements except as otherwise
approved. ,