PC R 96-1556RLSOLUTION NO. 9G-155fi
A RI+�SOLUTION OT TIIE I'LANNING COMMISSION OT
TIIE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING VARIAIVCE
CASr NO. 9C-19( .T'OR 1'Iir R�llUC'I'ION IN TROIVT YARD
S�TI3ACIZ TO ALLOW TI-i� CONSTRUCTION OF A
FRONT �NTRYWAY API'LIED FOR BY R. G. & D. J.
RO W LEY, AT 187 TA LLY IIO ROAD
WH�REAS tlie Planning Co�nmission of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered
Variance Case No. 96-196, flecl by R. G. and D. J. Rowley to reduce tlie front yard setback
allowed by the Development Code in the Rural Residential Zone to allow construction of a front
entryway; and
WI the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on this application in
accordance with lhe City Code; and
WII�RFAS, the Planning Commission has found that this project is consistent with the
General Plan and the Environmental Documents associated therewith; and �
WII�REAS, the Planning Commission has reyiewed this project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ/1); and
WII�R�AS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
l�earing, the following circurnstances exist:
1. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the front yard setback requiremeiats
for the Rural Residential Zone would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardsl�ip
�iot ot}ierwise sl�ared by otliers in tl�e surrounding area. Tl�e single farnily residence is
existing and has undergone an extensive remodel. During construction the structure was
found to be closer to the front property line than was indicated on the building pertnit
issued to the original owner. Strict interpretation of the front yard setback standards
would prohibit the property owner from completing the front entryway which was
included as part of the original remodel.
2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to lhe
property involved or to the inlended use of the property that do not apply generally to
other properties classifiecl in the same zone. The lot width greatly exceeds the lot depth
and the lot slopes up from the street and continues to slope up to the rear of the existing
structure. These conditions restrict buildable area and do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone.
3. The strict or literal interpretation arid enforcement of tlie specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in tfie
same zone. A majority of properties in the area have front entryways facing the slreet.
The strict interpretalion of the front yard setback standards would deprive the properly
owner of the ability to obtain direct pedestrian access from the street.
d:lreso\rowlcy.var.mel
Resolulion No. 96-1556
Vai-iAnce Case 1Vo. 96-19C,
R. G& D. J. Rowley
May 7, 1996
Page 2
4. Tlle granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on otf�er properties classified in the same zone. Other properties in
this zone do not share tl�e same lot orientation and topograpl�y constraints that are
experienced by this property.
5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. Tlie finished
floor elevation of the proposed adclitioil is 12 feet above street elevation, therefore
eliminating any sight distance problems.
6. The granting of the variance is consistent with tlie objectives and policies of tlie General
Plan and the intent of this Title. Granting the variance and allowing the construction of
a front entryway facing the public right-of-way enhances the appearance of the dwelling
uilit and promotes neighborhood compatibility.
NOW, THCR�FORE, BE IT RrSOLV�D that the Planning Commission of the City
of Arroyo Grande hereby finds the project categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301, Class 1 of the CEQA Guidelines
and approves said variance, with tlie above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in
Attacl�ment "A", attacl�ed i�ereto and incorporated l�erein by lhis reference.
On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Beck, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Soto, Beck, Carr, Deviny, Lubin and Keen
NO�S: None
ABS�NT: Commissioner Tappan
the foregoing Resolution was adoPted this 7tli day of May, 1996.
ATTEST:
e
Lucil Breese, Commission C erk
AS '�'O CONTENT:
Jo een, Ch ' erson
VJ � �� - Y�� s��
Doreen Liberto- lanck, Community Development Director
d:\ ras o\ row I cy . v a r. n� e I