Loading...
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