Loading...
PC R 88-1190354 RFSOLUTION NO. 88-1190 A R�OLUTION OF 1'HE PLANNING OOMMLSSION OF THE GTTY OF ARftOYO GRANDE RBOONIIVIENDING DENIAL OF RE7ANING CASE NO. 88-208, 1138 FAIR OAHS AVENUE FROM R-3 MULT'1PLE FAMILY RL�SIDENTIAL DLSTRIGT TO PD-88-2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DLSTRICT. (I.ARBY GIN). WH[ERF.AS, the Plannir�g C,arYrnssion of the City of Arroyo GrAr►de, California, has held a public hearing on the application of Larry Gin to amend the Municipal Code of the City of Arroyo Grande as provided by ChApter 4, Article 32 of said Code to rezane all that property generally described as 1138 Fair Oaks Avenue, and more specifically described as follows to P-D Planned Development District: In the City of Arroyo Grtinde, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, County Assessor's Parcel No. 77-182-31; and WHERF.A.S, the Planning Carn�dssion feels that the public interest and general welfare does not require such an amenc�r�ent; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared on the project and was reviewed by the Planning Carmission at a public hearing; and WHERI.AS, the Negative Declt�ration hes found that no significant potential impacts of the proposed zone change are anticipt�ted; and WHEREAS, the Planning CarIIrnssion has deternuned that the proposed zone change is not an appropriate use, of the subject property and is not desirable for the orderly development of the corrrrnuiity; and WHEREAS, the Planning C',on�nission has determined that the proposed zone change is not in conforn�snce with the City's General Plan; �nd WHIItEAS, the Planning C,o(rarussion minutes, including a list of persons who testified at the public hearing, s�urrnary of fact and finclings, and copies of any maps pertinent to the proposal, are on file and hereby declared to be part of said Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Plannir�g Carrrussion of the City of Arroyo Grnnde dces hereby reconmend to the City Council denial of Zone Change No. 88-208, es applied for, with the following� findings: . 1 . 2. The proposed zone change is clearly ineonsistent with the existing General Plan designation. 'Ifie subject site is not adequate in size and shape by itself to accoim�odate the reasonable requiren�ents of i�esidential development. 3. The proposed zone change is not reasonable or beneficial at this time because adequate services are not available and dei�sity is . inconsistent with surrounding properties in the City. 4. The proposed zone change would adversely affect the surmiinding propei•ty because it is not consistent with the adjacent uses and density. On motion by Conmi.ssioner Flores, seconded by CaiYrnssioner alsen, and by the followirg roll call vote, to wit: AYFS: • �. :� � :, � Can�rrissioners Flores, Olsen, Scott, Boggess, Gerrish and Chaitman Soto None None Comm�ssioner I47oot�e the foregoing R,esolution was adopted this 5th , ATI�ST: 1 �.. Secretary day of July 1988. Chai �