Loading...
PC R 88-1189353 RFSOLUTION NO. 88-1189 A RFSOLUTION OF THE PLANNIIIG OOMMIS`SION OF THE C1TY OF ARROYO GRANDE RDOONIlUIENDiNG DENIAL OF RE7ANING CASE NO. 88-206, 1250 FARftOLL AVENUE, FR.OM R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISI'ItICT 1�0 PI�88-1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DLSI'�tICI'. (DENNI,S LOHOFF). � WHEREAS, the Planning Caimission of the City of Arroyo Grande, California, has held a public hearing on the application of Dennis Lohoff to amend the Municipal Code of the City of Arroyo Grande as provided by ChApter 4, Article 32 of said Cade to rezone all that property generally described as 1250 Farroll Avenue, and more specifically described as follows to P-D Planned Development District: In the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, County Asse,ssor's Parcel No. 77-241-32; and WHEREAS, the Planning Corrsnission feels that the public interest and general w�elfare does not require sueh an emenchnent; and WH[EREAS, , a Negative Declaration has been prepared on the project and was reviewed by the Plannirg Corm�ission at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration has found that no significant potential impacts of the proposed zone change are anticipated; and WI-IEREAS, the Planning Cargr�assion 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 community; and WHEREAS, the Planning Catvnission has detetmined that the proposed zone change is not in confocmance with the City's General Plan; and WHEKEAS,. the Planning Conmission minutes, including a list of persons who testified at the public hearing, s�um�lacy of faet and fincfings, and copies of any maps pertinent to the propos�l, are on file and hereby declared to be part of said Resolution. NOW, TIiEftEFORE, be it resolved that the Planning Carmission of the G�ty of Arroyo Grande does hereby recorm�end to the City Council denial of Zone Change No. 88-206, as applied for, with the following findings: 1. 2. The proposed zone change is clearly inconsistent with the existing General Plan designation. The subject site is not adequate in size and shape by itself to accorrurr�odate the reasonable requirements of residential development. 3. 1fie proposed zone change adequate services are not properties in the City. is not reasonable or beneficial at this time because available and density is inebnsistent with surrounding 4. The proposed zone change would adversely affect the surrounding property because it is not consistent with the adjacent uses and density. On motion by Ca�rmissioner Gerrish, seconded by Cartmissioner Olsen, and by the followirg roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Ca�rmissioners Flores, Olsen, Bogg�ess, Gerrish and Chairrnan Soto NOES: Carrrri.ssioners Moore and Seott ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5th �day of July 1988. � ` ATTEST: � Secretary Chai