Loading...
R 3350 RESOLUTION NO. 3350 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 'OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY VARIANCE CASE NO. 99-001 APPLIED FOR BY COKER ELLSWORTH, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 551 FIELDVIEW PLACE WHEREAS, on February 16, 1999 the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande held a duly noticed public hearing to consider Variance Case No. 99-001 filed by Coker Ellsworth; and WHEREAS, as part of its consideration of the application, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearing, the staff report and other information and documents that were part of the public record; and WHEREAS, after due study, the Planning Commission denied the Variance application; and WHEREAS, Mr. Ellsworth filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny the Variance application; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 23, 1999 in accordance with City Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearing on March 23, 1999, tha staff report and other information and documents that are part of the public record; aQd WHEREAS, the City Council, having considered the matter pursuant to the guidelines of Government Code ~ 65906 finds, after due study, deliberation, and pub~ic hearing, the following: Variance Findings: The City Council has reviewed and considered the application for a variance from the rear yard setback requirement~ of Tentative Tract Map 2217, and has made the following findings with regard to the application for a variance. 1. The strict literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not otherwise shared by others in the surrounding area. ~- RESOLUTION NO. 3350 PAGE 2 FINDING: , Although Lot 14 has an unusual configuration, the application of the 20 foot setback does not present difficulties not faced by other lots. in the subdivision subject to.the setback requirement. 2. 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. FINDING: The applicant has pointed to design constraints on Lot 14, Tract 2217, but these are neither exceptional nor extraordinary. Similar constraints exist on other properties affected by the setback provision. 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the same zone. FINDING: Other lots in the subdivision are burdened by the same setback requirements. The configuration of Lot 14 presents similar design challenges to these lots, but this would not prevent the applicant from constructing a reasonable single family residence while observing the required rear yard setback. Several of the approved models for the subdivision would fit on the property without projecting into the required setback area. 4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. FINDING: Other lots in the subdivision are affected by the same setback requirement as involved in this request. The configuration of Lot 14 does not present such difficulties as to require special relief. Such relief would constitute a privilege not enjoyed by others in similar circumstances. 5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. FINDING: The granting of a variance as requested could be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, and could be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity by creating an encroachment into a buffer area specifically established to avoid such impacts. 6. The granting of a variance is consistent with the objectives and policies of the --- RESOLUTION NO. 3350 PAGE 3 General Plan and the intent of the Development Code. FINDING: The granting of the . variance as requested would be contrary to the objectives and policies of the General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan, Objective 1.0, provides that the City will recognize and retain commercial agriculture as a desirable land use and as a major segment of the community's identity and economic base. The concerns raised by the County Agricultural Commissioner's office during environmental review for rezoning of Tract 2217 focused on the conflicts that can result by the juxtaposition of agricultural and residential uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies the appeal of Mr. Coker Ellsworth in Variance Case No. 99-001, based on the above findings, which are incorporated herein by reference. On motion of Council Member Ferrara, seconded by Council Member Tolley, and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Ferrara, Tolley, and Mayor Lady NOES: Council Member Runels ABSTAIN: Council Member Dickens The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of March, 1999. \ -~-~_.~~------ -- RESOLUTION NO. 3350 PAGE 4 ATTEST: 11 a. ~ VIS, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: - ~/rr;L,~ , , .' ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER ~.' . ,"'1.' . ,~.,. APPROVED AS TO FORM: --'---"---'---~--""'-"""- _._'---- RESOLUTION NO. 3350 PAGE 5 OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION I, NANCY A. DAVIS, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that Resolution No. 3350 is a true, full, and correct copy of said Resolution passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the23rd day of March, 1999. WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 3 1st day of March ,1999. .