HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 05-6869 - Deny Appeal and Deny ZV #05-56, 12142 Dunrobin Ave.RESOLUTION NO. 05-6869
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DENYING THE
APPEAL AND DENYING ZONE VARIANCE NO. 05-56 TO SECTION 9150.08(d)(3) OF
THE DOWNEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO RETAIN AN OVERSIZED DRIVEWAY. AND
PERMIT EXCESSIVE PAVING IN THE FRONT YARD, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT
12142 DUNROBIN AVENUE, ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (Rl-5,000).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine and
declare that:
A.Zone Variance Application No. 05-56 was filed by Mr. Richard A. and Gloria T.
Nelson on April 9, 2005, and the application was a request seeking relief from
Downey Municipal Code Section No. 9150.08(d)(3) to permit the development of an
oversized driveway for the single-family residence with a single-car garage at
12142 Dunrobin Avenue, zoned Rl-5,000.
B. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on May 18, 2005 and
after fully considering all oral and written testimony, facts and opinions offered at
the aforesaid public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 2384, denying Zone Variance
No. 05-56.
C. An appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission was filed by Richard and
Gloria Nelson, owners of the property at 12142 Dunrobin Avenue, Downey
California on June 1, 2005.
D. The City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on July 12, 2005, which was
continued to August 9, 2005, and after fully considering all oral and written
testimony and facts and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing, adopted
Resolution No. 05-6869, denying the appeal.
SECTION 2. Having carefully and fully considered all oral and written testimony and all
facts and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing, the City Council further finds,
determines and declares:
A.That special conditions and circumstances do not exist that are peculiar to
the project site which generally are not applicable to neighboring properties
with the same Rl-5,000 zoning in the vicinity of the project site. The affected
property’s shape, size and topography are nearly the same as the properties in
the vicinity of the project site. There is nothing unique or distinctive about the
affected project site that sets it apart from neighboring properties. It like the
neighboring properties supports a single-family residence and is part of a
neighborhood that was developed in 1952. The affected property, like most of
the neighboring properties is rectangular in shape and has the same
dimensions and same land area as they do.
B That the literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would not
deprive the applicant of rights under the terms of this chapter commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the project
1
RESOLUTION NO. 05-6869
PAGE TWO
site is located. Granting the proposed variance would grant a special privilege
to the applicant that is not commonly enjoyed neighboring properties.
C.
D.
That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
the applicant.
That granting the variance requested will confer on the applicant a special
privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands, structures, or buildings in
the same vicinity and zone in which the project site is located. Granting this
variance would confer a special privilege to the applicant because this same
kind of variance has not been granted to neighboring properties with the same
Rl-5,000 zoning classification.
E That granting this variance will not be in harmony and will result in adversely
affecting the comprehensive General Plan. Approving the variance would
result in a wider driveway (i.e., an excessive amount of concrete in the front
yard) than Zoning Ordinance Section 9150.08(d)(3) permits. As a
consequence, it would be inconsistent with several General Plan provisions
that were developed to enhance the appearance of residential properties from
the street by maximizing the amount of landscaping in the front yard setback
areas. General Plan programs that were developed for this purpose include:
Program 8.3.1.2. “Maximize the landscape setback on street yard setbacks”
and Program 8.3.1.3. “Minimize the amount of pavement and other non-plant
material along the street yard setbacks”.
That the environmental impact of the proposed project has been reviewed and has
been certified to be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines and this project is Categorically Exempt,
Section 15303, Class 3 Construction of Small Structures.
F.
SECTION 3. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2 of this Resolution,
the City Council of the City of Downey denies the appeal regarding Zone Variance No. 05-56.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day August, 2005.
no
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN L. M e
2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-6869
PAGE THREE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council of
the City of Downey at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of August, 2005, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN :
4 Council Members: Cartozian, Perkins, Trejo, Mayer Bayer
1 Council Member: Gafin
0 Council Member: None
0 Council Member: None
KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk