PC Res 2776RESOLUTION NO.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CAMPBELL
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, C1TY OF
CAMPBELL DENYING A VARIANCE FROM THE THREE FOOT SETBACK
TO A ONE FOOT SETBACK FOR A DETACHED GARAGE, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1163 LOVELL LANE, IN A R-l-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT, APPLICATION OF MR. CHARLES
STEWART, FILE NO. V 91-02.
After notification and Public Hearing as specified by law on the application of
Mr. Charles Stewart for a variance for a one foot setback to a detached garage,
on property located at 1163 Lovell Lane, in an R-l-6 (Single-Family
Residential) Zoning District; as per the application filed in the Planning
Department on September 19, 1991; and, after presentation by the Planning
Director, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission
did find as follows with respect to File No. V 91-02:
There are no unique characteristics pertaining to the subject site
justifying that the three foot sideyard setback requirement should not be
applied to this lot. The lot is 14,200 square feet, rectangular in shape, and
has a level topography.
The hardship claimed by the applicant was self-imposed by the previous
property owners. There is ample room to place the structure on the lot
without infringing into the setback.
The applicant has not demonstrated an unnecessary hardship will result
unless the variance is granted; such a hardship must relate to the use of
the property, must involve more than financial hardship, and may not
be self imposed.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further
finds and concludes that the facts do not demonstrate that:
Strict or literal interpretation in enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance.
Resolution of Denial No. 2776
adopted by the Planning Commission
on November 26, 1991
page 2
o
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property
intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other
properties classified in the same Zoning District.
o
Strict or literal interpretation in enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicants of the privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties classified in the same Zoning District.
The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitation on other properties classified
in the same Zoning District.
Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort or general proposed use, or be detrimental
or injurious to property and improvement in the vicinity.
Based upon the fore-mentioned findings, the Planning Commission does
hereby deny the request for a variance.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of November 1991, by the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Alne, Wilkinson, Dougherty, Fox, Meyer-
Kennedy
None
Higgins, Perrine
ATTEST:
Steve Piasecki
SECRETARY
APPROVED:
lane P. Meyer-Kennedy
CHAIRPERSON