Loading...
361, Addition to existing SFR, gara, Staff Reports*** STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 1990 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 361; Request for Modification to the previously approved site plan to construct a detached garage and detached stable, and to amend the Resolution of approval accordingly; 14 Southfield Drive, Lot 3-SF; Owner: Yamamoto DISCUSSION The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of August 21, 1990, continued the above stated application to an adjourned meeting for inspection of the site and surrounding properties. At the last meeting, staff noted that the applicant intends now to only construct a portion (garage and stable) of the previously approved project that was granted a variance. Issues to be addressed are as follows: 1. Placement of the stable structure to comply with the 25 foot setback requirement. 2. Adequacy of the size of the proposed stable structure 3. Placement of the garage and stable structures in relation to the slope subject to an "ancient landslide" The original project scope has been. reduced without further incursion of the front yard setback. The proposed garage will be constructed essentially at the location of the old stable structure. Therefore, minimal impacts are anticipated. RECOMMENDATION Upon resolution of the above stated issues, staff would recommend that the Commission .approve the request for modification and amend the previously approved Resolution accordingly. zc361md2 STAFF REPORT DATE: AUGUST 15, 1990 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 361; Request for Modification to the previously approved site plan to construct a detached garage and detached stable, and to amend the Resolution of approval accordingly; 14 Southfield Drive, Lot 34-SF; Owner: Yamamoto DISCUSSION The City received a letter on July ll, 1990, from Mr. David Reynolds, an attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Hitoshi Yamamoto and requesting the above -stated modification to a previously approved project. The original project, upon appeal from the applicant (Commission denial 6/21/88, deny reconsideration 8/30/88) and public hearings, was approved by the City Council on November 14, 1988 for residential additions, an attached garage and future stable in the established front yard area. The applicant eventually submitted plans to the County for review. It was upon further County review of the geology that additional reinforcement of the hillside slope would be required. Correspondingly, the project has been delayed, and upon advisement from the City Attorney's office, also be deem executed to allow the applicant's request for modification. The applicant has now decided to forego the additions to the house and requests permission to construct only a portion of the original plan for a detached garage and detached stable. The proposed structures will be over 130 feet from the front easement line. In reviewing the original plans, staff has noted that the proposed stable does not satisfy the required 25 foot setback from a property line. This matter, upon advisement from the City Attorney, can be resolved under the modification request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that, since the original project scope has been reduced without further incursion into the front yard than originally proposed, the Commission should have adequate evidence and testimony to take action on this matter. On the other hand, the Commission may wish to take public testimony and continue the matter to a field inspection since some time has passed from the original actions of the City. zc361mod TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY MANAGER RE: STAFF REPORT FOR JULY 19, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1. ZONING CASE NO. 361: On June 21, 1988, the Planning Commission denied Zoning Case No. 361. This zoning case was a request for a variance to allow for the encroachment into the established front yard, at 14 Southfield Drive. The purpose of the variance request was for the expansion of the existing residential structure. The Commission denied the request for two reasons. First, it was determined that the proposed project did not provide for an adequate location for a future stable. Second, it was determined that the project would result in a congested and overcrowded site. While these are important considerations in making a final decision, the Commission should make the findings necessary to support the decision to deny the variance request. On the other hand, if the Commission desires to favorably consider Zoning Case No. 361, it must make findings necessary to support such a decision. Please refer to your Decision Checklist for guidance in regard to the findings necessary for the granting a variance. ZONING CASE NO. 362: This is a request for a variance to allow an encroachment into the minimum front yard setback requirement (50 feet). There is presently a non -conforming 13 foot encroachment into the front yard setback. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Yu -Ping Lui, are requesting additional encroachments to 1) 34 feet (30 feet for support column) to allow for the construction of a proposed entry way roof extension and 2) 40 feet to allow for the construction of a reflecting pond. The proposed encroachments would result in the main building structure being within 16 feet of the roadway easement and the reflecting pool being within 10 feet of the roadway easement. Before the Commission makes a decision, the staff recommends that the lot coverage data be corrected and properly noted on the Zoning Case No. 362 plans. When the Commission does consider this matter, staff recommends that Zoning Case No. 362 be denied. The basis for the denial is found in Section 6, Subsections 3, 4 and 5 of attached resolution.