379, An addition to existing SFR wi, Staff Reports• August 15,,1989
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPLICATION NO.:
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
PRIOR CITY ACTIONS:
STAFF REPORT
Zoning Case 379
1 Maverick Lane; Lot 31-SK
RAS-2
Dr. & Mrs. Mansoor Mirsaidi
Same
1/7/89
1/17/89, 2/21/89, 3/21/89, 5/16/89, 6/20/89
Planning Commission continued
PROPERTY SIZE/
CONFIGURATION: 2.493 acres gross; generally rectangular
PRESENT DEVELOPMENT: Single family residence
REQUEST: Site Plan Review to determine compatibility of proposed
development; Variance to encroach into the side yard and front yard
setbacks with additions to the residence.
REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ISSUES
In reviewing the applicant's request under Ordinance 221 (Site Plan
Review) and Title 17 (Zoning), Staff would identify the following
issues:
1. The Planning Commission, at their previous regular
meetings and field inspection, voiced concerns regarding the proposed
project as presented. The project now before the Commission should
be review of the residence additions only, and omit the future
stable.
2. The subject parcel is large, but comparably narrow and
deep. With required side yards of 35 feet, buildable width is
approximately 84 feet. The present home is developed angularly on
the site and perpendicular to Maverick Lane. The residence is
locationally nonconforming, since it has only a 20 foot front yard
setback. The proposed addition would further expand on the
nonconformity. Section 17.16.060 requires a 50 foot setback at the
front. Being close to the roadway, the proposed addition has
potential impacts on the view from the street. Also, the Commission
may wish .to ascertain the intended use, since it abuts the existing
attached garage.
3. The rear addition requiring variance, as proposed,
generally follows an existing building line of the angular
development pattern. The addition apparently calls for a bay window
pop -out and would seem to have minimal impact on the side yard and
abutting property.
4. The requested project has been reviewed in accordance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(C.E.Q.A.), and determined to be categorically exempt.
• •
ZONING CASE 379
Page Two
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission examine the proposed
project and impacts in accordance with the zoning ordinance regarding
side and front yard setbacks, and insure development compatibility.
In order before any variance may be granted, the Planning Commission
must determine that there are special circumstances applicable to the
property, special privileges are not granted, and it would not be
detrimental to public welfare or injurious to other property. Staff
would not object to the side yard relief request, but findings to
approve the front yard request cannot be made. Correspondingly,
Staff cannot support this portion of the request.