419, Expand existing SFR constructi, Staff Reports**** STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 6, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 419; Request for a Variance to encroach into the
rear yard setback to construct a residential addition; 17
Caballeros Road, Lot 20-SK; Owner: Martin
DISCUSSION
At the regular City Council meeting of May 14, 1990, Staff reported to the
Council the Planning Commission's action to adopt a Resolution denying the
above -stated request for variance. At that meeting, the Council elected
totake jurisdiction on the matter, and set a public hearing date. The
Council, at their meeting of June 11, 1990, conducted a hearing on the
application, and suggested that an applicant's revised proposal be
remanded to the Commission.
The applicant's revised proposal calls for the residential addition and
retaining wall to follow the existing building line (28' setback) rather
than be developed in a fashion which would result in a greater incursion
into the rear yard setback than the existing residence. The Commission
may recall, from the previous discussions and field inspection on the
original request, the subject site was quite irregularity shaped and the
development pattern of the lot was topographically constrained. The
existing residence was constructed toward the rear of the lot,.and
correspondingly, is nonconforming to the present rear yard setback
standard. Two -hundred and sixteen (216) square feet is the proposed area
of the addition and minimal grading will take place to construct a three
foot (3') high retaining wall.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposed
project and potential impacts in accordance with the zoning requirements
addressing yard standards. In order before a variance may be granted, the
Commission must determine that the required findings of hardship are
present. The Commission can choose to take action on the matter, should
they feel comfortable on recollection of the previous evidence, testimony,
and site inspection. On the other hand, the Commission may wish to
continue the matter to the next adjourned meeting for inspection of the
site and surrounding properties.
zc419#3
•
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 13, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 419; Request for reconsideration of Planning
Commission's prior action, to permit the applicant to revise
proposal
DISCUSSION
The City is in receipt of a letter, dated April 13, 1990, from Mr. Russell
Barto, architect and representative for the applicant on Zoning Case No.
419, requesting that the Commission reconsider their prior action and
permit the initial proposal to be revised. The Commission will recall, at
your regular meeting of March 20, 1990, a variance to allow further
encroachment into the rear yard setback for an addition was denied on a
vote of 4-0.
Subsequently, the applicant made a request for the Commission to
reconsider their action on the matter, since the property owners and
representative were not present at the last meeting to address concerns of
the Commission. The Commission, at an adjourned meeting held April 7,
1990, considered the subsequent request. The Commission could not support
the applicant's request, based upon a vote of 2-2-1, a tie vote is deemed
denial.
The applicant, Mr. and Mrs. William Martin, now respectfully request that
the Commission once again reconsider their action to allow resubmittal for
a revised proposal. The applicant's proposal calls for the room addition
to not encroach further into the rear yard setback than the existing
residence. A conceptual plan is attached for the Commission's review.
Should the Commission acquiesce to the request, the matter shall be
renoticed for your next regular public hearing.
•
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 7, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION RECONSIDERATION ON ZONING CASE
NO. 419; 17 Caballeros Road; Variance to encroach into rear yard
setback
Discussion
The City has received letters from Mrs. Silver Martin, property owner, and
Mr. Russell Barto, architect and representative, requesting that the
Planning Commission reconsider their decision of denial on a variance in
Zoning Case No. 419. The Commission will recall, at their regular meeting
of March 20, 1990, the vote to deny the application was 4-0, with
Commissioner Lay absent.
City staff has advised the applicant that the matter can be reconsidered
by the Commission, upon majority vote by a quorum of those Commissioners
present at the last meeting. Should the Commission decide to acquiesce to
the request, the matter shall be renoticed for a future public hearing and
the case reopened for public testimony. Should the Commission not approve
a request for reconsideration on the application, the action of denial
will stand, and the applicant maintains the opportunity to appeal to the
City Council, subject to the appropriate written request and filing fee.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 12, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 419; Request for a Variance to encroach into the
rear yard setback to construct an addition to the residence, and
to construct a retaining wall; 17 Caballeros Road, Lot 20-SK;
Owner: William Martin
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of February 20, 1990,
continued the above -stated application to an adjourned meeting so as to
conduct a field inspection of the site and surrounding properties.
Specifically, the applicant is requesting variance relief from the
Municipal Code to permit construction of a 237 square foot residential
addition and three-foot (3') high retaining wall at the rear of the
existing nonconforming house and 20 feet from the rear property line.
Issues and other matters discussed at the last meeting are as follows:
1. The present rear yard setback of the nonconforming residence is
28 feet, thus 22 feet short of the required 50 feet as set forth by the
code. Originally, the residence was developed on the larger portion of
this pie -shaped lot with a greater front yard setback of approximately 150
feet and generally in proximity to the slopes abutting the building pad.
The vicinity map shows distances well over 100 feet to neighboring
residences from the project.
2. Minor grading work is called for to expand the pad area. The
applicant's design professional indicates approximately 10 cubic yard from
a maximum cut of 30 inches will be relocated on -site. The proposed earth
cut will follow the natural contours of the land.
3. Question arose regarding the accurate depiction of contour lines
as it pertained to the previous development of the stable. The
applicant's architect indicated a revised plan will be submitted to show
the present topography and development.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposed
project and potential impacts in accordance with the zoning ordinance
regarding yard requirements and development compatibility. In order
before a variance may be granted, the Commission must determine that there
are special circumstances applicable to the property, special privileges
are not granted, and it would not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other property.
zc419#2
DATE: February 13, 1990
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPLICATION NO.:
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
PRIOR CITY ACTIONS:
PROPERTY SIZE/
CONFIGURATION:
PRESENT DEVELOPMENT:
REQUEST:
STAFF REPORT
Zoning Case No. 419
17 Caballeros Road, Lot 20-SK
RAS-1
William Martin
Russ Barto, Architect
February 10, 1990
Zoning Case No. 333
1.141 acres gross, Irregular shape
Single Family Residence, swimming pool, detached
stable
A Zone Variance to encroach into the rear yard setback to
construct an addition to the residence, and to construct a
retaining wall.
REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ISSUES
In reviewing the applicant's request under Title 17 (Zoning), Staff would
identify the following issues for evaluation:
1. The applicant is requesting a zone variance to construct an
addition to the residence and construct a retaining wall which encroach
into the rear yard setback for the property. The proposed 237 square foot
room addition and three foot high retaining wall will have a minimum
setback of 20 feet from the property line. The code requirement for a
rear yard setback is 50 feet.
2. The existing residence is nonconforming, in that the existing
building setback from the rear property line is 28 feet. The residence
was originally constructed under previous standards and developed with a
large front setback of approximately 150 feet. Correspondingly, the
residence was developed in proximity of the northerly (rear) property
line.
3. Plans call for minor grading work to expand the pad area for
construction. Approximately 10 cubic yards from a cut of approximately 30
inches will be displaced. The proposed three foot high retaining wall
will be erected to support the slope. The residence was developed
generally close to the toe (base) of the slope at the rear, and the linear
configuration of the residence and building pad was constructed to
parallel the natural contours of the land.
zc419
page 2
4. Overall lot coverage standards are not to be exceeded (10%
structure, 16% total).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposed
project and potential impacts in accordance with the zoning ordinance
regarding yard requirements and development compatibility. In order
before a variance may be granted, the Commission must determine that there
are special circumstances applicable to the property, special privileges
are not granted, and it would not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other property. The Commission should receive public
testimony and continue the matter to an adjourned meeting so as to inspect
the site and surrounding properties.
zc419rh
DATE: February 13,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPLICATION NO.:
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
PRIOR CITY ACTIONS:
PROPERTY SIZE/
CONFIGURATION:
PRESENT DEVELOPMENT:
REQUEST:
STAFF REPORT
1990
Zoning Case No. 419
17 Caballeros Road, Lot 20-SK
RAS-1
William Martin
Russ Barto, Architect
February 10, 1990
Zoning Case No. 333
1.141 acres gross, Irregular shape
Single Family Residence, swimming pool, detached
stable
A Zone Variance to encroach into the rear yard setback to
construct an addition to the residence, and to construct a
retaining wall.
REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ISSUES
In reviewing the applicant's request under Title 17 (Zoning), Staff would
identify the following issues for evaluation:
1. The applicant is requesting a zone variance,to construct an
addition to the residence and construct a retaining wall which encroach
into the rear yard setback for the property. The proposed 237 square foot
room addition and three foot high retaining wall will have a minimum
setback of 20 feet from the property line. The code requirement for a
rear yard setback is 50 feet.
2. The existing residence is nonconforming, in that the existing
building setback from the rear property line is 28 feet. The residence
was originally constructed under previous standards and developed with a
large front setback of approximately 150 feet. Correspondingly, the
residence was developed in proximity of the northerly (rear) property
line.
3. Plans call for minor grading work to expand the pad area for
construction. Approximately 10 cubic yards from a cut of approximately 30
inches will be displaced. The proposed three foot high retaining wall
will be erected to support the slope. The residence was developed
generally close to the toe (base) of the slope at the rear, and the linear
configuration of the residence and building pad was constructed to
parallel the natural contours of the land.
• •
zc419
page 2
4. Overall lot coverage standards are not to be exceeded (10%
structure, 16% total).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposed
project and potential impacts in accordance with the zoning ordinance
regarding yard requirements and development compatibility. In order
before a variance may be granted, the Commission must determine that there
are special circumstances applicable to the property, special privileges
are not granted, and it would not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other property. The Commission should receive public
testimony and continue the matter to an adjourned meeting so as to inspect
the site and surrounding properties.
zc419rh