411, A bedroom addition encroaches , Staff Reports• •
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 9, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 411; Request for variance to reduce the side yard
setback for an addition to the residence located at 77 Eastfield
Drive, Lot 15-EF; Owner: Dr. Robert Fenton
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of March 20, 1990,
continued the above -stated application to an adjourned meeting so as to
inspect the site to evaluate an alternative secondary driveway design.
The applicant is requesting variance relief from the side yard setback
requirement to encroach 10 feet into said setback to construct an addition
to the residence.
Issues and other matters raised at the previous meetings include the
following:
1. The subject parcel is somewhat narrow for a RAS-2 zoned lot. The
required side yards of 35 feet limit development to about half the width
of the property. Nonconforming setbacks exist on this site and other
parcels in the area. The subject property abuts the RAS-1 zone which
provides for 20 foot side yard setbacks. The existing nonconforming
residence was developed in a fashion which now restricts expansion in
accordance to present development standards. The forementioned situation
poses a developmental hardship.
2. The southerly property owner next to the site has expressed
concern regarding the past use of the easement for vehicular access by the
applicant. The applicant has proposed a paved extension from the existing
driveway to the easement which calls for it to be placed further back on
the site. This is intended to mitigate vehicular noise that was described
by the neighbor. The applicant must further decide if he intends to
pursue a variance for the concrete/wood step and railroad -tie planter
structures in the side yard. Other considerations for the proposed drive
extension include removal of mature vegetation and visual impacts and the
potentiality of construction of a retaining wall to support earth due to
the change of topography. Again, construction of this nature in the
setback would require a. variance. Previously, the City's Traffic
Commission suggested against the additional vehicular access opening at
the roadway and encouraged restoration of the front portion of the
easement to its natural state.
• •
zc411
page 2
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposed
project and potential impacts to the site and surrounding properties in
accordance with the purposes and objectives of the zoning ordinance that
address setback 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. Should the request be approved, the
Commission has the authority to impose conditions directly related to the
project that would mitigate potential adverse impacts that may result from
the project and remove property development violations. -
zc411#5
• •
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 14, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 411; Request for a variance to reduce the side
yard setback for an addition to the residence located at 77
Eastfield Drive, Lot 15-EF; Owner: Dr. Robert Fenton
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of February 20, 1990,
continued the above -stated application to allow the applicant time to
evaluate an alternative method of vehicular access to the rear stable and
storage structure mentioned during the discussion on the matter. The
applicant is requesting a variance to encroach 10 feet into the required
35 foot side yard setback in order to construct an addition to the
residence. The applicant must further decide if he intends to pursue a
variance for the concrete/wood step and railroad -tie planter structures
that were constructed in the side yard.
Issues and other matters raised at the previous meetings include the
following:
1. The subject parcel is somewhat narrow for a RAS-2 zoned lot. The
required side yards of 35 feet restrict development to about half the
width of the property. The property is adjacent to the RAS-1 zone which
provides for 20 foot side yard setbacks. The existing nonconforming
residence on the site was developed in a fashion which now limits
expansion in accordance to present standards. The forementioned situation
poses a development hardship.
2. The southerly abutting property owner has expressed concern over
the past use of the easement for vehicular access. The applicant has
responded by having his design professional evaluate a extension off the
existing driveway that will forego the direct access off Eastfield Drive.
Successful development of this alternative should resolve concern of the
neighbor and encourage restablishment of the front portion of the easement
to its natural state. Previously, the City's Traffic Commission suggested
against the additional vehicular access opening to the roadway.
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. Should the application be approved, the
Commission has the authority to impose conditions directly related to the
project that would mitigate potential adverse impacts resulting from the
project and remove property development violations.
•
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 13, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 411; Request for a Zone Variance to reduce
the side yard setback for an addition to the residence
located at 77 Eastfield Drive, Lot 15-EF;
Owner: Dr. Robert Fenton
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of January 16, 1990,
continued the above -stated application to an adjourned meeting so as to
conduct a field trip to inspect the site and surrounding properties.
Further, the continuance would allow time for the City Staff to review a
letter of correspondence from the abutting neighbor to the south. The
applicant is requesting a variance to encroach 10 feet into the required
35 foot side yard setback in order to construct an addition to the
residence.
Issues and other matters raised at the previous meetings included the
following:
1. The subject parcel is somewhat narrow for a RAS-2 zoned
property. The required 35 foot side yards consume nearly half the width
of the lot. The lot abuts the RAS-1 zone which permits 20 foot side yard
setbacks. The existing nonconforming residence on the site was developed
in a fashion which now limits expansion in accordance to present
standards.
2. Other matters discussed include the recently constructed concrete
steps in the side yard, vehicular use of the easement, and construction
work within the easement. The existing concrete steps are viewed as a
structure and encroach into the side yard setback and requires a
variance. The steps should be removed, and can be incorporated as a
condition should an action of approval on the matter be taken.
3. Regarding the vehicular use of the easement, the City's Traffic
Commission has reviewed the easement access opening and indicated traffic
safety concerns. The Traffic Commission has suggested against the
additional opening to the roadway. Further, the City Attorney provided an
opinion, and would construe the access opening as an additional driveway
requiring public hearing action. It has, however, throughout the City not
been uncommon for easement areas to be used a vehicular access to stables
on property. This access may be attached to the existing driveway with
closure to vehicular movement at the roadway. This matter can be
controlled under a condition should the application be approved.
zc411
page 2
4. The applicant would need to verify Community Association approval
for modifications that have taken place within the easement.
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. Further, should the application be approved,
the Commission has the authority to impose conditions upon the action that
would mitigate or remove property development violations.
zc411#3
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 10, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 411; Request for a Zone Variance to reduce
the side yard setback for an addition to the residence
located at 77 Eastfield Drive, Lot 15-EF, Owner: Dr. Robert
Fenton
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission, at their scheduled meeting of December 12, 1990,
continued the above -stated application to an adjourned meeting so as to
conduct a field inspection of the site and surrounding properties.
The variance request is for a side yard setback encroachment of 10 feet
with an addition to the southerly side of the residence. The lot is zoned
RAS-2 and abuts the RAS-1 zone. The property is somewhat narrow and
long. Taking into account for the required 35 foot side yard setbacks,
the buildable property width would be about 75 feet. The residence is
existing nonconforming on the north side with a 15 foot setback from the
property line. In the RAS-1 zone, 20 foot side yard setbacks are
permitted. Further, overall lot coverage standards are not to be exceeded
with the proposal. The Commission must determine if there are special
circumstances involved with the property before a variance may be granted.
Further issues raised recently since the last meeting include the
additional access opening from Eastfield Drive to the rear of the property
and structures developed within the easement and side yard. The southerly
neighbor has indicated their concern to the occurrences within the
easement area.
The City's Traffic Commission has reviewed the easement access opening,
and indicated traffic safety concerns. The Traffic Commission has
suggested against the additional opening. Further, the City Attorney
provided an opinion, and would construe the access opening as an
additional driveway requiring a conditional use permit and variance. It
has, however, not been uncommon for easement areas to be used as vehicular
access to stables on property. This access may be attached to the
existing driveway with closure to vehicular movement at the roadway. This
matter should be discussed, and may be controlled under a condition should
the application be approved.
• •
ZC 411
Page 2
Additional discussion should be directed to the observed encroachment of
the railroad -tie planters and stair structure along the southerly,
existing vehicular access to the rear of the property. There has been
indicated concern that these improvements are considered obstructions in
the easement area and should be evaluated. This matter may be controlled
under a condition should the applicant's request for variance be
supported.
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. Further, should the application
be approved, the Commission has the authority to impose conditions that
would mitigate or remove property development violations.
zc411#2
DATE: December 1, 1989
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPLICATION NO.:
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
PRIOR CITY ACTIONS:
PROPERTY SIZE/
CONFIGURATION:
PRESENT DEVELOPMENT:
REOUEST:
STAFF REPORT
Zoning Case No. 411
77 Eastfield Drive, Lot 15-EF
RAS-2
Dr. & Mrs. Robert Fenton
Keith Palmer, Architect
December 2, 1989
96,124 SF (Net), Irregular shape
Single family residence with attached
detached stable
garage;
A Variance to Section 17.16.070 (A) of the Municipal Code
to reduce the side yard setback for an addition to the
residence.
REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ISSUES
In reviewing the applicant's request under Title 17 (Zoning), Staff would
identify the following issues:
1. The property under application is one of three parcels with
frontage to Eastfield Drive and located in the RAS-2 zone. The
applicant's parcel is situated at the boundary line (north) between the
RAS-2 and RAS-1 zones. The existing residence was constructed under
previous code requirementsthat permitted the applicant's residence with
attached garage 15 feet from the northerly property line (built to the
easement line). On the south side, the structure presently has a 34 foot
setback. With the current requirement of a 35 foot side yard setback in
the two -acre zone, the residence is placed in a nonconforming situation.
On the other hand, only twenty (20') feet is necessary in the RAS-1 zone.
2. The applicant is proposing 775 square feet of additions to two
places of the residence. The majority of the proposed additions will be
constructed at the area of the breezeway attachment between the house and
garage. This roof attachment will not be demolished, and the proposed
addition itself will comply by being well beyond the required setback from
the property line. On the other hand, a second addition that would expand
the residence further southerly into the 35 foot side yard necessitated
the owner to submit the variance request. The applicant is requesting
this expansion to a setback of 25 feet. The applicant's plans indicate a
grade differential with the neighboring property to the south that is
elevated. Further, plans show that mature landscaping exists between the
properties, thus providing a buffer.
• •
Zoning Case 411
page 2
3. Overall lot coverage standards are not to be exceeded (8.5%
structure, 11.7% flatwork, 20.2% 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.
zc411rh