Loading...
400, Addition to existing barn with, Staff ReportsHEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 1991 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 400 MR. & MRS. DAVID CLARK, 11 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 29 AND 30-SF) DISCUSSION On September 30, 1989,,approval was granted for a Variance to the front yard setback and a Site Plan Review for residential development at the subject site. Due to many setbacks, but persistent efforts, the applicants now request a one year extension to September 30, 1991 as noted in the attached letter. III" STAFF REPORT DATE: June 12, 1990 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 400; Request for modification of previously approved site plan, and to amend the Resolution of approval accordingly; 11 Packsaddle Road East, Lots 29 & 30-SF; Owner: Mr. David Clark DISCUSSION The City is in receipt of a letter, dated April 24, 1990, from the property owner and applicant, Mr. David Clark, requesting that the Planning Commission define a condition of approval that was attached to the action of the Commission on Zoning Case No. 400, and request appropriate modification to the site plan and Resolution of approval. The Commission will recall that the action on Zoning Case No. 400 was twofold First, a Resolution of Denial was adopted for a variance request to encroach into the front yard setback to construct additions to an existing barn which was subsequently determined to be built without required permits. Second, a Resolution of Approval was adopted for a variance and site plan review for additions to the residence, subject to conditions. The specific condition of approval under discussion is that of Condition A of said Resolution. In verbatim, the condition states as follows: "The existing barn on the subject property which was constructed without a building permit, and is located approximately six (6) feet from the property line and encroaches into the front yard setback, shall be removed and become open space prior to the granting of a building permit for the residential additions." The owner and applicant is stating that compliance with the condition was completed by his removing the wood framing and covering the concrete foundation with topsoil and some landscaping. Staff is of a different opinion, in that removal of the existing barn encompassed the entire structure, including foundation and not merely burying the concrete base. RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission deny the request for modification of the site plan and Resolution to allow covering of a concrete foundation of a structure that has been determined illegal, and confirm that the interpretation of Condition A of said Resolution be removal of the complete structure, including foundation. zc400mod STAFF REPORT DATE: September 6, 1989 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 400; Request for Variance to reduce front yard and side yard setbacks for additions to a nonconforming barn; Request for Site Plan Review to determine compatibility of proposed additions to the barn and residence with the site located at 11 Packsaddle Road East, Lots 29 & 30-SF; Owner: David Clark DISCUSSION The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of August 15, 1989, denied the variance for the barn, therby requiring that site plan review be continued to allow the applicant time to revise the plans to show a new barn location. At the last meeting, Staff noted that the "barn" structure was illegally constructed. The field inspection of the Commission ascertained that with the existing configuration, it was difficult to characterize the structure as a barn. Staff further pointed out that the property is large (two lots, 5.33 acres gross) and that alternate locations could be achieved. Proposed additions to the home will follow existing building lines of the angular development pattern of the residence, so as not to disrupt the architecture. Regarding the proposed "gazebo", the applicant's architect indicated that it would be an open structure, and will provide necessary plans showing such. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposal for development compatibility, and evaluate potential impacts to the site and surrounding property. The Commission must determine if the findings set forth in the zoning ordinance are met in order to permit approval of site plan review. Attachment: Staff Report, 8/15/89 III August 15, 1989 PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPLICATION NO.: SITE LOCATION: ZONING: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: PRIOR CITY ACTIONS: PROPERTY SIZE/ CONFIGURATION: PRESENT DEVELOPMENT: % Structure coverage: % flatwork coverage: Total: STAFF REPORT Zoning Case 400 11 Packsaddle Road East; Lots 29 & 30-SF RAS-1 Mr. & Mrs. David Clark Russell Barto, Architect 6/10/89 6/20/89 Planning Commission continued; 7/18/89 Planning Commission continued 5.33 acres gross; irregular shape Single family residence; detached stable; property at terminus of road 2.39% 6.08% 8.47% REOUEST: Site Plan Review to determine compatibility of proposed additions to existing stable and residence; Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to construct an addition to the existing nonconforming barn and residence, and encroachment of the side yard setback for the barn. 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 regular meetings of June 20, and July 18, 1989, continued the matter to allow the applicant time to address concerns raised. The Planning Commission previously indicated that they were dissatisfied with the location of the "barn". Proposed development will increase the total percentage lot coverage to 9.91% (increase 1.18% structure, 0.26% flatwork). 2. The property contains an illegally located nonconforming barn which encroaches into the required 50-foot front yard setback and 20-foot side yard setback. Legal use of the structure should be determined in accordance with the City's ordinance. Field inspection of the site ascertained that construction work had been done on the barn structure, and with the existing configuration, it was difficult to characterize the structure as a barn. Staff review of records show a former feed shed constructed at this vicinity of the "barn". The property is large, and since code typically prohibits expansion of a nonconforming structure, alternative barn locations could be achieved. 3. The existing angular developmental pattern of the home precludes major expansions that may disrupt the architecture of the • • ZONING CASE 400 Page Two home. Proposed additions to the home will follow existing building lines. The revised site plan submitted now indicates a proposed "gazebo". The applicant must submit floor/elevation plans for this structure. 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 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission examine the proposed project and impacts in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance regarding front yard setback, side yard setback, and 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 the public welfare or injurious to other property. Staff would recommend that the barn structure, for exclusive use of domestic animals, be relocated on site to satisfy zoning ordinance requirements, otherwise be removed. Staff can support additions to the residence, however, the applicant must submit floor/elevation plans for the gazebo.