426, Add 3608 sq ft to existing 160, Staff Reports11/ ** STAFF REPORT
** ** S
DATE: June 11, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 426; Request for variance to encroach into the
front and rear yard setbacks to remodel portions of the existing
structures, and construct retaining walls withing the rear yard
setback; and site plan review for the proposed residence remodel;
58 Eastfield Drive, Lot 103-EF; Owner: Samar Sircar
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of May 15, 1990,
continued the above -stated application to an adjourned meeting so as to
reinspect the site and surrounding properties. At the site inspection, it
was noted to the Commission by the applicant's design professional that
plans will be amended to indicate removal of the existing stable structure
that was originally part of the variance request to convert the
nonconforming structure to living space. The Commission also viewed the
subject site from an abutting property to address concerns of that
neighbor. The proposed project essentially entails a complete new
residence with the retention of some existing building setbacks.
Issues that were to be addressed from the previous meetings on the matter
are as follows:
1. The applicant's design professional has indicated that coverage
of the 14,590 square foot existing buildable area can be reduced to 40.1%;
this being largely due to the removal of the stable structure.
2. The proposed retaining walls under variance will essentially
follow the line of an existing wood retaining wall that shows signs of
potential failure. The new wall intends to correct this safety hazard.
3. Concerns of the neighbor regarding separation of residences were
addressed, and it was suggested that additional landscaping between the
properties should be installed at the vegetation voided areas. Should the
application be approved, a condition for a landscape plan and bonding
shall be required.
4. The proposed grading for site preparation will be a balance cut
and fill of 242 cubic yards.
5. All obstructive items, that of the applicant's, being stored
within the northerly equestrian trail easement shall be removed.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposed
project and potential impacts in accordance with zoning requirements
addressing yard standards 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 detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other property. Further, the Commission must consider site
plan review for the project and determine that findings required for site
plan review approval as set forth by the. ordinance are satisfied.
zc426#3
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 8, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 426; Request for a variance to encroach into the
front and rear yard setbacks to remodel portions of the existing
structures, and construct retaining walls within the rear yard
setback; and Site Plan Review for the proposed residence remodel;
58 Eastfield Drive, Lot 103-EF; Owner: Samar Sircar
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of April 18, 1990, continued the
above -stated application to an adjourned meeting so as to inspect the site
and surrounding properties. The property owner is requesting a variance
so as to retain the existing nonconforming front yard setback (40 feet; 10
foot encroachment) of the garage structure that will be converted to
living space. Additional variances are also requested to permit
attachment and conversion of an existing nonconforming stable structure to
living area and a covered patio with a 25 foot rear yard encroachment (25
foot setback) and to construct retaining walls for a new pool area and
planters. Site Plan Review must also be evaluated, since the proposed
additions over triple the area of the existing residence.
Issues and concerns raised at the previous meetings were discussed as
follows;
1. The applicant's design professional indicated that project was
designed essentially to follow the natural contours and minimize grading
to around 200 cubic yards. The residence will be designed in a step-down
fashion, but observation on the field inspection would indicate that the
change in elevation between the existing house and stable may be
significant and require further clarification on the development of the
substructure for the residence. The grading plan must be amended to
identify a balance of cut and fill in accordance with City policy. The
plan should also address the amount of earth excavated for the pool,
retaining walls, and the residence substructure. Further, any drainage
pattern modifications due to proposed grading work and development must be
discussed.
2. Further information must be provided to address requirements of
building pad coverage in line with City policy.
3. Concern of a neighbor raised issues of privacy and landscaping.
Landscaping requirements should be addressed regarding retention and/or
replacement of vegetation.
• •
zc426
page 2
4. The site plan must be revised to show that the minimum 200 square
foot future stable pad be setback from the property line at least 25 feet
and be a minimum 35 feet from the residence.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposed
project and potential impacts in accordance with zoning requirements
addressing yard standards 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, the Commission must consider site
plan review for the project and determine that findings required for site
plan review approval as set forth by the ordinance are satisfied.
zc426#2
DATE: April 9, 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. 426
58 Eastfield Drive, Lot 103-EF
RAS-1
Mr. Samar Sircar
Mr. Jay Stasack, Archint Associates
April 7, 1990
Zoning Case No. 373 (Denied, 1/17/89)
1.161 acres gross, Irregular shape
Single family residence, stable
A Variance to encroach into the front and rear yard setbacks
to remodel portions of the existing residential structures;
and construct retaining walls within the rear yard setback;
Site Plan Review for the proposed residence remodel.
REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ISSUES,
In rviewing the applicant's request under Title 17 (Zoning), staff would
identify the following issues for evaluation:
1. The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of January 17,
1989, denied a previous request (ZC 373) from the applicant for a variance
to construct a garage and retaining walls within the front and side
yards. The Commission determined that the required findings were not
present to grant relief from the requirements of the code. The property
owner has now submitted a revised application and site plan after passing
of the one year time period prescribed by the ordinance that permits a
resubmittal.
2. The applicant desires a variance to retain the present front
yard encroachment (10 feet) of the garage structure that will be
converted to habitable area. Further, a variance for the rear yard
encroachment (25 feet) is necessary to permit the conversion of the stable
structure to living area and a covered patio structure. The applicant
also proposes to construct new retaining walls which will encroach 22 feet
within the rear yard setback. The legal advertisement did not specify the
retaining walls, and will be included on a revised ad prior to the second
meeting on the matter.
3. The project requires site plan review, since the project entails
essentially a complete new residence. The applicant's design professional
has attempted to utilize essentially the existing topography and building
pad to design the residence. The plans indicate minimal grading of 201
cubic yards of earth cut, but does not balance it with the fill figure. A
balance of grading is required in accordance with City policy. The
applicant must also address the amount of earth excavated for the pool,
retaining walls, and the residential structure foundation.
• •
4. The plans should be clarified to include the building pad area
coverage calculations to verify consistency of development policy set
forth by the City. Proposed lot coverage requirements are not to be
exceeded, but are closer to the maximums permitted (18.8% structure, 31.9%
total).
5. Other project incidentals include the future stable pad, new
swimming pool, new drivway and parking area, and retaining wall work. The
plan must be revised to show a minimum 200 square foot pad and a
separation from the rear property line by a minimum 25 feet. Vehicular
access to the stable would occur off an existing unpaved road within the
side easement. The plan indicates a new 388 square foot swimming pool and
new paved area at the rear of the residence. A new driveway will be
developed off the existing access,including a concrete paver parking area
which will be used in conjuction with a porte cochere. Project plans call
for the removal of three lengths of railroad -tie retaining structures.
This system will be replaced with masonry retaining walls to create a
planter area, and must be approved by variance to encroach into the rear
yard setback.
6. The site plan details a drainage network that should be addressed
for discussion. Additional landscaping must be incorporated for
aesthetical and visual screening. The Commission must determine that the
findings for site plan review approval are present.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposed
project and potential impacts in accordance wtith zoning requirements
addressing yard standards and development comptibility. 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, the Commission must consider site
plan review for the project and determine that findings required for site
plan review approval as set forth by the ordinance are satisfied. The
Commission should receive public testimony and continue the matter to an
adjourned meeting so as to inspect the site and surrounding properties.
zc426rh