Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1976/09/07 Item 03CITY OF CHULA VISTA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM N0. 3 pv C~ 3 FOR MEETING OF: 97/76 ITEM TITLE: Public hearing - Consideration of appeal by Patricia Gove of Planning Commission denial of variance request to divide property, creating one lot without street frontage SUBMITTED BY~ Director of Planning ~~ A, ITEM EXPLANATION: 1. The applicant is requesting permission to divide an existing 25,000 sq. ft. lot at 629 Gretchen Road in the R-1 zone into two lots, one without street frontage (see locator). The City Code (Section 19.24.070) requires a minimum street frontage of 60 feet in the R-1 zone. 2. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review as a Class 3 exemption. B. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use: North R-1 Two single family dwellings (one on an easement) South R-1 Single family dwellings East R-1 Water tank West R-1 Single family dwellings 2. Site characteristics. The applicant's property is a trapezoidal lot containing 25,000 sq. ft. The lot rises in elevation an average of 30 feet from the front to the back (see Exhibit A). The existing dwelling is located 20 feet from the front property line. There are several large eucalyptus trees located on the rear of the property. t11r71CSl I J HI I Hl,l'1CU Agreement Resolution Ordinance Plats 2 Other Environmental Document: Attached Submitted on STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. BOARD/ COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On June 28, 1976 the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to deny the request, PCV-76-8, to divide a 25,000 sq. ft. parcel into two lots, one without street frontage, at 629 Gretchen Road in the R-1 zone. Consideration of the appeal by Council was delayed until this time at the request of the applicant. COUNCIL ACTION Form A-113 (Rev 5-75) AGENDA ITEM N0. 3 Supplemental page No. 2 3. Proposal. The applicant proposes to divide the property into two lots, one fronting on Gretchen Road and the other at the east end of the property served by a 16 ft. wide road easement across the front lot. The front lot would have approximately 9,000 sq. ft. (approximately 7,000 sq. ft. excluding the driveway). The rear lot would contain approximately 16,000 sq. ft. and would be developed with a single family dwelling. The proposed dwelling would be sited so as to permit maximum retention of the existing trees. 4. Previous request. A similar, but not identical, request was granted in 1972 allowing the development of the landlocked parcel adjacent to the applicant's property to the north. Access to that parcel is gained from "I" Street by way of a 20 ft. easement across the rear of lots fronting Gretchen Road. The request is not identical to the subject case because the parcel at the east end of "I" Street was an existing landlocked parcel. In the case of the subject parcel, the only landlocked parcel is the one which would be created if PCV-76-8 is approved. C. ANALYSIS 1. In previous years the Planning Commission, acting on the recommendation of the staff, has approved numerous applications to allow the creation of lots which do not have the street frontage required by the zoning ordinance. A number of such lots which have access to a public street only via a driveway easement or narrow fee ownership exist along the west side of Hilltop Drive north of H Street and the south side of K Street between First and Second, and Second and Third, and on the south side of H Street between Hilltop Drive, and in other locations. Generally speaking, it is preferable to create lots which do have the required street frontage for ease of location and access by emergency vehicles, garbage trucks, delivery trucks, guests, etc. In the case of a fairly small neighborhood served by minor residential streets, as opposed to lots fronting through streets, the addition of new homes on the rear portion of lots as originally subdivided can begin to alter the character of the area. It should be noted that several other lots on Gretchen Road are also quite large and could possibly be subdivided and developed in a manner similar to that proposed in PCV-76-8. 2. Staff has had some reservation over the past practice of granting this type of variance on through streets, but the practice seems especially questionable when, as in the subject case, the lot frontson a minor residential street in the heart of a neighbor- hood. All things considered, staff has concluded that the practice is not a good one and should be resorted to only under unusual circumstances. D. FIPIDINGS Section 19.14.190 of the zoning ordinance sets forth the findings which are required to be made in order to grant a variance. The Planning Commission voted 4-1 to deny the request, based on the following findings of fact: 1. Finding A. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulatiorts of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, Zoss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships ,justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual merits. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3 Supplemental page No. 3 The property now enjoys the use for which it is zoned--a detached single family home. The fact that the existing lot is more than three times the minimum size required by the zoning ordinance for a single family home does not constitute a hardship which justifies creation of a lot without street frontage. 2. Finding B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, mould not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. Although a number of lots on Gretchen Road are larger than the required minimum lot size in the R-1 zone, each contains only a single family home. The lot at the end of "I" Street apparently was created many years ago. It is a genuinely landlocked parcel which could only be developed via an easement. The existence of this landlocked parcel does not justify the creation of another landlocked parcel. 3. Finding C. That the authorizing of such variance mill not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and mill not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public interest. The authorizing of this variance probably would not be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties. However, if a number of lots on Gretchen Road should develop in a similar fashion, the character of the area could begin to change. 4. Finding D. That the authorizing of such variance mill not adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. Approval of the variance would not affect the General Plan. E. APPEAL The applicant has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission and disagrees with the findings made in arriving at the decision to deny the request, based on the following: 1. "The zoning ordinance specifically provides for the development of large lots under the dwelling group provisions of Sec. 19.58.130 of which the applicant's proposal meets all conditions of the Dwelling Group provision with the exception that the applicant desires to create a separate parcel for each dwelling. The applicant has demonstrated that this parcel is excessively large, being at least three times as large as the 'average lot in the vicinity (26,000 sq. ft. vs. 8200 sq. ft. )." Response: In the R-1 zone the dwelling group provision is subject to the granting of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission based on different findings than those required for a variance. The conditional use permit is primarily based on the necessity or desirability of a proposed use at a certain location, whereas a variance is predicated on a particular hardship.. unique to the property. Although the findings for denial of the appellant's request were based on the inability to find a hardship, the findings also indicated the undesirability of the proposal on the basis that it could alter the charac- ter of the area. 2. "This parcel is unique due to its excessive area and sloping topography. Again development of such property is provided for in the Hillside Modifying District of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Manual wherein private access easements are provided for to accommodate access and parking. The subdivision of existing lots in the same block has occurred in the creating of five new parcels from three existing lots, AGENDA ITEM N0. 3 Supplemental page No. 4 "although in these cases a variance was not required as these lots had frontage on Gretchen Road and "J" Street. The denial of a variance for street frontage in this case would deny the applicant the right to develop and use the excessive area in her property, a right exercised by other property owners in the same block." Response: The appellant has not been denied the right to develop her property in accord- ance with the regulations of the zone (R-1) in which the property is located. The fact that the property is three times the minimum lot size of the zone does not constitute a hardship which justifies the creation of a landlocked parcel with access by way of an easement. The Hillside Modifying District which provides for panhandle lots is applied to those areas of the city that are rugged in terrain. The fact that the appellant's property is also steep (15% or more) does not in itself qualify it for development as a hillside parcel. Section 19.14.190 of the Code reads in part that "a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual merits." Therefore, any other variance granted in the particular area has no bearing on the findings for approval or denial. 3. "Development of this property is unique to other large lots in the same block in that the plan proposed by the applicant utilizes the existing driveway to serve the rear parcel, whereas other properties would have to remove existing structures to have accessibility. In addition the proposed access to Gretchen Road, a 40-foot curb to curb residential street, is far more desirable than egress to a collector street with heavier traffic counts. The development of the rear portion of this lot as proposed will create a 16,000 sq: ft. parcel which provides sufficient area to maintain existing slopes with a minimum amount of grading and retention of existing trees. Additional landscaping will be imposed as a requirement of site grading. These factors, when combined with a differential in elevation from adjacent dwellings due to sloping topography, will ensure privacy and compatibility with the neighbor- hood. The addition of maintained landscaping to a presently unmaintained area of drought-stricken eucalyptus trees will improve an area visible to this portion of the city, which is in keeping with the City's landscaping policies." Response: The appellant is correct in the statement that Gretchen Road is a 40 foot curb to curb residential street which is the same curb to curb width as a residential collector street with anticipated greater traffic volumes than a residential street and the additional unit should not result in a hazardous condition. The fact that the appellant has access to the rear of the property without the removal of existing structures does not make the property unique with respect to its potential development. 'EX~~ ~~ ?c= ?se ~ \ ~ \ ~ - ~` ~ ~ \ . zs2 PAKCEL\2 \ Zso ~ --~6,t~sc~. ACT ' ,~8 \ ~)'~ ~\ \ \ \ - EX/ST. /6 ~ Z ~ PRA° Sx'Lt'J ~~` !/TYUTY EASE'•NENT" '' ~ - ~_ . ~~ .- o - - 1 ~e ~ \ ~\ ~ry ~r ~ ~~ Pg T ~ `~ e'Y~ P li Q ~~ \ PROP. LOT UNE Exisr. HGYISE G,QF~cy R~4 O ~ ~'~ ~• NORTH O~\~~ ~ O ~; EXHIBIT A - PCV-76-6 / CREATE LOT WITHOUT STREET FRONT. 629 GRETCHEN RD. . r i L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOCATOR Pcv-mss-e CREATE LOT WITHWT STREET FRONT. 629 GRETCNEN RD. HILLTOP HIGH SCHOOL o' loo' 200' NpRT~I AST 1 t `~ 1~~~ It a ~~ b GRETCHEN w a t ~ o tiyy vhi~. ~~ /iii~i ~ -, \\`~~ `~ ~ ~~ ~` . ~~ .~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ` ~ ~_ ~ ~l\ ~ ~ ~ i ` ~ ~ i~ I 1 ~~ ~ I , \~ t t 8-~w i -~. i'~ ~~ 1 ~ tl l ., 8"~ ~ I 1 ,• II ' ,~ \ ;~ ,I `` - m Q ~ ~~ `~,~\ \` y \',~ ~~ -- .- -- T ~~ \ -- -_ . ~ ~~ ~ \ 1\ ~~ n ~~ \~ 11 ~~ ~ I1WA,,T~~ 1 ~ ~ 1 T'I"."°I w Q a EAST "J° STREET -T-1 ~~ F~~:C~'~~r~n 19Tfi ,1U(, -7 py 2~ 37 ~}~~' J, G~;~~~„ UISi~ ~Tl' SL£t#tii~g OPFt@$ June 29, 1976 City Clerk City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Case PCV 76-08, Appeal of Decision It is requested that a public hearing be scheduled to hear our appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of PCV 76-08. Please schedule this hearing after Septem- ber 1, 1976 as I will be out of town until August 15, 1976, I designate Frank P. Phillips to act as my agent. Very truly yours, Patricia Gove Owner/Applicant PG:ms File ;n trip~'cate APPEAL FORM UATE° 70 SUEiJ ECT REQUEST July 7, 1976 FPe Paid _ 505..00 ~?a to - _ Receipt No ~~ City Clerk, City of Chula Vista Appeal Of Pa4ri _ia Fovcn ~~, App'ication NO pCV 76-08 To create two lots, one lot without street frontage. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 629 Gretchen Road, Chula Vista Please state wherein ,you belAeve there was an error in the decision of the Planning Commission , Eee Attached: N (, Patricia Gove zls~5 gna.~~,] P ,~ APpe ant. DO NOT WRITE Ild THiS SPACE TO P'ann~ng Uepart.ment The above matter has been set. for pubiic hearing before the City Councii on ~ 7 " 7~0 Please transmit to this department a copy of the ~~_c~'I~/GYl~~'~Ch-~_ decision and findings. the minutes of the hearing; and a'~l ather aurdAnce maps; and papers. and exhibits on which the decision was made ~-~ ~ ~%~cz~~z Form PL-60 Rev l~{~l PATRICIA GOVE - APPEAL July 7, 1976 The Planning Commission's denial of this variance was based on the Staff's report failing to find a hardship peculiar to the property and a need based on right enjoyed by other properties. In addition, the Staff Report indicated that development of the rear portion of lots fronting Gretchen Road would be undesirable and could alter the character of the area. These staff findings are contrary to the facts, based on the following: 1. The zoning ordinance specifically provides for the develop- ment of large lots under the dwelling group provisions of Sec. 19.58.13 of which the applicant's proposal meets all conditions of the Dwelling Group Provision with the exception that the applicant desires to create a separate parcel for each dwelling. The applicant has demonstrated that this parcel is excessively large, being at least three times as large as the average lot in the vicinity (26,000 E.F. vs. 8200 S.F.) 2. This parcel is unique due to its excessive area and sloping topography. Again development of such property is provided for in The Hillside Modifying District of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Manual wherein private access easements are provided for to accommodate access and parking. The subdivision of exist- ing lots in the same block has occurred in the creation of five (5) new parcels from three (3) existing lots, although in these cases a variance was not required a~ these lots had frontage on Gretchen Road and "J" Street. The denial of a variance for street frontage in this case would deny the applicant the right to-develop and use the excessive area ir. her property, a right exercised by other property owners in the same block. 3. Development of this property is unique to other large lots in the same block in that the plan proposed by the applicant utilizes the existing driveway to serve the rear parcel, where- as other properties would have to remove existing structures to have accessibility. In addition the proposed access to Gretchen Road, a 40-foot curb to curb residential street, is far more desireable than egress to a collector street with heavier traffic counts. The development of the rear portion of this lot as proposed caill create a 16,000 S.F. Parcel which provides s~~fficient area to .;maintain existing slopes with a minimum amount of grading and retention of existing trees. Additional landscaping orili be imposed as a requirement of site grading. These factors, r~her_ combined with a differential in elevation from adjacent dwell- ings due to sloping topography, will ensure privacy and com- patibility with the neighborhood, The addition of maintained landscaping to a presently unmaintained area of drought-stricken Eucalyptus trees will improve an area visible to this portion of the city,-which is in keeping with the City's landscaping policies.