HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1986/06/17 Item 6 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 6
Meeting Date 6/17/86
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Reconsideration of Variance ZAV-86-26 to
increase lot coverage from 40% and to increase the number of
stories at 165 Murray Street - J. Anthony Raso
Resolution 13f Conditionally approving a variance for
increase in lot coverage from 40% to 46.2% at 165 Murray Street
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning 6.1
REVIEWED BY: City Manager I (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
This item involves a request to increase the allowable lot coverage from 40%
to 61% and to increase the allowable number of stories from 2.5 to 3.0 for the
single-family dwelling at 165 Murray Street in the R-1 zone.
On April 23, 1986, the Planning Commission denied the variance by a vote of
5-0, with one absent and one abstention. On May 6, 1986, the City Council
unanimously upheld the Commission and denied the variance, but further moved
to reconsider the item following an offer by the applicant to modify the
design of the dwelling. Consequently, the modified design was scheduled for
review by the Design Review Committee on June 5, and the variance request was
scheduled for rehearing before the Planning Commission on June 11 and before
the City Council on June 17.
The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 5(a) exemption.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council take the following actions:
1 . Deny the variance request for the increase in the number of stories;
2. Deny as filed the lot coverage variance request for 61 percent but adopt a
resolution approving a variance for 46.2% lot coverage based on the
findings listed at the end of this report, and subject to the following
conditions:
a. The existing 20' x 65' accessory structure located at the rear of the
lot shall be removed.
b. The maximum height of the dwelling shall not exceed 30 ft. measured
from the highest point of the roof.
c. The exterior design of the dwelling shall be reviewed and approved by
the Chula Vista Design Review Committee.
Page 2, Item 6
Meeting Date 6/17/86
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On June 5, 1986, the Design Review
Committee considered revised drawings of the dwelling prepared and submitted
by the applicant. The Committee was unable to make a recommendation on the
exterior design because of a lack of detail on the plans. Earlier, on May 19,
1986, a subcommittee of the Design Review Committee reached the same
conclusion and had suggested that the applicant obtain professional design
services to provide at least preliminary design alternatives before further
review by the Committee. The applicant chose not to follow the subcommittee's
advice.
On June 11 , 1986, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-0 with one absent,
reaffirmed their recommendation that Council deny the variance.
DISCUSSION:
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use
North R-1 Single-family dwelling
South R-1 Single-family dwelling
East R-1 Single-family dwelling
West R-1 Single-family dwelling
Existing Site Characteristics
The property in question is a level , rectangular, single-family lot containing
8,824.4 sq. ft. of area and measuring 65 ft. x 135.76 ft. The parcel is
surrounded by R-1 lots of similar size in a stable single-family neighborhood.
Proposed Request
This application has been filed in order to accommodate an expanded single
family dwelling and detached accessory building on the lot in question. The
three-story, 9,767 sq. ft. single family dwelling (which has already been
framed and sheathed) would cover 4,085 sq. ft. or 46.2% of the lot. The third
story has resulted due to the installation of flooring and direct stair access
within the otherwise defined attic space. The existing single-story accessory
building located at the rear of the lot (20'x65' ) covers 1 ,300 sq. ft. or an
additional 14.7% of the lot. The applicant has submitted modified building
elevations which lowers the roof height from 42' to 30' .
Analysis
Lot coverage and height restrictions have been established in order to control
the size or bulk of structures in relation to the size and use of property.
In the case of single-family parcels, these standards were established at 40%
lot coverage and 2.5 stories or 35 feet in height. (Measured to the mean of a
pitched roof. )
These bulk standards, along with setback restrictions, are designed to allow
ample interior residential living space, while, at the same time, limiting the
Page 3, Item 6
Meeting Date 6/17/86
size and location of structures consistent with the light, air, privacy, and
open space standards and aesthetic values which have come to be expected in
R-1 single-family residential living environments.
Section 19.14.140 of the Municipal Code provides, in part, that "The granting
of a variance is an administrative act to allow a variation from the strict
application of the regulations of the particular zone, and to provide a
reasonable use for a parcel of property having unique characteristics by
virtue of its size, location, design or topographical features, and its
relationship to adjacent or surrounding properties and developments. The
purpose of the variance is to bring a particular parcel up to parity with
other property in the same zone and vicinity insofar as a reasonable use is
concerned, and it is not to grant any special privilege or concession not
enjoyed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity. . . . "
The property under consideration is a level and rectangular 65'x135.76' R-1
parcel containing 8,824.4 sq. ft. of lot area. The parcel exceeds the present
lot size and width requirements for standard R-1 lots (7,000 sq. ft. in area
and 60 ft. in width) , and is surrounded by R-1 lots of like size in a stable
R-1 single-family neighborhood. Under the present R-1 lot coverage and height
restrictions, this parcel can accommodate a single story footprint containing
3,529.7 sq. ft. of coverage or a two-story dwelling containing 7,059.4 sq ft.
The attic space may not be provided with a floor or direct stair access which
would qualify this area as an additional story.
There is nothing unique about the subject parcel by virtue of its size,
location, design or topographical features or its relationship to adjacent or
surrounding properties and developments which would prevent the reasonable use
of the property under the strict application of the R-1 zone lot coverage and
height restrictions, and in this sense, the granting of the variance would
represent a special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the same zone
and vicinity.
It is also true, however, that the R-1 height regulations in effect at the
time of permit issuance allowed a structure height of 2.5 stories or 35 ft. as
measured to the midpoint between the eves and the ridge of the roof. Although
the dwelling in question is 42 ft. high, it meets this latter standard, and it
violates the 2.5 story standard only by virtue of the existence of flooring
within, and direct stair access to, the attic space. The housing plans and
permit on file, however, authorize an overall height of 35 feet for the
dwelling. Thus the dwelling could be made to conform with the applicable
height regulations and approved plans simply by removing the attic flooring,
direct stair access, and seven feet from its present height.
It has further been shown that modifications to the proposal to meet the 40%
lot coverage standard could also be made with little, if any, reduction in the
bulk of the dwelling. These modifications would include removal of the
single-story accessory structure at the rear of the lot -- reducing the lot
coverage from 61% to 46.2% -- and either the removal of 10 ft. off the rear of
the structure or opening-up the building' s interior to achieve the additional
6% reduction in coverage. In essence, then, the dwelling could be made to
conform with both the height and coverage standards without substantially
reducing its bulk or adverse impact on the neighborhood.
Page 4, Item 6
Meeting Date 6/17/86
When these circumstances became apparent at the Council hearing, and the
applicant indicated a willingness to remove the accessory structure,
substantially reduce the height of the dwelling and work with the Design
Review Committee on questions of exterior design, it was deemed to be in the
best interest of the neighborhood to work with the applicant to achieve a
compromise solution which would allow the footprint of the dwelling to remain
at 46.2% lot coverage based on lowering the roof height below that which the
original building permit plans and zoning ordinance authorized.
The question thus becomes, should there be rigid adherence to the standards,
or should a compromise be allowed which will substantially reduce the height
of the structure and improve its exterior design and thereby ameliorate the
adverse impact, or "hardship," on the neighborhood. The proposed compromise
would lower the roof height from 42 ft. to 30 ft. in exchange for retaining
the 46.2% lot coverage versus the 40% provided for in the R-1 zone. Based
upon the findings of fact listed in the following section, we recommend
approval of the compromise.
As reported earlier in this report, revised plans were considered by the
Design Review Committee on June 5. The Committee was unable to make a
recommendation on the exterior design because of a lack of detail on the
plans.
This action would not be precedent setting since the problems brought to light
by this and other projects has resulted in the adoption of a floor area ratio
ordinance and a 28 ft. (total ) height limit in the R-1 zone.
Following are the recommended findings of approval for an increase in lot
coverage from 40% to 46.2%.
FINDINGS:
1 . 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
regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal , family or
financial difficulties, loss 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.
The hardship in this instance must be viewed from the neighborhood's
perspective. The property could be made to conform with the 40% lot
coverage requirement, but this would not lower the height or reduce the
bulk of the dwelling. The granting of this variance as conditioned, on
the other hand, will reduce the height of the structure by 12 ft. and
result in exterior design changes that will further reduce its apparent
bulk. These changes will relieve the hardship that the presence of this
massive and overwhelming structure has on the light, air, privacy and
sensibilities of neighboring residents. In addition, it would mitigate
any resulting hardship that may have resulted from any alleged mistake by
the City in the processing of the applicants building permit.
Page 5, Item 6 ti
Meeting Date 6/17/86 M`" '
2. 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,
would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by
his neighbors.
The granting of this variance will help ensure for neighboring properties
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by
other properties in the same zone and vicinity. As a consequence of the
granting of this variance, the recipient will relinquish the privilege of
maintaining the height of the dwelling at 42 ft. as allowed by Code and
will reduce the height to 30 ft. in exchange for the privilege of an
increase in lot coverage from 40% to 46.2%.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the
purposes of this chapter or the public interest.
The granting of this variance will be of substantial benefit to adjacent
properties ana consistent with the purposes of this chapter and the
public interest in that it will result in a reduction of the bulk of the
dwelling which would otherwise not occur.
4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The granting of this variance is consistent with the goals and objectives
of the General Plan as they relate to the visual quality and liveability
of single family neighborhoods.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable
WPC 2884P
— yL
0-p x_ t o" l�
4-6c L fir[ fib. Z71 S
by the 'ity Cruncr of
Chula Vista, California
Dated 1 7 _
/; <
F'.
$l,fl STREET
1 ! 1 ( 1
I
1 I _
l t • ! l !
_1-- _1 _t IL 1
... . ' . !:.
- -- =-► 1 MITSCH ER ST. t
a.I - - - - - 1 t II r 1 HT X
t - - __ __ I I. �� i II 9 i
1:.;— — — -I - - - HALSEY ST. m HALSEY
T.
ki - _ L _ _ _ n M. dT i
— — — — — — 0 Sin�j;e Flamii* D4ellirhgs I t8
�/ 1 1 I �' I i�
s 657 SF SF SF SF SF /SF SF SF
CO SF 191 187 181 175 ,I67 165 157 155 S,,--.-,T.
T_I
71 C MURRAY
- - - - _ - m Sin,.le Family Dwellings
SF 192 186 180 176 168 164 158 154
T I T I 1
i— — — 673 I I I I ( I
t — — — _ L _ — SF SF SF I SF SF SF .SF SF
KING ST.
I I I 1
•- I 1 I
111 TYtflTh
,1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 l 1 I 1 1
td 11 d U E STREET .
1111 I
i
z - - - -- - 1-rrl r - 1- t.
11111.1111111111111 Cf)
4' ( J. ANTHONY RASO LOCATOR
) L65MURRAY AV-86-26
. ': .
l', lig ,. ..........
_,,i 7 , ..,--
__. __