Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1993/01/27 (2) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of January 27, 1993 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZA V-93-06; Appeal from the decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny a request to reduce the required sideyard setback from 10 ft. to 6 ft. at 140 Mankato Street - T & D Construction A. BACKGROUND 1. The proposal seeks to reduce the sideyard setback from 10 ft. to 6 ft. in order to construct a 15 ft. x 33 ft. (495 sq. ft.) carport on the westerly side of the dwelling at 140 Mankato Street in the R-l zone. The Zoning Administrator denied the request on December 14,1992, and the matter is being appealed to the Planning Commission. 2. The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 3 (Section 15303) exemption. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator and thereby denying the appeal on ZAV-93-06. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use. North - R-l - Single Family South - R-l - Single Family East R-l - Single Family West - R-l - Single Family Existing site characteristics. The property is a 66 ft. x 104 ft. (6,864 sq. ft.) R-llot with a 1,715 sq. ft. single family dwelling, a 476 sq. ft. detached garage, and a 60 sq. ft. detached patio cover. The dwelling presently maintains setbacks of 5 ft. on the easterly side and 22 ft. on the westerly side. Request. The proposal is to attach a 15 ft. x 33 ft. carport to the westerly side of the dwelling. The carport would be constructed over the driveway which leads from WPC F:\home\planning\482.93 / - I City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of January 27, 1993 Page 2 the street to the detached garage at the rear of the lot. The carport would extend to within 6 ft. of the westerly property line. The required setbacks for a dwelling in the R-1 zone are 3 ft. on one side and 10 ft. on the other side, with a minimum separation of 10 ft. from adjacent dwellings. Since the existing setback on the easterly side is 5 ft., the larger 10 ft. setback is required to be maintained on the westerly side. The carport would extend to within 6 ft. of the westerly property line and therefore encroach 4 ft. into the required setback along that boundary. Detached accessory structures may encroach within required sideyards provided they are located in the rear portion of the lot. Thus the existing detached garage complies with the setback standards even though it extends to within 5 ft. of the westerly property line. The Zoning Administrator denied the request based on the following findings (see attached letter): 1. The property is a typical, rectangular 6,864 sq. ft. R-1 single family lot with no apparent physical hardship related to the size, configuration or topography of the property or the manner in which is has been developed. 2. A carport with an interior dimension of 11 ft. x 36 ft. could be constructed without the necessity of encroaching into the required sideyard setback. Finding #2 was based on what was (or was not) depicted on the plans submitted with the original application. Following a detailed site inspection, however, it was determined that an existing landing and stairway on the westerly side of the dwelling would make it infeasible to simply reduce the width of the carport and still maintain an adequate width to park a vehicle. However a narrower conforming carport for a single vehicle could be constructed over and to the front of the landing provided a portion of the sideyard is paved in order to provide access around the carport to the garage in the rear. Appeal The statements in support of the appeal can be summarized as follows (see attached appeal form): 1. Only one neighboring resident objected, although a total of 42 residents were noticed; 2. The objecting neighbor does not live within view of the sideyard in question; WPC F:\home\planning\482.93 I :2 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of January 27, 1993 Page 3 3. The carport would provide the elderly, diabetic homeowner with protected and convenient access to her vehicle which is not now provided by the detached garage; 4. Other properties on Mankato and Whitney Streets have less than the required setbacks. The basis for the Zoning Administrator's decision is a failure in this case to find the special circumstances required by Code in order to grant a variance. It is not based on the number of neighborhood objections, although the concerns of the neighbors weigh in the decision. In this instance, the objecting party was concerned with the appearance of carports; that the approval of one variance would make it difficult to deny subsequent requests, and this would have a cumulative adverse impact on the appearance and openness of the neighborhood. Secondly, the fact that the homeowner is elderly and may have difficulty in getting around, is not a factor which the Zoning Administrator can considered in granting a variance. The Code states that "... personal, family or financial difficulties .... are not hardships justifying a variance." Also, both the dwelling and garage have doors which open on to the rear yard. These could be connected by a breezeway to provide for protected access. Although this would also require a variance -- by attaching the garage to the dwelling it becomes by definition part of the dwelling rather than a detached accessory building and therefore subject to the same setbacks as the dwelling -- it would not affect the existing perimeter setbacks. Finally, the appealant states that other properties on Mankato and Whitney Streets have less than the required setbacks, citing five lots out of a total of 59 lots which front upon these streets. Much of the subdivision developed in the early 1950's when the sideyard setbacks were 5 ft. and 5 ft., and thus some dwellings could have nonconforming setbacks. Our records indicate that no dwelling on either street has ever been granted a variance to reduce the sideyard setback. In any event, the Code states that each case must be considered on its own merits. In conclusion, we do not believe any of the appeal points would favor granting the variance, and therefore, we recommend that the Commission uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny the request based on the findings contained in the attached resolution. For the Commission's information, following are the findings that must be made in order to grant a variance. 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 WPC F:\home\planning\482.93 i - :2 ~) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of January 27, 1993 Page 4 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. 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. 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 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. WPC F:\home\planning\482.93 1- Ij ,- -1 I I ~__J I I j--~ I I I I I I H-' S~~~ I '-1 ~ I ~' ~ -I :!? PI n . ,. 1- ~ PI I \ .- SHAST A - - MANKATO ST. ( ~VD. ~ "_, 14o~b !>T. ) NORTH [2AV-"I?;-V, ) ~-- , . ST. I " , , '-- " I I I J: I I I' - t - r -III I I I I I I, I I I' ~ ~ ~ .., CASITAS ( ). < '" r... - -- ! C I --- ID I ---.... I I LOCATOR ~ ~1De"(~ fPt>M I~' '-D ~ I ~L.'r. ...... I I: --.! I ~ . -~/~ '. -~ J - j - UU~ . - -~ ~ 31 IX) 11- ~ -."E-,lI~II-1?1 a .. I ~^~)-~ e. -~ E-:lI!>1"'''. flo~", fr. .... 1>-^,,-'6..s<.1J~ ~NU.. (41" pI 1'1 f.'<'I~'''', z~ ffl....j""1~ -(fttl.-l.. ~~ _ ~2 ~ -~ 11 \ I , E..>lt"'1"'c." f't' I'- 0-1 \ -, , ~ "'-1""A',......, \ . / I I r: I -- \~z , i~ -.t- 1;- ~~ 1~1'"1 tJ c.. ''i ~ 't <:I j(.e;..GID~I-1G.e;.. I tJ- I- ~ , I . 't . I ~ ~ .'"" Q, S' / r- -;<\ , I II / I I~ . / G \ / I I ~ ZG\t / \\ - I J;.'t t1. -~ ~ U~1 -T j. ( RESOLUTION NO. ZAV-93-06 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a variance was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on November 9, 1992, by J & D Construction on behalf of Cora Marguia, the property owner, and WHEREAS, said application requested approval to reduce the sideyard setback from 10 ft. to 6 ft. in order to construct a carport at 140 Mankato Street in the R -1 zone, and WHEREAS, the application was noticed and subsequently denied by the City Zoning Administrator on the basis the property was found to be a typical, rectangular single family lot with no apparent hardship related to the size configuration or topography of the property or the manner in which it has been developed, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator also found that a narrower confonning carport which complies with the applicable setbacks could be constructed on the westerly side of the dwelling, and WHEREAS, on December 17, 1992, J & D Construction on behalf of Cora Marguia, the property owner, filed an appeal from the decision of the Zoning Administrator, and WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said appeal and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing, and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, January 27, 1993, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and WHEREAS, the project is exempt from environmental review as a Class Sea) exemption. NOW, TIlEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED TIlAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby affinns the findings of the Zoning Administrator as noted above, and BE IT FURTIlER RESOLVED THAT TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby denies the appeal and upholds the decision of the Zoning Administrator. WPC E\home\planning\481.93 /-- 1 Resolution No. ZA V-93-06 Page 2 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 27th day of January 1993 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Susan Fuller, Chainnan A TIEST: Nancy Ripley, Secretary WPC F:\bome\planning\481.93 <<- I << . City of Chula Vista Planning Department Date Received 12P::-9~ Fee Paid watvf'd .s. Recei pt No. N~ Case No: ZAV- ~-aP Appeal Form Appea1 from the decision of: ~oning [] Planning [] Design Review ~Administrator Commission Committee Appellant: ~? ~ OOl-HH-clCn",,' Phone M'I / i/S"c,. q/'SC. Address: XIL-JftJ'oHe,-r n(-~_Uvl. J...,t-f,- CI! C1'1"/() Request for: change, variance, design review, etc. Please state wherein you bel ieve there was an error in the decision of NfZA OPC DDRC for the property located at: j<-/D rt, .. fool UTe> '57('- wr ~"c.,\,~ , \ ~d""l (6.lrt " Uf,) ..\CJr lAA,,~ \" N w".'> ~,",It:>'fJ 4 l7~<t,';o,...(.1f Ifr.- -#'G 61r"'>"~ (10- , <<1<.. tt',,,,;l"'l--s .r .\011": <#" P.AJ-JW' c..-;~ i!.....--,t...,-", v IV -tu J:,'f-"'<.7 4!... prM-'> 1 -.lJ.c- Pkj.(r.:f WOu[t H-___ ....;A81L Loc.>M1...... @ .,. I (,,2- II, Co '-"'=*T') , ..,.c. G fl<!/..<f~ ~'iJ.tt...).L/ -;::;........~c,; I..J." '\ fjl'~"'-r(~.;' -#+..s -ti..,/'i..f I ~",I)-,U 4-t-f F' ~tlur.U) (.,F.i--t;& .;i.-r" ..;/,,,' ~ #t!h.... --to !em" It",,- !/H2U ;, I/Itf.. W-iv(." ~lA"'-ff --It i lulu;. r!6V.tCbJ ~ (pvlQ S~~~~~~t )(~??- OW>-W (;u..- ~ ~..v'~ ...1 Or r.... I),,, ,hi ,: 'S~7'--~ 4",.). ~~ 1''1 Alc.t:"'7 /r 0 rFFii: {fi-~ /'/L"'Y,..,{ t:'"'- . --r:,,:. ~<-II<'!--f b I , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To: Planning Department Do Not Write In This Space Date Appeal Filed: Case No: Date of decision: Receipt No: The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the: Planning Commission City Council on Planning Commissi~n Secretary City Clerk (This form to be filed in triplicate.) PL-60 Rev. 12/83 / - r! f/-L~o Wf/;erI ~( ~H h ;# Ie, ~~Af~ ~... tc-""> rOh <.IS (}:4 t"1,;,...k~O /tvfllf1.lh/ a~/.6-' p1(:11Mf~Ip..1 L",;- cffu.M titlh-'o ""II Y+ ~ tPr/",trP1C A-{1"'t.1 btrfl ( ;E fi,t;r.- ,"","r -j4;, l~f"I& Z ~-- S"1/~t..I ;1&0 ..j..; ~r;e-6y #-0- !d-- ..J-. {I<> fdJ( f?K'ft;,.,,-- ~!(~ Lor , / - Ii< , ~ ~ It-- :---~~ ~~~~ - - -- CIlY OF CHUIA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT December 14, 1992 J & D Construction 811 Halecrest Dlive Chula Vista, CA 91910 Attention: Jeny Drewett Subject: Variance, ZAV-93-06, Reduce sldeyard setback at 140 Mankato Street The Zoning Administrator has considered your request to reduce the sldeyard setback from 10 ft. to 6 ft. in order to construct a 15 f1. x 36 ft. carport at 140 Mankato Street in the R-l zone. The proposal is exempt from environmental review. After reviewing your proposed project, site plan and the existing conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, the Zoning AdmInIstrator has been unable to make the required findings to grant the valiance and therefore your request is hereby denied. Findings of fact are as follows: 1. The property is a typical, rectangular 6.864 sq. ft. R-l single family lot with no apparent physical hardship related to the size, configuration or topography of the property or the manner in wWch It has been developed. 2. A carport with an intelior dimension of 11 f1. x 36 f1. could be constructed without the necessity of encroaching into the required sldeyard setback. You have the light to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. A completed fonn along with a fee of $125.00 must be received by this office within ten days of the date of this letter. Forms are available from the Planning Department. In the absence of said appeal the decision of the Zoning AdmInistrator is final. ~~ Steven Griffin. AlCP Principal Plarmer cc: City Clerk Code Enforcement WPC F:\ho~\planning\421.92 I _ / I I . . . THE CITY CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSU.~ STATEMENT Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons subcontractor, material supplier. -::r1 \) ~~-.:;.... -"\\ I - 1Irz. (!u. oA al/ot /1 having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, (, Co i..-A. r 1<.10 r <:''1). !!It yf\~u" ~ y(\q.I'I."- TO ?/ c..v\ elt 011 0 , If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. it/erN r;. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 1110 AI r;. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No y.- If yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period'? Yes _ No )(J If yes, state which Councilmember( s): PL'f-.:nn is defined as: ".Any indj~'idllal,ft,.m. co-partnership, joint t'enture, associmion, social cIub,[rarernnl organization, corporation, eSlllll'. trust, recei~'er, syndicate. this Gild any other COllllTy, eil)' and coulltry, ..', 11l111Jicipnliry, district or olher political suhdirh;;vll, or (lny other group or combinmion acting as a unit." ("'GTE; Attoch additionol pogcs os neccssory) /t/7/1"L- t / &z..v< D:tle; !-\ : j:.\:DJSCLOSLTXTj (} t>A...-M () !JfA-i./1!. rr Print or type name of contractor/applicant IHL'VI'...t>d I L',\!VJOI J.- / - /.