HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1988/08/16 Item 20
.
..
.
.
.
"f
..
.
.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
I tern 2 0
Meeting Date 8/16/88
----
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Variance ZAV-88-19; Request to retain
exi sti ng lot coverage of 46.2% at 165 Murray Street - J.
Anthony Raso
Denying ZAV-88-19
Resolution
Resolution 13 7 ~V
Director of Planning
City Managel
This item involves a request to retain the existing lot coverage at 46.2% for
the single-family dwelling at 165 Murray Street in the R-1 zone rather than
reducing the lot coverage to 40% as called for by the Municipal Code.
Approving ZAV-88-19
SUBMITTED BY:
/' '/
:clc...
REVIEWED BY:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
--
The proposal is exempt from environmental review as a Class 5(a) exemption.
This has been a very long standing and difficult issue to deal with. Since
May 1986, several variance requests have been made resulting in variable City
Council positions and conditions depending upon the circumstances at the
time. The present variance request, and conditions embodied in the resolution
for approval, once again attempt to reach a compromise which might have a more
tangi b 1 e nei ghborhood benefit compared with the removal of a porti on of the
dwelling. The Planning Commission and staff, for the most part, have
historically opposed the variance requests and continue to do so now.
However, the information provided herewith does place both an approval and
denial option before the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION: Concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission
and adopt the resolution to deny the variance; in the alternative, should
Council wish to approve the request as filed, adopt the alternative resolution
based on its findings and conditions of approval.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On July 27, 1988, the Planning
Commission denied the request by a vote of 5-0.
BACKGROUND:
The history of this matter dates back to February, 1986. Following is a recap
of events:
2/26/86 -
Offi ci a1 Stop Work Order issued to the app1 i cant because the
house contained a third story, exceeded lot coverage and
numerous di screpanci es were noted in the fi el d compared with
the approved building plans (including a stairway to the upper
level and an overall roof height of 42 feet).
I ') {.J4'
.
..
~
to
.
fa g e- 2.
/J?/~Sl)13
2/l0/tit -
2/28/87 -
3/13/87 -
4/07/87 -
4/14/87 -
. 4/28/87-
.
~.
7/14/87 -
7/15/87 -
8/26/87
9/8/87 -
Page 3, Item 20
Meeting Date 8/16/8B
C1 ty Counc; 1 passed a resol uti on authori zi ng a 60-day
extensi on to compl ete the work to open up the covered area
over the swimming pool. This period expired 4/10/87.
(Applicant had reduced roof height to 35 ft. and removed shed.)
Letter sent by Mr. Raso to the Building and Housing Department
that opening up the pool impractical and of no benefit.
Further, additional land has been acquired from the two lots
to the east no longer resul ti ng in the lot exceedi ng the 40%
coverage limit.
City Council i nformati on item and 1 etter from the Pl anni ng
Director to Mr. Raso stating that the lot expansion solution
is unacceptable.
Drawing received from Mr. Raso as to intent with respect to
improvements now within the attic area.
Written communication from Mr. Raso to the City Council.
Copies of Council minutes and actions and Planning Commission
actions are included with the letter.
Council directed staff to have an engineering analysis done on
the house to assess the feasi bi 1 i ty and approximate cost of
opening the area above the pool.
Counci 1 consi dered engi neeri ng analysi s that showed lot
coverage could be reduced to 40% in three alternative ways at
a cost of from $10,000 to $30,000. Council deferred action on
this issue to allow applicant to pursue a variance to retain
the exi sti ng lot coverage, but di rected Mr. Raso to comply
with requirement to remove access and certain improvements to
the "attic."
Appl icant filed variance to increase lot coverage from 40 to
46.2%.
Planning Commission denied the variance request by a 5-0 vote.
City Council voted 4-1 to approve the variance subject to the
following conditions: reduce roof height to 30 ft.; no access
to or use of 2nd story deck; "attic" access limited to crawl
space and all facilities in attic removed (hot tub,
fi repl aces, pl umbi ng); remove french door access from deck to
attic and install permanent wall improvements; 2x61s installed
over existing attic flooring; provide landscape buffer on rear
of house subject to review/approval of City Landscape
Architect; all of the above to be accomplished within 45 days
or variance shall be null and void.
" -;,;;,' I~- _ J /t
,--,' -.~-I
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
..
Page 4, Item 20
Meeting Date~~
10/28/87-
City Attorney notifies applicant that conditions have not been
met; variance is null and void and lot coverage must be
reduced to 40%.
12/1/87 -
Mr. Raso files claim for damages against the City citing loss
of use and val ue of property and emoti ona1 di stress resu1 ti ng
from City's improper interpretation and application of Codes,
unreasonable conditions of approval for a variance, and
selective enforcement, among other things.
1 /1 2/88 -
Council and Mr. Raso agreed to first of several extensions of
time to act on claim. Last extension granted to meeting of
8/9/88.
5/27/88 -
DISCUSSION:
Applicant files present request.
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North R-1
South R-1
East R-1
West R-1
Single-family dwelling
Single-family dwelling
Single-family dwelling
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 retain an expanded single family
dwelling in its present configuration. The 35 ft. high, 8,000+ sq. ft.
single-family dwelling covers 4,085 sq. ft. or 46.2% of the lot. Coverage in
the R-1 zone is limited to 40%, or in this case 3,530 sq. ft., a difference of
555 sq. ft. Although the floor area ratio (FAR) is more than twice the
allowable 0.45 single family standard, the original building permit for the
project was issued prior to the adoption of the FAR restriction.
In support of the request, the applicant has offered to record deed
restrictions on the property -- that would run with the land and be
enforceable by the City as well as the owner of any property on the 100 blocks
of Murray or Halsey Streets -- which would (1) prohibit the use of the third
1 evel and deck for any purpose other than enclosed storage, (2) remove and
close all third level window openings, (3) remove the existing internal
stairway to the third level, and (4) reduce the opening between the third
floor and the deck to 22 inches x 36 inches for servi ces only (pl ease see
attached for copy of proposed deed restrictions and third level floor plan
with notations by applicant).
I ? (-:4<1
: _.....1 ' ~ 'f
.
,.
4
'>
.
.
..
~
.
..
Page 5, Item 20
Meeting Date 8/16/88
ANALYSIS:
Lot coverage restrictions have been established in order to help control the
size or bulk of structures in relation to the size and use of property. In
the case of single-family parcels, the standard is established at 40% lot
coverage.
Lot coverage and other bulk standards, including setback restrictions, are
designed to allow ample interior residential living space, while, at the same
time, limiting the 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-l single-family residential living environments.
Section 19.14.140 of the Municipal Code provides, in part, that liThe 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 vari ance is to bri ng a parti cul ar 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 65Ix135.76' R-l
parcel containing 8,824.4 sq. ft. of lot area. The parcel exceeds the present
lot size and width requirements for standard R-l lots (7,000 sq. ft. in area
and 60 ft. in width), and is surrounded by R-l lots of like size in a stable
R-l single-family neighborhood. Under the applicable R-l 40% lot coverage and
hei ght restri cti ons, thi s parcel can accommodate a s i ngl e story footpri nt
containing 3,529.7 sq. ft. of coverage or a two-story dwelling containing
7,059.4 sq. ft. There appears to be nothing unique about the subject parcel
by virtue of its size, location, design or topographical features or its
relationship to adjacent properties which would prevent the reasonable use of
the property under the strict application of the R-l zone lot coverage
restrictions.
CONCLUSION:
Since the claim was filed by Mr. Raso in December 1987, staff from the
Manager's office, Building and Housing Department, Planning Department and
City Attorney's Office have pursued possible options to litigation with Mr.
Raso and hi s attorney. The only al ternate for whi ch there was any agreement
to proceed with is the present vari ance request. The exchange for forgi vi ng
the lot coverage excess is a substantial benefit by precluding use of the deck
and severely 1 imiti ng the use of the upper 1 evel . Thi s coul d increase the
peace and quiet and privacy for the adjoining single family residents.
1::::;../ '
...
.
Page 6, Item 20
Meeting Date 8/16/88
k
FINDINGS:
The Planning Commission made the following findings in denying the request:
..
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.
.
There is no apparent hardshi p pecul i ar to the property in that the
lot is a level, rectangular parcel containing 8,824 sq. ft. of lot
area whi ch can accommodate 3,530 sq. ft. of coverage under the 40%
R-l standard. As noted above, the fi nanci al burden of reduci ng lot
coverage is not a hardship justifying a variance.
2.
That such vari ance is necessary for the preservati on 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 dwelling size can be modified to comply with the 40% lot coverage
provision and maintain a total floor area exceeding other single
family dwellings located within the vicinity. Neighboring properties
are at or below 40% coverage.
.
~ 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 granti ng of the vari ance woul d authori ze coverage and bul kin
excess of that enjoyed by adjacent properties. A reduction in
. coverage would reduce the visual impact of the dwelling.
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 authorization of the variance is inconsistent with the objectives
.. of the General Plan as they relate to the visual quality and the
scale of buildings within single family neighborhoods.
~.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
WPC 5423P
by the City
Chula Vista, California
Dated ~~/~ d