Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1987/09/08 Item 12COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT • Item ~ 2 Meeting Date 9/8/87 ITEM TITLE: Report: Variance ZAV 88-2; Request to retain existing lot coverage of 46.2% at 165 Murray Street - J. Anthony Raso Resolution~~~ ~ / Approving Variance ZAV 88-2 SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning !~,~L REVIEWED BY: City Manager~j (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) On September 1, 1987, the City Council approved the lot coverage variance request subject to conditions. Staff was asked to bring back revised findings. The notion of 1 oweri ng the roof from 35 feet to 30 feet was to be explored and a meeting was to be convened between the applicant and the neighbors. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the report. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On August 26, 1987, the Planning Commission denied the request by a vote of 5-0. • DISCUSSION: Council felt the benefit of no stairway access to the deck or the upper level would have a more positive effect on the neighborhood than opening up the area over the svimming pool to comply with the 40% lot coverage provision. Council's action restated is that the 46.2% lot coverage variance is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The second story deck is not to be used and access thereto is to be removed. 2. The attic area access is to be removed, except for a crawl space, and all facilities in the attic removed including hot tub, fireplaces and all plumbing. 3. The French door access from the deck to the attic is to be removed and permanent finished wall improvements installed. 4. 2 x 6's are to be installed over the existing flooring in the attic area. 5. The above conditions to be accomplished within 45 days of final Council action on September 8, 1987, or the variance approval shall be null and void. Page 2, Item 12 Meeting Date 9/8/87 • Staff will have some sketches and a verbal report on the cost of further lowering the roof at the Council meeting. Also, it is our understanding that the applicant is meeting with the neighbors on Saturday, September 5, 1987, to discuss the project. 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 property could be made to comply with the 40~ lot coverage requirement but this wo uld not reduce the bulk of the dwelling or substantially benefit the neighborhood. The granting of this variance as conditioned, on the other hand, will reduce the nuisance factor, increase privacy and quiet as well as safety in the vicinity by means of elimination of the second story deck and removal of attic facilities. • 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 insure for neighboring properties the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity. The lot coverage excess has already been reduced from 61°,6 to 46.2%. The substantial property rights of other properties would be minimally improved by the additional reduction in lot coverage compared to full compliance with all the variance conditions. 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 and consistent with the purposes of this chapter and the public interest in that the-deck removal will allow the neighbors to more fully enjoy the rear and side yard portions of their property and be comfortable in utilizing their outdoor space. • Page 3, Item Meeting Date 9 8 • 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 livability of single-family neighborhoods. WPC 4245P ~~2~2~C~ she Gity Go~incii of Chula Vista, Galifcrnia Dated _~ •