Loading...
01-V-93v CITY OF CUPIERTI NO 10300 TORRIE AVENUE, CUPIERTI NO, CALIFORNIA 95014 MI[NUT]ES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IVr1Iay 25,1993 5:00 P. M. CONFERENCE ROOM C & )<D (LOWER LEVEL) ORDER OF BUSINESS STAFF PRESENT: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Michele Bjurman, Planner II Pamela Eggen, Staff Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Director Cowan approved the Minutes of April 7, 1993. POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARING 1. Application No. Applicant: Property Owner Location: 1-V-93 R & Z Development John Schault North end of Adriana Avenue Planning Director Cowan outlined the meeting, variance and appeal procedures. Planning Director Cowan described another procedure regarding the tentative map. He stated the tentative map application (1-TM-93) would be heard at the June 7th City Council Meeting. Mr. Cowan said the Council is looking for an agreement between the applicant and the neighboring property owners. He stated if he were to grant the variance it would be subject to the granting of a subdivision. He said the lot actually does not exist until the tentative map is approved. Staff Presentation: Planner II Bjurman described the variance of the lot width requirements for the front parcel. She stated the applicant is requesting a deviation from the width of the front lot. Ms. Bjurman pointed out that typically 60 ft. is required and the applicant is requesting 17.98 ft. She said this would be in addition to the 15 ft. minimum required of the flag stem for the rear lots. She said there would be 15 ft. required by the Fire Department and 17.98 ft. adjoining that. She pointed out the adjoining parcel west, which is identified as Lands of Young. She stated in 1987 a tentative map and variance lot width was approved. Their variance was from 60 ft. to 51. Ms. Bjurman said it is more than likely that in the future the adjoining parcel east of the applicants would subdivide at this time another variance request would be needed. Ms. Bjurman stated that the applicant meets all of the three required variance findings. She said staff recommends approval. Ms. Bjurman stated she would like to expand on two points. She said the direction she received from Council was that staff needed to work with the developer and property owners in attempting to resolve the issues regarding thesecond story. She informed staff that the City Attorney recommended that a condition of approval be created to this variance stating the front parcel - to remain a single story and that it be deed restricted so that any future property owners, or this particular property owner, would be restricted to. single story. She said the City Attorney does not find a connection between this variance application and the rear parcel. The City Attorney suggests that the developer and the adjoining property Planning Director Minutes May 25, 1993 Page -2- owners create a private agreement between themselves for one story. The City attorney said the City would not be part of this agreement nor enforce the agreement. Planner II Bjurman mentioned the Model Resolution of approval and stated that the variance, if granted, would not become effective until the tentative map was approved. Ms. Bjurman said she had also created a new finding and condition regulating the one story feature on the front lot. that this condition would create findings that substantiate the purpose for those conditions of approval. She suggested if the application was approved that these conditions be added to the Model Resolution. Planning Director Cowan asked for a presentation from the applicant Mark Roberts, R&Z Development Company, representing the applicant, stated that this was an unusual piece of property. He said the property was over 35,000 sq. ft. and if the design was correct it could accommodate three sites. However, he said, they are asking for only a two lot subdivision of approximately 17,000 sq. ft. each which is larger than any of the other lots generally in the RI 10,000 zoning area. He stated the request for the variance was because of the unique design layout of this particular parcel in that the small end of the parcel is on the cul-de-sac. He said it is their intention that they develop the property in the back and not at the street side. He mentioned that there are a number of parcels along the cul-de-sac that have smaller than the standard 60 ft. He said they had the support of one of the immediate owners which happens to be the Lands of Young, identified on the parcel as the owner named Sherry. Mr. Roberts stated that he did not feel that this was going to be detrimental to the adjacent neighborhood or generate any increase in traffic. He said there are setbacks in rear yards as well as side yards that are greater than what exists between most of the neighboring properties. Planning Director Cowan asked Mr. Roberts if he was aware of all of the development standards for the RI zoning district as far as lot coverage? Mr. Roberts stated he did. Planning Director Cowan asked if he felt comfortable that he could develop on that site without other variances? Mr. Roberts said yes. Planning Director. Cowan stated that one of the findings he would have to make it is that the development would not have adverse impacts on the adjoining property owners. He pointed out that the parking was an issue before in regarding the tentative map. He asked Mr. Roberts if he could design the property in a way to minimize any parking problems and meet the offsite four parking space requirement. Mr. Roberts stated they could design the houses as to incorporate what was required with whatever the conditions were now with the City in regards to parking. He said they wanted to maintain flexibility and they would stay within the requirements to accommodate any concerns of the neighbors. He said they have offered to take one of the spaces in the three car garage and make that one of the units He said then they would only need three off -site. He said instead of a two car garage, they would go to a three car garage and asked that be counted. He stated, however, they could deal without it, even on a one-story basis. Mr. Roberts said as far as Parcel 1 is concerned, they had no objection to limiting the house to a one-story. He said they could do that as well as on Parcel 2. He stated that they thought the two-story was the best use of the land considering the setbacks and coverage. Planning Director Cowan asked who would like to testify on the residents behalf Steve Ekovich, 10266 Mann, stated his property touches the end of the subject property. Mr. Ekovich explained his main concern was that he did not want a two-story house infringing upon his privacy, view, etc. He felt the issue could be resolved on Parcel 1. He said he was not sure where the structure on Parcel 2 would be situated. He said it appears it would be overlooking his neighbors property. He stated if both properties were going to be somehow restricted or both to a single story, that would certainly mitigate any of his problems or concerns of privacy. He said he did not want to deny the property owner the right to develop the property. He stated a two story house would be detrimental to his property values. He said it would certainly impact him economically, so Planning Director Minutes May 25, 1993 Page -3- that was a very large and weighted concern. He said they could work out an agreement if the original two-story concept with setbacks or a single story with greenery was going to be maintained. He said he was opposed to changing the end of the property and moving the single story next to his fence line within 5 ft. He said the community was set_ up in a conforming nature so that backyards were back to back not next to each other. He said Mr. Roberts' original plan qualified for some space. He said he could not agree for or against the variance until he understood the new map. He stated he would like questions answered regarding an explanation on the tentative map approval process in that there was a guarantee to ensure that what he was looking at today would be actually the same plan that would be built. Planner II Bjurman answered in a single family zoning district there are established front side and rear setbacks, so within those parameters a structure can be built. She said the only restriction would be the front lot, being a single story. She said it could be shifted anywhere on the parcel within the coverage and setback requirements. Planning Director Cowan asked what the side setbacks would be for his particular property? Planner II Bjurman identified side setbacks as 5 ft. on one side and 10 ft. on the other to be placed on either side. The existing plan shows setbacks to the adjoining properties west of 60 ft. Planning Director Cowan asked if there would be a reasonable rear yard setback on Parcel 1? Planner II Bjurman stated Parcel 1 rear yard would be the required 20 ft. Mr. Ekovich asked if there would be a 20 ft. setback from the first house to his property line and where the proposed second house could be located? Planner II Bjurman showed on the map the possible setbacks. Mr. Ekovich asked if the applicant's structure could be built 5 ft. to his back fence? Planner II Bjurman said that was correct. Mr. Ekovich said he is opposed to that if it is part of the approval process. He said he. would do whatever he could to make sure that it is not approved. Planner II Bjurman reminded him that this evenings process was only regarding the lot width variance to Parcel 1. Mr. Ekovich said he understood that, and that he worked in real estate. He understood that certain conditions can be applied and certain arrangements made. Planning Director Cowan stated that he would not be able to make a decision on the second lot at all in terms of the variance application. He reminded him that the variance is for the front lot. The second lot has to do with the tentative subdivision map which will be heard at the June 7th City Council Meeting. Planner II Bjurman asked if he was willing to develop a private agreement regarding the issues he was raising. She stated that Mr. Roberts must resolve these issues before the application reaches the public hearing stage on the tentative map. Mr. Ekovich said okay. Planner II Bjurman said she was hoping that the neighbors would work with the applicant on coming to some resolve. Planning Director Cowan stated that this closes the issue of the tentative map. He said the City'Attorney advise is for the neighbors and the applicant to workout an agreement in private and the present the agreement to the Planning Director Minutes May 25, 1993 Page -4- Council at the June 7th hearing. Mr. Cowan said we could not make that agreement part of this condition of approval on the variance or the tentative map. Mr. Cowan stated that this was a very unique situation. Mr. Ekovich stated he understood. Mr. Ekovich asked Ms. Bjurman to clarify where the side setback or the closest building structure was going to be to his backyard. Planner Il Bjurman pointed out on the map that the 10 ft. setback could be potentially 5 ft. so it would be half of that. Planning Director Cowan asked Mr. Ekovich if he was asking if he actually had a plan now? Mr. Ekovich stated yes he would like to settle it. Planning Director Cowan asked Mr. Roberts if he had any plan now? Mr. Roberts said he did not have a plan for the one story. He said he could tell him as far as Lot 2 was concerned. For the first lot, there is no possibility of getting any closer than this right here (Mr. Roberts pointed the location out on the map) which is around 20 to 30 ft. He stated the setbacks here are adjacent to the Sherry property and not the Ekovich property for the first lot. He said the setbacks do not even apply at that particular point in the first lot. He pointed out that the second lot setbacks are adjacent as far as Mr. Ekovich's property was concerned, it would almost be at the intersection of the property line between Ekovich and Dunn. He said that would be the closest that it would approach the Ekovich property on a setback. Mr. Roberts stated as far as the actual one-story structure, he was willing to discuss and talk about concerns regarding what kind of a setback is reasonable. He said first concern was a two story issue, and now it is a setback issue for the one story for which he is willing to discuss too. He stated that he needed input on that one. He pointed out on the map that it was his intent to hold both parcels as to tight to this boundary line as possible and increase the setbacks along the other one. Planning Director Cowan asked for any additional questions? Mr. Ekovich stated no. Planning Director Cowan asked if anyone else wanted to speak Chris Dunn, 10282 Mann Drive, said he realized that the hearing was just for the variance on the front lot, but that he had other concerns which he did not want to bring up now. He said the variance map must have been granted originally or that the zoning laws had changed or the setback rules had changed. Planning Director Cowan stated that he thought it had once been in the County. Mr. Cowan said he did not know why the lots had been created that way. Mr. Cowan said he thought that the cul-de-sac should have gone back further to allow the property to development in a more conventional manner. Mr. Cowan said he did not know why the lots had been designed that way in 1949. Mr. Dunn said that we could not change that now. He said the other issue was the flag lot having a street frontage of 15 ft. and the other lot has a frontage of 17 ft. He said it is almost like there are two adjacent flag lots there in terms of the street perspective. He said he was not sure if that was unusual or any ordinance about flag lots being adjacent to each other. He said it is almost like three flag lots adjacent to each other because of the property adjacent on the west side. He said he did not know if there is anything that can be taken into consideration there or not. He said the other issue was regarding the second finding listed in the model approval of the variance "that the granting of the variance action is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights". He said he is not sure what definition that was assigned to substantial property rights on a piece of property as far as the owner having the right to subdivide the parcel at any time or any reason. He stated if it is strictly to preserve the financial investment, he does not think that a financial aspect should play into this at all. He thinks that it should be more of a code. He stated that property investment is generally fairly stable, but sometimes it can be kind of risky and personally he would not want to invest in something that was uncertain whether he could make a subdivision of the property or not in the fixture. Planning Director Minutes May 25, 1993 Page -5- Mr. Dunn stated that those were the only two points he had to bring up Planning Director Cowan stated in regard to the two flag lots, there are situations in the older sections of Monta Vista where there might be double flag lots. Mr. Cowan agreed that it is an awkward situation. He stated that Commissioner Austin voted no at the Commission level for those reasons. He said that flag lots are frowned upon, but have been granted in particular situations where they are pre-existing in the older neighborhoods. Mr. Dunn said that it appears with the flag lot, the home is being inserted into somewhere where a home normally would not necessarily exist and now there are two homes being inserted into an area where a home previously didn't exist in what was someone's rear yard. He realizes with the setbacks that there is not much that can be done. He said it is unfortunate with the flag lot configuration, the side setback rule applies adjacent to a rear setback on an adjacent house so that you do not have the rear setback to rear setback normal configuration. He said with a flag lot there is no way to get around that. Planning Director Cowan stated that happens with a corner lot. Mr. Dunn said he had lived on a corner lot before. Planning Director Cowan stated that if a front yard, a side yard and a rear yard is next to your house conversely you can have a rear yard with somebody's side yard. Mr. Cowan said that it is possible to have a structure 10 ft. away on the same corner lots. He stated that on a corner lot a solution might be to have a rear yard in your yard. He said it is not unusual to find a two-story house 10 ft. away from your backyard, but it is awkward. Mr. Cowan asked if there were any additional comments. Mr. Dunn stated that was all he had to say Mr. Roberts_ wanted to make a statement regarding some of the concerns and comments. He stated if the variance is granted, it is his understanding that they would not have two flag lots. He said there would be one lot with a flag to in t the rear. He said there would not be three adjacent to each other and the variance allows for a front lot. He said to make the best use of the land they would use the flag of the rear lot, the pole portion, as access for both lots. He stated the second issue regarding side yard setbacks to rear yard setbacks in an R1-10 zone is also a rear yard setback is 20 ft. generally. He stated it would be much greater than what would normally be between two lots that were back to back in a subdivision where 20 ft. was required there would be 40 ft. between houses. He said -this one would have anywhere from 60 to 80 ft. between houses. In response to Mr. Roberts' comment, Mr. Cowan state that Mr. Dunn was saying that the lot is so narrow it almost functions like a flag lot, he wasn't saying it was a flag lot per se, but that it is pretty narrow. He said that is why we are here for the variance. Mr. Roberts said okay and he just wanted to make that comment. Thank you. Planning Director Cowan asked if anyone wanted to make a final comment. Planning Director Cowan stated the public hearing was closed. Planning Director Cowan stated the comments he had heard were that people were concerned about possible impacts associated with a two story house. He said there is a way to balance the needs of the applicant in terms the use of the property.. Mr. Cowan said the lot was large and had it been smaller, it would have been grounds for denial for both tentative map and variance. He stated that the properties are quite large and that it. is reasonable to expect some additional development to occur. He asked if anyone had a chance to look at the judicial findings and conditions. Someone stated yes. Planning Director Minutes May 25, 1993 Page -6- Planning Director Cowan said he would grant the variance with the additional conditions of approval that prohibit a second story structure on Lot 1. Planning Director Cowan stated Condition No. 1 recommends approval based upon Exhibit A and is contingent upon City Council approval of the tentative map. Mr. Cowan suggested they take advantage of the Council's decision in providing a private agreement. Mr. Cowan reminded everyone that the City would not be an enforcer of the private agreement. Mr. Cowan made a decision to grant the variance based upon the conditions of approval and the additional finding. He reiterated that the application is subject to appeal within fourteen days. ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Director of Community Development adjourned at 5:41 p.m.. Respectfully submitted, P6ela Eggen, Admin. Clerk Approved by the Director of Community Development Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Attest: , Kim Smith, City Clerk i gAmm\misc\rnin5-25