Loading...
Item 7 - VAR 05-03 - Beszeditz AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Man~ INITIATED BY: Niall Fritz, Director of Development Services DATE: June 21, 2005 SUBJECT: Variance (VAR) 05-03, Mike and Diana Beszeditz, Applicants: APN: 317-211-10 ABSTRACT A request for a Variance to allow the following for an existing single-family residence located at 12471 White Oak Way, in the Residential Single-Family 7 (RS-7) zone: (1) a 5-foot encroachment into the required 1 O-foot rear yard setback for a room addition, (2) a 7-foot-high fence on the interior side yard, when a 6-foot-high fence is allowed, and (3) a carport structure in the front yard setback up to the front property line when an 18-foot setback is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as a Class 5 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the project involves a minor alteration in land use limitations on a developed single-family property. FISCAL IMPACT None. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE A Public Notice was published in the Po way News Chieftain and mailed to 98 property owners within 500 feet of the project site. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a modification to Variance 05-03, subject to the conditions in the attached proposed Resolution. ACTION m :\planning\05report\var\faaborg_solar\sum. doc 1 of 15 June 21, 2005 Item # .::+- ---_._-----~---_._-- ----..-------..- CITY OF POWAY AGENDA REPORT TO: HooornOI, M.,", oed M'mbe~l' C;~ C",",II FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Mana INITIATED BY: Niall Fritz, Director of Development Services Patti Brindle, City Planner e: Lisa Mercurio, Assistant PI nner.j!t1L.. DATE: June 21,2005 SUBJECT: Variance (VAR) 05-03, Mike and Diana Beszeditz, Applicants: A request for a Variance to allow the following for an existing single- family residence located at 12471 White Oak Way, in the Residential Single-Family 7 (RS-7) zone: (1) a 5-foot encroachment into the required 10-foot rear yard setback for a room addition, (2) a 7-foot- high fence on the interior side yard when a 6-foot-high fence is allowed, and (3) a carport structure in the front yard setback up to the front property line when an 18-foot setback is required. APN: 317-211-10 BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a Variance for the following: Required Requested Rear Setback 1 0 feet 5 feet Fence Height 6 feet 7 feet Front Setback 18 feet o feet The applicant has already completed construction of the additions to the single-family house without first obtaining permits from the City. The rear setback Variance would allow a 120-square.foot addition to the family room remain. The front setback Variance would allow a carport to remain. The site is a 0.12-acre parcel located at 12471 White Oak Way, north of Metate Lane, within the Residential Single-Family 7 (RS-7) zone (Attachment B). Surrounding properties are developed with single-family homes on similar sized parcels. 2 of 15 June 21, 2005 Item # '1 -_._.._--_.._._-_...-------~.- --- ------------- -- ---- - .__.._-"- Agenda Report June 21,2005 Page 2 Chapter 17.50 of the poway Municipal Code (PMC) makes a provision whereby the City Council can allow a Variance from the terms of the Zoning Code because of the special circumstances applicable to the property, which makes the strict application of the Code overly burdensome. Staff has informed the applicant that the Variance request for the fence and front carport are not supportable, but they asked that all three requests be brought before the City Council. The recommended Resolution would approve the addition into the rear yard setback but contains conditions for the reduction of the fence height to 6 feet and removal of the carport from the front yard. Should the City Council decide to allow the carport and fence, the Resolution would need to be revised to require the appropriate permits to legalize these structures. FINDINGS Family Room Addition Encroachment -The rear addition consists of 120 square feet of living area that has been added to an existing 1 ,856-square-foot, single-family residence, including a 432-square-foot, attached garage (Attachments C and E). The addition encroaches 5 feet into the required 10 foot setback. Placement of the addition is specifically limited because of the layout of the home and the shape of the lot. As can be seen on Attachment C, neighbors to the east and west, as well as others in the development, would be able to add the exact size room addition without a Variance. The proposed addition location is also in the most logical position in relation to the existing floor plan and is the most economical for the homeowner (Attachment D). This house backs onto Metate Lane so the single-story addition will not impact adjacent homes. The side of the proposed rear addition would be located 30 feet from the corner of the nearest house to the west. The findings necessary to support the Variance for this addition are set forth in the attached proposed Resolution (Attachment A), and are based on the fact that: (1) the developable area of the lot that is conducive to a useable living area is limited due to the shape of the lot and the layout of the existing residence, (2) other residential properties have been approved to maintain less than the required rear yard setbacks, (3) the rear addition is adjacent to Metate Lane, so no other residences are impacted to the south, and (4) the proposed addition has been constructed and painted to match the existing house (Attachment F). Approval of this Variance will not result in any health or safety impacts, and will relieve a burden on the property not experienced by others in the same zone and vicinity. Side Yard Fence Heiaht - The second part of the Variance request is to allow a 27-lineal- foot portion of the side yard fence to be 7 feet high, where a maximum of 6 feet is allowed. 3 of 15 June 21, 2005 Item # ~ ._"-,--"...,~.__._,... .._--_... ._-~. ----- ,.- -. - - Agenda Report June 21, 2005 Page 3 The applicant is requesting to allow a portion of the west and north fencing to exceed the 6-foot height limit to provide screening from the neighbors to the west (Attachment C). There is no support for this increase in fence height because both houses are on almost the same elevation, with the neighbor to the west being at 450.87 feet and the applicant at 451.37, which is a difference of only 0.5 feet (1/2 foot). The neighbor's house to the west is set 5 feet 3 inches from the property line and the applicant's house is 5 feet from the property line, which is consistent with many other residences in the subdivision. Therefore, after reviewing the applicant's findings and considering the project, staff has determined that all of the required findings to approve this portion of Variance 05-03 cannot be made, primarily because it has not been demonstrated that there are special hardship circumstances concerning the over-height fence. The proposed findings for denial of this portion of Variance 05-03 are based on the fact that: (1) there are no special circumstances applicable to the property (size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings) that, because of the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance, deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity or same zone, in that attractive, conforming height (6 feet) fences could be designed for the project, and (2) Granting this Variance would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in that other residential properties in the area are required to comply with the 6-foot-maximum fencing height requirement. Carport Encroachment - The third part of the Variance is a request to allow a carport structure to encroach into the 18-foot front yard setback up to the front property line. The applicant is requesting to keep the existing carport structure that was constructed from the front of the garage to the front property line. The front yard setback for the RS-7 zone is 18 feet from the property line. The east post of the structure encroaches into the 10-foot public right-of-way (Attachments C and F) by 3 feet. The public right-of-way includes the street and 10 feet behind the curb. This area is reserved for the sidewalk, light poles, utility boxes, and water meters. The City of Poway has not historically allowed any type of structure(s) over 6 feet high in the front yard setback area. This front yard area is to be left open, to visually not enclose a neighborhood street. Front yard setback Variances have been allowed occasionally if there are extreme land constraints (i.e., slopes, size or shape of lot), and the encroachments have not been allowed to go all the way to the front property line. There have been some Variances granted recently for front yard encroachments for properties that were in the RR-C zone. These lots had unique land hardships and the structures only encroached up to 20 feet into the required 40-foot setback. Section 17.08.170.B.6f ofthe PMC does allow for a 4-foot encroachment into the front yard setback area for porches, steps, and architectural features, such as eaves, awnings, chimneys, balconies, stairways, wing walls or bay windows. 4 of 15 June 21, 2005 Item#~ --_.._-_.._-_._._.._---_..__.._-~- --~-- Agenda Report June 21,2005 Page 4 Therefore, after reviewing the applicant's request, staff has determined that all of the required findings to approve this portion of Variance 05-03 cannot be made, primarily because it has not been demonstrated that there exists special hardship circumstances concerning the front yard encroachment. The proposed findings for denial ofthis portion of Variance 05-03 are based on the fact that: (1) granting this Variance would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in that other residential properties in the area are required to comply with the minimum front yard setback requirements, and (2) granting this Variance would allow a use or activity that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the Zoning Ordinance or City policy governing the parcel of property in that front yard setback areas are to be left open. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project is Categorically Exempt as a Class 5 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the project involves a minor alteration in land use limitations on a developed single-family property. FISCAL IMPACT None. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE A public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to 98 property owners within 500 feet of the project site. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the modification to VAR 05-03, subject to the conditions in the attached proposed Resolution. Attachments: A. Proposed Resolution B. Zoning Map C. Site Plan D. Floor Plan E. Elevations F. Site Photos M:\planning\05report\var\V AR05-03_Beszeditz\agnrpt.doc 5 of 15 June 21, 2005 Item#~ RESOLUTION NO. P- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA, FOR VARIANCE 05-03 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 321-270-21 WHEREAS, a request for a Variance (VAR 05-03) was submitted by Mike and Diana Beszeditz to allow the following for an existing single-family residence located at 12471 White Oak Way, in the Residential Single-Family 7 (RS-7) zone: (1) A 5-foot encroachment into the required 10-foot rear yard setback for a room addition; (2) a 7-foot-high fence on the interior side yard; and, (3) a carport structure in the front yard setback up to the front property line; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing on the above-referenced item; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered the agenda report for the proposed project and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway as follows: Section 1: The proposed project is Categorically Exempt as a Class 5 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the project involves a minor alteration in land use limitations on a developed single-family property. Section 2: The findings, in accordance with Section 17.50.050 of the Poway Municipal Code, to approve that portion of Variance 05-03 that pertains to the rear family room addition, and allows the addition to observe a 5-foot setback instead of the required 10 feet as shown on the plan dated February 2, 2005, and on file in the Planning Division office are made as follows: The findings necessary to support the Variance for this addition are set forth in the attached proposed Resolution (Attachment A), and are based on the fact that: (1) the developable area of the lot that is conducive to a useable living area is limited due to the shape of the lot and the layout of the existing residence, (2) other residential properties have been approved to maintain less than the required rear yard setbacks, (3) the rear addition is adjacent to Metate Lane, so no other residences are impacted to the south, and (4) the proposed addition has been constructed and painted to match the existing house (Attachment F). Approval of this Variance will not result in any health or safety impacts, and will relieve a burden on the property not experienced by others in the same zone and vicinity. A. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property in that the subject property has a smaller rear yard than other properties in the area and the layout of the existing single-family home limits the location of the rear family room addition 6 of 15 ATTACHMENT A June 21, 2005 Item # ..., "-__.___0_- --~--_. -- Resolution No. P- Page 2 and the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance rear yard setback for the addition would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and same zone. Others in the same development would be able to add the same size rear addition without the need for a Variance. B. Granting the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right enjoyed by other property owners in the same vicinity and not afforded to the property for which the Variance is sought because the property is constrained by limited developable living area in the rear, that do not exist on nearby residential properties, and the installation of a family room addition is in accordance with the Poway Municipal Code. C. Granting the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare in the vicinity in that the proposed rear yard addition backs onto Metate Lane so no other residences are impacted to the south. D. Granting the Variance does not constitute a special privilege that is inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone because the Variance will allow a family room addition that is allowable in this zone. E. Granting the Variance would not allow a use not otherwise expressly authorized by the RS-7 zone because room additions are a permitted use in the residential zone. F. Granting the Variance will be compatible with the City's General Plan because the use is permitted and does not result in a density increase. Section 3: The findings, in accordance with Section 17.50.050 of the Poway Municipal Code, to deny that portion of Variance 05-03, that involves a request to allow (1) a 7 -foot- high fence on the interior side yard and (2) a carport structure in the 18-foot front yard setback up to the front property line and into the public right of way, are as follows: A. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property (size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings) that, because of the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance, deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity or same zone, in that: 1. A conforming height (6-foot) fence could be constructed. 2. The property contains a two-car garage for covering of vehicles. The size of the property is similar to other properties in the neighborhood so denial of the variance would not deprive the applicants of a right enjoyed by others in the same zone and vicinity. There are no unique circumstances to the property that would warrant the approval into the front yard setback. B. Granting of this Variance would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in that: 7 of 15 June 21, 2005 Item # ..::L-- ------"- -------- "---_.-------- Resolution No. P- Page 3 1. Other residential properties in the area are required to comply with the 6-foot maximum fence height requirements. Conforming to the 6-foot height limit would not deprive the applicant of construction of a fence that conforms to the 6-foot height limits. 2. Other properties in the residential zone are required to comply with the minimum front yard setbacks. Granting the Variance would give the property owner a special privilege by creating two additional covered parking spaces when a 2-car garage already exists on the site. C. The granting of this Variance would be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located in that: 1. The excess height of the fence will detract from the residential neighborhood character established by the existing development in the area. 2. The front carport will detract from the neighborhood character of the existing development because of the bulk and scale. Also it is partially within the public right-of-way resulting in an impact to the public health and safety . D. The granting of this Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone in that: 1. Other residential properties in the vicinity and zone are required to comply with the 6-foot maximum fence height requirement. 2. Other residential properties are not allowed to encroach completely into the front yard setback with a carport structure. E. The granting of this Variance for the fence and carport would not result in a use or activity that is not otherwise expressly authorized in that fences and carports can be allowed in single-family residential zones. F. That granting the Variance for the fence and carport will be incompatible with the City's General Plan in that a goal of the General Plan is for the City to preserve Poway's unique and desirable character as "The City in the Country" and standards requiring lower profile fencing and keeping front yards open, and such over height fencing and carport structures are considered to be inconsistent with this goal. Section 4: The City Council hereby approves Variance 05-03, to allow the construction of a rear family room addition, located at 12471 White Oak Way, in the Residential Single-Family 7 (RS-7) zone, as shown on the floor plan and elevations dated February 2, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 8 of 15 June 21, 2005 Item # J..- Resolution No. P- Page 4 A. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any Sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. B. Within thirty (30) days after City Council approval of the Variance, the applicant shall submit in writing to the City that all conditions of approval have been read and understood. C. The applicant shall for a building permit, for the rear family room addition, including all associated electrical permits needed, no later than July 25, 2005. The Building Permit shall be pursued with diligent effort and obtained within 60 days. D. A Demolition Permit shall be obtained for the removal of the front carport structure by July 12, 2005. The carport structure shall be removed, and any over height fencing shall be reduced to a maximum of 6 feet in height, by August 1, 2005. E. Prior to Building Permit issuance for the family room addition the applicant shall comply with the following: 1. The site shall be developed in accordance with the approved plans on file in the Development Services Department and the conditions contained herein. 2. The building plans shall depict the building materials and colors of the rear addition. The applicant shall submit a color sample of the exterior building materials for review and approval by the Planning Division. F. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall comply with the following fire safety requirements to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal: 1. If the carport structure is approved to remain, the roof must be constructed of non-combustible material. 2. Roof covering for the rear addition shall be fire retardant roof covering material as per Uniform Building Code Sections 1503 and 1504, Uniform Building Code Standard 15-2, and City of Poway Ordinance No. 64 and its amended Ordinance No. 526. 3. Approved numbers or addresses, measuring 4 to 6 inches in height, shall be placed on the building in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Addresses shall be required at private driveway entrances. 4. Each chimney used in conjunction with any fireplace shall be maintained with a spark arrester. G. Compliance with the following conditions is required prior to final inspection for the rear yard addition: 9 of 15 June 21, 2005 Item # -r -,---_.,. - - hW_ _.~_~____._______.___ Resolution No. P- Page 5 1. The front carport and any over height fencing must be reduced to a maximum of 6 feet in height. Section 5: The approval of Variance 05-03 expires on June 21, 2007, at 5:00 p.m. unless, prior to that time, the conditions above have been completed in reliance on the Variance approval and the use has commenced prior to its expiration. Section 6: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, the 90-day approval period in which the applicant may protest the imposition of any fees, dedications, reservations, or exactions imposed pursuant to this approval shall begin on June 21,2005. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of California, at a regular meeting this 21st day of June 2005. Michael P. Cafagna, Mayor ATTEST: L. Diane Shea, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) I, L. Diane Shea, City Clerk of the City of Poway, do hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing Resolution No. P- was duly adopted by the City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on the 21st day of June 2005 and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DISQUALIFIED L. Diane Shea, City Clerk City of Poway M:\planning\05report\var\VAR05.03_Beszed~z\reso.doc 10 of 15 June 21, 2005 Item # ...:::t....- -- -----_._-_.._-----_.~.__._.,_. W CITY OF POWAY ITEM: VAR 05-03 SCALE: N.T.S. 9 TITLE: ZONING/LOCATION MAP , 11 of 15 ATTACHMENT B June 21, 2005 Item # I \ ' I ltJ~ - +' W ~ -l , I iN b~ '" -l , ~ Ul -1 :c . 0>- ci rB>~ I (La.. .:/" ~ ";r . .:/ z ?q w i ~ ~ w 0: ~ u I ~ (/) s! ~ ~ tl ~ ~ ~ ~ .....J <I) , -1 IJJ . j ~ 9 l- N . <\i o a: . ~ E- . I ~ u (s- 0 , .. , . ~ \l.J <I) I ti > <I) f- ([ , , c . - i -1.0 ; . , . ~ I I L ~ I- 1-. I ~ . t"l.o I ......0 >- . .o<t h<t ~' 3 u:,2 ~ 0... I.J-.Q... W 0 III Z <D IW 0 <( cD ..J <: - - w i . ~ . 0\1 0 I- '<t . ~ 4( w I :E I .- (OI-l'l ubI I WQ ~~ ct)~o 0 o .0 L L N z~<t ""- ~Ol S~5{ I I:!; 0...u...Q... If) - 7.25'/. . 01 - 89.17' - \ - - -~ I / ~ - ATTACHMENT C June 21, 2005 Item # 1 S FLOOR PLAN ~ ("l\ , N I I I ! , I ~ I~ - p 3 t=A1MLa.( RllO'lV\. "" I(] ~\'....~ :)\~\:) fJ. <I . ! '" 4. ,-- 0.- J Nook 91 -I. . -;( J I I - I <f if) Dining Family :4 ~ ~ Room Kitchen Room t 0 .4. ~ () ~- l' ..0 ){)l4. Uving HObby [, /-1-3 Room .Area ~ - 0 r" - , . - '. j -- - t~()- ~.--~ '~" ..,...- 0 '1 -;( - - coven! ~ Pon:h d- 3~ ~ N I ;oJ ~ r' ~ 2-car Garage ~i~6J<J II--: ~. ,", j! /t ~ 10J" -"uJ3 ,/ " \! 4 u rJ,. 3 ro'~~_. -', ,.,"~ 'C! IJ7 ~ iI , ,~"'._ , '" --- - (". .; ~-~ ct vJ<< 0 : ""-'~ -- l ~. ,_ ,w) I;!).-C-- , -~ ,...."M./f')>--I"lf"<\^'.v . . ~ '-:.._~,. _~,_., , ---,,__ ,1," 1;;;';' 13 of 15 ATTACHMENT D June 21, 2005 Item # ~ ({ v1 ::<-+-11I 0<;1 3 \~,~\ .- r;IJ 'LJ ....rJ - - co 5~ . ~ ~ I I ~~o : ' ~ J t h i -s" ~ ~ q. ~ 3 .::r" ~%& /~ ,/ f~,J V I ~jQa. I ~ :J' I "<Xl ' rl if lJ) i ~ I ~ j I I d~ ~ , f/\- 1-;:r .3'& J~ 4'0- . N (j , L ....00 ~~j , ' F,'~:'C::,J~'v~~:'~',~"'l '" : , , , ,0 2 j \ ,-, ") ~ , ~- ~ '~ . ~ - ,. ..' .! , r:-r-""Q'::DAHI ~r; REAR ADDITION DEV ,","" 'Y L..".". .~,..:,'; ....;:..::;.,. iCLt c:5ci 14 of 15 ATTACHMENT E June 21, 2005 Item # 1 -- ----.--..---- . . . /-': ;1 ."._f ,.J (,', 14 .. _",_,-1-' rj}/ r~(/" . A :1 0;, ',~/ , ' " II'" ,; ~ !l" " . ' " .__~~!;:f: '1/7"11"" ~.,.,< II", '." ~\J vI!"" ~f' ..."' ," '. I~"\"'" ' h~ i,l:'i" I III I\"l il."~-~.j""'/" , I j I J' ,- .,,'~. I, 1"lll,l~ t ,~'"J._~,-- ,l,~ ;'1'11 ,1>"..\-:,,,:..:. ",)\ . .--:.- , "i"l,t.;,..;:::...,-~~"ill I .t.,' ,\ ): ,~/r . I:, I',,: 't ' "" ~\_ \ " 1ft ~.\. \-,- ~~ \' ,-' ~ '\"'~: ;,1 ~..::;, ' ~'~:C:' -,:~ . --.;;..--. ':'"'-''' I , I -- ------- =~- ! , -.., ----...' . t i I , ~ F' , ~.;. . " . " . - . ~". . Distributed: June 17,2005 June 10, 2005 Poway City Council Re: Variance (V AR) 05-03, Mike and Diana Beszeditz request for variance, Please be advised that I am completely af!ainst the City Council granting a variance for 12471 White Oak Way. The so called "improvements" will not be an asset to the neighborhood and will only encourage others to follow suit. The residence comes with a two car garage and if the Beszeditz family needs to park more vehicles, they can leave them outside just like the rest ofus do! If they need more room, they can always sell that home and buy another one on a bigger lot with room for expansion, That particular neighborhood was not designed to be used in this manner as you can tell by the already established restrictions that were put in place when the sub-division was built, Sincerep_ --/l1 ~ Pam McPherson 12838 Montauk Street Poway, CA 92064 858-748-3400 Fi~C~/I/~D JUN 1 + 2005 OEvl'1'( OF I.OPMSNr PoWA V SERVICes 1 of 1 June 21, 2005, Item #7 -- ----.-.- ~------- ---~ --~_.,.._- -- ~~-