Loading...
PC 08.a. VAR 16-001 and VSR 16-001 190 S. Elm St. MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: SAM ANDERSON, PLANNING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE CASE NO. 16-001 & VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 16-001; CONVERSION OF EXISTING HOME TO SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THREE (3) CAR GARAGE, FIVE FOOT (5’) SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK REDUCTION, AND EIGHT FOOT (8’) WEST REAR YARD SETBACK REDUCTION; LOCATION – 190 SOUTH ELM STREET; APPLICANT – DANTE TOMASINI; REPRESENTATIVE – DOUGLAS R. FANER DATE: JULY 19, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving Variance 16-001 & Viewshed Review 16-001. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: None. BACKGROUND: Location Project Location PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE 16-001 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 16-001 JULY 19, 2016 PAGE 2 The subject property is zoned Multi Family (MF), and requires a Variance for reductions side and rear yard setbacks, and a Minor Use Permit – Viewshed Review for construction of a new two story home. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 4052 on November 13, 2007, approving General Plan Amendment Case No. 06-003 to amend the General Plan land use designation and map for thirteen (13) properties along South Elm Street from Medium Density Single-family Residential to Medium-High Density Multi-family Residential (Attachment 1). The City Council also adopted Ordinance No. 593 on November 27, 2007, approving Development Code Amendment Case No. 06-005 for the rezoning of the same thirteen (13) properties along South Elm Street from Single Family (SF) to Multi-Family (MF). This rezoning was in response to several factors, including the identification of the property as an opportunity site for infill development and densification in the 2003 Housing Element of the General Plan. This identification was due to the surrounding multi-family zoning and development as well as the area’s proximity to the mixed use corridor on E. Grand Avenue. Additionally, the increased potential for infill development and densification along South Elm Street was considered to compensate for the loss of density approved at the same time at the corner of South Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue (Attachment 2). Architectural Review Committee: The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) reviewed the proposed project at a meeting on April 18, 2016 (Attachment 3). Members of the ARC discussed the Variance, reducing the size of the driveway, and color palates. Members of the ARC were in support of the project with changes that have since been made to project plans, including widening the turnaround space, adding landscaping to the driveway, a patio space, windows to the garage door, wood chips around the Coast Live Oak, and columns to the entryway overhang. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Project Description The applicant is proposing to convert an existing single-family residence to a secondary dwelling unit and to construct a new two-story single family home in the rear of the property in the MF zoning district. The applicant has applied for a variance to reduce the side yard setback on the south side of the property from ten feet (10’) to five feet (5’) as well as a rear yard setback reduction on the west side of the property from twenty feet (20’) to twelve feet (12’). The project site is an existing 7,000 sq. ft. rectangular lot (50’ by 140’) located in the MF zoning district. The lot’s width of fifty feet (50’) is less than the required width for a new lot in the Multi-Family zoning district of eighty feet (80’). Additionally, the Multi- Family zoning district has side yard setbacks of ten feet (10’) on either side. These setbacks are higher than the side yard setbacks of five feet (5’) found in the Single- Family zoning district, which have a minimum lot width of seventy feet (70’). The PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE 16-001 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 16-001 JULY 19, 2016 PAGE 3 applicant is requesting the side yard variance due to these unusually restrictive setbacks on the property, which would force the proposed development to not be feasible. Additionally, the applicant is requesting the rear yard variance of eight feet (8’) to allow for a safer driveway turnaround of twenty four feet one inch (24’1”) and provide adequate room for the uncovered parking space required for the secondary dwelling unit. This request is in line with previous structures constructed and permits issued on neighboring lots and properties. Based on the size of the subject property and number of dwelling units per gross acre allowed in the Multi-Family zoning district, the property is only able to build 1.4 dwelling units, which rounds down to one (1) unit. However, secondary dwelling units do not count toward this density and are regulated to ensure they do not adversely impact either adjacent parcels or the surrounding neighborhood. The existing single family home totals 1,015 sq. ft, which is less than the maximum size for a secondary dwelling unit in the Multi Family zoning district of 1,200 sq. ft. The proposed single family home totals 2,689 sq. ft. The project meets all applicable Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Standards such as parking, height, lot coverage, floor area ratio, etc, except for the setback infringements on the south and west sides of the property. General Plan The Land Use Element and Housing Element of the General Plan each contain objectives and policies that support the proposed project. Land Use Objective LU3 states: the City shall accommodate a broad range of Multi Family Residential (MFR) and special needs housing types and densities within the City. Additionally, Housing Element Policy A.2 states: that the City shall utilize incentives for the production of affordable housing including allowing secondary dwelling units under specified criteria. Architectural Character The proposed project is designed in a modern cottage style, with pitched roof and stone veneer elements. The project is a simple design; almost entirely rectangular, with a small cantilevered second story overhanging the front facing garage. The proposed home will not be very visible from the street due to the existing structure’s location on the front of the property. Livable space will surround both above and behind the garage. Windows and small roof dormers provide some level of visual interest on the project. A color board and colored elevations will be provided at the meeting. Landscaping Landscaping changes are minimal for the proposed project. The changes proposed are to install a small decomposed granite area and two (2) Mediterranean Fan Palms on small banks in the corners of the rear yard behind the proposed residence. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE 16-001 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 16-001 JULY 19, 2016 PAGE 4 The existing Coast Live Oak tree will be retained. Prior to issuance of building permit, the project will be reviewed for compliance with the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are presented for Planning Commission consideration: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution, approving Variance Case No. 16-001 & Viewshed Review Case No. 16-001; or 2. Modify and adopt the attached Resolution, approving Variance Case No. 16- 001 and Viewshed Review Case No. 16-001; or 3. Do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to Deny Variance Case No. 16-001 & Viewshed Review Case No. 16-001 and provide direction on specific findings for denial of Variance case No. 16-001 & Viewshed Review Case No. 16-001; or 4. Provide direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code expected setbacks for a single-family sized lot, and will allow the property owners to provide a secondary dwelling unit in the MF zoning district. This is a way to provide denser housing in the MF zoning district on lots too small for traditional multi-family developments. DISADVANTAGES: The proposed project would require a variation in development standards for reduced setbacks on the property. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and staff has determined it to be categorically exempt per Section 15305(a) – Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations and Section 15332(b) – In-Fill Development Projects – of the CEQA Guidelines. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT: A public hearing notice was mailed to all property owners within 300’ of the site, was posted in the Tribune, and was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website on Friday, June 10, 2016. The agenda and staff report were posted at City Hall and on the City’s website on July 15, 2016. Project has been continued to date certain of July 19, 2016 to allow for proper noticing. No public comments have been received. Attachments: 1. City Council Resolution No. 4052 2. City Council minutes, November 13, 2007 3. Minutes of the April 18, 2016 Architectural Review Committee Meeting PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE 16-001 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 16-001 JULY 19, 2016 PAGE 5 4. Project Plans RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VARIANCE 16-001 AND VIEWSHED REVIEW 16-001; LOCATED AT 190 SOUTH ELM STREET; APPLIED FOR BY DANTE TOMASINI WHEREAS , the applicant submitted an application for Variance 16-001 and Viewshed Review 16-001 for conversion of an existing home to a secondary dwelling unit and construction of one (1) new two-story single family home, a three (3) car garage, a five foot (5’) south side yard setback reduction and an eight foot (8’) rear yard setback reduction on January 6, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Committee recommended approval of Variance 16- 001 and Viewshed Review 16-001 based upon the findings for approval of the permit on April 18, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has determined that the project is exempt per Section 15305(a) of the CEQA Guidelines regarding minor alterations in land use limitations and Section 15332(b) – in-fill development projects; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing on July 19, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, that the following circumstances exist and findings can be made: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - VARIANCE: 1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not otherwise shared by others within the surrounding area; The project is located on a legally non-conforming lot in regards to width and minimum lot size. Additionally, the project is a single-family home located on a property zoned Multi-Family. Strict or literal interpretation of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty in any efforts to build denser housing not typically faced on nearby properties. 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zone; RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 The majority of properties zoned Multi-Family in Arroyo Grande are significantly larger than the property in question. The irregular width of the property is an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance that creates an issue with increasing density in the Multi-Family zone. 3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zone; The Multi-Family zone is intended to provide for a variety of residential uses, encourage diversity in housing types with enhanced amenities, or provide transitions between higher intensity and lower intensity use. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by the owners of properties classified in the same zone by preventing denser housing development. 4. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone; The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. The majority of properties zoned Multi-Family are legally conforming lots and contain multi-family development. The property in question is legally non- conforming in regards to width and contains a single-family home. Properties zoned Single-Family would not face the stricter setbacks currently in place for this property. 5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; The granting of the variance will permit higher density housing options in a Multi- Family zoning district. This will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, as similar projects in the past have been approved nearby. 6. That the granting of a variance is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and the intent of this title; The granting of the Variance is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan and implements Land Use Objective LU3 and Housing element Policy A.2 by providing a broad range of Multi Family Residential housing, including allowing secondary dwelling units. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL – VIEWSHED REVIEW: 1. The proposed structure is consistent with the intent of Municipal code Section 16.16.110; Second story additions are allowed in the Multi-Family zoning district with the approval of a Viewshed Review. The project has been reviewed to ensure that views, aesthetics, and other property values in the neighborhood are maintained. 2. The proposed structure is consistent with the established scale and character of the neighborhood and will not unreasonably or unnecessarily affect views of surrounding properties; The proposed structure is consistent with the established scale and character of the neighborhood; homes on both sides of the property contain second story elements. The project will not unreasonably or unnecessarily affect views of the surrounding properties. 3. The proposed structure will not unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with the scenic view from any other property, judged in light of permitting reasonable use and development of the property on which the proposed structure or expansion is to occur; The proposed structure will not unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with the scenic view from any other property, judged in light of permitting reasonable use and development of the property on which the proposed structure is to occur. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves Variance 16-001 and Viewshed review 16-001 as set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of July 2016. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 ATTEST: _______________________________ ___________________________ DEBBIE WEICHINGER LAN GEORGE, CHAIR SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: _______________________________ TERESA McCLISH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 5 EXHIBIT “A” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VARIANCE 16-001 VIEWSHED REVIEW 16-001 190 SOUTH ELM STREET This approval authorizes the construction of a new two-story single family residence located at 190 South Elm Street. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project including obtaining a building permit. 2. The project shall occur in conformance with the application and plans on file in the Community Development Department. 3. This application shall automatically expire on July 19, 2018, unless a building permit is issued. Thirty days prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply to the Community Development Director for an extension of one year from the original date of expiration. 4. The applicant shall agree to indemnify and defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of this approval, or in any way relating to the implementation thereof, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. 5. The applicant shall comply with the current California Codes including the specifically adopted City of Arroyo Grande. 6. The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to any construction or demolition. 7. Development shall conform to the Condominium/Townhouse (MF) zoning requirements except as follows: Rear Yard Setbacks – no less than twelve feet (12’); Side Yard Setbacks – no less than five feet (5’). RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 6 8. The applicant shall record a deed restriction against the title of the property prior to the issuance of a building permit. The deed restriction shall stipulate that the second dwelling cannot be sold separately from the main residence. 9. The second residential dwelling shall be served by City water. BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 10. If the new building is within ten feet (10’) of the existing single family residence, the existing residence shall be required to be fully sprinklered per Building and Life Safety Division Guidelines 11. Prior to occupancy, the new building must be fully sprinklered per Building and Life Safety Division guidelines. 12. Provide Fire Department approved access or sprinkler-system per National Fire Protection Association Standards. 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a demolition permit must be applied for, approved and issued. Development fees resulting from demolition will be appropriately credited to the property. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: 14. Water Meter, service main, distribution, and availability fees, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 15. Water Neutralization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 16. Traffic Signalization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 17. Sewer hook-up & facility Permit fees, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 18. Drainage fee, as required by the area drainage plan for the area being developed. 19. Building Permit fees, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 20. Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with State mandate. 21. Park Development fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance (Residential Development only). 22. Park Improvements fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance (Residential Development only). RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 7 23. Street Tree fees, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance (Residential Development only). 24. Community Centers fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance (Residential Development only). 25. Fire Protection fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 26. Police Facilities fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4