TO:
Honorable Mayor Powell and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
David N. Carmany, City Manager
FROM:
Richard Thompson, Community Development Director
Eric Haaland, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Title
Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Variance from Building Height Standards to Enclose a Balcony at an Existing Three-Family Residence at 2505 Crest Drive.
Body
____________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission denying the request.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fiscal implications associated with the recommended action.
DISCUSSION:
A variance is a procedure established by California law and included in the City’s Zoning Ordinance whereby an applicant can request relief from the minimum property development standards.
The Planning Commission, at its regular meeting of June 27, 2012, denied (4-0, 1 absent) a Variance request for an upper addition above the height limit, filling in 53 square feet of deck area. The project includes a remodel of an existing detached rear unit on a three-unit, three-story, beach area property that includes two separate addition areas for which construction had been done without building permits. Both additions occur in the mid-portion of the site within, or near, the existing yard separating the rear unit from the front two-unit building on the property. A lower 159 square-foot addition, separate from the area subject to the Variance, would attach the buildings together by bridging over part of the separation yard, which can be administratively approved with a Minor Exception.
The Planning Commission determined that the proposal did not meet all the findings required to approve a Variance. The Commission did not have concerns for the proposal being detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, but could not find that the property had special circumstances or conditions that would result in an undue hardship that warranted the allowance of new construction higher than permitted by the current height measurement methodology. The inability to make the required findings is detailed in the attached Resolution of denial. No public comments in response to the project notice were received before or during the June 13, 2012 public hearing.
The applicant’s appeal request (attached) states that the majority of Planning Commissioners were close to approving the Variance, but fell just short of finding that special circumstances causing a hardship were present, partially due to discounting that the existing building condition qualified as a special circumstance. The applicant also emphasizes that no neighbor objections were received, and the pre-existing deck area was a detriment to the applicant and south-abutting neighbor.
Neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the site were notified of the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. While no public opposition was received by the Planning Commission, a number of letters of opposition (attached) have been subsequently been received for the City Council’s consideration. The resolution, staff report, plans, and minutes excerpt from the Planning Commission’s proceedings, containing the project details are attached to this report for reference.
ALTERNATIVE:
In accordance with Section 10.84.060(B) of the Municipal Code In order to approve the Variance, all three findings (as shown in Resolution No. PC 12-05, Section 1.K.) must be made. If the City Council is able to make all the required findings, the Council should direct Staff to prepare a resolution approving the Variance.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. PC 12-05
2. Planning Commission Minutes excerpt, dated 6/13/12
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated 6/13/12
4. Applicant Appeal Request
5. Letters of Opposition
Note: Plans not available electronically