Loading...
Variance - 1988 (Denied)RESOLUTION NO. 2561 PLANNING COMMISSION BEING AN ORDINANCE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REGULATIONS ON PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1171 EL SOLYO AVE. IN AN R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. (APPLICATION OF P. LEINWETTER, ¥ 88-06). After notification and public hearing as specified by law on the application of Mr. Paul Leinwetter for a variance the side and rear yard setbacks and a variance to the requirement allowing only one accessory building over 200 sq.ft, in size in order to allow the construction of a detached carport on property known as 1171 E1 Solyo Ave. in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District, as per the application filed in the Planning Department on June 16, 1988; and, after presentation by the Planning Director, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Commission did find as follows: The large size of the lot (14,700 sq.ft.) provides adequate room to meet all City setback requirements and allow adequate room for a carport structure. The property already is provided with a covered 3-car structure, thereby the applicant has not been deprived of covered parking nor deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the area. 3. Any hardship experienced by the applicant is self-imposed as a result of constructing the carport structure without City permits. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation does not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zoning district. Strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. Ye The granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district. The granting of the variance could be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Resolution No. 2561 -2- October 25, 1988 Based on the above findings, the Planning Commission does hereby deny the requested variance, and give the applicant 180 days from this date in which to remove the structure. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of October 1988 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Dickson, Christ stanton, Olszewski, Walker None ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary APPROVED: Ronald W. Christ Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 1988 ¥ 88-06 Leinwetter, P. Continued public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Paul Leinwetter for a variance to the side and rear yard setbacks and a variance to the requirement allowing only one accessory building over 200 sq.ft. in size in order to allow the construction of a detached carport on property known as 1171 E1 Solyo Ave. in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Planner II Haley reviewed the Staff Report of September 27, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending denial of this variance. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. Mr. Gary Lord, 1150 Arroyo Seco, opposed the variance noting that the already constructed carport is the complete focus from every room of his home, and it is very unaesthetic and undesirable. Mr. Paul Leinwetter, applicant, stated that he is now requesting only two variances - a variance from the requirement to pave the portion where the vehicles are parked, and a variance to the number of structures on the lot. Mr. Leinwetter spoke at length regarding the requirements for a variance and why his situation is unique. He feels that the size of the property justifies another structure; that a denial would deprive him from enjoying his property; a denial would deny him the personal satisfaction of his hobby of collecting cars; that the carport is not detrimental to the public welfare; that removal fo the structure would result in a hardship on his part; that it is not economically feasible for him to attach the structure to his house; that this is a precedent case that cannot be compared to other situations in the same zoning district since no one else has expressed an interest in having a carport of this size in their back yard; and, that he is not creating a problem that affects safety, welfare, etc. of this zoning district. Mr. Leinwetter continued that he is sympathic to his neighbors complaints regarding aesthetics of the structure, and he would mitigate these problems by planting trees, however, he cannot afford to plant mature vegetation. He continued that the other neighbors are not much affected by his proposal, and they hardly see the structure because of vegetation in their yards. -6- Planning Director Kee noted that it would appear from the applicant's testimony that he is submitting a plan which has not been reviewed by Staff, and it would be appropriate to continue the matter so that Staff could review it and prepare a report for the Commission. Mr. Kee noted that 90% of the structure is complete - without permits of any kind. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 1988 ¥ 88-06 PAGE 2. Commissioner Olszewski stated that he did not see any hardship in this matter, and that the fact that the lot was twice as big as most other lots is not a hardship. Additionally, there does not appear to be much happening to rectify the situation. Commissioner Olszewski felt that the residents of the neighborhood deserved a decision on this matter. Commissioner Walker noted his sympathy for the applicant because of the strange location of his property; however, this situation is occuring in one of Campbell's premier neighborhoods and it not appropriate in this location. Commissioner Walker continued that although he would lean towards denial of this request, he would like to see something worked out between the applicant and the neighbors. Commissioner Dickson stated this is an R-1 neighborhood, and a second accessory building is not allowed in an R-1 area. Chairman Christ expressed his concern with the aesthetics of the structure and the fact that it does not meet code. He noted that he would like to see something that the neighbors do not object to - something with screening that is architecturally compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Stanton noted that this issue has been dragged on for some time, and the neighbors deserve a decision. Discussion ensued regarding possible actions on this matter. M/S: Olszewski, Stanton - That the public hearing on V 88-06 be closed. Motion carried 4-1-2. M/S: Stanton, Dickson - That the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying V 88-06. Motion fails with the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Stanton, Dickson Olszewski, Walker, Christ Kasolas, Perrine. M/S: M/S: Olszewski, Walker - Olszewski, Walker - That the public hearing on V 88-06 be reopened. Motion carried 3-2-2. That the public hearing on V 88-06 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 25, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 1988 V 88-06 PAGE 3. Discussion Commissioner Stanton opposed the motion, noting that he was not sure that the applicant could make a final answer available to the Commission in one month. Commissioner Dickson noted that the applicant would still have to request a variance. Commissioner Walker supported a longer continuance so that the applicant could seek professional advise. Mr. Leinwetter felt that the one month continuance would be adequate, he indicated that the variances he is applying for have changed since originally submittal, and that it would not be economically feasible for him to have professional assistance. He asked how the Staff would feel about granting him a permit to have the structure until spring, at which time he would consider removing it. Vote on motion for continuance Motion carried with a vote of 3-2-2. ITEM NO. 6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1988 V 88-06 Leinwetter, P. Continued public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Paul Leinwetter for a variance to the side and rear yard setbacks and a variance to the requirement allowing only one accessory building over 200 sq.ft, in size in order to allow the construction of a detached carport on property known as 1171 E1 Solyo Ave. in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT a RESOLUTION, incorporating the attached findings, and DENY the applicant's request. STAFF DISCUSSION At its previous meeting of July 12, 1988 the Planning Commission continued this variance request so that revised plans could be submitted. At this time, the applicant has submitted a revised proposal indicating a reduction in the proposed carport size from 1320 sq.ft, to 990 sq.ft. The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1. Rear yard setback from 5' to 3.58'. Variance to the requirement that only 1 accessory building over 200 sq.ft, in size be permitted on a single family lot. An existing 610 sq.ft, garage/carport is currently constructed on the site; and An exception from the requirement to pave parking spaces and driveways. No means of paved access has been shown to this carport structure. Attached is a letter from the applicant explaining his reasons for the carport and the variance. He states that he collects cars as a hobby and needs the carport to protect them. He states that the property is unique because of its size, physical location, and shape compared to the other lots in this area. The applicant has submitted statements signed by two adjacent property owners (as indicated on the attached map) stating that they do not object to the proposed carport. Additionally, the Commission has received a letter opposing this carport (attached hereto). 88-06 -2- September 27, 1988 Section 21.70.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code states that the Commission may only approve a variance when it finds that: Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. me There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zoning district. Strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district. 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 Planning Commission (or the City Council upon appeal) shall deny the variance where information submitted by the applicant and/or presented at the public hearing fails to substantiate such findings. Staff is of the opinion that the applicant has failed to substantiate the aforementioned findings. Although the shape and size of the property is somewhat unique in the area, this by itself does not necessitate the granting of variances. In fact, because of the large size of the lot, Staff believes there is no problem meeting the required side and rear yard setback requirements. The applicant has not been denied a privilege enjoyed by others because he already has a 3-car garage on the property. The limitations on the size and number of accessory buildings was added to the code to reduce the clutter on residential lots and also to reduce the liklihood of the operation of businesses in residential zones and illegal living units. Staff believes there are several means by which the applicant could add additional covered parking without needing variances. Approval of the applicant's request would allow the construction of a 990 sq.ft, carport and the retention of a 3 car garage/carport of 610 sq.ft, and a 1500 sq.ft, home. The requested structures cover approximately 21% of the 14,700 sq.ft, site. Approximately 2200 sq.ft., or 16%, of the site is currently paved. 1171 E1 Solyo Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 June 15, 1988 City of Campbell Planning Department Subject: Application loc Variance Dear Gentlemen: I am requesting a variance for the accessory structure at li71 E1 Solyo Avenue, Campbell from the following oro~nances: 1. The accessory structure size (see the plans). The setback limits (see the plans). The reasons I'am requesting a variance from the existing ordinances are as follows: My property, located at the above address, is unique in its size, physical location, and shape compared to other lots in this area. It is remotely located and has no frontage to E1 Solyo, except the 15 foot wide entrance of the driveway. No street parking is provided for any of my vehicles or vehicles of any of my guests. I would like to explain briefly the circumstances that lead to the construction of this carport, which is 90~ completed. My hobby is to collect classic cars and I currently have eight of them, most of which are Mercedes Benz. I have kept the cars in my backyard and have experienced the damaging effects that the changing weather conditions have had on the cars. This made me decide to build a carport to protect my car investments. In addition~ I thought the carport would greatly enhance the appearance of my backyard. A retired contractor convinced me that it was not necessary to obtain permits, because the structure is not enclosed, has no foundation, and is considered removable. Following his advice, I started construction of the carport until I received a letter from the building department. The letter informed about a complaint. After I contacted the building department and planning department, I found out about the noncompliance of my construction project, and I regret very much that I did not consult with these departments initially. I ask you to consider the reasons for my request, and wait to hear from you to discuss this matter in more detail. Sincerely, Paul Leinwetter 559-6113 June 18, 1988 We ackncwledge by signing below that we are aware of the new structure at 1171 E1 Solyo Avenue Campbell and that we Pave no objection to its existence. The structure is located in Paul Leinwetter's backyard and resembles a carport with open sides. The dimensions are 60 feet wide by 22 feet deep. Printed Name Signature Address June 12, 1988 We ackn~wleoge by signing below that we are aware of the new structure at 1171 E1 Solyo Avenue Campbell .¢ and that we Pave no objection, to its existence. AS ,o~ des ~ The structure is located in Paul Leinwetter's backyard and resembles a carport wit~ open sides. The dimensions are 60 feet wide by 22 feet deep. PROJECT FACT SHEET FILE #: V 88-06 PC MTG: 7-12-88 PROPOSED USE: SITE ADDRESS: APPLICANT: VARIANCE FOR CARPORT 1171 EL SOLYO AVE LEINWETTER, P. GROSS LOT AREA: NET LOT AREA: 14,700 SQ.FT. SITE UTILIZATION/COVERAGE: EXISTING BUILDINGS ON SITE: Building: Paving: Landscaping: HOUSE - 1,500 SO.FT.; DETACHED GARAGE - 600 SQ.FT. Height: Setbacks - Front: Parking - Density - Left: Right: Rear: # Spaces: Ratio: Type: General Plan: Zoning: I PROPOSED CODE 9' 7.38' 5' 3.5' 3.58' 14' 5' 3' 10' 5' SURROUNDING General Plan Zoning Land Use ~ Low Dens. Res. ~ R-1 Low Dens. Res. R-1 Low Des. Res. R-1 Low Dens. Res. R-1 ! ! North: Sour h: East: West: Single Family Single Family Single Family Single Family BUILDING MATERIALS: 4 x 4 posts. _~aivanized ste~ ¥0of EXISTING GENERAL PLAN: Low Density EXISTING ZONING: R-! ARCHITECTURAL ADVISOR'S COMMENTS: