Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-59 - Denial in part and approval in part of Administrative Adjustment ZA-99-1924 RESOLUTION NO. 99-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING DENIAL IN PART AND APPROVAL IN PART OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT ZA-99-19. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Tracy Stevenson with respect to the real property located at 3007 Samoa Place requesting approval of an Administrative Adjustment to allow a 15 -foot, 7 -inch front setback (20 feet required) for a single- family house under construction in the R1 zone; and WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings were held by the Planning Commission on July 12, 1999 and July 26, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved a portion, i.e., the corner post, and denied a portion, i.e., the corner of the building, of the requested Administrative Adjustment; and WHEREAS, Tracy Stevenson appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this matter on August 16' at which substantial evidence by way of written material and testimony was offered on this subject; and WHEREAS, after considering all the evidence and due deliberation, the City Council reached its decision which was announced to the public at said meeting; and WHEREAS, these findings are intended to accompany and support the City Council's decision; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit "A", and subject to conditions contained in Exhibit "B", the City Council hereby approves Administrative Adjustment ZA-99-19 for the post and denies the requested adjustment for the corner of the building. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the Staff Report for Administrative Adjustment ZA-99-19, and upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions contained in exhibit "B". Should any material change occur in the operation, or should the applicant fail to comply with the conditions of approval, then this Resolution, and any recommendation for approval herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of September, 1999. ATTEST: l Deputy City Cler f the City of Costa Mesa Mayor of a City of Costa Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 COUNTY OF ORANGE 1 ss CITY OF COSTA MESA 1 I, MARY T. ELLIOTT, Deputy City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 99-59 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of September, 1999. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 7th day of September 7, 1999. Lnt::�� T. Deputy Cit lerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Co it of the City of Costa Mesa 1 1 FINDINGS I. Regarding the Porch Corner Post: EXHIBIT "A" A. Evidence in the record supports the requested encroachment for the porch corner post at the southeast corner of the lot. The information presented to support this request substantially complies with section 13-29(8)(1) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code in that the special circumstances applicable to the property exist to justify granting of the administrative adjustment from front setback requirements for the corner post. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by owners of other property in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. Specifically, the size and shape of the parcel are affected by the curve of the cul-de-sac in such a way that the buildable area of the lot is reduced to a point below that available on most other properties on the same street. Limitations on the amount of encroachment granted will assure that the deviation does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone in which the property is situated. Granting the administrative adjustment for the post will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. The encroachment of the one-story corner post will be consistent with the size, mass and height of other residences located on the cul-de-sac. B. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City Environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA. C. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3. Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. II. Regarding the Corner of the Building: A. Evidence in the record does not support the requested encroachment for the corner of building. The information presented does not substantially comply with Section 13-29(g)(1)b. of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code because approval of an administrative adjustment for encroachment of the building would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties on the street because the size, height, and mass of the encroaching portion of the structure are significantly greater than that of other houses on the street — including those which encroach into the 20 -foot front setback. This is because all of the other houses on the cul-de-sac are single -story in height and the subject house is much taller than the other houses on the cul- de-sac. No other house which encroaches into the current setback area places nearly as much building mass into the setback area closer to the public right of way than permitted by the setback standard. The amount of the mass of the requested encroachment (i.e., estimated at 800 cubic feet of building) creates greater visual impairment than the existing encroachments of the other single - story houses. B. The information presented shows the requested encroachment does not comply with Section 13-29(e)(1) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, because approval of an administrative adjustment allowing the corner of the house to encroach into the required setback would allow an encroaching structure that is out of scale with and not compatible and harmonious with other encroachments and homes on the street due to its greater size, height, and building mass. Allowing the structure to encroach closer to the street would 1 make more obvious the fact that the house is out of scale with the other homes on the block and, thus, would accentuate its overall incompatibility with the neighborhood. No City representative either approved an encroachment into the setback area or informed applicant or her representative that an encroachment into the setback area was approved. C. The written notation by senior planner Willa Bouwens-Killeen on a set of conceptual plans for the project did not constitute an approval of a minor modification for an encroachment of 2-Y2 feet, much less approval of an Administrative Adjustment or an encroachment of 4 feet, 5 inches. In any event, these conceptual plans on which this notation appears, were not the plans submitted to the City for review in October 1997 when issuance of the building permit was authorized. D. There were no prior encroachment permits granted to the other three houses on the same cul-de-sac as the subject property. The reason that these other houses happen to encroach into the existing 20 foot setback is that this zoning standard was enacted after these other three houses were built. Therefore, these three houses were not granted a privilege to encroach that is being denied to the applicant. E. The building permit issued to applicant on July 7, 1998, was issued in error because no administrative adjustment was first obtained as required by the city Code. In any event, the building permit required no less than a 20 -foot front yard setback. The applicant should not have proceeded with construction until the applicant had obtained City authorization for encroachment into the setback area. Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 99-59 ZI G2_�l EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PORCH POST Ping. 1. The encroachment granted shall be limited to a 15' 7" setback for the porch support post as shown on plans submitted as part of the application. Comm. 2. Existing trees to remain (Canary Island pine trees and Cajeput Svs. trees). Eng. 3. Maintain the public right-of-way in a "wet -down" condition to the degree necessary to prevent excessive (Just and periodically remove any spillage from the public right-of-way by sweeping or sprinkling. CODE REQUIREMENTS The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. Eng. 1. A construction permit and deposit of $350.00 will be required by City of Costa Mesa Engineering Division prior to start of any on - or off-site work, which may be necessary during construction for street sweeping. 2. Haul routes must be approved by City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, prior to approval of the construction access permit. 3. Submit required cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee construction of off-site street improvements at time of permit per Section 15-32, C.C.M.M.C. and as approved by City Engineer. Cash deposit or surety bond amount to be determined by City Engineer. 4. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then reconstruct any existing damaged sidewalk, driveway approach, or curb and gutter. Trans. 5. Provide a minimum of 20' from the public right-of-way to the opening of the garage. Fire 6. Provide approved smoke detectors to be installed in accordance with the 1991 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code. 7. Street address shall be displayed on the fascia adjacent to the main entrance or front door in a manner visible from the public street. Numerals shall be a minimum 6" in height with not less than %" stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Exhibit "B" Resolution No. 99-59 1 1 1