Zoning Administrator

- Oops, can you hear me? Okay. Just wanna make sure. - Yeah. - All right, and Dee Dee, we're recording, correct? - That's correct. - Okay, great. All right, I'd like to call to order the zoning administrator meeting for July 25th. And I just printed the agenda and realized it was the economic development subcommittee agenda. (Jill laughs) So I have to, I don't have the item in front of me to be able to speak on that. Michael, do you have that too? Actually, the first item actually on our agenda would be the public hearing. And this is actually a time, if there is anybody who is in the audience that would like to speak on an item that is not on the agenda, they can do so at this time. So if anyone is in the audience that would like to speak on an item, please use the raise hand feature. No? Okay. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Oh, thank you. (Jill laughs) Dee Dee just saved me with an agenda? We will close the public hearing and move on to the first item on the agenda. We have one public hearing item, and that is to conduct a public hearing and adopt resolution number 24-11: approving a request for a variance to reduce the minimum street yard setback from 30.4 to 15.6 associated with the construction of an 1,112 square foot garage located at 3004 Hampton Road. Staff available to do a presentation. - Yes, thank you, zoning administrator. Jill, I'm going to, I have a quick presentation for this item. I'm just gonna get it on screen. And can everybody see the presentation correct? - Yes. - All right, so this is for request for a variance on 3004 Hampton Road. This is a corner lot on John Muir Road and Hampton Road with a lot size of 46,609 square feet. The existing primary residence is 2,552 square feet. There is going to be a proposed edition of 1,102 square feet garage edition that'll be added onto the primary residence. The zoning district is residential rural RR40 and so are the surrounding land uses. A little bit more about the project itself. The variance is to reduce the minimum street side setback from 30.4 feet to 15 feet and six inches. The size again is 1,112 square feet. It's a garage addition. For residential RR40, side yard setbacks are 15 feet. However, since this is a corner lot, there is an exception, and the exception for corner lots is that street side setbacks of corner lots shall not be less than 20% of the average lot width, which is why this has the setback of 30.4 feet rather than the standard 15 feet. And attached here is the site plan. As you can see, on the primary residence, the addition to the garage will be on the north side along Hampton Road. Again, there will be 15 feet and six inches distance from the property yard with the existing structure. In addition, there is approximately 30 feet from Hampton Road itself with the new structure. Here we have elevations of the garage addition. As you can see, it still complies with the residential height, and it's gonna be attached to the current garages that are existing. Something that was pointed out along the plans, and just for clarification for, we received public comments on this item. There was concerns of the elevations in the project plans not showing what was currently existing. For clarification, what was existing, there was a second story addition that was included on the plans labeled as existing. Those plans are the ADU, Accessory Dwelling Unit project that was submitted to planning and approved by planning. It just has not been constructed. That is just for some clarification to the plans that are attached to this item. So findings for the variance, the required setback for this property is 30.4 feet, and it's greater than the front yard setback of 25 feet. Alongside Hampton Road there is a topographic change, and there's partial vegetation with some trees that would partially screen the development alongside Hampton Road. Adjacent properties do have a street side yard setback of 15 feet, and under 30 feet setbacks for corner lots. Majority of them do not have such a large setback as this one does due to the exception in our code. Some notable conditions of approval. Again, there were public comments, expressed concerns of what the conditions of approval have. So you can find this attached to the resolution. But just to state it in our presentation, there are noise control and work hours, Monday through Friday from seven to seven p.m. on weekdays, and Saturdays and Sundays from nine a.m. to five p.m. There are other conditions such as quiet equipment, streets clear of debris and parking on surrounding streets, making sure that there's no construction vehicles and parking on other surrounding residential streets, making sure that, again, the streets are clear of debris for the surrounding streets of this project. And as mentioned before, I do want to point out that two public comments were received before this meeting, and they expressed three areas of concern, which I wanted to touch base on. One was there was a solar array structure on site that they were, there was a solar array structure. The other one was a carport roof extension on the south side of the property. And the other one was a backyard pergola. After doing some more research and connecting with building, the solar array structure is a permitted, is permitted. It was permitted in 2019 with building. The other two, however, do not have an open building permit. With that, I do want to, before this slide, I do want to pass it on to Michael Cass who has additional information. - So Michael Cass, I'm the planning manager. Just wanted to add that based on these complaints, we did have a chance, as Imanol indicated, to look into the matter further. We also had a chance to connect with the property owner, and I wanna provide a little bit of additional clarification on these concerns for the zoning administrators consideration. First, as Imanol indicated, there was a complaint, and those three complaints were about structures that exist that do not have building permits associated with them to clarify. So the first was in regards to the solar array, which Imanol indicated does have a building permit and passed final inspection. The secondary issue associated with the solar array is in regards to potential conflicts with the proposed location of the addition. But the applicant has indicated their intention is to relocate those solar panels to the top of the garage addition that's before you. So staff would recommend including a condition of approval, clarifying that as part of the project. Secondarily, in regards to the pergola structure, the pergola structure is located in the rear yard behind the existing residence. And it is located in the location where the approved separate project, which is an ADU that complies with setbacks where the city does not have discretion. And again, that's been approved but not constructed yet. The pergola is located in the same location where that addition is approved. And the applicant has indicated as part of our conversation, that that structure will be removed and not relocated as part of this project. So it'll be removed from the site, thereby addressing that code enforcement issue. And the final issue is in regards to the carport, which is on the other side of the residence. And that is in part what has prompted the project that's before the zoning administrator this afternoon where that structure is proposed to be removed, and that's the purpose of this garage addition, and there would no longer be the need for that carport. So staff would recommend including a condition of approval clarifying that as part of the project, that portion of the structure would be removed. We're available for any additional questions or comments, and I'll turn it back to Imanol at this time. - Thank you, Michael. With that, our recommendation is to conduct a public hearing and adopt resolution number 24-11: approving a request for a variance to reduce the minimum street side setback from 30.4 feet to 15 feet and six inches associated with the construction of a 1,112 square foot garage addition, subject to the conditions of approval and subject to the amendments and changes brought to you by our planning manager, Michael Cass. - Alright, thank you both for that and for the follow-up work that you've conducted. Because I did read both of the public hearing letters that came in and I had similar questions, so I appreciate you finding out that information and then being able to make that recommendation on ways in which we can address that as part of this process. At this time, I'd like to see if the applicant would like to add on and make an additional presentation or add anything to the presentation. I have Steve Cocheck who's raised his hand. Welcome, Steve. Good to, well, not see you, but hear you again. It's been a long time. - [Steve] Thank you very much. My phone is ringing just as you call, just as I get on. Can you guys hear me okay? - Yes. - [Steve] Okay, great. I appreciate the presentation that Imanol has done. It's very comprehensive, and I think he stated all of our positions very well. The only other thing that I wanted to add is that, you know, 1,100 square foot garage seems really large. I think it's important to note that this is an addition to an almost 700 square foot garage. So we're not doubling the size of the existing garage. We're covering the footprint of the existing garage. It's not an addition to the house. It has 1,100 square feet, but rather what's, I don't know what's 1,100 minus 700, is 400. It's a 400 square foot addition to the garage. The other thing that I think is important to understand is that finding a place to build a garage to house his vehicles is challenging on this site because there's a drainage swale that goes to the middle of the flat piece of the property. And I'm sure when the neighbors look at the site, and they think, well, there's lots of, there are many places on this site to build rather than here and ask for this exception. There really isn't because of the amount of area of the property that is encumbered by drainage. And also, I wanted to point out that while we are asking for a 15 foot six inch setback to the property line, we are still maintaining over a 30 foot distance between the edge of the pavement of Hampton Road and this addition. And this project is well below the level of Hampton Road as it approaches the side of this building. So we're actually meeting the setback from the pavement, although technically not from the property line. There's just a lot of space, over 15 feet from the property line to the edge of pavement. And I think those are important things to consider when considering this project, and I appreciate your time, and I'm open for questions. - Thank you. I don't have any questions at this time. Okay, with that, I would like to open the public hearing, and this is the time if there is someone in the audience that would like to speak on this item, to do so, to please have the raise hand feature. Okay. Oh, I saw, thought I saw somebody. No? - [Steve] That was me, my apologies. - Oh, okay. (Jill laughs) All right, so there's no one in the audience that wants to speak on this item, so we'll bring it back before the zoning administrator. Yeah, this one, I appreciate the extra detail from both, you know, Steve and the planning team, because I had a lot of these same questions when I was evaluating it and when I connected a site visit. You know, variances are a great, they're process in which it provides an ability for a applicant that has a hardship on their property. Oh, we have someone, Pete Stryker that raised his hand. Before I, I guess, close the public hearing, I'll see if Pete would like to talk. Go ahead, that's fine. Or Peter, excuse me, - [Peter] Mute. Excuse me, can you hear me now? - Yes, Peter. - [Peter] Yeah, this is Peter. I'm with my wife Fiona. We expressed some concerns about the addition, but after hearing Imanol's description and some clarifications on the plans we looked at originally, we don't have the same concerns that we did. Most of our concerns are addressed. - Okay. - [Peter] We would like to see if there's something that could be done about the lighting. Because if the people would drive by, if somebody would drive by there during the night, you'd see that there are just lights shining up on multiple other properties, and we've requested that those lights be turned down. I realize this is not technically related to the issue, but if the homeowner would be willing to work with the neighbors, maybe they would be a little more receptive to some of his requests for variances and things like that. But right now we have to close our blinds every night because the light's shining right up in our window, and it's on 24 hours a day. - Peter, can you identify the location of those lights, and are they floodlights or what type of lighting is it? - [Peter] Take a drive by at night. I'm sure the owner will turn him off now if he's listening to this. But no, it's all the local neighbors have complained about it. And when you ask him if he could just turn the angle of the floodlights and spotlights down off the trees and point them down, you just get a kind of a nasty comment from the homeowner. So it would be nice if we could work things out more easily. The lighting is pointing up not down, and we are several properties up the road on the other side of Hampton. And when we sit on our porch in the evening, we just have light shining. I gotta sit at a certain point of the porch to make sure that a post on my porch blocks the light. And when you try to talk to the individual, I was gonna say gentlemen, but I'll say individual, you just get a nasty reply, that's all. So, but based on your description of the plans, I don't think that's gonna have a major impact on the community like we originally thought. - Great, thank you. - [Peter] That's all I have to say. - Okay. - [Peter] Thank you for letting me speak. - Okay, with that, I will close the public hearing and continue on. Again, I was mentioning that, you know- - Sorry Jill, just one second. - Yes sir. - Before closing, are you gonna give the applicant an opportunity to respond to the- - Oh, I apologize, thank you. Yes, this is the opportunity for the applicant to be able to respond to the comments by the neighbor or anything else. Would the applicant like to do so? No? Steven, no? Okay. All right, with that then we will close the public hearing and bring it back before staff. So again, I'm thankful for everyone to kind of really look into some of these issues that were identified by homeowners. And I appreciate the neighboring properties from being able to submit this type of information because there are times in which, you know, something like this may not have gotten caught until it was in the building routing process to identify. So it's good for us to have, you know, notification that lets us do that research on that. So in looking at this property, corner lots are really tricky in a lot of times, and a lot of cases, depending on the lot size and the irregularity of the lot, they typically lend more towards being able to be eligible for a variance because there's a lot of hardships present. In this case the house is can set back considerably. And that was my first thought was, well, is there a different location in that flat lot that it can be done? And then that's when I also saw the massive storm drain that is running through the whole entire front of the property, which then now creates a hardship for any addition to be able to go forward on the property. Additionally, in looking at this, the sighting of the garage and having it add onto the existing garage is actually the most sensitive design that you can do, especially with that slope. It will reduce the appearance of the size and the mass of the garage, the slope. Then there's also vegetation on that slope. So that will also help to minimize it and be able to achieve, you know, the goal. And I think that it's also gonna resolve a couple other issues that were outstanding for neighbor concern and also ones that didn't have, a couple that didn't have permits or we couldn't identify permits in that case. So a couple things I would like to do as part of this or recommendations I have is I would like to actually recommend that we strengthen the variance finding for number two about extraordinary, or exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that- Let's see, hold on. Is that the one or is it the forceful limitation of the privilege? Physical hardship, it's the first one that talks about the physical hardship. And that one I would like to include language about the storm drain and how that impacts development. I think that that's really in critical legal finding to put in there. Secondly then, as part of the conditions of approval, I agree with the conditions in which staff recommended adding. That would be related to the condition of approval for the solar. If it is getting relocated to the top of the roof, then that also will need to be included as part of the permit process and also reflected on the plans. The carport removal, language in there, that if it's the applicant's desire to remove that carport that they would need to do so prior to final inspection or to secure a permit for that if it's eligible to be able to receive a permit. The one thing I did note is, based on the addition for the garage, that actually it's going to impede into the slope that's over there, and it shows the dimension. The elevation shows the change in gray, but it doesn't show any type of a retaining wall. I am not 100% convinced that it's not gonna need a retaining wall. So I think that that's something that I think that needs to be explored to make sure you don't have something that's over like a two to one slope on that area. So that's something for the applicant to be able to address and/or for the architect to be able to include in the plans that that's not gonna be an issue in the final plans and drawings. I would also like to add that any lighting that is added to this structure is down directed. And I know that I don't have provisions to, you know, to require the applicant to change uplighting within the landscaping, but it would be in, you know, in the spirit of neighborliness and kindness to be able to look into that and see how you can address that. 'Cause all lighting should be down directed unless it's something that's just an uplighting for- It should be a low voltage lighting if it's uplighting any of the landscaping. So just being mindful of that unless the planning manager would like to add something that allows for us to do some review. - So I just wanna clarify your recommend, what you're imposing in the additional conditions of approval is just any light fixtures that are added as part of this project. - I think that's all I have for you too, correct? - Yeah, there's not a nexus associated with the findings before you to require you to change, the applicant to change lighting light fixtures that are already elsewhere on the property. However, saying that, you can, as you indicated, recommend it, but it's not a imposed as a condition of approval. - Yeah, and it would be a recommendation because there might be other codes in that allow for if there are floodlights that are truly going upward and not low voltage light. Then that would not be permitted, and that can be a code enforcement discussion. I don't wanna say that 100% 'cause I'm not 100% sure, but it's something that I think that it's just being respectful of your neighbors to trying to look to down direct lighting or to use only little voltage lighting if we're having something to be upwards. The other thing too, I'd like to have in a condition of approval that staff can verify that should, like a retaining wall, be required. That means that some of that vegetation might be coming out in between that 15 feet, that they would need to look to add additional vegetation to replace that so that they could do adequate screening on that side. But with that, I agree with the findings and also with the strengthening of the findings that are written. There is an ability to approve a variance in this instance. So I would like to recommend that we adopt 24-11: approving the request for a variance to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 30.4 to 15.6, associated with the construction of the 1,112 square foot addition, which is, yeah, a little bit less, but okay. Located on 3004 Hampton Road. And then I would like to let the, any neighboring neighbors on this call or the applicant know that there is a 10-day appeal period should you choose to appeal this decision to the planning commission. Is there anything else I need to add that I missed? No? Okay, thank you all for attending, and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.