Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.4 • • Town Of Los Altos Hills February 25, 1998 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: VARIANCE TO ALLOW SHED TO BE LOCATED WITHIN REAR SETBACK; LANDS OF DORRIAN; 13113 BYRD LANE; FILE #4- 98-VAR FROM: Curtis S. Williams,Planning Dire4. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: Deny the requested variance, citing the findings outlined in Exhibit "A" (Findings for Denial of Variance). BACKGROUND • The subject property was created as part of a two lot subdivision (Tract 2902) that was recorded in 1961. The property is located on the west side of Byrd Lane, at Natoma Road. Access to the site is from a common driveway which also serves the lot to the rear 13145 Byrd Lane (Lands of Schoendorf). The gross lot area of 2.04 acres is reduced to 1.88 net acres due to the exclusion of the driveway easement to the neighbor's property. The Planning Department approved an addition and remodel of the existing residence on May 31, 1996, which recently received final inspection and approval. On January 8, 1997, the Planning Commission approved a second story addition over the existing garage, a project which is also recently completed. Subsequent to that approval, staff approved a driveway modification and landscape improvements which are substantially complete, but have not yet been finaled. There have been several items of dispute between the owner and neighbors, particularly the owner at 13145 Byrd Lane. These items include a new electric utility line installed along the northern property line, the construction of the new driveway and the need for a revised access easement to the rear property, and planting of landscaping that may encroach into the pathway easement on the property to the south. Conversely, the applicant has filed complaints regarding commercial use and truck traffic at 13145 Byrd Lane, unpermitted construction on that lot, and that redwood trees have been planted at the rear property line to obstruct off-site views. All of these issues have been or are currently being addressed by staff or through mediation, and are not part of the review of this variance. In November of 1997, the applicant installed an 8' x 10' shed within the rear setback of the property, without a permit, and the neighbor at 13145 Byrd Lane informed the staff of the code violation. Upon notification of the violation, the applicant submitted the request for a variance and moved the shed farther from the property line, but still 10 feet inside the setback. After receiving items required to complete the application, staff scheduled the request for the February 25th Planning Commission meeting. CODE PROVISIONS Section 10-1.505(a) of the Zoning Code requires that no structure (other than fences and ornamental garden structures) be located within any setback, and Section 10-1.505(c)(3) requires a 30-foot setback from neighboring property lines. In order to approve a variance, the Planning Commission must make four findings, pursuant to Section 10-1.1107(2)(b) of the Zoning Code. The Commission must find: 1) that there are unique circumstances applicable to the property which preclude the • Planning Commission: February 25, 1998 • Lands of Dorrian: Variance Page 2 applicant from enjoying the privileges of similar properties; 2) that the intent and purposes of the Zoning provisions are met that no special privileges are being conferred on this property owner; 3) that the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare; and 4) that the variance would not authorize a use not otherwise permitted by the Zoning District regulations. DISCUSSION The proposed structure is an 80 square foot (8' x 10') gray wood shed, approximately 10 feet high, and proposed to encroach to within 20 feet of the rear property line. The attached site plan shows the precise proposed location behind the tennis court. The shed is currently situated on the site, so that no story poles are necessary. The applicant has indicated that the rear setback is an appropriate place for the shed, as it is behind trees and a fence and is not highly visible, and that there is no other good location on the site, due to its narrowness and the existence of other features, such as the tennis court and pool, on the site. The neighbor to the rear objects to the variance, as the roof and upper portion of the shed are visible from his house and driveway area. Development and floor area compliance are not of concern. The most recent approval on the site showed that over 7,000 square feet of development area and over 3,800 square feet of development area remain available within the allowable maximums for the lot. Variance Findings The attached findings prepared by the applicant indicate that he believes that the narrow shape of the parcel and the location of the shed behind,trees and a fence justify the variance, and that there would be no significant visual impact on surrounding neighbors if the variance were approved. Staff believes, however, that there is not a reason why the shed could not be located outside of the setback, for instance behind the garage or on the rear lawn near the north setback line. Staff has prepared findings for denial (Exhibit "A") for the Commission's consideration. The findings include language that there are no circumstances of the lot which unduly restrict location of the shed in a complying location, and that approval would allow the applicant privileges not generally afforded other property owners in Town, and would be contrary to the intent of setback provisions. Furthermore, there would be an adverse visual impact (although relatively minor) on the property to the rear. The request would not conflict with the fourth required finding, as the use (a shed) is compatible with the residential zoning. Only one finding needs to be made in the negative to deny the variance, while all four findings must be affirmed in order to approve the variance. The Commission may modify any of the proposed findings, if it determines that further justification of the findings is needed. If the Commission decides to approve the variance, direction should be provided regarding the findings for approval, and staff will develop revised findings for approval for the Consent Calendar at the next meeting. Conditions may be applied to an approval, but must relate to this request only, or to ameliorate its impacts. Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or the public may have. Planning Commission: February 25, 1998 Lands of Dornan: Variance Page 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Exhibit A: Proposed Findings for Denial of Variance 2. Applicant's Findings and Application 3. Development plans: site plan(one sheet) cc: James Dorrian 13113 Byrd Lane Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 David R. Fox 230 Almendra Ave. Los Gatos, CA 95030 Michael Schoendorf 13145 Byrd Lane Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Planning Commission: February 25, 1998 Lands of Dorr4an: Variance Page 4 EXHIBIT "A" RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF VARIANCE TO ALLOW SHED TO BE LOCATED WITHIN REAR SETBACK 13113 BYRD LANE (LANDS OF DORRIAN) FILE #4-98-VAR 1. Because of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this Title is found to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The property is in excess of 2 acres in size, and constraints on location of the shed are primarily those of the owner in how other development has been situated on the site and of the owner's desire not to view the shed. Relocation outside of the setback could be accommodated elsewhere on the site, and would then be consistent with development required for other properties. 2. Upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners. The intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance would not be served by approval of the variance, as setbacks are to be maintained clear of visual intrusions and related activities. In this case, the shed is more visible within the setback than if it was located elsewhere, contrary to the intent of setback provisions. The applicant would, if the variance is approved, be granted special privileges as the Town does not generally permit such structures within setbacks and they are not prevalent on surrounding properties. 3. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district. The granting of the variance would have adverse visual impacts to the neighbor to the rear (13145 Byrd Lane), as the upper portion of the shed in the proposed location would be visible from that property's house and driveway. 4. The variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the Zoning District regulations governing the parcel of property. The variance, if approved, would not alter the residential use of the property. • • .s FINDINGS The findings for a Variance are as follows: 1. Because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography,location, or surroundings, the strict application of the ordinance is found to deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under rntical zoning classifications: _ 0-( 1-04L A/14,-f jAwc_ ah6e4/1,e, 2. That upon granting of the Variance,the intent and purpose ofthe ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the Variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property a1/46 ' "A(1)14- AL- owne •2-2/1— 0-1 PAO— c/L&Z--k; • 3. That granting .:.e Variance will not be materially detrimental to the • public welfare or injurious to the plot erty, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district: ,y -- )14 1---16-ci- 4. That the Variance will not allow a use or activity which is not expressly authorized by the Zoning Ordinance: 7tk.,-- A/3--' -5- Variance Application Information Packet Rev. 8/1/94 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road•Los Altos Hills, California 94022 • (415)941-7222 •FAX(415) 941-3160 PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR PROJECT REVIEW 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: •• Please print or type •• Street Address /3113 BYRD LA/ Lot(s)Number Tract or Parcel Map Number Please Check One: Sewer 2; 2 902 Septic - Assessor's Parcel Number Gross Acreage Net Acreage I —1 _ 030 . • 0.Y? ac • . Sb rqc . 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: - • New Residence,etc. 5Td RAGS .571cD L' rian CL +0 f f auv shed 3. PROPERTY OWNER: en c fl) th i o') b& k---- Name of Legal Owner 574N1 .5 DORR,v+d Mailing Address Zip I3i ) 3 3 YR D Lni F/� 94-107_2_. Home Phone Work Phone FAX Number (150) q 000 (log 5`f l - '1005( ) Representative's Name Phone - FAX Number ( ) ( ) Mailing Address Zip 4. FEES AND DEPOSITS: Planner will complete this section. Fees and deposits,payable to the Town of Los Altos Hills,are required to process all Planning applications. Fee Deposit Real Estate Review: Geologist: Zoning: Site Development: Receipt# ES CLY I PooC-0 • o.Do so. BUJ File# [f ..cr2 U 14 12, Date: I t , 97 5. SIGNATURE OF OWNER(S) OR AGENT: (Please note: Agent requires letter of authorization from owner) I, the undersigned owner or authorized agent of the property described above,hereby make an application for the purposes set forth above in accordance with the provisions of the City Ordinances, and I hereby certify that the informatign given is true and correct and to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signa q Date • mor 1/5Y' Rev.1/8/97 Feb 18,1998 10:15PM FROM the idea tqauel comp TO 9413160 P.02 • S S(C: G• MICHAEL SCHOENDORF 13145 Byrd Lane, Los Altos Hills, California 94022 650-948-9202 Fax 650-948-8700ti) February 18, 1998sc3 v.1 V-761 �; Dear Town Council: witt oil.° 41 I have been notified that my next door neighbor, James Dorrian, has applied for a variance to keep a storage shed that was illegally built-in the 30 foot rear yard set back easement. I am adamantly opposed to this shed. My front yard directly faces his back fence and the shed is an eyesore. From my upstairs it looks even worse. It was built without permits and I immediately called town hall to protest. This shed has been in the set back for over four months. Only after a last minute ultimatum from the town was a variance requested. Mr. Dorrian knew it was illegal for over several months before he filed for this permit. Why the delay? I have talked to Suzanne Davis in town and she assured me that since Mr. Dorrian has several acres she would recommend that it be placed elsewhere. I hope she is living up to that recommendation. I have done some research and can't find a single instance of any structure being allowed in the setback. Remember this shed is large and was right up against the property line. Mr. Dorrian did try to move it but I guess since it was too large or heavy he was only able to move it about 15 feet away from the property line in a much more visible location. His workers "borrowed" bricks and lumber from my property to move the shed. I ask that yur.; reject the shed because it is.a structwe as described in our ordinances, there are many other places where Mr. Dorrian would !'ave better access to the shed and would not be visible to me or other neigl\5on.3. This shed has gasoline and oil stored in it. These substances are easily spilled and can ignite rather quickly. There is a 6 foot redwood fence that surrounds his property and the combination of an accidental fire would have dire consequences for the rest of the neighborhood. I have also planted redwood trees along my property line and I can just imagine an electrical spark setting the entire shed in a roaring inferno which would ignite my redwoods and perhaps soon much of the neighborhood. The watershed on this side of his property directly drains onto my property. Any oil or gas spill wouldn't have far to go before it contaminates my property. That's another good reason our ordinance specifies a minimum of thirty feet. I believe Mr. Dorrian has over 100,000 square feet of real estate. I can't imagine after subtracting the setbacks and other developed land what he could possibly need to put the shed where it was when it occupies 50 square feet and he has a conservative 50,000 square remaining to put it. si rely V M hael Schoendorf =Al P 22