Town of Mammoth Lakes Planning & Economic Development Commission Staff Report Date:
March 14, 2017
File No.:
Variance (VAR) 17-001; Adjustment (ADJ) 17-001
Place:
Council Chambers, 2nd Floor Minaret Village Shopping Center Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
Project:
Oehmke Residence
Time:
After 2:00 p.m.
General Plan:
Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR-2)
Appeal Status:
Appealable to the Town Council
Specific Plan:
Not Applicable
Applicant / Owner:
Jeremy Plum (Applicant) / Jack and Mattie Oehmke (Property Owners)
Zoning:
Residential Single-Family (RSF)
Environmental Review:
Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities)
Location:
2068 Forest Trail
TITLE: Consider approval of Variance 17-001 and Adjustment 17-001 to allow a five-foot setback for a garage addition and to allow vehicle parking in a setback area not leading to a garage at an existing singlefamily residence.
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Requested Actions The Commission is requested to evaluate the Variance and Adjustment applications, determine if the required findings can be made, and take the following action: Adopt the attached Planning and Economic Development Commission Resolution, making the required CEQA and Municipal Code findings, and approving Variance 17-001 and Adjustment 17-001 with conditions as recommended by staff or with modifications. 2. Required Findings to Support Requested Actions a. Is the proposed project consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)? b. Can the findings be met for a Variance pursuant to Municipal Code (MC) Chapter 17.72? c. Can the findings be met for an Adjustment pursuant to Municipal Code (MC) Chapter 17.76?
Report Prepared By: Nolan Bobroff, Assistant Planner
Report Approved By: Sandra Moberly, Community and Economic Development Manager
3. Report Summary The variance application (VAR 17-001) requests a five-foot setback for a proposed two-car garage addition to an existing single-family residence (SFR). The standard front-yard setback is 20 feet; however, a reduced setback of five-feet can be granted for garages on steep upsloping lots if certain site conditions are met (MC §17.20.030.B). The proposed garage meets all of the requirements for the reduced setback with the exception of MC §17.20.030.B(1) and therefore is requesting a variance for that specific development standard to allow for the reduced setback (see Attachment 3 for the relevant MC sections). The SFR currently has a single-car garage with a steep upsloping driveway (approximately 21% slope) located on the northern edge of the residence. The existing steep driveway exceeds the Public Works Town Standards (Town Standards) for driveway slope (i.e., 10-15%) and creates a safety hazard during the winter months when there is ice and snow on it and parked vehicles regularly slide down the driveway into the street (see Sheet(s) 6 and 7 in Attachment 2 for photos). The proposed relocation of the garage will eliminate this safety hazard by relocating the driveway to the southern edge of the parcel where the average driveway slope will be approximately 8% and will allow for enclosed parking for two vehicles, which meets the Municipal Code requirements for enclosed parking. 1 In addition to the variance, the application requests (1) approval of an adjustment to allow vehicle parking in a setback area not leading to a garage and (2) an exception to the Town Standards for residential driveway width. The unenclosed parking space in the setback area is required in order to meet the vehicle parking requirements for SFRs.1 After reviewing the required findings for a variance and an adjustment along with the specific circumstances on this lot, it is staff’s opinion that the required findings to support the requested approval can be made, and staff recommends approval of Variance 17-001 and Adjustment 17-001, with the conditions of approval noted in the attached resolution. 4. Location Map Figure 1 – Location Map
1
MC Table 17.44.030(A) requires three (3) parking spaces for SFRs less than 3,000 sq. ft. and MC §17.44.100.A(1) requires 50% of the required parking for an SFR be enclosed and at least one (1) unenclosed parking space. The enclosed parking requirement for SFRs is rounded up to two (2) spaces.
B. ANALYSIS 1. Background and Project History a. Background The subject property is located at 2068 Forest Trail in the Residential Single-Family (RSF) zoning district. The existing SFR is approximately 1,800 sq. ft. and was originally built in 1988. The residence including the garage was built outside of the 20-foot front yard setback, which elevated the structure significantly above the elevation of the road and required the steep upsloping driveway to access the garage. The existing site configuration allows for three vehicle parking spaces (one enclosed in the garage, one unenclosed in the driveway, and one perpendicular to the driveway in front of the residence), although the parking space in the driveway is nonconforming with the Town Standards parking area slope requirements, which allows for a maximum slope of five percent. On November 7, 2016, a building permit was submitted to the Building Division for the proposed garage addition requesting a five-foot setback pursuant to MC §17.20.030.B (Residential Front Yard Setbacks on Steep Upsloping Lots). MC §17.20.030.B allows for a five-foot front yard setback for the construction of a garage and associated entry provided certain site and design conditions are met. The proposed garage met all of the required conditions to be granted the five-foot setback, with the exception of MC §17.20.030.B(1), which requires the elevation of the lot, at all points measured 20 feet from the property line adjacent to the street from which access will be taken, to be at least seven feet above the elevation at the centerline of the street. The lot ranges in elevation from approximately five to nine feet above the centerline of the street at a point measured 20 feet from the property line and since it did not meet the seven-foot requirement at all points, the Planning Division denied the proposed addition. However, based on undisturbed portions of the lot on the northern and southern property lines, it can be reasonably determined that the original pre-construction elevation for the lot ranged from approximately seven to nine feet above the centerline of the street and would have met MC §17.20.030.B(1) (see Figure 3 in Section 5 – Municipal Code Consistency). The Planning Division subsequently met with the contractor/designer for the project and informed him of the variance process and the applicability to the site. On January 13, 2017, an application for a variance requesting a five-foot setback for a garage was submitted. b. Variance applicability A variance is a site specific exception to a land use development standard in order to compensate for special circumstances related to a property which would prevent the property form being developed in a manner comparable to other properties in the same zoning district and within the same general vicinity. Zoning Code Chapter 17.72 discusses variance applicability and required findings. 2. Development Proposal The variance is requested in order to allow a five-foot setback for a two-car garage addition to an existing SFR. If approved, the reduced setback can only be used for a garage and associated entry to the residence and cannot be used for rooms or habitable area (Condition of Approval 23). The subject parcel is located within the RSF zoning district where the front yard setback is 20-feet and the side and rear yard setbacks are 10-feet. The residential driveway standards per the Town Standards allow a maximum of 10% slope for the driveway portion within the right-of-way (ROW), a maximum 5% slope for the parking areas, and a maximum 15% for the remainder of the driveway. The applicants have indicated that the steepness of the lot, especially within the front setback area constitutes a special circumstance and creates a safety hazard within the driveway during winter months due to the steepness
of the driveway (approximately 21%) and the accumulation of ice. The steepness of the lot and the location of the existing residence prevent lengthening the driveway in order to construct a driveway with a conforming slope. By locating the garage at a five-foot setback on the southern portion of the lot, the garage floor is at a lower elevation and does not require as steep of a driveway to access it. The proposed driveway has an average slope of approximately nine percent. Figure 2 shows the existing and proposed driveway profiles. Figure 2 – Existing and Proposed Driveway Profiles
In addition to the variance, the application requests (1) approval of an adjustment to allow vehicle parking in a setback area not leading to a garage and (2) an exception to the Town Standards for residential driveway width. As indicated previously, the unenclosed parking space in the setback area is required in order to meet the vehicle parking requirements for SFRs. Conditions of Approval have been included that address snow storage and parking and a hold harmless agreement is required to be recorded against the property indemnifying the Town against damages. The Public Works Department has authorized the exception to the Town Standards since the proposed driveway relocation will correct the existing nonconforming unsafe driveway and prevent parked vehicles from sliding into the ROW during the winter months. Vehicles will not be permitted to park within the portion of the driveway that is in the ROW. The portion of the driveway located in the ROW that exceeds the Town Standard width is located approximately 15 feet from the edge of pavement and will not interfere with snow removal or snow storage for the Town. The additional driveway width is necessary to accommodate the turning radius to access the unenclosed parking space.
3. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The subject property and the surrounding properties are all developed with single-family residences with the exception of the property to the northwest, which is vacant, but is within the RSF zoning district and would likely be developed with a similar use. Table 1 further describes the surrounding land uses and zoning. Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning. Location
Zoning*
Adjacent Streets
Land Use
North
RSF
N/A
Single-family residence
South
RSF
N/A
Single-family residence
East
RSF
Forest Trail
Single-family residence
West
RSF
N/A
Single-family residence
*RSF = Residential Single-Family
4. General Plan Consistency The project is consistent with the 2007 General Plan Visions Statements as described in Table 2. Table 2: General Plan Conformance Vision Statement “Sustainability and continuity of our relationship with the natural environment.
Explanation of Project Conformance with Vision Statement unique The project is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and the density is consistent with that allowed by the LDR-2 land use designation.
“sense of a ‘village in the trees’”
The location of the proposed garage does not require the removal of any trees and allows for the trees on the northern edge of the property to remain.
The project is consistent with the 2007 General Plan goals, policies, and actions as described in Table 3. Table 3: General Plan Conformance with Goals, Policies, and Actions Goal, Policy, or Action Explanation of Project Conformance with Goal, Policy, or Action Policy C.2.V. Building height, massing and scale shall complement neighboring land uses and preserve views to the surrounding mountains.
The design of the proposed garage complements the existing residence and is set lower than the existing structure, thereby not impacting the views to the surrounding mountains. Additionally, the garage height is consistent with the height limitation of 15 feet from the centerline of the street as required by MC §17.20.030.B(2) for garages with a five-foot setback.
Policy L.2.C. Rehabilitate existing housing.
With approval of the variance, the proposed garage addition will provide the existing home a functional twocar garage with a driveway that conforms to the Town Standards for driveway slope. Additionally, it will allow the owners to gain additional habitable space through the conversion the existing garage into a room.
Goal, Policy, or Action
Explanation of Project Conformance with Goal, Policy, or Action
Goal S.3. Minimize loss of life, injury, property damage, and natural resource destruction form all public safety hazards.
The granting of the variance will alleviate a public safety hazard since parked vehicles will no longer slide out of the driveway into the ROW when there is snow and ice present.
5. Municipal Code Consistency The proposed project is consistent with the applicable requirements of the Residential Single-Family (RSF) zoning district with approval of the requested variance. A summary and analysis of the proposal and applicable requirements is discussed below. Table 4: Zoning Code Consistency General Information General Plan: Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR-2)
Specific Plan: N/A
Zoning: Residential Single-Family (RSF)
Overlay Zone / District / Master Plan: N/A
Existing Land Use: Single-family residence
Permit(s) Required for Use: Variance for the five-foot garage setback; Adjustment to allow parking in a setback area not leading to a garage
Development Standards Standard
Required / Allowed
Proposed/Provided
Complies?
Front Yard
20 feet
5 feet for garage and Variance requested associated entry (see analysis below)
Side Yard
10 feet
10 feet / 15 feet
Yes
Rear Yard
10 feet
45 feet
Yes
Lot Coverage
40%
29%
Yes
Building Height
35 feet
30 feet
Yes
Snow Storage
75%
79% (384 sq. ft.)
Yes
Parking
2 covered 1 enclosed
2 covered 1 enclosed
Yes
Municipal Code §17.20.030.B – Reduced Residential Front Yard Setback for Garages on Steep Upsloping Lots MC §17.20.030.B(1) – The elevation of the lot, at all points measured 20 feet from the property line adjacent to the street from which access will be taken, shall be at least 7 feet above the elevation at the centerline of the street.
≥ 7 feet above the elevation of the centerline of the street
5 – 9 feet above the elevation of the centerline of the street
Variance requested (see analysis below)
Standard
Required / Allowed
Proposed/Provided
Complies?
MC §17.20.030.B(2) – No portion of the garage shall exceed 15 feet in overall height as measured from all points along the centerline of the street perpendicular to the garage.
< 15 feet above the elevation of the centerline of the street
14 feet-7 inches above the elevation of the centerline of the street
Yes
MC §17.20.030.B(3) – Main entry shall not exceed 15 feet above natural grade.
< 15 feet above natural grade
2.5 feet above natural grade
Yes
MC §17.20.030.B(4) – All required snow storage shall be provided. Snow storage areas shall meet the requirements of MC §17.36.010.
≥ 75% of driveway and parking areas
79%
Yes
MC §17.20.030.B(5) – No portion of the garage shall be located closer than 30 feet to the centerline of the street.
> 30 feet from centerline of the street
36 feet
Yes
MC §17.20.030.B(6) – All required parking must be provided.
3 spaces (2 enclosed, 1 unenclosed)
Yes (see 3 spaces (2 enclosed, Adjustment analysis 1 unenclosed) below)
Variance The Variance is requesting an exception be made to MC §17.20.030.B(1), which for properties requesting a five-foot setback for a garage, the elevation of the lot, at all points measured 20 feet from the property line adjacent to the street from which access will be taken, shall be at least seven feet above the elevation at the centerline of the street. By granting the variance to this requirement, a two-car garage and associated driveway could be built utilizing the five-foot setback allowance for garages on steep upsloping lots. The lot, in its current configuration ranges in elevation from approximately five to nine feet above the centerline of the street at a point measured 20 feet from the property line (see Figure 3 – East Elevation Site Profile). A variance can be granted for any development standard of the Zoning Code when there are special circumstances applicable to a property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings. The findings necessary to approve a variance include that there are special circumstances applicable to the property that the strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. For the subject property, the topography of the lot is a special circumstance since the lot is steeply upsloping in the front yard setback area, thereby making the existing driveway dangerous to the owners and public, and nonconforming to the Town Standards for driveway and parking slopes. During the winter months, the property is deprived of safe use of the driveway and access to the existing single car garage due to the steepness of the driveway. The proposed driveway and unenclosed parking area would correct this issue since the grade would be less steep and compliant with the Town Standards for driveway slope and parking areas. Additionally, the property would be in compliance with the MC for parking requirements since the required number of enclosed and unenclosed parking spaces for SFRs less than 3,000 sq. ft. (i.e., 3 parking spaces) would be provided. Another finding required is that the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. The existing driveway is detrimental to the public’s safety since parked vehicles regularly slide out of the driveway into the ROW during the
winter months when there is snow or ice present (see Sheet(s) 6 and 7 in Attachment 2 for photos). By granting the variance, this public safety hazard will be eliminated since the driveway slope will be reduced and will be consistent with the Town Standards for driveway slope. Public Works has reviewed the variance request and found that because of the large unpaved section between the road edge and the property line in this area (approximately 19 feet), Town snow storage and removal will not be impacted by the five-foot setback for the garage. Additionally, conditions of approval for the project will require snow restraint devices (snow rails) on the roof eaves that encroach into the setback area, a requirement that snow removed from the driveway and parking area is stored on the subject property and outside of the ROW, and a requirement that compliance with the parking requirements of the Town regarding parking within the ROW is adhered to at all times. As indicated previously, the property meets all of the requirements for the reduced setback for a garage with the exception of the ‘seven feet above the elevation of the centerline of the street’ requirement. It is important to note, that based on the elevation of the undisturbed portions of the lot along the northern and southern edges of the property, it can be reasonably determined that the original pre-construction elevation for the lot ranged from approximately seven to nine feet above the centerline of the street and would have met the requirements for the reduced garage setback based on the current Zoning Code. This home was constructed in 1988, which preceded the allowance for the reduced setback for garages, which was codified in 1993 by Ordinance 93-10. Figure 3 shows the site profile for the property and includes the street profile, the existing site profile, and the pre-construction site profile. By granting a variance to MC §17.20.030.B(1) and thereby allowing a five-foot setback for a garage, a public safety hazard will be alleviated and the property will enjoy the same privileges as other properties within the same zone and vicinity, and located on steep upsloping lots. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the variance subject to the findings and conditions of approval in the attached resolution (Attachment 1). Figure 3 – East Elevation Site Profile
Adjustment An adjustment is required to allow vehicle parking within the front setback area not leading to a garage. This is a permitted Adjustment pursuant to MC Table 17.76.020 and MC §17.36.100.D(5)(a)vi), which allows for vehicle parking in a setback area in the event of practical difficulties or hardships that result from the strict enforcement of not allowing vehicle parking in setback areas not leading to a garage. As indicated previously, one (1) unenclosed parking space is required. With the five-foot setback, there is not sufficient space to park a vehicle in front of the garage outside of the ROW and the garage cannot be pushed back on the property due to the location of the existing residence and the steep hillside along the southern edge of the property. The area adjacent to the garage to the north is not suitable since the area does not comply with the Town Standard slope for a parking space (i.e., < 5%) and cannot be graded to comply because it would undermine the foundation of the existing residence. The only area for a parking space that works with the proposed garage and driveway layout and is compliant with the Town Standards for slope, is the area parallel to the property line in front of the existing residence, which does require an adjustment since it is in the setback area and not leading to a garage. Therefore, the strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive this property of an area adequate in size and slope for the required unenclosed parking space. Additionally, this area provides for easy access to the snow storage area. In addition to the findings required by MC Chapter 17.76 (Adjustments), the following additional findings are required to be made: -
The parking area is protected from snow shed; The parking area does not impede emergency access; The parking area does not interfere with Town snow storage easements; and The parking area conforms to the California Building Standards Code requirements.
A condition of approval has been included requiring a hold harmless agreement to indemnify the Town against any damages or losses to property or vehicles within the setback or ROW. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the adjustment subject to the findings and conditions of approval in the attached resolution (Attachment 1). Driveway Width The proposed driveway is approximately six feet wider at the property line than the Town Standard maximum driveway width of 24-feet, and therefore requires an exception to the Town Standards be made. The Public Works Director has the authority to grant exceptions to the Town Standards. Pursuant to MC §17.44.110 (Driveways and Site Access), the Public Works Director is recommending this exception to allow construction of the proposed driveway. The Public Works Director has recommended approval of the exception to the Town Standards since the proposed driveway relocation will enhance the public’s safety by eliminating the existing nonconforming unsafe driveway and will prevent parked vehicles from sliding into the ROW. The portion of the driveway located in the ROW that exceeds the Town Standard width is located approximately 15 feet from the road edge and will not interfere with snow removal or snow storage for the Town. The additional driveway width is necessary to accommodate the turning radius to access the unenclosed parking space. A condition of approval has been included requiring adherence with the parking requirements of the Town regarding parking within the ROW, including the winter parking prohibition. 6. Agency / Public Comments Staff routed the application to local agencies for review upon deeming the project complete. The project was routed to the following agencies: Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District (MLFPD) and the Mammoth Community Water District (MCWD). Comments were incorporated into the conditions of
approval in the attached resolution or revisions incorporating the comments have been made to the project plans. No public comments have been received as of the writing of this staff report. 7. Environmental Analysis This project is exempt from further environmental analysis because it qualifies under Categorical Exemption Guidelines Section 15301(e)(1) – Existing Facilities, as the subject application consists of an addition to an existing single-family home which results in an increase of less than 50% of the floor area of the structure before the addition, and the addition is less than 2,500 sq.ft. C. OPTIONS Option 1. Adopt the attached Planning and Economic Development Commission Resolution, making the required CEQA and Municipal Code findings, and approving Variance 17-001 and Adjustment 17-001 with conditions as recommended by staff or with modifications. Option 2. Deny Variance 17-001 and Adjustment 17-001. Option 1 would approve the project subject to the conditions included as Exhibit “A” to the attached resolution, or as modified by the Planning and Economic Development Commission. Option 2 does not allow the project to proceed with the planning process, unless an appeal is filed within 15 days of Planning and Economic Development Commission decision. The Commission would need to make findings for denial. If an appeal were to be filed, the project would be scheduled for a Town Council hearing. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Economic Development Commission choose Option 1: Adopt the attached Planning and Economic Development Commission Resolution, making the required CEQA and Municipal Code findings, and approving Variance 17-001 and Adjustment 17-001 with conditions as recommended by staff or with modifications. Attachments Attachment 1: Planning and Economic Development Commission Resolution Attachment 2: Project Plans and Narrative Attachment 3: Relevant Municipal Code Sections
Attachment 1 Planning and Economic Development Commission Resolution
Attachment 2 Project Plans and Narrative
Attachment 3 Relevant Municipal Code Sections
Municipal Code Section 17.20.030.B – Residential Front Yard Setbacks on Steep Upsloping Lots https://www.municode.com/library/ca/mammoth_lakes_/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO_ ARTIIZODIALLAUS_CH17.20REZODI_17.20.030REZODIDEST
Ordinance 93-10 codifying the Residential Front Yard Setbacks on Steep Upsloping Lots code section