Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 Variance 2013-01AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MAY 14, 2013 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: VARIANCE 2013 -01 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWM ER ILOCATIO il ERIC GARCIA 17482 PARKER DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92780 17482 PARKER DRIVE ITEM 03 IF: UEST: A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 434 SQUARE FOOT GROUND FLOOR ADDITION TO BE USED AS A FIFTH BEDROOM AND MAINTAIN THE EXISTING TWO (2) CAR GARAGE. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF GARAGE SPACES FROM A THREE (3) CAR GARAGE TO THE EXISTING TWO (2) CAR GARAGE C NVlROMPfIEHTAIL: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15301 (CLASS 1) AND 15305 (CLASS 5) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT AL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). PC Report May 14, 2013 VAR 2013 -01 Page 2 ° C COM M FN OAT ION - That the Planning Commission Adopt Resolution No. 4225, approving Variance 2013 -01 to reduce the required number of garage parking spaces for a single family residence located at 17482 Parker Drive with 5 bedrooms from a 3 car garage to the existing 2 car garage. APPROVAL AM T G;ICc RI T Y: Section 9292e of the Tustin City Code gives the Planning Commission the authority to evaluate and grant requests for variances. BACKGROUND: Site and Location The subject property is comprised of a 2,811 square foot single family residence with a 557 square foot attached garage and located on a 7,405 square foot lot within the Single Family Residential (R -1) zoning district. In 2001, the current property owner completed an 839 square foot living space addition with a 149 square foot garage addition. At the time, this addition created a fifth bedroom; however, the owner has since converted a bedroom into a closet for the master suite (Attachment D — Submitted Plans) and maintains 4 bedrooms at the residence. The residence is located within a single family residential housing tract which was constructed in 1965. Surrounding uses are also single family residential uses and also located within the R -1 zoning district as well as the Estate Residential (E -4) zoning district. Application The project proposes an approximately 434 square foot addition to an existing single family residence which would be located at the rear of the property (Figure 1). The existing residence at the subject property is two stories and the proposed addition at the rear of the property would be single story and not visible from the public right-of-way. The applicant has informed staff that the proposed bedroom addition is being requested to accommodate his recently widowed elderly mother -in -law who has iinnited mobility. Placement of the addition on the ground floor is in response to difficulties that the mother -in --law has accessing the second floor of the residence. The proposed addition would result in a fifth bedroom at the residence, which requires 3 garage parking spaces. The requirement of 3 garage spaces for a dwelling with 5 or more bedrooms was enacted on November 4, 2008, by the City Council through the adoption of Ordinance No. 1354 (Parking Ordinance). PC Report May 14, 2013 VAR 2013 -01 Page 3 Currently, the attached garage only meets the City standards of a 2 car garage. Therefore, the applicant has submitted an application for a variance to the City's parking requirements for a single family residence. The application requests to reduce the required three (3) garage spaces by one (1) garage space and maintain the existing 2 car garage at the residence while allowing for the addition of a fifth bedroom. Proposed Addition Figure I Section 9292a (Basis for Granting Variances) of the Tustin City Code (T CC) specifies that applications for variances from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code may be made and granted when the following two (2) circumstances are found to apply: o Circumstance 1 That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. Applicant Justification: The applicant has identified the narrow lot width of the property as a factor in prohibiting the development of a 3 car garage consistent with other properties in the neighborhood. The existing garage was also PC Report May 14, 2013 VAR 2013 -01 Page 4 previously expanded and while the addition does not meet the technical requirements of the City's Parking Ordinance for an additional parking space (less than required dimension), it does meet the intent to provide a 3 car garage. Staff Response: The existing neighborhood (Tract 5614) is characterized by residences with both 2 car and 3 car garages. The properties developed with full width lots (60 feet or greater) at the front property line in most cases have 3 car garages, whereas the properties developed on the cul -de -sacs or knuckles generally have 2 car garages. There are 16 residences with 3 car garages (Figure 2 - highlighted in Green) out of the 39 homes within the housing tract. The remaining residences (21) have 2 car garages (Figure 2 — highlighted in Blue) of which 15 of those homes are located on a cul -de -sac or knuckle. Figure 2 S 1 - Subject Noparky i M .$ Bpi I- These numbers suggest that the narrower lot widths of the properties on cul-de- sacs and knuckles may have inhibited the original developer from providing 3 car garages on these properties. The housing tract was also developed prior to the City Parking Ordinance requirements to provide a 3 car garage for residences with 5 or more bedrooms. The existing garage was previously expanded to the maximum width allowed by the required side yard setbacks when an addition to the residence was completed in 2001. There is no additional space to further expand the width of the garage without encroaching into the living area (Figures 1 and 3). u 1 These numbers suggest that the narrower lot widths of the properties on cul-de- sacs and knuckles may have inhibited the original developer from providing 3 car garages on these properties. The housing tract was also developed prior to the City Parking Ordinance requirements to provide a 3 car garage for residences with 5 or more bedrooms. The existing garage was previously expanded to the maximum width allowed by the required side yard setbacks when an addition to the residence was completed in 2001. There is no additional space to further expand the width of the garage without encroaching into the living area (Figures 1 and 3). PC Report May 14, 2013 VAR 201301 Page 5 IGarage width jogs in response to the I required 5 foot side yard setback. Figure 3 - Esc Floor Plan The applicant has demonstrated that the existing garage can in fact accommodate 3 cars through the use of tandem parking (See pictures). Although this meets the intent of the Larking Ordinance in providing 3 garage spaces, Section 9266k of the TCC prohibits the use of tandem parking. Garage Photo I - -VN-- Garage Photo 2 PC Report May 14, 2013 VAR 201301 Page 6 Garage Photo 3 Garage Photo 4 While the applicant has demonstrated that the existing garage meets the intent of the code, the site does have the area for an extra garage space. {however, an addition of a third car garage space at the subject property would involve the removal of ground floor living space near the main entrance or an additional garage space in front of the existing residence which would be accessed perpendicular to the existing garage. Neither option would be aesthetically compatible with the existing neighborhood or the residence itself. Furthermore, the applicant has indicated that the existing driveway is approximately 36 feet in length and can accommodate parking for additional vehicles; therefore, no impact to the neighborhood would occur (Figure 4). Figure 4 1) PC Report May 14, 2013 VAR 2013 -01 Page i o Circumstance 20 That any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated. Applicant Justification- The applicant has noted that many of the existing homes within the housing tract were originally developed with 3 car garages. Properties in the neighborhood with 3 car garages have a typical aesthetic where the garages have been designed attached to the homes. Due to the unique pie shaped lot at the end of a cul -de -sac, the subject property is precluded from this type of development. Staff Response: Due to the narrow configuration of the lot at the front property line, it is difficult to accommodate a third car garage space on the property, but not impossible. There are many residential properties throughout the City and within the same housing tract which experience the same problem due to narrow lot width at a cul-de-sac or knuckle. These circumstances are not unique, but shared with many properties developed prior to the current Parking Ordinance taking effect in 2003. Solutions to provide a third car garage space at the subject property are less than desirable since the design of any such garage addition would be inconsistent with other homes in the existing neighborhood. Accordingly, to support the proposed Variance due to the immediate need of the family to care for the elderly, a condition has been placed to require the addition be removed at the time it is no longer necessary or the applicant is no longer living at the subject property. This stipulation would ensure that the applicant would not receive any future financial gain associated with the addition that would not be available to other homeowners in the neighborhood or larger City with similar circumstances. The applicant is aware of this stipulation proposed by staff and willingly accepts any such requirement of a deed restriction on the property to enforce said stipulation. Reasonable Accommodation As mentioned, the applicant has informed City that the proposed bedroom addition would accommodate an elderly member of the household who has difficulty going up and down the stairs to access the second floor bedrooms. Consistent with the City's policy and in compliance with the federal and State Fair Housing law, reasonable accommodation by allowing an addition to first floor bedroom without the need to provide a garage parking space would ensure equal access to housing. At such time that the reasonable accommodation is no longer necessary or the individual no longer PC Report May 14, 2013 VAR 2013 -01 Page 3 resides at the property, the property shall be restored to its previous condition. The deed restriction stipulates for this accommodation and ultimate conversion. Project Support The applicant has personally notified neighbors in the vicinity of the intended project. Signatures in support of the project from 30 residents on 26 different properties within the neighborhood have been collected by the applicant and provided to staff (Attachment E). FIN DINGS: In determining whether to approve Variance 201301 to reduce the required number of garage parking spaces for a single family residence, the Planning Commission must determine whether or not the proposed use is in accordance with California Government Code Section 65906 and Tustin City Code Section 9292. The granting of Variance 2013 -01 shall not constitute the granting of a special privilege not afforded to other properties in the vicinity and identical zoning district of the subject property and there shall be special circumstances existing on the subject property that deprive it of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. A decision to approve this request may be supported by the following findings: 1) The subject property has a special circumstance due to the narrow lot width (40 feet) at the front of the property which does not lend itself well to accommodating a three (3) car garage. 2) The majority of lots located on cul -de -sacs within the same housing track have been developed with two (2) car garages; thereby, maintaining the existing two (2) car garage would preserve the character of the cul -de -sac and the neighborhood. 3) The applicant has expanded the existing garage under previous permits to its maximum capacity in width in accordance with the required side yard setback applicable to the property. The existing garage space meets the intent of the City's Parking Ordinance by accommodating three (3) vehicles within a fully enclosed garage. 5) Solutions to providing a third car garage at the subject proper ly meeting the standards of the City's Parking Ordinance are less than desirable and would have a negative impact on the aesthetics of the neighborhood. 6) The proposed ground floor bedroom addition is necessary to accommodate an elderly family member who has difficulty accessing the second floor bedrooms. As such, consistent with the City's policy and in compliance with the federal and PC Report May 14, 2013 VAR 2013 -01 Page 9 State Fair Housing law, reasonable accommodation is provided to ensure equal access to housing. i) Recordation of a deed restriction on the property would ensure that the additional bedroom is used for its intended use and would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations placed on other properties within the vicinity and Single Family Residential (R -1) zoning district. The deed restriction stipulates for this accommodation and ultimate conversion. Ryan S ontek Associate Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachments: A. Location Map B. Land Use Fact Sheet C. Variance Application D. Submitted Plans F. Submitted Signatures of Support F. Resolution No. 4225 A T T A CCHPVIF�NIT A L 0C, ° T00N NIA, ? < y< O U I IORBA 5t. NORWOOD PARK PL O �1� r O O O O O O LM/AWPOM M/A[P M/P\IR0 . m,y (T ;G 2D1 3 -0 I V4D2 P,A[R 3[ �R D R\ �V L PROJECT SITE _] I - r '! , rtip O v O O O i zll \ 1. LAND USE APPLICATION NUMBER(S)� VARIANCE 2013-01 2. LOCATION: PARKER DRIVE & ACACIA DRIVE 3, ADDRESS: 17482 PARKER DRIVE 4, APN(8):4{yi-M3-0}1 5. PREVIOUS OR CONCURRENT APPLICATION RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY: NONE 8. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: EAST: RESIDENTIAL WEST: RESIDENTIAL 7. SURROUNDING ZONING DESIGNATION: NORTH: R-1 SOUTH: R-1 EAST: R-i WEST: R-1 8. SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: NORTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Q. SITE LAND USE: A. EXISTING: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL B. PROPOSED: SAME C. GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL D. ZONING: R-1 PROPOSED GP: SAME PROPOSED ZONING: SAME DEVELOPMENT FACTS: 1O� LOT AREA: 7,4D5 8.F. .17 ACRES 11. BUILDING LOT COVERAGE: 40y% MAX. PERMITTED 27% PROPOSED 13. PARKING: 3 CAR GARAGE REQUIRED 2 CAR GARAGE EXISTING 14 BUILDING HEIGHT: 3{U FEET MAX PERMITTED NO CHANGE PROPOSED 15. BUILDING SETBACKS: REQUIRED PROPOSED FRONT: 20 FEET 36 FEET EXISTING SIDE: 5-FlEEF 5 FEET EXISTING REAR: 5 FEET 5 FEET A �. � -A W��� CGMMUNlr� DEVELOPMENT DEPT ou/co/wcownFvmna HONORING OUR, PAST California Government Code Section 65906 and the Tustin City Code require the City to make two positive findings to approve a variance or minor adjustment. Please answer the following questions to provide evidence in support of the necessary findings. Please attach a separate sheet if necessary. Special Circumstances Are there special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape topo0raphy, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classification? Special Privileges How would the variance or minor adjustment, if granted, assure that the adjustment thereby authorized would not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated? I hereby acknowledge that all of the information contained in this supplemental application is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correctly represented, I hereby grant the City the authority to place a public hearing notice on the property for which the variance or minor adjustment is requested, if required. Applicant's Signature Print Name Date Print Name Date Date: March 20, 2013 To: The City of Tustin Planning Commission From: EhcGancia — PmpeUy Owner atI7482 Parker Drive Tustin, 92780 Subject: Application for Minor Adjustment/Variance Special Circumstances: ������I���� « ����u ���� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DE This application pertains to the above mentioned property and the pending request for permit to complete a single story room addition project. This room addition would allow for noy family tomove nny recently widowed nnothepin-|avvin with our family. Our proposed project would betn construct en approximate 500 square foot single story room addition for my mother-in-law. We are a family of five (2 adults and 3 children) and currently have four bedrooms in our existing home. VVe would be adding un additional bedroom with the proposed project. The zoning in our neighborhood falls under City of Tustin Article 9 Chapter 2Section 9223 and is typed R-1, single family residential district. This project would be completed in compliance with Section 922]. The purpose for this submittal isin relation to Article 9 Chapter 2 Section 9260 and specifically to Section 9263-Off-Street Parking Required, and Section 9264-Reductiuon in Off Street Parking Required. Table 1 in Section 9263 states that Single- Family Housin8requires2spaces,inafu||yendosed8ara8eforeechunitvvith4bedroonnsorfevvcrand 3 spaces, in a fully enclosed garage for each unit with 5 or more bedrooms. As previously mentioned we currently have 4 bedrooms with a fully enclosed 2 car garage, and our proposed project would make our residence a5 bedroom home. This application isa request that pertains toa set ofspecial circumstances applicable to our cul-de-sac property and the shape of our lot. Due to the unique pie shape type layout of our cul-de-sac, we have limited space at the front of our property. Due to this, the property lines physically inhibit us from having your typical/traditional 3 car garage, consistent with the floor plan uf many of our immediate neighbors in our tract. This application isa request for aminor adjustment/variance am referenced in the Sections below: 5ecdon9299c(3)(a) Minor adjustments shall be granted only when such adjustments are found tobein conformance with the General Plan and when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the identical zone classification. Any minor adjustment granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property issituated. Section 9292(a) The Basis for Granting a Variance - Applications for variances from the strict application of the terms of this Chapter may be made and variances granted when the following circumstances are found toapply: Section 9292a(1) That any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated. Section 9292a(2) That because of special circumstances applicable to subject property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and other and under identical zone classification (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 7.3) With this being a very unique situation, it was suggested that I meet with the Planning Director and Staff to review and discuss the particulars of our proposal. While meeting with the City of Tustin Planning Department Staff, it was discussed that we in fact do have a unique situation with the property shape and the configuration of our house on the property. That being said, the Planning Staff advised me that by the "letter of the law" it would be difficult to support our request. The Planning staff also explained the reasoning behind their position. I explained that I too am a City of Burbank Fire Department employee and I understood City policies and procedures, and their rationale in maintaining a 30,000' view of the situation. The Planning Staff, however, felt that there were some factors in place (the current footprint of our existing structure and the unique dimensions of our driveway as it would pertain to useable driveway parking space) that coupled with an applicable stipulation that could meet the "spirit of the law" and would garner the support of the Planning Staff in relation to our project. The current footprint of our home has a fully enclosed two car garage with "tandem" parking access. This total tandem space falls just short of the standard per space garage length of 20' /vehicle totaling 40' in length for a tandem space. However, could be utilized due to having compact vehicles. Additionally, the unique dimension of our driveway would also allow for two vehicles to be parked in tandem style and would not require one of the vehicles to be moved for the opposite vehicle to exit /enter the driveway, nor impede the path of travel for the vehicles parked in the garage. Understanding that we have a very unique property shape and parking configuration, I do feel that this would reasonably allow for us to be in compliance with the intent of the "Off- Street Parking Ordinance." With this configuration, the Planning Staff felt that if an applicable stipulation was applied to this proposal that they then would be able to support the project. That stipulation, which we are in complete agreement with, would be to implement a deed restriction to specify that we would immediately remove the proposed room addition should: 1. An elderly member of our family no longer occupy the addition or 2. Prior to the sale of the property. We are a second generation Tustin family, we love this community and we love our neighborhood. We have a great cul -de -sac lot that is an ideal location and have every intention of living in our home well into our retirement years. We feel that this deed restriction is fair and we are extremely grateful for the Planning Staffs sensitivity and willingness to work with us on our situation. bis for this exact reason we live in this great community. Special Privileges: The authorization of this minor adjustment/variance,if granted, would solely be based un the limiting space as a result of the unique shape of our lot. This uniqueness would be in line with the verbiage in Section 9299c(3)(a), and would not constitute a grant ofspecial privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated. F.Al a CAM MR 11 - _ C� 4 \ w z. Q G a � r E � F ` 'ja 210 �e u tl� I ii i i. s.ir.s 0 D �e 4l C��l Y. `�� � u � �s, `�. � �, �� i` �• �_. _t. �C z _arvi� hta'�ddrj 4 i+- �: ,� �\ �. ., ,� �__�_ ��_ 4l C��l Y. `�� � u � �s, `�. � �, �� i` �• �_. _t. �C z _arvi� hta'�ddrj 4 i+- �t �i l' - tit S 11 1:111 1? "Reduction in the number of required residential garage parking spaces" The Signatures below represent the area neighbors that are in support of our proposed room addition project. 12. 13. 14. 15. �f f r r ' J T'f J' , -r' IZ r ' J T'f J' , RECEIVED am� III rjamer-at Jill I .... "I !2111,111i "Reduction in the number of required residential garage parking spaces" The Signatures below represent the area neighbors that are in support of our proposed room addition Proiect. 0 10. ADDRESS 6. '71 7. 2 8. zl 1-1 -, 0 10. ADDRESS I 'N i J '71 2 I 'N i J Ts] O , RESOLUTION NO. 4225 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING VARIANCE 2013 -01 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF GARAGE PARKING SPACES FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 17482 PARKER DRIVE WITH FIVE (5) BEDROOMS FROM A THREE (3) CAR GARAGE TO THE EXISTING TWO (2) CAR GARAGE. The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Variance 2013 -01 was filed by Eric Garcia requesting authorization to construct an approximately 434 square foot fifth bedroom addition and reduce the required number of garage parking spaces for a single family residence located at 17482 Parker Drive with five (5) bedrooms from a three (3) car garage to the existing two (2) car garage for a residence. B. That the site is designated as Low Density Residential by the City General Plan and is zoned as Single Family Residential (R -1). The project is consistent with the Air Quality Sub - element of the City of Tustin General Plan. C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for Variance 2013 -01 on May 14, 2013, by the Planning Commission. D. That the Planning Commission has the authority to grant or deny a permit (variance) to modify the application of the restrictions established by the Zoning Code pursuant to Section 9292e of the Tustin City Code. E. That in accordance with California Government Code Section 65906 and pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9292, the granting of Variance 2013 -01 would not constitute the granting of a special privilege not afforded to other properties in the vicinity and identical zoning district of the subject property and that there are special circumstances existing on the subject property in that: 1) The subject property has a special circumstance due to the narrow lot width (40 feet) at the front of the property which does not lend itself well to accommodating a three (3) car garage. 2) The majority of lots located on cul-de-sacs within the same housing track have been developed with two (2) car garages; thereby, maintaining the existing two (2) car garage would preserve the character of the cul -de -sac and the neighborhood. Resolution No. 4225 Page 2 3) The applicant has expanded the existing garage under previous permits to its maximum capacity in width in accordance with the required side yard setback applicable to the property. 4) The existing garage space meets the intent of the City's Parking Ordinance by accommodating three (3) vehicles within a fully enclosed garage. 5) Solutions to providing a third car garage at the subject property meeting the standards of the City's Parking Ordinance are less than desirable and would have a negative impact on the aesthetics of the neighborhood. 6) The proposed ground floor bedroom addition is necessary to accommodate an elderly family member who has difficulty accessing the second floor bedrooms. As such, consistent with the City's policy and in compliance with the federal and State Fair Housing law, reasonable accommodation is provided to ensure equal access to housing. The deed restriction stipulates for this accommodation and ultimate conversion. 7) Recordation of a deed restriction on the property would ensure that the additional bedroom is used for its intended use and would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations placed on other properties within the vicinity and Single Family Residential (R -1) zoning district. F. This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Sections 15301 (Class 1) and 15305 (Class 5) of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act). The Planning Commission hereby approves Variance 2013 -01 authorizing a reduction in the required number of garage parking spaces for a single family residence located at 17482 Parker Drive with five (5) bedrooms from a three (3) car garage to the existing two (2) car garage subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit A attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 14th day of May, 2013. STEVE KOZAK Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 4225 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4225 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 14th day of May, 2013. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 4225 VARIANCE 2013 -01 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped May 14, 2013, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve subsequent minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are consistent with provisions of the Tustin City Code. (1) 1.2 This approval shall become null and void unless the use is established within twelve (12) months of the date of this Exhibit. Time extensions may be granted if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.3 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with as specified, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.4 Approval of Variance 2013 -01 is contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk- Recorder a notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. (1) 1.5 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to TCC 1162(a). (1) 1.6 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. (1) 1.7 As a condition of approval of Variance 2013 -01 the applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE /S (7) PC /CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW * ** EXCEPTION Exhibit A Resolution No. 4225 VAR 2013 -01 Page 2 proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision- making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition. USE RESTRICTIONS ( * * *) 2.1 Variance 2013 -01 is particular to the proposed use of the fifth bedroom addition by the property owner /applicant due to the reasonable accomodation and does not run with the land. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner /applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction in a form acceptable to the Community Development Department and City Attorney to ensure that at the time the use of the additional fifth bedroom for an elderly member of the household with limited mobility is no longer necessary, or the property owner /applicant is no longer residing at the property, the addition shall be removed and Variance 2013 -01 shall be null and void. This deed restriction will need to be recorded with the Office of the Orange County Recorder. (1) 2.2 The fifth bedroom addition shall not be rented out and no compensation in any form shall be received in conjunction with the use. Use of the fifth bedroom addition as a second unit or boarding house is not permitted. I a1111N ]IkT4 (1) 3.1 At the time of building permit application, the plans shall comply with the current edition of the codes (2010 California Building Standards Code), City Ordinances, State, Federal laws, and other regulations as adopted by the City Council of the City of Tustin. FEES (2) 4.1 Within forty -eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty -eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above -noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened.