The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC RES 4332 RESOLUTION NO. 4332 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING VARIANCE 2016-02 AND DESIGN REVIEW 2016-023 AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 609 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND 220 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION WITHIN THE REAR YARD SETBACK LOCATED AT 10905 SILVERADO TERRACE. The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Variance (VAR) 2016-02 and Design Review (DR) 2016-023 was filed by John Stephens, property owner, requesting authorization to construct a 609 square foot garage within the front yard setback and 220 square foot residential addition within the rear yard setback at an existing residential property. B. That the site is designated as Planned Community Residential by the City General Plan and is zoned as Planned Community Residential (PCR) within the East Tustin Specific Plan, and is more specifically designated Estate Density Residential, Single-Family Detached (E-SFD). 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 2016- 02 and Design Review 2016-023 on December 13, 2016, by the Planning Commission. D. That Section 3.6.3.A of the East Tustin Specific Plan states that the front yard setback for properties designated as Estate Residential is twenty (20) feet. E. That Section 3.6.3.A of the East Tustin Specific Plan states that the rear yard setback for the main structure for properties designated as Estate Residential is twenty-five (25)feet. F. That in accordance with California Government Code Section 65906 and pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9292, the granting of Variance 2016- 02 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: Exhibit A Resolution No.4332 Page 2 1} The subject property is an irregularly shaped lot, located on a cul- de-sac, with a significant amount of street frontage creating a lot width that is greater than the lot depth; 2) The lot has a shallow depth on the west side due to the configuration of the cul-de-sac road and the house is located on the east side; the lot does not have a typical front and rear yard area; 3) That the property is located on a cul-de-sac and due to the need to provide a turnaround at the end of the street and the bulb shape of the cul-de-sac. This makes it difficult to comply with setback requirements; 4) That strict application of the applicable development standards, particularly the front and rear setback requirements, would deprive the property of the ability to maximize development potential, which is a privilege enjoyed by other properties within the same zoning district; 5) That granting of this variance would not constitute a special privilege that is inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the East Tustin Specific Plan area in that the shape of the lot creates a hardship that is not present on the majority of other properties within the same zoning district. That granting of this variance would not constitute a special privilege that is inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the East Tustin Specific Plan area in that the shape of the lot creates a hardship that is not present on the majority of other properties within the same zoning district. G. That for Design Review 2016-023, pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Planning Commission finds the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposed project will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: 1) Height, bulk, and area of buildings. Project proposal meets all applicable development standards that pertain to the height, bulk, and area. 2) Setbacks and site planning. As proposed, the garage meets minimum side and rear setback requirements applicable to an accessory structure but encroaches fifteen (15) feet into the twenty (20) foot front yard setback. The proposed location of the garage is appropriate and allows safe ingress and egress. As proposed, the residential addition meets minimum side yard setbacks applicable to the main residential structure but encroaches seven feet eight inches (7'-8") into the twenty five (25) foot rear yard setback applicable to the primary residential structure. The single-story Exhibit A Resolution No. 4332 Page 3 addition is in keeping with the existing home site layout and is screened by the existing two-story home. 3) Exterior materials and colors. The proposed garage structure and residential addition are consistent in architecture and design with that of the existing residence and the colors and materials utilized for the structure shall match those utilized in the construction of the existing residence. 4) Type and pitch of roofs. The type and pitch of the roof will match that of the existing residence. 5) Size and spacing of windows, doors, and other openings. The size and spacing of openings, such as windows and doors, will be similar to those utilized within the existing residence. The proposed garage structure will include a garage door opening with standard dimensions and the proposed residential addition will be screened from view by the existing residence. 6) Chimneys and roof structures. No chimney or similar roof structure is proposed in conjunction with this project. 7) Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. The locations of the proposed detached two-car garage along Silverado Terrace and residential addition (craft/mud room) to the rear of the property are consistent with the neighboring residential uses and is compatible with the surrounding community. 8) Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. The appearance and design of the proposed two-car garage is consistent with that of the existing attached garages and existing residence. The design of the residential addition (craft/mud room) is consistent with the adjacent features on the existing residence. The residential addition is located to the rear of the existing attached garage and will be screened from view by existing structures. 9) Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. Aside from the aforementioned encroachments into the front yard and rear yard setbacks, the project complies with all other development guidelines applicable to the project. H. That the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 and Section 15305, Class 5 of Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act). ll. The Planning Commission hereby approves Variance (VAR) 2016-02 and Design Review (DR) 2016-023 requesting authorization to construct a 609 square foot garage within the front yard setback and 220 square foot residential addition within the rear yard setback at an existing residential property located at 10905 Silverado Terrace, subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit A, attached hereto. Exhibit A, Resolution No, 4332 Page PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 13th day of December, 2016. AU STIN LUMBARD _.a._.. ._ Chairperson v C. ELIZABETH' A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TU TIN I, Elizabeth A. Biinsack„ the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4331 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planniing Commission, held on the 13th day of december, 20,1 B. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES. C�ozatc, "f.�a�nta��rcl, fitnscan, Smith (4) PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED:: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Thompson 1 '-rEILIZABETH A. BINSACI Planning Commission Secretary