SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STAFF REPORT January 11, 2008 PROJECT: Gerrity Parking in Side Setback and Gerrity Student Housing Addition HEARINGDATE: January 28, 2008 STAFF/PHONE: J. Ritterbeck, (805) 568-3509 GENERAL INFORMATION Case Nos. 07VAR-00000-00009 07AMD-00000-00004 Applicant/Phone: Mr. David Gerrity P.O. Box 1107 Summerland, CA 93067 (805) 969-1186 Agent/Phone Project Location 6555 Segovia Road Mr. William Gray 1505-A East Valley Road Montecito, CA 93108 (805) 969-6366 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Applications for an Amendment to a previously-approved Development Plan (01DVP-00000-00039) to allow construction of a new two-bedroom addition of 694 sq. ft. (net) to an existing 2,526 sq. ft. (net) student housing unit, and for a Variance to allow required parking associated with the new addition to be located within the side setback. Although Section 35-77.12.6 of Article II specifically prohibits modifications to the parking standards within the SR-H zone district through a Development Plan, the previously approved 2001 Development Plan (approved on July 6, 2005) approved parking within the side setback via modification to the parking standards. As proposed, the project will require additional parking for the proposed addition and proposes that parking to be located within this same side setback. Upon staff s review, it does not appear possible to make any of the required Variance findings because 1) there are no special circumstances applicable to the property depriving the property owner of privileges enjoyed by neighboring properties, 2) approval of the variance would constitute a granting of special privilege, 3) approval would also conflict with the parking location requirements outside of front and side setbacks, and 4) no feasible alternative to the proposed site development could be found after extensive County review for alternative site design that would comply with current zoning and development standards.
Gerrity Parking in Side Setback and Gerrity Student Housing Addition Case Nos.: 07VAR-00000-00009 and 07AMD-00000-00004 Hearing Date: January 28, 2008 Page 2 2.0 REQUEST Hearing on the request of the property owner, Mr. David Gerrity, to consider the following case numbers: a) 07VAR-00000-00009 [application filed on September 24, 2007] for a Variance from Section 35-114.2 of Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance prohibiting parking within the side setback and in compliance with Section 35-173 of the provisions of the Article II; b) 07AMD-00000-00004 [application filed on March 23, 2007] for an Amendment to Development Plan 01DVP-00000-00039 to allow construction of a new two-bedroom addition of 694 sq. ft. (net) to an existing 2,526 sq. ft. (net) student housing unit in compliance with Section 35-174.10.2 of the provisions of the Article II, on property zoned SR-H-20, Multiple/Student Residential. The application involves APN 075-064-001, located at 6555 Segovia Road, Goleta, CA 93117, in the Isla Vista Master Plan area, 3 rd Supervisorial District. 3.0 RECOMMENDATION Follow the procedures outlined below and deny Case Nos. 07VAR-00000-00009 and 07AMD-00000-00004 marked "Officially Accepted, County of Santa Barbara (January 28, 2008) Zoning Administrator Attachment B," based upon the project's inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the inability to make the required findings required within Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Administrator s action should include the following: Adopt the required findings for the project as specified in Attachment A of this staff report, Deny Case No. 07VAR-00000-00009, and Deny Case No. 07AMD-00000-00004. Alternatively, please refer to staff if the Zoning Administrator takes other than the recommended action for appropriate findings. 4.0 PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS Site Size: 0.48 acres Comprehensive Plan Designation: RES-20.0 Ordinance/Zoning: Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance, SR-H-20: Multiple/Student Residential Surrounding Use, Zoning: North: SR-H-20 South: SR-H-20 East: SR-H-20 West: SR-H-20 Services/Systems: Water: Goleta Water District Sewer: Goleta West Sanitary District Fire: Santa Barbara County Fire Department Access: Segovia Road and Embarcadero Del Mar History: The subject parcel has had (and currently has) numerous building and zoning violations on-site. Isla Vista Foot Patrol and County Fire have access concerns related to emergency response. There was a previously approved Development Plan on July 6, 2005. Present Use and Development: Two Single-family Dwellings
Gerrity Parking in Side Setback and Gerrity Student Housing Addition Case Nos.: 07VAR-00000-00009 and 07AMD-00000-00004 Hearing Date: January 28, 2008 Page 3 5.0 PLANNER COMMENTS On July 6, 2005, the County Planning Commission granted approval of Development Plan 01DVP-00000-00039 to legalize previously unpermitted development on the subject parcel. A component of this approval was to allow a modification to the southern side setback to allow parking to encroach 9 feet into the required 10 foot setback. Other elements of the approved Development Plan project, including relocation of a existing 6-foot fence outside of the County road right-of-way, designating and maintaining required on-site vehicle and bike parking, and maintaining all approved landscaping. However, these elements were either not installed or not properly maintained. The applicant has acknowledged this and had incorporated resolution of these issues as part of the overall proposed site plan and landscape plan associated with the Development Plan Amendment. The current Development Plan Amendment application (07AMD-00000-00004) also proposes a twobedroom addition of 694 sq. ft. (net) to an existing dwelling of 2,526 sq. ft. (net). This addition requires the applicant to provide four additional vehicle parking spaces ( 35-77.12.1) and will also require some existing parking spaces to be relocated in order to accommodate the construction of the proposed addition. The applicant proposes to continue using the nine existing parking spaces within the southern side setback that were previously approved in 2005, as well as locate eight of the nine new or relocated spaces within that same side setback. However, all of these spaces would actually encroach beyond the previously approved 9 feet and as they extended all the way to the edge of the southern property line. Upon further review of the Amendment proposal and the requirements Coastal Zoning Ordinance, P&D discovered that the Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance, Section 35.77.12.6, specifically states that within the SR-H zone district the parking standards required by this section shall not be subject to modification as provided in Section 35-174.8 (Development Plans). Although the previously approved Development Plan had allowed parking standards to be modified, P&D believes that extending the legal non-conforming use of additional parking within the side setback is neither acceptable nor permissible within the Article II development standards without approval of a Variance. However, the applicant was informed that the findings for a Variance would be extremely difficult to make. 6.0 APPEALS PROCEDURE The action of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors within the 10 calendar days following the date of the Zoning Administrator s decision by the applicant or an aggrieved person. The appeal fee to the Board of Supervisors is $443. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS A. Findings for Denial B. Site Plan G:\GROUP\Permitting\Case Files\VAR\07 Cases\07VAR-00000-00009 - Gerrity\Gerrity ZA Staff Report Items\Gerrity ZA Staff Report.Doc
ATTACHMENT A: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 1.0 ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS 1.1 Findings required for all Variances: a. Due to special circumstances applicable to the property, including but not limited to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The subject parcel is similar in size, shape, and topography as many of the surrounding properties also configured as corner-lot parcels in the Isla Vista Community Plan area. The parcel currently has two separate and permitted dwellings totaling approximately 5,052 sq. ft. (net) and associated 28 parking spaces approved in their current location and configuration. Location of required parking outside of the 20-foot front, 25-foot rear, and 10-foot side setbacks is also the same standard applied to the surrounding properties. Because the Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance specifically prohibits modification of the required parking standards within the SR-H zone district, and all surrounding properties share the same zoning, the subject parcel does not have any constraints that do not also apply to other properties in the immediate vicinity. The strict application of the setback and parking regulations does not deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. b. The granting of the Variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other property in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. The properties located in the SR-H-20 zone district in the vicinity of the subject parcel are similar in size, shape, and topography to the subject parcel and are subject to the same setback depths and area coverage restrictions. Granting of this Variance to allow the proposed parking to be located within the side setback would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other property in the vicinity and SR-H zone district. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. c. The granting of the Variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this Article or the adopted Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan. SR-H Zone District: Section 35-77.1 of Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance, states that the purpose of this district is to provide for residential development which is unique to a student-oriented community. The intent is to provide for multiple residential development at moderate densities to mitigate potential adverse impacts on traffic, parking, open space, aesthetics, health, and safety and to encourage to combining of substandard lots to allow for a more efficient utilization of space. Granting of a Variance to allow the proposed parking within the open space area of the side setback is in conflict with the intent of this section of Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance. Parking Regulations: Section 35-103 of Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance, states, in part, that the purpose and intent of the parking regulations is to set forth standards which shall be considered minimums, and more extensive parking provisions may be required. Furthermore, Section 35-114, states that off-street parking spaces shall not be located in the required front or side setback unless specifically permitted in the applicable zone district regulations. Granting of a Variance to allow the proposed parking within the setback below the minimum provisions set forth is in conflict with the intent and purpose of these sections of Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance. Nonconforming Uses: Section 35-161.2 of Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance, states that no existing nonconforming use of land outside of buildings, or involving no buildings, shall be enlarged, increased, or extended to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the time the use became
Gerrity Parking in Side Setback and Gerrity Student Housing Addition Case Nos.: 07VAR-00000-00009 and 07AMD-00000-00004 Hearing Date: January 28, 2008 Page 5 nonconforming, or moved to any portion of the lot not occupied by such nonconforming use at such time. Granting of a Variance to allow the proposed additional parking within the setback based on the argument that similar nonconforming development is present and previously permitted on the subject parcel is in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section of Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance. Variances: Section 35-173 of Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance, states that the purpose and intent of a Variance is to allow exceptions from the strict application of the provisions of Article II where, because of exceptional conditions such as the size, shape, unusual topography, or other extraordinary situation or condition of such piece of property, the literal enforcement of the Article would cause undue hardship unnecessary to carry out the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. The subject parcel is similar in size, shape, and topography to surrounding parcels in the same zone district and no exceptional conditions or constraints on development are present that create any undue hardship. Given the fact that the parcel currently has two separate and permitted dwellings totaling approximately 5,052 sq. ft. (net) and associated 28 parking spaces approved in their current location and configuration demonstrates that reasonable use of the property exists. Location of required parking outside of the 20-foot front, 25-foot rear, and 10-foot side setbacks is also the same standard applied to all surrounding properties as they are also zoned SR-H-20. Because no practical difficulties or undue hardship would be imposed by the literal enforcement of this Article and because the proposed parking is in conflict with the purpose and intent of: 1) the SR- H Zone District, 2) Parking Regulations, 3) Nonconforming Uses, and 4) Variances, the granting of a Variance would be in conflict with the purpose and intent of Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance. Therefore this finding cannot be made. d. The applicant agrees in writing to comply with all conditions imposed by the County. After extensive County review with a number of interested agencies and departments, including the Santa Barbara County Redevelopment Agency, the County Building and Safety Department, the Santa Barbara County Fire Department and Isla Vista Foot Patrol, no feasible alternative to the proposed development and site design could be found that would satisfy both the property owner s desire for 2 additional bedrooms as well as comply with current zoning and development standards. Because this project is proceeding as a denial recommendation, no appropriate conditions of approval have been drafted for the proposed development. Therefore, this finding can not be made. 1.2 Findings required for Development Plans a. The site for the project is adequate in size, shape, location, and physical characteristics to accommodate the density and level of development proposed. The subject parcel is a 0.48-acre corner lot located in the Isla Vista Planning area with standard 20- foot front, 25-foot rear, and 10-foot side setbacks. The proposed construction of a two-bedroom addition to one of the two existing dwellings on the property will require relocation of 5 existing parking spaces and construction of 4 new spaces. Due to the current configuration and location of existing parking and two 2,800 sq. ft. (gross) dwellings, the relocated and new parking spaces are proposed within the side and the rear setbacks (8 and 1 spaces, respectively). However, parking in these locations is specifically prohibited in the SR-H zone. As the project is designed, the site does not have the adequate size, shape, or physical characteristics to accommodate the density and level of proposed development. Therefore, this finding cannot be made.
Gerrity Parking in Side Setback and Gerrity Student Housing Addition Case Nos.: 07VAR-00000-00009 and 07AMD-00000-00004 Hearing Date: January 28, 2008 Page 6 b. Adverse impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. As proposed, the development would create or relocate a total of 9 new spaces in the side setback, inconsistent with the zone district requirements stating the every part of a setback shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky, except as otherwise provided in Article II, Sections 35-125.4.a-h. The proposal does not include mitigation measures to address potential adverse impacts for the proposed development (i.e., obstruction of light or ventilation of buildings or the ready use of said setbacks for ingress or egress). Therefore, this finding cannot be made. c. The streets and highways are adequate and properly designed to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use. The subject parcel would continue to be accessed by both Embarcadero Del Mar and Segovia Roads within the Isla Vista Master Plan area. These existing streets are properly designed to carry the type and quantity of traffic that would be generated by the proposed project. Therefore, this finding can be made. d. There are adequate public services, including but not limited to fire protection, water supply, sewage disposal and police protection to serve the project. The subject parcel would continue to be served by the Goleta Water District, Goleta West Sanitary District and the Santa Barbara County Fire Department. However, the Isla Vista Foot Patrol has indicated that numerous calls to the property requiring police protection have been impeded in the past by the presence of a solid 6-foot tall perimeter fence blocking both access and visibility into the property and as designed had serious reservations about their ability to serve the subject parcel in an emergency situation where equipment and personnel would need direct visibility into and immediate access onto the site. Similar access concerns were raised by County Fire Department. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. e. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the neighborhood and will not be incompatible with the surrounding area. While the proposed project may not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the neighbor, it will not be compatible with the surrounding area. Location of required parking outside of the 20-foot front, 25-foot rear, and 10-foot side setbacks is the same standard that is uniformly applied to all surrounding properties. As proposed, this project is incompatible with all other County-approved development immediately surrounding the property that has been required to conform to the setback standards of the zone district and locate required parking outside of the front and side setbacks. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. f. The project is in conformance with 1) the Comprehensive Plan, including the Coastal Land Use Plan, and 2) with the applicable provisions of this Article and/or the project falls within the limited exception allowed under Section 35-161. As discussed in the staff report above, the proposed development is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, including the Coastal Land Use Plan, or the applicable provisions of the Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance, because it would locate required parking spaces in the side setback
Gerrity Parking in Side Setback and Gerrity Student Housing Addition Case Nos.: 07VAR-00000-00009 and 07AMD-00000-00004 Hearing Date: January 28, 2008 Page 7 contrary to the requirements of the SR-H zone district and does not fall within the limited exception allowed under Section 35-161 of Article II. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. g. That in designated rural areas the use is compatible with and subordinate to the scenic, agricultural and rural character of the area. The subject parcel is located within an urban area and not subject to rural development standards. Therefore, this finding can be made. h. That the project will not conflict with any easements required for public access through, or public use of a portion of the property. As proposed, the project would remove an unpermitted fence that was constructed within the County right-of-way for Embarcadero Del Mar and relocate it within the property boundary. After this violation is resolved, the project would not conflict with any easements required for public access through or public use of a portion of the property. Therefore, this finding can be made.
ATTACHMENT B: SITE PLAN