HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 4, 1985 (71)73, CITY COUNCIL NI�.TING
. . ..... 4, 1985
PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER APPEAL OF
MR. MICHAEL BUTTER RTH,
207 FIRST STREET, LODI,
OF THE PLANNING
CC MISSION'S DENIAL
OF HIS REQUEST FOR A
ZONING VARIANCE
Notice thereof having been published in
accordance with law and affidavit of publication
being on file in the office of the city clerk,
Mayor Hinchman called for the Public Hearing to
consider -the appeal of Mr. Miciael Butterworth,
207 First Street, Lodi, of the Planning
Commission's denial of his request for a zoning
variance to reduce the required lot size at 207
First Street, Lodi (Parcel "B").
The matter was introduced by Cmurunity
Development Director Schroeder who presented
diagrams of the subject area and responded to
questions as were posed by Council.
Mr. Butterworth spoke on behalf of his appeal
and responded to questions regarding the matter
as were posed by Council.
There being no other persons in the audience
wishing to speak on the matter the public portion
of the hearing was closed.
On motion of Mayor Pro Tem -pore Reid, Olson
second, Council granted the variance based on a
,hardship in that the subject parcel had been
inaccurately surveyed many Years ago and that
existing maps were in error and with the
condition that the zoning variance be granted for
duplex construction only.
."N 5
71"UNCIL CCD'IMUNICATI"
DATE
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL.
FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Au i
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF MICHAEL BUTTEWORTH OF ZONING VARIANCE DENIAL
BACKGROUND: At its meeting of June 24, 1985 the Planning Comission
denied the request of Michael Butterworth for a Zoning Variance to
reduce the required lot size at 207 First Street (i.e. parcel "B" on the
enclosed map) from 4,750 square feet to 4,515 square feet to construct a
duplex in an area zoned R -HD, High Density Multiple Family Residential.
In denying the request the Planning Commission was unable to make the
finding that a "Hardship" as defined in the Municipal Code (i.e Zoning
Ordinance).
Section 17.72.080 of the Code states: "In granting any adjustments, the
Planning Commission should find that such adjustment will relieve an
unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty that would otherwise be
caused by the application of the strict letter of this chapter and that
such adjustment will not be contrary to the public welfare".
JJ.es B. Schroedermun'ty Development
Attachments
N0.
N
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF LODI TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF
MR. MICHAEL BUPrONORTH, 207 FIRST STREET, LODI, CA
OF THE PLANNING CWMISSION'S DUMU OF HIS REQUEST FOR A
ZONING VARIANCE TO REMUCE THE REQUIRED LOT SIZE - 207 FIRST STREET,
LODI, CALIFORNIA (PARCEL "B")
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, September 4, 1985, at the
hour of 7:30 pm or as soon thpxeafter as the matter may be heard, the
Lodi City Council will conduct a public hearing in the Council
Chambers, City hall, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California, to
consider the appeal of Mr. Michael Butterworth, 207 First Street,
Dodi, California of the Planning Cmission's denial of his request for
a Zoning Variance to reduce the required lot size at 207 First Street
(Parcel "B") from 4,750 square feet to 4,515 square feet to construct a
duplex in an area zoned R -HD, High Density Multiple Family
Residential.
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the office of the
City Clerk at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California.
A11 interested persons are invited to present their views on this
matter. Written Statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any
time prior to the hearing scheduled herein and oral statements may be
made at said hearings.
Dated: July 24, 1985
BY ORDER OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL:
ALICE M. RE
City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
DAVID M. HINCHMAN, Mallor
FRED M. REID
Mayor Pro Tempore
EVELYN M. OLSON
JAMES W. PINKERTON, Jr
JOHN R (Randy) SNIDER
June 25, 1985
CITY OF LORI
CITY HAIL. 221 WEST PINE STREET
CALL BOX 3OD6
LODI, CALIFORNIA 952 41-1 91 0
(209) 334-5634
Mr. Michael Butterworth
207 First Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Dear Mr. Butterworth:
RE: Variance - Reduce Required Lot size -
207 First Street (Parcel "B")
THOMAS A. PETERSON
City Manager
ALICE M REIMCHE
City Clerk
RONALD M STEIN
City Attorney
At its meeting of Monday, June 24, 1985, the Lodi City Planning
Commission denied your request for a Zoning Variar - to reduce the
required lot size at 207 First Street (Parcel "B") rom.4,750 square
feet to 4,515 square feet to construct a duplex, in an area zoned
R -HD, High Density Multiple Family Residential.
In denying your request the Planning Commission was unable to make
the finding that a "Hardship", as defined in the Zoning Ordinance,
existed.
Section 27-15(d) 2 of the Lodi Municipal Code (i.e. Zoning Ordinance)
provides as follows:
"Appeal. Any applicant or person claiming to be
directly and adversely affected by any actions of the
Planning Commission may, within five days (i.e.
Working Days) after the action, file a written appeal
with the City Clerk for transmittal to the City
Council."
If you with to appeal this matter, your correspondence should be
directed to Mrs. Alice M. Reimche, City Clerk, and it must be
received by her by 5:00 p.m., Monday, July 1, 1985. The City Clerk's
address is City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi.
Sincerely,
JA S B. SCHROEDER
mmunity Development Director
cc: City Clerk
I
BUTTERWORTH
207 FIRST STREET
A-85-14 6-24-85
3 OFF 5 j RE:ET ?APK► tqU
Z)PAcn
M�D!�11UM Lam_ �:)1Zt FLR D\'kpLL-l. 1►'N eZ-Hi7 2U
1 J;ZjR`t SCCC SQ i:7T
Z R2 =4750; SG t
LZT A 5 i 5 5:a FT
4 fi14 ®r 0rALONr
00
2
2
V
Michael Butterworth
207 Firs+ Street
Lodi, Ca. 97240
Dear. Planning Commissioners:
June 12, 1985
My name is Michael Butterworth and I live at 207 First
Street in Lodi. This is the fifth year that my wife and I
have lived at the address in question.
I would like to build an attractive duplex on my side
lot (known now as parcel "B") preserving the existing trees
and shrubs to the greatest degree possible. I wish to main-
taincomfortable "woodsy" ambiance and I have the grebtest
confidence that Mr. Arlie Presaler, the architect I wish to
have draw up my plans, can do it.
This "woodsy" ambi=ince is important to me not only eco-
nomically, but aesthetically, since I will be the next-door
neighbor.
I am asking the Commission to grant me a 5% variance
from the RED Zoning requirement of 4750 sq, feet. I would
not have to ask for such a variance except that upon measuring
our lot to apply for the split we discovered that we have been
the victims of "block shrinkage."
according to the original survey of the Airers/Pitchers
subdivision (done in 1913) and all subsequent title reports
and deeds our property -neasures 66' by 132.5'. However,
Mr. Piazzd found the lot to be 66' by 1291. Indeed, in com-
paring the descriptions on city planning maps to the actual
measurement of the block along First Street, we found con-
siderably -pore footage has been lost than that which I have
suffered. (Mr. Schroeder gave a description of how this mis-
fortune came to pass in. many of the older sections of town in
the Planning Commission meeting of Tune 10, 1985.)
This loss seems to have occurred on the Church Street
side, based on the placement of the house and driveway on our
:est boundary.
I bought our house particularly with the idea of one dad-
being able to build a pleasing multi -family dwelling on par-
cel "B". Indeed I paid a premium price for the property since
it was zoned RH-D and was advertised by the sellers and their
agents as being su_rta.ble for t1iis type of construction.
At the time of purchase we went over the deed and fig-
ured .out t- square footage of tre rroperty and what we could
do with it according to City Code. :?o�aever, I placed my trust
in the Title Company an; the City '_-^ descriptions, a circum-
stance I he"rtily regret. At this time, I hesitate tc rlace
bl=ame in an 7 "=lrticular :'rection, :`l^P_ it seems that so T)!�ny
(2)
seem to share it, b -A I do feel wronged.
If I had the -issing 230 square feet then Parcel "B"
would measure 4745 square feet and I would only need a var-
iance of 5 square feet (less then the size of a surfboard or
1/6 the size of a .{8 sheet of plywood) in order to build.
Members of the Commission have suggested that I contact
the property owner on my North boundary line; 'r. Gideon Hieb
of 234 Carson Place, Stockton, California; in order to ascertain
whether he would be willing to sell me either 3.41+ alon t^e
North side of Parcel "B" or 1.81+ along -my entire North boundary
line in order to c --me up with 235 square feet.
I am not certain of the setback re:7uire-nents in this case,
but assuming 5' (t --e lesser) setback we encounter difficulities.
The existing North side fence i3 only 3'+ from; t;e house located
on the nroperty (nei7bbor's a areenient. } If ne sells me thte
land enclosed by +.:-_e fence t :en we will reed to appear before
the Commission for permission to create a substandard lot.
Furthermore, his' lc.-,. measures (deed) 36.4 x 132.5 or 4823 s,uare
feet. The propert;: is currently occupied by a very old sir.�le
family dwelling (,ental) but is big enough fora 2 (two) st,r5
duplex according t_ Code. If he sells me the 235 square feet
the Commission way: --s, he will only have 4588 square feet left,
not enough for a du -;lex. Mfr. Hieb is wise in the ways of t^e
world and is not ab-ut to sacrifice 'pis own self interest.
I could perha- s claim sa J Atter' s ri ghts based on my F;a ra ge
and fence location. This legal action would be as repo mant
as it would be exr_e^sive, create a substandard lot, and be un-
certain in result except to the animosity it would be sure to
create.
Upon reflection I doubt the Commission will wise me to pur-
sue this course of action.
To remonstrate -ny conviction and desire to enhance Lodi
and my neiehborhec; rather than otherwise, let us exaiine what
I -night do with my -ot (even in its shrunken state) accordin__
to Code and Dave ':-„imoto. Sdmnly by the artifice of a con-
nection that soul: be used as a carport io my --resent dwellIrzQ,
I could cram 5 family dwellin;s (single story) or 7 far^ily
dwellings (2 story) without the necessity to split my lot or do
much more than ar�,i': for a ruildin.7 permit. i'o ego to an ex-
treme, without exceeding the neieht granted to the C;edgyrwood
development furthe^ North of me on Church Street, I might he
entitled to rr^ up - s?:ories and? rack 10 family dwellings or -1y
8515 squ re feet. _
(Please see fim re: on nett re.)
(3)
MY I.:OT�) EXISTING- - 8515 SzUARE FEET TOTAL
ACTUAL (DEED) - 9745 SQUARE FEET (ASS NE NO S-,=I:IT, COP:
1N ECTI':G STRUCTUH-E
FIRST STOFY: SECOND STORY:
4 F.D. = 7000 Q F.:). = 6250
T0"'L:+1 F.D. = 1000 + F.D. = 750
5 P.D. = 8000 S.. + F.L. = 750
"'
+ F - = 750
TOTAL: 7 F.D. 8500 SQ.FT.
STORY:
4 P.D. 5500
+ F = 500
+ 1 F.D.= 500
+ 1 F.D.= 500
+ 1 F.D.= 500
+ 1 F.D.= 500
+ 1 F.P.= 500
10 F.D. = 8500 S�.FT.
IPI =OT ADTH 50 (YDS)
?AxI?':iJiJ1 L,O'C' 'OV-:--., 0% (S
{FRO'" CITY OF ?ODI 3: NING
ORDIR7A_iCF,
REQ�jIREA?ENTS: )
ZONING DIST3ICT R.�iD
UNITS/NET ACRE 80
F
MIS?.:SOT AR;z (5�.�'T.�
1 STORY
2 STORY
3 or 4 STORY
1 FA=Y D`:LLING:
4000
4000
4000
2 FA','ILY DiCELLING:
5000
4750
4500
k
3 FA'"ILY D' -=LING:
6000
5500
5000
4 FA ^:ILY D`.►�L?,ING:
7000
6250
5500
EACH ADDIT=OVAL DI'E-LING ADD:1000
750
500
MY I.:OT�) EXISTING- - 8515 SzUARE FEET TOTAL
ACTUAL (DEED) - 9745 SQUARE FEET (ASS NE NO S-,=I:IT, COP:
1N ECTI':G STRUCTUH-E
FIRST STOFY: SECOND STORY:
4 F.D. = 7000 Q F.:). = 6250
T0"'L:+1 F.D. = 1000 + F.D. = 750
5 P.D. = 8000 S.. + F.L. = 750
"'
+ F - = 750
TOTAL: 7 F.D. 8500 SQ.FT.
STORY:
4 P.D. 5500
+ F = 500
+ 1 F.D.= 500
+ 1 F.D.= 500
+ 1 F.D.= 500
+ 1 F.D.= 500
+ 1 F.P.= 500
10 F.D. = 8500 S�.FT.
IPI =OT ADTH 50 (YDS)
?AxI?':iJiJ1 L,O'C' 'OV-:--., 0% (S
�i
(4)
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEI =HT 35' .75'. (skillful architect)
O.S. PARKING 1-1/2 per vmt (skillful architect)
Such development would be hideous, not unlike the
Olive Court Apartments across the street (Church) from Parcel
"B"V which manages to include almost every nossible object-
ionable feature to city Planning standards -and yet was per-
mitted by the Commission.
As I am planning a 2 (two) story townhouse type duplex,
you can see that I am asking for less than half of the number
of dwellings which could concievably be built on the area in
question. I am certain that my duplex will be in harmony with
my neighborhood, indeed I r-alieve it will strike a higher chord.
You are all familiar with the procedure and economics of build-
ing, and realize that it is much easier to obtain loan financinc
where I live for a duplex than a single family home. Bankers
know that it is much easier to find peo�^le to rent a duplex for
approximately $350.00 each than to rent ? house for 5700.00. I
can afford to build a duplex now, but the loan requirements for
a single family home will necessitate about 5 years more savings
not to mention 5 years loss of possible business.
I believe my request to the Commission is reasonable, and
that I have certainly been placed in a_ hardship situation. I
•lould certainly appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely Yours,
MIC-.r.E-i. BUTTERWORTH
Mr. Michael Butterworth,
207 First Street,
Lodi, California 95240
Dear Mr. Butterworth:
This letter will confirm the action of the Lodi City Council taken at
its Regular Meeting of SeptEmber 4, 1985 whereby Council following a
Public Hearing to consider your appeal of the Planning Catmission's
denial of your request for a zoning variance to reduce the required lot
size at 207 First Street, Lodi (Parcel "B"), granted the variance based
on a hardship with the condition that the approval be granted for
duplex -construction only.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not
hesitate to call this office.
Very truly yours,
ALICE M. REIlMCHE
City Clerk