Resolution 12730CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 12730
GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING BOARD'S DENIAL OF
VARIANCE (V-95-17) AND USE PERMIT (UP-95-32) RELATING TO AN
AS-BUILT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AT 3363 FERNSIDE BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, applications were made by Dieter and Helene Rabe on
November 16, 1995 requesting a Variance (V-95-17) to Section 30-
4.2(d)(6), required side yard setback and Section 30-4.2(d)(7),
required rear yard setback, for an as-built, two-story addition
which extends across the rear property line onto leased land, and
Use Permit (UP-95-32) for the portion of the same addition which
encroaches into the Open Space District; and
WHEREAS, the applications were accepted as complete on
November 28, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the subject parcels are designated as Medium Density
Residential on the General Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on December
11, 1995 to consider Variance (V-95-17) and Use Permit (UP-95-32),
and upon due consideration denied the applications; and
WHEREAS, an appeal was made on December 12, 1995 by Dieter and -----:,
Helene Rabe to the City Council of the denial by the Planning Board Hfl
of the Variance and Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this appeal
on January 16, 1996, and examined pertinent maps, drawings and
documents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal is
Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)(1) --
additions to existing facilities;
WHEREAS, City Council of the City of Alameda made the
following findings relative to Variance (V-95-17):
1. There are extraordinary circumstances applying to the property
relating to the physical constraints of the parcel, such as size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings: The historic
placement of this dwelling unit is at the rear corner of the
property, approximately 4 feet from the rear property line and 18
inches from one side property boundary. The dwelling unit backs up
to the garage which provides the required parking. Finally, the
grade of the lot drops away as it approaches the shoreline, which
is where the subject dwelling is located. These conditions combine
to constrain the opportunities for expansion of the dwelling. The
site is adjacent to a partially submerged Tidal Canal Land parcel
which the Rabes lease. The Rabes are one of only two property
owners with a lease for the use of the adjacent Tidal Canal Land.
The owners of properties along the Tidal Canal have placed a
variety of residential accessory uses onto the Tidal Canal Land.
The depth of the Tidal Canal property above the water line widens
considerably in the vicinity of the Rabe property, compared with
property farther to the northeast. There is adequate area on the
Tidal Canal property to accommodate both recreation uses, such as
decks and docks, and a modest expansion to the existing dwelling
unit. Therefore, the City Council finds that there are
extraordinary circumstances that apply to the property.
2. Because of these extraordinary circumstances, the literal
enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance standards would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship such as to deprive the
applicant of a substantial property right possessed by other owners
of property in the same zoning district: The parcel is 7000+
square feet and has three units in compliance with the maximum
allowed residential density. The Rabes seek to expand the existing
dwelling unit to provide one with living area of comparable size to
other dwellings in the area. They also wish to improve the floor
plan to make the dwelling more useful and conventional in its
layout. The existing placement of the structure makes it difficult
to expand the home in a manner which complies with the zoning
requirements and also provides a reasonably useful floor plan. The
City Council finds that the literal enforcement of the Zoning
Ordinance would result in practical difficulty and hardship because
the Rabes would not be able to expand their home in a reasonably
cost effective way and would not be able to have a home of size and
utility similar to others in the immediate neighborhood.
3. The granting of the Variance, under the circumstances of the
particular case, will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to persons or property in the vicinity: The 10 foot deep
by 24 foot wide addition is located in approximately the same plane
as the adjacent residences with respect to the shoreline and will
present a minimal encroachment into the existing view corridor.
The addition will be required to comply with the fire code,
including one-hour construction along the north elevation and
sprinkling which will mitigate the fire hazard. Therefore, the
City Council finds that the granting of the Variance will not be
detrimental in this particular case.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda made the
following findings relative to Use Permit, UP-95-5 relating to an
as-built, two-story addition:
1. The location of the proposed use is compatible with other uses
in the neighborhood: The proposed residential use of the addition
is compatible with the other residential uses in the vicinity. Two.
homes located to the southwest have similar additions extending
towards the water.
2. The proposed use will be adequately served by transportation
and service facilities: The Rabes' parcel is adequately served by
all utilities and has access to a public street, Fernside Blvd.
2
3. The proposed use will not adversely affect other property in
the vicinity: The addition presents a minimal encroachment into
existing view corridors of adjacent houses. The addition will be
required to comply with the fire code, including one-hour
construction along the north elevation and sprinkling which will
mitigate the fire hazard.
4. The residential addition would favorably relate to the General
Plan which designates this property for medium density residential
use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Alameda grants the appeal of Dieter and Helene Rabe from
the Planning Board's denial and approves Variance (V-95-17) and Use
Permit (UP-95-32), with the following conditions:
1. The addition for which the Variance is approved is limited to
a 10 foot by 24 foot two-story addition at the rear of the
residence as shown on plans titled "Improvement: Enclose
existing deck, and add new deck" dated 5/3/95 and marked
Exhibit "A," and on file in the Planning Department Offices.
The proposed new deck shown on the same plans is expressly not
approved.
2. a. Through the design review and building permit process,
the applicants shall demonstrate that the addition
described above can be constructed so that it can be
removed without breaching the exterior walls of the
existing dwelling.
b. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the
applicant shall execute an amendment to the Lease of Real
Property (Tidal Canal), approved by the City Council, to
recognize that the addition is constructed across the
rear property line onto lands owned by the Federal
Government.
3. The application shall have a survey prepared and permanent
property corners set by a licensed land surveyor or engineer
and a Record of Survey shall be filed with the City of Alameda
for the side property boundary closest to the proposed
addition. The Record of Survey must be submitted with the
applications for Design Review and Building Permits and the
property boundary and setback shown on the submitted plans
shall be as verified by the survey.
4. The addition shall comply with all applicable building and
fire codes.
5. The Variance and Use Permit shall terminate one (1) year from
January 16, 1996, unless actual construction or alteration
under valid permits, or the applicant applies for and is
granted extensions prior to the expiration of the Variance and
Use Permit.
3
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council
of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 16th
day of January , 1996, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Arnerich, DeWitt
and Mannix - 3.
President Appezzato - 1.
None.
ABSENTENTIONS: Councilmember Lucas - 1.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 17th day of January , 1996.
Dian Felsch, City Clerk
City of Alameda