Resolution 12802CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.12802
APPROVING THE APPEAL OF BEN AND BARBARA, LUTTRINGER, PRINCE AND
KATHRYN ROBINSON, AND DOROTHY WILLIAMS, AND OVERTURNING THE
PLANNING BOARD'S APPROVAL OF VARIANCE, V-96-3 AND MAJOR DESIGN
REVIEW, DR-96-12 FOR 1907 EAGLE AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application was made on March 21, 1996 by Cheryl
and Patrick Connolly requesting Major Design Review, DR-96-12, for
a one story bedroom addition to the rear of the residence; and
WHEREAS, an application was made on March 21, 1996 by Cheryl
and Patrick Connolly requesting a Variance, V-96-3, to allow an
addition which increases main building coverage to 46%-, where a
maximum of 40-'5 is permitted; and to allow the addition with a 3.6
foot easterly side yard setback, where a minimum 5 feet is
required; and
WHEREAS, the addition would involve the extension of a
noncomplying 14 inch side yard setback on the easterly side and a
4.5 foot side yard extension on the westerly side, when a 5 foot
setback is required, which may be approved if it can be found that
no adverse effects such as shading or view blockage would occur on
adjoining properties, pursuant with Subsections 30-5.7(k) and (1)
of the Alameda Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, these applications were accepted as complete on April
9, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Medium-Density
Residential on the General Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R-3, (Garden
Residential) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on
this application on April 24, 1996 and examined pertinent maps,
drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator referred the proposal to the
Planning Board for public hearing and action because of public
controversy; and
WHEREAS, the Planing Board held a public hearing on this
application on May 29, 1996 and examined pertinent maps, drawings,
and documents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda found that
the proposal is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines, Section
15301 (e)(1) - Additions to Existing Structures; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board approved the Variance, V-96-3 and
Major Design Review, DR-96-12 applications; and
WHEREAS, Ben and Barbara Luttringer, Prince and Kathryn
Robinson, and Dorothy Williams filed an appeal to the City Council
of the Planning Board action on June 10, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this appeal
on July 16, 1996 and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and
documents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Alameda hereby makes the following findings relative to the
Variances:
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.
Lot Coverage:
The 2,800 square foot parcel is small by the standards of the
Municipal Code which requires a minimum of 5,000 square feet
for a residential lot. This parcel accommodates a small, 943
square foot, one bedroom, one bath home. Because the existing
residence already covers more than 39% of the lot, any
expansion in compliance with coverage requirements is
prevented.
East Side Yard Setback:
Because of the lot is small and narrow and the residence
maintains limited front and side yard setbacks, any expansion
must be made towards the rear of the lot. An expansion which
maintained complying 5 foot side yard set backs would only
allow an 18 foot wide addition, insufficient for an addition
which reasonably expands and fits into the flow of the
existing living area of the home. Because the adjacent
property, at 1909 Chestnut Street, maintains a building up to
the property line, the rear wall extension must be off-set in
order to comply with the Building Code requirements. In order
to maintain a fire safe condition and to conform with the
Building Code, the applicants are prevented from extending the
existing 14 inch setback because this would bring the addition
within inches of the adjacent 2 story residential structure
which is located on the property line and would prevent the
installation of a bedroom window on the easterly wall.
Extension of the existing plane surface of the easterly side
wall would only provide a two foot side yard setback which
would narrow to 14 inches, making construction and maintenance
of the wall surface very difficult or impossible.
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.
2
Lot Coverage:
The proposed addition represents a modest 171 square foot
addition to a small, one bedroom residence. The house is the
smallest in the neighborhood, with many of the adjacent
properties supporting two story structures. A two bedroom
house is generally regarded as a minimal residence size and a
property right for a single family residence.
East Side Yard Setback:
Requiring the applicants to comply with the 5 foot side yard
set backs, would prohibit them from adding usable living area
to the home without a major alteration to the existing,
interior living space. The requested reduced setback is
consistent with the use of the adjacent property, at 1909
Chestnut Street, which maintains a 2 story residential
building up to the property line between the two properties.
3. The granting of the variance, under the circumstances of the
particular case, will be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to persons or property in the vicinity.
Lot Coverage:
The added lot coverage would cause a detriment to adjacent
properties by contributing to view blockage and shading to
adjacent properties.
East Side Yard Setback:
The proposed side yard setback would cause a detriment to the
adjacent properties by contributing to view blockage and
shading to the adjacent properties.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Alameda hereby makes the following findings relative to the Design
Review:
1. The project will have significant adverse effects on persons
or property in the vicinity. The project would cause a
detriment to adjacent properties by causing increased shading
and view reduction.
2. The additions will not be compatible and harmonious with the
design and use of surrounding properties. The addition would
create massing which would block sun exposure and views to
adjacent properties. This would create an overall design
which is not harmonious with adjacent properties.
3. The additions will not be consistent with the City's Design
Review Guidelines. The proposed addition would not be
compatible with the adjacent structures because it would cause
shading and view blockage. Therefore, the project would not
further the fundamental design characteristics of Alameda, as
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 July 1996, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmembers Arnerich, DeWitt, Mannix
and President Appezzato - 4.
Councilmember Lucas 1.
ABSENT: None.
ABSENTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 17th day of July , 1996.
Sandee Rabe, Deputy City Clerk
City of Alameda
required in the Design Review Manual.
4. The 7.75 foot extension of the east wall with an existing 14
inch side yard setback and the 4.5 foot extension of the west
wall with an existing 4.5 foot side yard setback is
inconsistent with Subsection 30-5.7(k) of the Alameda
Municipal Code because adverse effects such as shading or view
blockage would occur on adjoining properties. Therefore, this
finding cannot be made to approve the Design Review.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Alameda cannot make all of the required findings to approve the
Variances and Design Review and therefore grants the appeal and
denies Variance 96-3 and Design Review 96-12.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted
more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision or
final action on any appeals plus extensions authorized by
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
4