Resolution 13523CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.13523
APPROVING VARIANCE, V02 -0006, MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, DR02 -0031,
AND FINDINGS PURSUANT TO AMC SUBSECTION 30- 5.7(K) &(L)
AT 3331 FERNSIDE BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, an application was made on March 15, 2002 by Will Harrison and Pat Plowman,
requesting a Major Design Review and Variance approvals for the proposed first and second -story building
addition and rear second -story deck and stairway addition which encroach into the required twenty -foot rear
yard setback. The applicants also requested that Staff make findings that the addition would not have adverse
affects on adjacent parcels pursuant to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(k) &(1); and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on April 18,2002; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Medium - Density Residential in the General Plan
Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R -2, Two Family Residence Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on June 24, 2002 and has
examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board continued the hearing thirty (30) days giving the applicant an
opportunity to re- design the proposal in order to create a complying addition; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on July 22, 2002 and has
examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board denied the proposal on July 22, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the City Council requested a Call For Review on July 23, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this Call For Review on August 20, 2002 and
has reviewed the administrative record and examined all pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council can make the following findings relative to the Variances for the
proposed building, deck, and stairway encroachments into the required rear yard setback, and for a reduction in
separation requirements between the proposed stairway and an existing accessory structure:
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.
This finding can be made. Rear yard setback standards are designed to provide separations and open -
space between neighboring developed parcels. The extraordinary circumstance of this property is that it
abuts the alameda estuary, therefore, should allow for a reduced setback to the rear property line.
2. Because of extraordinary circumstances, the literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance standards
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship such as to deprive the applicants of a
substantial property right possessed by other owners of the property in the same district.
This finding can be made. The literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance deprives the property owner of
an addition that is consistent with the development of rear yards of surrounding parcels abutting the
alameda estuary.
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.
This finding can be made. The addition will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to persons or
property in the vicinity because it will be located completely on the applicant's property and cannot be seen
from Fernside Boulevard.
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings relative to the Major Design Review, and
findings pursuant to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(k) &(1):
1. The project will not have significant adverse effects on persons or property in the vicinity.
This finding can be made. The proposed additions to the single - family dwelling will be compatible with the
existing structure and adjacent developed parcels creating a harmonious transition in the neighborhood.
2. The addition will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of surrounding
properties because;
This finding can be made. The addition will be compatible and hay ilionious with neighboring structures and
because the exterior stucco siding for the addition will match the existing structure.
3. The addition will be consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines because;
This finding can be made. The proposed addition will match the style of the existing structure, and the
windows will be compatible with the existing dwelling.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby
determines that the proposal is Categorically Exempt under California Environmental Quality Guidelines,
Section 15301 - Minor Alteration of Existing Structures.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby approves
Major Design Review, DR02 -0031, Variance, V02 -0006, and findings pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-
5.7(k)&(1) for the proposed first and second -story building addition into the required rear yard setback, along
an existing nonconforming three -foot, nine inch northerly side yard setback, and for the rear second -story deck
and stairway addition, subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved Plans. The plans submitted for the Building Permit and Final Design Review shall be in
substantial compliance with the plans titled 3331 Fernside Boulevard, prepared by Will Harrison,
submitted to the Planning Department on June 14, 2002, consisting of four (4) sheets, marked as
"Exhibit A ", on file in the City of Alameda Planning Depai tuient, subject to the conditions specified
in this resolution approving the project.
2. Vesting. Variance approval is valid for one year after the date of this approval until August 20, 2003,
unless the applicant requests for and is granted a one (1) year extension by the Planning and Building
Director prior to said expiration. Only one (1) extension may be granted. The Major Design Review
is valid for six months after the date of approval until February 20, 2003 unless the applicant applies
for and is granted a sixth (6) month extension by the Planning and Building Director.
2
3. Acknowledgment of Conditions. The permittee shall acknowledge and accept in writing the
conditions of approval set out in this Resolution in order for this Variance and Design Review
approval to be exercised.
4. Hold Harmless. The City of Alameda requires that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any
claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside,
void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning this Variance and Design Review approval, which
action is brought within the time period provide for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City
of Alameda shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall
cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be
responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1094.5 maybe 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.
NOTICE. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees and other exactions.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (d)(1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement
of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and exactions. The applicant is
hereby further notified that the 90 day appeal period in which the applicant may protest these fees and other
exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (a) has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest
within this 90 day period complying with all the requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally
barred from later challenging such fees or exactions.
G: \P LANNING \CURRCORR\22 \plowman. do c
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 a regular meeting assembled on the 20th
day of August, 2002, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, Johnson, Kerr, and Mayor Appezzato - 4.
NOES: Vice Mayor DeWitt — 1.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this
21st day of August, 2002.
Lara Weisiger, City Crk
City of Alameda