Resolution 13751CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 13 7 5 1
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S APPROVAL OF
VARIANCE VO4-0004 AND MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR04-0007
TO ALLOW A 230 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION AT 903 DELMAR AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application was made on February 9, 2004, by Ronald and Myrna Put, for
Major Design Review and Variance approval for structural expansion of a single-family residence
into the required rear yard setback. The proposed addition will be located approximately four feet
(4') from the rear property line, where the minimum required rear yard setback is fifteen feet six
inches (15'6"); and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on March 9, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Low Density Residential on the General Plan
Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R-1, Single-Family Residential Zoning
District; and
WHEREAS, additions to residential structures that are greater than eighty (80) square feet
requires Major Design Review pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-37.2 (a); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda held two public hearings on this
application on May 10, 2004 and May 24, 2004, and examined pertinent documents and
conditionally approved the application; and
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2004, the City Council of the City of Alameda held a public hearing
for the appeal of the Planning Board's prior approval and examined pertinent documents as well as
the record of the Planning Board hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered responses to the bases of the appellants' appeal and
finds that there are no merits in the bases of appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings with respect to the appellant's
bases of appeal and relative to the Planned Development Amendment application:
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 City Council can make this finding. The flag lot is an extraordinary circumstance and
the lot is less than 5,000 square feet. In addition, the orientation and location of the property
deprives it of views of the lagoon that are enjoyed by adjacent properties. Furthermore, the
property is located on the north side of the lagoon, which originally had views of the Bay
prior to the development of the adjacent property at 902 Regent Street and the development
of the South Shore area.
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.
The City Council can make this finding. The orientation and location of the property prevents the
property from enjoying views of the lagoon otherwise enjoyed by adjacent neighbors. Literal
enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the property of its potential to take
advantage of its location to the lagoon, as well as deprive the property of the ability to add
additional living area
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 City Council can make this finding. There is no detrimental impact because the proposed
addition is consistent in architecture and design of the existing home and does not significantly
intensify the residential use. Because of the location of the proposed addition abutting the lagoon,
there would be minimal, if any, view blockage or shading, impacts to adjacent properties.
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings with respect to the appellant's
bases of appeal and relative to the Major Design Review application:
The project will have no significant adverse impacts on the persons or property in the
vicinity.
The City Council can make this finding. The proposed first floor addition is compatible with
the design and architectural styling of this residence and is also in context with the design of
other homes in the neighborhood; and therefore, will not result in a visual detriment.
2. The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the
surrounding area.
The City Council can make this finding. The design of the first -floor addition incorporates
the architectural features of the original portion of the single - family residence.
3. The addition will be consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines.
The City Council can make this finding. The proposed first -floor addition is compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the project is
Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, under Section 15301 of the
CEQA Guidelines - Existing Facilities.
2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council denies the appeal and
upholds the Planning Board's approval of Variance VO4 -0004 and Major Design Review DR04 -0007
to allow a 230 square foot single story rear addition, subject to the following conditions:
1. The plans submitted for the Building Permit shall be in substantial compliance with the plans
prepared by Angie Klein, dated May 4, 2004 consisting of five (5) sheets, marked "Exhibit
A ", on file in the office of the Planning and Building Department.
2. This property at 903 Delmar Avenue shall conform to the following setbacks:
a. Minimum four feet six inch (4'6 ") front yard setback for the main building.
b. Minimum four feet (4') rear yard setback for the main building.
c. Minimum ten feet six inch (10'6 ") side yard setback for the left (west) and five feet
(5') side yard setback for the right (east) side of the main building.
d. Standards not specified in this resolution shall be the standards specified in the
underlying R -1, One Family Residence District regulations.
3. All Time and Material charges shall be paid in full prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
4. The property owner shall request a Final Site Inspection by Planning Staff prior to Final
Building Inspection. The applicant shall request the inspection two (2) business days in
advance.
5. Pursuant to Section 30- 84.12, of the Alameda Municipal Code, new construction must not
cause storm runoff to be diverted to any adjacent parcel. Please provide spot elevations or
show directional arrows on Final Plans to verify that storm runoff will be properly channeled
to Delmar Avenue (i.e. City right -of -way). Storm runoff may not be tied to the sanitary
sewer system.
6. HOLD HARMLESS. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval 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 the subject property, which action is brought within the time period
provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Alameda shall cooperate
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 the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter
be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
7. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all
of the conditions of approval and must accept this permit subject to those conditions and with
full awareness of the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in
order for this approval to be exercised.
Page 3
VESTING. The Variance and Major Design Review approval shall expire one (1) year after the
date of approval or by July 20, 2005, unless all of the above conditions have been met to the
satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director prior to the date of expiration or, alternatively, an
extension request is filed and approved by the City Council prior to the date of expiration.
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 of the City Council
on the 20th day of July, 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese,
and Mayor Johnson - 4.
NOES: Councilmember Kerr - 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 July, 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City C
City of Alameda