Loading...
Resolution 13810CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 13 810 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S DENIAL OF MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR04 -0013 AND VARIANCES, VO4 -0005, VO4 -0015, VO4 -0016, VO4 0017 FOR THE STRUCTURAL EXPANSION OF A SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A REAR DECK AT 913 OAK STREET WHEREAS, an application was made on February 25, 2004, by halo Calpestri for Property Owners, Fred and Ursula Hoggenboom, for Major Design Review and Variance approval to permit the construction of a rear deck and garage addition that was completed without City permits. The rear deck measures approximately thirty inches in height from grade to the top surface of the deck and is built up to the south (left side) and west (rear) property lines. The garage addition is an expansion of the existing single - family dwelling up to the north (right side) and west (rear) property lines. The Applicant wishes to permit the work completed without permits and is requesting the four (4) following Variances: 1) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(2)(6) to construct a rear deck that measures thirty inches in height and is constructed up to the south side and rear property line with zero setback, where, a minimum three foot setback is required for decks measuring twelve to thirty inches in height; 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(e)(1) to construct an unenclosed stair and landing up to the south side property line with zero setback, where a minimum three foot setback is required for unenclosed stairs and landings; 3) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(7) to construct an attached garage addition that extends the main dwelling up to the rear property line with zero setback where a minimum twenty foot setback is required for rear yards; 4)Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(6) to construct an attached garage addition that extends the main dwelling up to the north side property line with zero setback where a minimum five foot setback is required for side yards; and WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on July 29, 2004; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Medium- Density Residential on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District; and WHEREAS, additions to residential structures that are greater than eighty (80) square feet require Major Design Review pursuant to AMC Subsection 30 -37.2 (a); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda held a public hearing on this application on October 11, 2004 and examined pertinent documents and denied the application; and WHEREAS, on January 10, 2004, the City Council of the City of Alameda held a public hearing for the appeal of the Planning Board's prior denial 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 is no merit 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: Rear Setback (garage addition) VO4- 0005 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 cannot make this finding. The lot is nonconforming in width, however, this does not represent an extraordinary circumstance of physical constraint since the lot size (4,000 square feet) and the configuration is not unique in this neighborhood or Alameda in general. In addition, the lot is large enough in size and is configured in such a way that a single car, one- story, detached garage could be designed to be fully compliant with AMC standards. 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 cannot make this finding. There is no 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 because all of the other residences in this neighborhood are held to the same zoning standards and maintain lots with similar or more constricting size limitations. 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 cannot make this finding. The project extends the main dwelling up to the side and rear property lines and blocks the views and sunlight of the adjacent and abutting properties, which is potentially injurious to these surrounding residential properties. Side Setback (garage addition) VO4 -0015: 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 cannot make this finding. The lot is nonconforming in width, however, this does not represent an extraordinary circumstance of physical constraint since the lot size (4,000 square feet) and the configuration is not unique in this neighborhood or Alameda in general. In addition, the lot is large enough in size and is configured in such a way that a single car, one - story, detached garage could be designed to be fully compliant with AMC standards. 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 cannot make this finding. There is no 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 because all of the other residences in this neighborhood are held to the same zoning standards and maintain lots with similar or more constricting size limitations. 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 cannot make this finding. The project extends the main dwelling up to the side and rear property lines and blocks the views and sunlight of the adjacent and abutting properties, which is potentially injurious to these surrounding residential properties. Side & Rear Setback (deck) VO4 -0016: 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 cannot make this finding. The lot is nonconforming in width, however, this does not represent an extraordinary circumstance of physical constraint since the lot size (4,000 square feet) and the configuration is not unique in this neighborhood or Alameda in general. In addition, the deck could be redesigned to be fully compliant with AMC standards, simply by lowering the footings so that the deck measures no more than twelve inches in height from grade to the surface of the deck or by removing a three foot portion the deck on the south side and rear property lines to achieve the required setbacks. 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 cannot make this finding. There is no 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 because all of the other residences in this neighborhood are held to the same zoning standards and maintain lots with similar or more constricting size limitations. 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 cannot make this finding Decks offer opportunities for outdoor congregation and entertainment. The proposal involves retaining the already constructed nonconforming deck that is thirty inches in height and built up to the side and rear property line. A deck of this height and location has the potential to create increased noise levels and privacy concerns for adjacent and abutting residential properties, and the potential increase in activity may be injurious to the surrounding properties. Side Setback (stairs and landing) VO4- 0017: 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 cannot make this finding. The lot is nonconforming in width, however, this does not represent an extraordinary circumstance of physical constraint since the lot size (4,000 square feet) and the configuration is not unique in this neighborhood or Alameda in general. Additionally, the stair and landing is needed to provide access to the nonconforming rear deck from the south side yard; however, the stair and landing would be unnecessary if the deck was lowered to be compliant with AMC standards. 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 cannot make this finding. There is no 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 because all of the other residences in this neighborhood are held to the same zoning standards and maintain lots with the same size limitations and advantages. The property owner has created a self imposed hardship by constructing a nonconforming deck that extends up to the side property line, measures thirty inches in height and requires a stair with landing for access. 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 cannot make this finding. The proposal to retain the already constructed stair and landing within the side and rear property lines has the potential to create increased traffic and noise along the south side yard, which may be injurious to the adjacent and abutting residential properties located to the south. WHEREAS, the City Council is unable to make the findings with respect to the appellant's bases of appeal and relative to the Major Design Review application because the garage addition and rear deck have the potential to cause adverse effects to surrounding properties under the Variance findings; and therefore, the project proposal cannot be found to be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of surrounding properties. 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; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Board's denial of Major Design Review DR04 -0013 and Variances VO4 -0005, VO4- 0015, VO4 -0016, VO4 -0017 for the construction of the rear deck, unenclosed stair and landing and structural expansion of the main dwelling into the required side and rear yard setback 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. 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 the regular meeting of the City Council on the 4th day of January,, 2005, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson — 5. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTENTIONS: None. IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 5th day of January, 2005. Lara Weisiger, City City of Alameda