Resolution 12906CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.12906
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S DENIAL OF
VARIANCE V-97-03 AND MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR-
97-21 FOR 1305 LINCOLN AVENUE, ALAMEnA
WHEREAS, an application was made on March 25, 1997 by Kin Man
Li requesting a Variance and Design Review approval for the
construction of a 213 square foot expansion to one of four existing
residential units, a common deck within the required rear and side
yard setbacks, and awnings at 1305 Lincoln Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on April 22,
997; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Neighborhood
usiness on the General Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an C-1
Neighborhood Business) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this
application on May 12, 1997 and has examined pertinent maps,
drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board denied Variance, V-97-03, and
continued Major Design Review, DR-97-21, based on the findings in
the Planning Board Resolution PB-97-39; and
WHEREAS, Kin Man Li filed an appeal to the City Council of the
Planning Board action on May 22, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this appeal
on July 1, 1997 and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and
documents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following finding with
respect to the appellant's bases of appeal:
The Planning Board used its discretion in considering all
available testimony and information in making discretionary
findings, as allowed by the Alameda Municipal Code. In this
case, the Board was unable to make the required findings that
the project would not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to persons or property in the vicinity.
It was determined by the Planning Board that the use of the
existing units could occur without the granting of a Variance,
and that denying the applicant's request to provide an amenity
such as private open space does not constitute a practical
difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Therefore the findings
that extraordinary circumstances exist, or that the applicant
was being denied a substantial property right could not be
made.
The Planning Board determined the issue of safety could be
resolved without the granting of a Variance, and the railings
and screening as proposed do not adequately address privacy
and shading issues. The Planning Board allowed for the
revision of the existing railings and rear roof area by
requesting further information on the proposed awnings and
continuing the Design Review portion of the application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Alameda hereby upholds the action of the Planning Board and
the denial of the Variance, V-97-03, and the continuance of Design
Review, DR-97-21 based upon the following findings:
1. There are no extraordinary circumstances applying to the
property relating to the physical constraints of the parcel,
such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings.
The required side and rear yard setbacks are applicable
citywide for properties within a C-1 Zoning District which
abuts property within a Residential Zoning District. The fact
that the flat roof area proposed for deck development exists
does not necessitate that this area be used as a deck. The
proposed roof areas are not in use as decks at the present
time, and there appeared to be other alternatives for dealing
with the safety issues raised by the applicant. Because there
were no circumstances presented which would indicate meeting
the required setbacks could not be achieved, that the roof
area could not be secured by any other means, the City Council
could not make the finding that extraordinary circumstances
apply to this parcel.
2. Because no extraordinary circumstances exist, the literal
enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance standards would not result
in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship such as to
deprive the applicant of a substantial property right
possessed by other owners of the property in the same
district. The applicant wishes to provide decking as an
amenity (private open space) for the units; however, the
development standards for residential units in the C-1 Zoning
District do not include provisions which would require the
construction of private open space for new units. Other
second story residential units in commercial area do not have
outdoor areas. The proposed unit expansion is not a
requirement for the use of the existing unit as functioning
residential space. The property can still be used with the
same number of units without this approval. The issue of
safety for the roof area can be resolved without the need for
granting a Variance. For these reasons, the City Council
cannot make the finding that extraordinary circumstances exist
which would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship affecting development of this parcel.
3. The granting of the Variance, under the circumstances of the
particular case, could be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to persons or property in the vicinity. There was
ample testimony from various neighbors that there would be a
serious impact on the neighborhood if the Variances were
approved. Impacts include the loss of natural light to the
residence east of the subject parcel resulting from the
expansion and deck screen wall, the loss of privacy in the
rear yards of the neighboring properties, and the potential
for added glare from exterior lighting in the rear of the
project onto neighboring properties. The issue of safety to
the tenants adjacent to the roof area can be resolved without
the need for granting a Variance. For these reasons, the
finding that the project would not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to persons or properties in the
vicinity could not be made.
NOTICE. This decision by the City Council regarding an appeal
of call for review is final as of the date of the Resolution unless
judicial review is initiated pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5. Any such petition for judicial review is
subject to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1094.6 after the date of this decision.
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 1st
day of July , 1997, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Lucas
and President Appezzato - 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 2nd day of July , 1997.
Dia Felsch, City Clerk
City of Alameda