Resolution 13165CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 13165
APPROVING THE APPEAL OF RONALD W. STANLEY AND OVERTURNING
THE PLANNING BOARD'S DENIAL OF MINOR DESIGN REVIEW AND
VARIANCE, V -99 -12 FOR 630 SAND HOOK ISLE
WHEREAS, an application was made on July 7, 1999 by Ronald Stanley, requesting Minor
Design Review approval for an approximately 74- square foot expansion of a single - family residence
and Variance, V -99 -12 to permit this expansion to encroach within 16 -feet, 4- inches from the rear
property line, where a minimum 20 -foot rear yard setback is required; and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on August 6, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Low- Density Residential in the General Plan
Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R -1 -Yf5 (One- Family Residence with
Special Front Yard Minimum Depth of 5 -feet) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on November 8,
1999 and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board denied the Minor Design Review and Variance, V- 99 -12,
based on the findings in the Planning Board Resolution PB- 99 -91; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board found that the proposal is Statutorily Exempt under
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15270 - Projects which are disapproved;
and
WHEREAS, an appeal was filed on November 18, 1999 by Ronald W. Stanley to the City
Council of the denial of the Minor Design Review and Variance, V- 99 -12: and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this appeal on January 4, 2000, and
has examined pertinent maps, drawings and documents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda makes the following findings with
respect to the appellant's bases of appeal and relative to the Variance to the proposed side yard
setback pursuant to Subsection 30 -21.1 of the Alameda Municipal Code:
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 because;
The dinning room is proportionally undersized for the size of the four bedroom, one story residence.
In addition, the site backs up to the lagoon which serves as the major open space element in the
neighborhood. Because of the location of the residence on the site, opportunities for residential
expansion are limited unless a second story is added. However, a second story expansion would
not provide the requested expanded dining area without a major alteration of interior living space
and the relocation of the interior fire place. Therefore, the location of the house on the lot and the
intemal configuration of the residence prevents a practical and cost - effective expansion of the dining
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
applicant of a substantial property right possessed by other owners of the property in the same
district because;
Limiting the applicant to a complying two -foot expansion to the side and rear would result in a
practical difficulty of adding considerable expense to the project without providing sufficient interior
space. The applicant has provided significant evidence that other properties enjoy interior space
which otherwise would be denied him through the literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance.
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 because;
The proposed expansion of the dining room into the rear yard setback would, not in itself, represent
a detriment by reducing open space or expanding living space close to other occupied structures.
This is especially true because the lagoon is located behind the house. No structures are located
adjacent to the rear property line of the subject property and the lagoon element is the primary open
space element behind the property.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda makes the following findings relative
to Design Review:
1. The project will not have significant adverse effects on persons or property in the vicinity
because;
The proposed expansion is consistent with the scale of residence and utilizes compatible architectural
elements of the existing structure. Therefore, the completed project would not alter the scale and
overall appearance of the structure and would not significantly affect the appearance of the overall
structure.
2. The addition will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of surrounding
properties because;
The addition is consistent in size and scale with the structure to which it is attached and will match
the design of the existing residence and would be compatible with adjacent residential properties.
3. The addition will not be consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines because;
The addition is consistent with the required findings of the Variance, and therefore, it is consistent
with the City's Design Review Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Alameda hereby determines
that the proposal is Categorically Exempt under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines,
Section 15301 - Minor Alteration of Existing Structures.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council approves the appeal and overturns
the Planning Board's denial of the Minor Design Review and Variance, V- 99 -12, subject to with the
following conditions:
1. The plans submitted for the Final Design Review and Building Permit and construction shall
be in substantial compliance with the plans prepared by Peter Braun & Associates, dated
June 26, 1999, consisting of two sheets, marked "Exhibit A ", on file in the office of the City
of Alameda Planning Department, subject to and as modified by the following conditions:
2. The final plans shall be in compliance with the applicable Uniform Building Code.
3. Planning Staff site inspection is required prior to final Building Permit approval. The
applicant shall notify the Planning Department at least three working days prior to the
requested inspection date.
4. Design approval is valid for six months after the date of this approval. Final Design Review
approval shall be obtained prior to June 4, 2000, unless the applicant applies for and is
granted a six (6) month extension by Design Review Staff prior to said expiration. Only one
(1) extension may be granted.
5. The Variance approval shall expire one (1) year after the date of approval or by January 4,
2001, unless all of the above conditions have been met to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director prior to the date of expiration or, alternatively, an extension request is filed 30 days
prior to the date of expiration.
G: \CC\RESO \4 V 9912B. APL
F;V -99 -12
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 4th day of January , 2000, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and
Mayor 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
5th day of January , 2000.
D.ne Felsch, City Clerk
City of Alameda