Loading...
Resolution 13319CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 13319 APPROVING THE APPEAL OF ALLEN GRAVELLE AND OVERTURNING THE PLANNING BOARD DENIAL OF VARIANCE, V -00 -15 AND MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR -99 -88 FOR 2901 SAN JOSE AVENUE WHEREAS, an application was made on September 20, 1999, August 28, 2000, and December 5, 2000 by Allen Gravelle, requesting a Variance, V -99 -15 and Major Design Review, DR -99 -88 to permit the construction of a third story on an existing two story home with nonconforming side setbacks; and WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on December 5, 2000; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on December 11, 2000 and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, on December 21, 2000, Allen Gravelle filed a timely appeal with the City requesting that the City Council conduct an appeal hearing on February 20, 2001; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2001, the City Council held apublic hearing and examined pertinent maps, drawings and documents, as well as the record of the Planning Board hearings; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the staff responses to the bases of the appellants' appeal as set out in Attachment 2 to the staff report, which attachment is hereby incorporated by reference and finds that there is merit to the appeal; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda made the following findings relating to the Variance application for the number of stories: 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 lot is substandard in size. The width of the lot is 34 feet where a 50 foot width is standard in the R -1 Zoning District. The parcel is 3500 square feet in area where 5000 square feet is the minimum parcel size in the R -1 Zoning District. The existing residence was built with non- conforming four and two foot side setbacks where five and ten feet would have been required. 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 1 of the property in the same district because the applicant requests third story living area in order to avoid increasing the building area footprint. A confoiming 5,000 sq. ft. parcel would allow a building footprint of approx. 2,640 sq. ft. with conforming setbacks. A 2- story house of 2640 sq. ft. could be constructed and only cover 50% of the allowable building site leaving a reasonably sized rear yard. The applicant's smaller substandard lot cannot accommodate a house of the size generally allowed by the R -1 regulations and still provide a reasonably sized rear yard for outdoor living. Therefore, the appellant is seeking to construct additional living space in a third story to maintain the existing footprint and keep the useable rear yard 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 because the proposed third story addition would only minimally increase the height of the existing residence. The roof height would be increased by approximately 2.5 feet and not exceed the 30' -0" height limit and would not be injurious to persons or property in the vicinity. 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 for non - conforming side setbacks: 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 size of the lot is substandard. The width of the lot is 34 feet where a 50 foot width is standard in the R -1 Zoning District. The existing residence was built with non - conforming four and two foot side setbacks where five and ten feet would have been required. 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 the only practical way to construct a third story is by extending existing exterior walls. Otherwise, a complex structural design would be required and small roofed areas where the third story is set in from the existing exterior walls which would result in an unorthodox building style and more costly construction. 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 third story addition would only minimally increase the height of the existing residence. The roof height would be increased by approximately 2.5 feet and not exceed the 30' -0" height limit and would not be injurious to persons or property in the vicinity. 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda made the following findings relating to the Major Design Review for the third story addition: The project will have no significant adverse effects on persons or property in the vicinity because the addition would result in an approximately 2.5 feet increase in height and would not exceed the 30' -0" height limit. The additional height would not adversely affect persons or property in the vicinity. 2. The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of surrounding properties because the project would be of a similar design and use as the surrounding single family residences. 3. The project will be consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines because the project will remain consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines based on representations made by the property owner during the public hearing that they will incorporate design details such as window type, siding, trim, etc. approved at Final Design Review following consultation with the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society to insure that the design and construction materials associated with the expansion of the home will complement the original craftsman bungalow design of the home. 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, Class 1, of the CEQA Guidelines; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council approves the appeal and overturns the Planning Board's denial of Variance, V- 00 -14, subject to with the following conditions: 1 The plans submitted for Building Permit shall substantially comply with the plans, drawn by C. Park, dated June 27, 2000, consisting of three pages, and marked "Exhibit A ", on file in the office of the City of Alameda Planning Department subject to 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. The property owner shall provide a construction schedule to the satisfaction of the Planning Director which confirms a reasonable time period in which to complete this project prior to issuance of a building pennnt for the additional construction associated with approval of this Variance, V- 99 -15. 5. Final Design Review approval is required prior to issuance of building permits. Plans submitted for Final Design review shall include, but not be limited to, the type of windows and framing, siding, trim, and architectural features consistent with the style of the building. 6. The Planning Director shall refer the architectural plans submitted for Final Design Review to the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society for review and comment within a 30 -day time period from the date of submittal. 7. A Deed Restriction, satisfactory to the Planning Director, shall be filed with the Alameda County Recorders Office. A copy of the notarized deed restriction, stamped as received and filed by the County Recorder, shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to issuance of the Building Permit. The Deed Restriction would: a. Limit the subject property to no more than one (1) residential dwelling unit unless or until the City of Alameda approves an additional unit, and b. In consideration for the approved proposed expansion of the house which has required variances approved in 1994 and again in 2001, further floor area expansion of the house shall require amendment of this Variance (V00 -15) to allow additional development. This limitation shall apply even to expansions of floor area that comply with setbacks. 8. Prior to Building Permit final inspection approval the portions of the site disturbed by the reconstruction of the residence shall be landscaped consistent with a residential neighborhood. 9. Design approval is valid for six months after the date of this approval. Final Design Review approval shall be obtained prior to August 20, 2001, 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. 10. The Variance approval shall expire one (1) year after the date of approval or by February 20, 2002, 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. 11. 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 4 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. 12. 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 Variance and Major Design Review to be exercised. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the appeal and overturns the Planning Board's denial of Variance, V- 00 -14. 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 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. 5 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 February, 2001, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembe s Daysog, DeWitt and Mayor Appezzato - 3. Councilmembers Johnson and Kerr - None. ABSTENTIONS: None. IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 21st day of February, 2001. d �� f D!ne Felsch, City Clerk City of Alameda