SUBJECT: Application for a 9,397 square foot site located at 268 West California Avenue in an R-2 (Low-Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. (APN: 204-51-003)

The applicant for the subject proposal built the existing 4-unit apartment complex in February of 1990. Prior to construction of the 4-unit apartment, a variance request was made by the applicant to allow a 3-ft. side yard setback where 12 ft. is required and an 18-ft. setback where 26 feet is required. This request was denied and the applicant constructed a revised plan for the apartment complex.

There is an existing canopy structure on the subject site that has a 1-ft. rear setback and an 8-ft. east side yard setback. There are no planning or building permits for this structure. The intent of the variance request is to legalize the canopy and obtain building permits for the structure.

In August of this year, the City Council approved the Rezoning of several R-4 Zoned properties within the City, including the subject property. Effective September 17, 1999, the subject property was rezoned to R-2 causing the existing 4-unit apartment complex to become a legal nonconforming use. However, the subject application was submitted prior to the rezoning action and has subsequently been reviewed using R-4 development standards.

On November 10, 1999, the Community Development Director held an administrative hearing to consider a Variance for lot coverage of 45.9% where a maximum 40% is allowed, required rear yard coverage of 60% where a maximum of 25% is allowed, a 1-foot rear yard setback where a minimum of 10-feet is required, an 8-foot side yard setback where a minimum of 12 feet is required and a 21 feet total side yard where a minimum of 26 feet is required. The applicant, his representative and several neighbors were present. Three neighbors presented testimony in support of the Variance while one was opposed stating that the canopy causes visual, odor and shadowing impacts to his property. The Community Development Director denied the Variance on the basis that findings could not be made to support the request.

On December 13, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an appeal by the applicant of the Director of Community Development action to deny the Variance request. Following public testimonies (See Minutes Attachment 10), the Planning Commission denied the appeal, thereby upholding the action of the Director of Community Development.

Previous Actions on the Site: The following table summarizes previous planning applications related to the subject site.

Following the Director of Community Development action to deny the Variance, the decision was appealed by the applicant/owner of the project site. As the basis for the appeal, the appellant states that the canopy is necessary to allow parking of his motor home and to protect it from debris falling from palms trees that overhang from an adjacent property.

Following the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the Community Development Director's action to deny the Variance, the decision was appealed to the City Council by the applicant/owner. The appellant's application, Variance Justifications and Letter of Appeal can be found in Attachments 7, 8 and 9.

The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. The project falls within a Class #1 Categorical Exemption that includes minor alteration of existing facilities.

The variance request is to allow a canopy structure attached to the rear of an existing 4-unit apartment complex. The proposed canopy is 14 feet high and 684 square feet in area. The proposed structure is setback 1 foot from the rear property line (at eave), 8 feet from the east property line and 13 feet from the west property line.

The proposed canopy results in total lot coverage of 45.9 percent and a rear yard coverage of 60 percent.

Use: The existing use of the site is a 4-unit apartment complex. The applicant proposes a canopy structure at the rear of the site for his motor home. The applicant has indicated the primary reason for the canopy is to protect his motor home from debris that falls from existing palm trees located on the property adjacent to and south of the subject property.

The subject application requests several deviations from the Sunnyvale Municipal Code including:

• a one-foot rear setback where a minimum of 10 feet is required
• an eight-foot side yard setback where a minimum of 12 feet is required
• a 21-foot total side yard setback where a minimum of 26 feet is required
• a total lot coverage of 45.9 percent where a maximum of 40 percent is allowed and
• a required rear yard coverage of 60 percent where 25 percent is allowed.

Site Layout: The narrow lot is occupied by a 4-unit apartment structure that is setback 15 feet from the front property line and 20 feet from the rear property line. A driveway is located on the west side of the property to provide access from West California Avenue to the 4 units and to a parking space located at the rear of the site. The apartment units are oriented toward the west with private yards located on the east side of the property.

Architecture: The existing apartment structure most closely resembles Mediterranean architecture with off-white stucco walls, brown wood trim and a ceramic tile roof. The proposed canopy consists of steel beams painted brown and a corrugated steel roof painted white and does not integrate well with the architecture of the existing 4-plex.

The following Guidelines were considered in the analysis of the project architecture.

Parking/Circulation: The 9 parking spaces provided for the subject property were adequate at the time the project was constructed. Each unit includes a 2-car garage and one guest parking space is provided. The proposed canopy covers the guest parking space. No parking is eliminated as a result of the proposed project.

Residential Zoning Standards of the Zoning Ordinance have been established to ensure appropriate development density and compatibility with adjacent properties within the same district. The proposed variances result in development density that is inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity of the project and creates visual impacts on surrounding properties. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or use involved which do not apply generally to property, improvements or uses within the same zoning district. The desire to provide a covered space for storage of a recreational vehicle on-site is not sufficient justification to warrant approval of a variance. Therefore, staff finds that the canopy as proposed (and built) and conditions of the site do not meet the criteria to make the findings for approval of a Variance.

The following goals and policies were considered to determine conformance with the General Plan.

The requested Variance will allow deviations from several Sunnyvale Municipal Code Development Standards. The proposed canopy creates a visual impact on surrounding properties as it can be seen from properties to the south, east and west.

The applicant appealed the Director of Community Development decision. The Planning Commission upheld the Director of Community Development's decision to deny the Variance on the basis that findings could not be made to support the Variance. No changes have been made to the application that would cause staff to re-examine the recommendation for the variance.

In order to approve a variance, the following findings must be made:

• Staff is unable to make the required Findings based on the justifications for this application. If the Planning Commission is able to make the Findings, then the application may be approved. The Findings that need to be met for the Variance are located in Attachment 1.

As part of the review process, staff may recommend Conditions of Approval be placed on an application. These conditions clarify or modify the applicant's proposal in order to meet requirements imposed by the Municipal Code, policies and standards set forth by the General Plan, Special Plans and the City Council and other specifications that staff believes will enhance the visual character and/or add greater diversity to the City. The Planning Commission upheld the Community Development Director's decision to deny this project because the Findings (Attachment 1) could not be made. However, if the City Council is able to make the required findings, staff is recommending the Conditions of Approval located in Attachment 2.

• Staff is recommending denial for this project because the Findings (Attachment 1) were not made. However, if the Planning Commission is able to make the required findings, staff is recommending the Conditions of Approval (Attachment 2).

No fiscal impact other than normal fees and taxes are expected.

Notice of the public hearing for this project was posted on the site and mailed to the adjacent property owners of the project site and the appellant (in addition, notices were sent to individuals who have expressed an interest in this project)

The staff report for this project was posted on the City of Sunnyvale's Website and a copy of the report was provided at the Reference Section of the City of Sunnyvale's Public Library. The City Council Agenda was posted on the City of Sunnyvale's Website and recorded for SunDial.

The applicant submitted 12 letters from neighbors in support of the proposed project (see attachment 4). In addition, one letter was submitted to the Department of Community Development opposing the proposal (see Attachment 5).

This item went to Administrative Hearing on November 10, 1999. Three neighbors presented testimony in support of the Variance. One neighbor who lives adjacent to where the canopy was built opposed the Variance stating that the canopy shades his property and makes his rear yard useless. He noted that other neighbors are not affected as much because their properties are not located immediately adjacent to the canopy. The Administrative Hearing minutes are located in Attachment 9.

An application for an Appeal of the decision by the Community Development Director to deny the Variance was accepted on November 10, 1999. The appeal application can be located in Attachment 6.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Appeal on December 13, 1999. Staff presented the staff report with a recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director's decision to deny the Variance. The appellant/applicant and his representatives presented testimony in support of the canopy as built stating that the canopy was built to protect his investment (motor home) from debris caused by palm trees. Three residents/neighbors and a tenant presented testimony in support of the canopy indicating that the canopy was not visible, therefore acceptable. Two neighbors presented testimony in opposition to the Variance that would allow the carport as built, stating that they are most effected by the canopy. The property owner behind the project site noted his opposition to the project because it is adjacent to his rear yard and it darkens and shades his property. There was also discussion regarding the fact that the applicant had not obtained building permits for the canopy.

The Planning Commission discussed options with the applicant/appellant and neighbor that could bring the canopy up to code. However, the Commission determined that in order to serve its intended purpose, the canopy would continue to require a Variance and that findings could not be made to support the Variance. The neighbor felt that the motor home is in the wrong location and the carport is generally not acceptable. Several Commissioners encouraged the parties to work together to find an acceptable compromise for the canopy.

The Planning Commission denied the appeal on a 4-0-1 vote, Commissioner Flanagin abstained and Commissioner Brown absent, thus upholding the Community Development Director's decision to deny the Variance.

An application for an Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal of the Community Development Director's decision was accepted on December 15, 1999. The appeal application and Variance Justifications are located in Attachments 7 and 8.

1. Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and the Community Development Director denying the Variance.
2. Approve the Variance with attached conditions.
3. Approve the Variance with modifications.

Alternative 1

Prepared By:

Deborah Ungo-McCormick
Project Planner

Reviewed By:

Trudi Ryan
Planning Officer

Reviewed By:

David S. Boesch, Jr.
Director, Community Development Department

Approved By:

Robert S. LaSala
City Manager

Attachments: 

1. Findings
2. Conditions of Approval
3. Site and Architectural Plans
4. Letters in Support of Proposal
5. Letter Opposing Proposal
6. Administrative Hearing Appeal Application
7. Planning Commission Appeal Application
8. Variance Justifications submitted by owner
9. Letter of Appeal by Owner
10. Minutes of Administrative Hearing of November 10, 1999
11. Planning Commission Draft Minutes of December 13, 1999

1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or use involved which do not apply generally to property, improvements or uses within the same zoning district. The subject lot is rectangular and of similar size and dimensions as a majority of the lots in the neighborhood. No lots in the area have canopy structures that encroach into required setbacks or exceed the maximum allowed lot coverage.
2. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district. While the proposed project will have a visual impact on surrounding neighbors, the impact will not be materially detrimental or injurious to property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity.
3. Such variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by other property within the immediate vicinity within the same zoning district. Staff does not find that a canopy encroaching into required setbacks can be determined a substantial property right.

1. The two-year expiration date of the Variance shall be measured from the date of the approval by the final review authority at a public hearing if the variance is not exercised.

2. Any major site or architectural plan modification shall be treated as an amendment to the original approval and shall be approved at an administrative hearing, except that minor changes of the approved plan may be approved administratively by the Director of Community Development.

3. This Variance shall only be valid in conjunction with detailed plans as submitted, and allows a 1-foot rear setback where a minimum of 10 feet is required, an 8-foot side yard setback where a minimum of 12 feet is required, a 21-foot total side yard setback where a minimum of 26 feet is required, a total lot coverage of 45.9 percent where a maximum of 40 percent is allowed and a required rear yard coverage of 60 percent where 25 percent is allowed. Any further deviations from the required development standards will require a separate Variance permit. Minor changes of the approved plans may be approved administratively by the Director of Community Development.

4. The proposed canopy shall be painted to match the existing structure.