Previous Actions on the Site:

The property currently has a lot coverage of 42.5%, which exceeds the current standard of 40%. Staff has found no record of a variance for the property; however, a building permit was issued in 1975. Staff presumes that the building permit was properly issued.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 11, 2002 and continued the item so that the applicant could explore a redesign of the project. The applicant returned with a reduced sized project and at the November 25, 2002 Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission approved the Variance and the Design Review with the conditions listed in Attachment 2 (on a vote of 4-3). The findings of the planning commission noted the substandard size of the property, that the variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood, and that since the property is already exceeding the 40%, the 170 square foot additional coverage is not extraordinary. The three dissenting votes noted concerns that the findings appeared broad, that entire neighborhood has substandard lot sizes, and that the variance is a granting of special privilege and may open up a floodgate for small lots to develop large homes.

In order for a Variance to be granted, all of the following three findings must be made:

1. Because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property, or use, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the ordinance would not deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the same zoning district.
   
2. The granting of the 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.
   
3. Upon granting of the Variance, the intent and purpose of the ordinance will be served and the recipient of the Variance will not be granted special privileges enjoyed by other surrounding property owners within the same zoning district.

The applicant is proposing a 170 square foot bathroom addition in the rear yard (see site and architectural plans in Attachment 3). The bathroom addition would extend along the existing right side of the house would be 15’-4" in height. The lot coverage with the addition would be 46%, and the floor area ratio would be 55.7%.

The following Guidelines were considered in analysis of the project site design.

With the exception of lot coverage, the proposed addition meets all residential development standards.

The proposed project will add bulk and mass to an existing residential structure. The design and bulk of the home, with the addition, may not be compatible with surrounding homes. Although second-story additions typically have more height and bulk than that proposed, the unusual height of the proposed addition would appear to have similar impact of that of a second-story. With the encroachment of the addition into the rear yard, this may be of particular concern to adjacent neighbors to the right and rear of the property.

Of 19 lots located between Ahwanee Avenue and Alvarado Avenue on San Pablo Avenue, there are two, two-story homes, including the subject home. With the exception of the two corner lots on Ahwanee Avenue and San Pablo Avenue, the sizes of these lots range from approximately 5,100 square feet to 5,600 square feet. The percentage of lot coverage on two of these lots, including the subject lot, exceeds 40% (41% and 42.5%). The remaining lots have coverage ranging from 26% to 38%. With the proposed addition, the coverage of subject lot would be 46% (see Attachment 6).

Staff maintains the recommendation that the applicant consider expanding the second story of the house rather than increasing the lot coverage in the rear of the first floor. To meet the intended purpose of the addition with a second-story expansion, one possible solution could include expansion of the existing full bathroom on the first floor into one of the existing bedrooms, and the addition of a bedroom on the second floor. Although there are few two-story homes in the neighborhood, this design would appear more symmetrical and balanced than the proposed 15’-4" high addition that is setback 30’ from the existing second story.

If the council can make the findings for the variance, staff recommends a condition to redesign the addition to be more compatible with the design for the house. The floor area ratio, with a second-story expansion, would still exceed 45% FAR, but there would be no increase to the existing lot coverage.

However, if the council is unable to make the variance findings, the council could approved a modified design review for FAR greater than 45%, subject to final review by the Director of Community Development, without the need for further public hearing.

Councilmember Howe appealed this application, citing concerns with all of the findings. He requested information about lot sizes in the neighborhood (see Attachment 6). The planning Commission found that as the lot is below the 6,000 s.f. minimum for the zoning district there is something unique about the property that deprives the property owner of rights that others in the same zoning district have. Staff notes that although the lot is substandard, the lot coverage requirement is proportional to lot size (unlike setback, which is a fixed dimension).

• Findings and General Plan Goals are located in Attachment 1.
• Conditions of Approval are located in Attachment 2.

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

Public notice for the initial hearing on this item was as follows:

On November 25, 2002, the Planning Commission approved the Variance and the Design Review with the conditions of approval listed in Attachment 2. No members of the public attended the meeting, nor has any correspondence been received.

1. Grant the appeal thereby denying the Variance Request and the Design Review. Direct staff to work with the applicant on a revised design.
2. Deny the appeal upholding the action of the Planning Commission to approve the Variance Request and the Design Review with the Conditions of Approval found in Attachment 2.
3. Deny the appeal upholding the action of the Planning Commission with modifications.

Alternative 1.

Prepared by:
Christine Cannizzo
Project Planner

Reviewed by:
Trudi Ryan
Planning Officer

Attachments:

If the Variance were granted, the applicant would be allowed lot coverage of 46%. Given that the majority of surrounding properties have lot coverage ranging from 26% to 38%, a precedent may be established allowing greater than 40% lot coverage in the neighborhood.

1. The proposed project design and architecture does not conform with the requirements of the "Citywide Design Guidelines", specifically Building Design Scale and Character item B11 "Maintain the scale and character of the existing main structure in building additions by retaining similar proportions and rhythm present on the main structures".

The location and height of the proposed first story addition will alter the rhythm of the existing structure and will appear out of scale with the existing rear elevation.

Back to Attachments

In addition to complying with all applicable City, County, State and Federal Statutes, Codes, Ordinances and Resolutions, the Permittee expressly accepts and agrees to comply with the following Conditions of Approval.

1. This approval is for a Variance to allow lot coverage of 46% where 40% maximum is permitted per SMC Section 19.32.020, and for Design Review of an addition to an existing one-story home resulting in a floor area ratio of 55.7%.
   
2. 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 approval is not exercised.
   
3. The one-year expiration date of the Design Review shall be measured from the date of the approval by the final review authority at a public hearing if the approval is not exercised.
   
4. The Variance and approved Design Review shall be valid only in conjunction with detailed plans as submitted or as may be modified by the reviewing authority of the City during a public hearing. Minor changes of the approved plans may be approved administratively by the Director of Community Development.
   
5. Roof materials and exterior materials and colors of the addition shall match the existing house. This shall be noted on plans submitted for the building permit.
   
6. The existing second story shall be modified to add an arched window that matches the arched window on the front elevation of the bathroom addition.
   
7. One street tree shall be planted in the parkway strip.
   
8. The developer/applicant shall obtain a building permit.
   
9. The applicant/property owner shall reproduce the conditions of approval on the title page of the plans submitted for a building permit for this project.
   
10. Modify the design of the addition so that the height and roofline are more compatible with the design of the house (recommended by staff).