This application was reviewed at the January 13, 2003 Administrative Hearing.

Upon review, the application was denied by the Hearing Officer. The Planning Commission considered the appeal on February 10, 2003 and denied the request.

The applicant desires to add additional living space to accommodate a den and a bathroom. The addition is one story and is to be consistent with the existing rooflines and materials of the home.

A Class 1 Categorical Exemption relieves this project from California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines. Class 1 Categorical Exemptions include minor additions to existing facilities.

Use: The applicant proposes a single-story addition to expand the living area of the home. The addition totals 674.6 square feet where 513 square feet is the maximum permitted. The applicant had two particular features that factored into the design of the addition. The existing fireplace and an overhead utility pole located towards the northeast corner of the property. The desire to obscure the view of the utility pole from other portions of the house required extending the addition to the 10-foot rear yard setback. In doing so, it elongated the room to a point that the applicant believes the room needed to be balanced with an appropriate width. The applicant then extended the width of the addition to the edge of the existing fireplace to maximize the available space for the room.

As part of the justification for the addition, the applicant contends that they have an exceptional situation due to the substandard lot area and width of the property, as well as that they are below the 45% FAR standard for intensity of development.

As a general rule, Planning Staff has not endorsed justifications for an exceptional situation (Criterion 1) when the grounds are solely based upon substandard lot area or width when applied to rectangular shaped lot that is of the same character to that of the neighborhood. Since the year 2000, two variance requests for lot coverage based on an exceptional situation of a substandard lot size were approved. The situation in the previous applications differed from this application in that the lot coverage variance was after street dedication requirements and that their lots were 50% smaller than minimum lot size of the underlying R-2 Zoning District. Three applications for variances similar to the request were denied. Most recently, on January 8, 2003, the City Council upheld an appeal of an approval of a variance request (VAR 2002-0683) by finding that a substandard lot is not exceptional when it is of a like nature to those in the neighborhood.

The applicant's situation is not unique. The neighborhood consists of numerous lots that are of identical dimensions. The existence of an overhead utility pole is also not a unique or exceptional feature attributable to the site. While the desire to block the view of the pole is reasonable, the situation is prevalent throughout Sunnyvale and of concern throughout the neighborhood.

If the variance is not approved, the applicant's alternative is to reduce either the width or depth of the proposed room addition. A second alternative would be to build a second-story addition. The applicant has stated they do not desire to build a second-story addition to accommodate additional living area.

The parcel is an interior lot that is rectangular in shape. The dimensions are 71 ft. x 110 ft. that totals 7,810 square feet. The standard for the minimum lot size in the R-1 Zoning District is 8,000 square feet and a minimum width of 76 feet. The site consists of a single-story home and an attached two-car garage. There are no trees of significant size located in the area of the proposed addition. The proposed addition will replace an existing uncovered patio. The property also has a six-foot high fence along the perimeter of the side and rear yards.

The neighbors to the north and east are single-story homes and the neighbor abutting the property to the west has a two-story home. According to Santa Clara County Assessor records there are 13 lots situated upon The Dalles, within the immediate vicinity of this site, with identical lot dimensions. These lots that have a range of lot coverage from 21.6% to 36.2%. Additionally, other lots in the area range primarily between 7,500 and 9,000 square feet with lot coverage between 18.7% and 30%.

Compliance with Development Standards

The applicant has complied with all development standards; excepting Section 19.32.020 that restricts the maximum area of a lot that can be devoted to structures is 40 percent.

Design Review

The new roofline of the addition will be the same as the existing home's design. Most homes in the neighborhood are of a single-story design with similar rooflines and materials.

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

The proposed project will add bulk to an existing residential structure. The design and bulk of the home, with the addition, will be similar in character to the surrounding neighborhood, but not at the same intensity as the neighborhood. As a one-story addition there will be minimal direct impacts to the abutting neighbors to the north and to the east. The indirect impact of approving the variance would be to set a precedent for utilizing the substandard lot size as grounds for satisfying Criterion 1.

Staff was not able to make the required Findings based on the justifications for the Variance. Staff was able to make the required Findings based on the justifications for Design Review.

• Findings and General Plan Goals are located in Attachment 1.
• If the application is approved, Conditions of Approval are located in Attachment 2.

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

At the Administrative Hearing held on January 13, 2003, staff presented an oral staff report and testimony was taken from the applicant.

After deliberation the Hearing Officer concluded that lot coverage is a proportional standard that is equally applied to all sizes of lots within all residential zoning districts. There was not an exceptional situation for the site and there was no inequality in levels of development in the neighborhood. Although the Hearing Officer generally supported the applicant's efforts in the design of the addition, she could not make all three required findings and denied the application for the variance.

The applicant provided testimony, including a letter of support from an abutting neighbor, about the design considerations for the proposed addition. The applicant also addressed her justifications for the property, including the substandard lot size and that a better way to measure intensity of the use would be floor area ratio. The current lot coverage standard is a disincentive to maintaining a one-story home design.

Staff presented an oral staff report and testimony summarizing the application and the Hearings Officer's decision. Testimony was then taken from the applicant and a neighbor in support of the application. After deliberations the Planning Commission concurred with staff and could not make the required three findings. The decision was a 5-0 vote, with two commissioners absent.

Attachment 6 includes three letters of support for the applicant's proposal. In summary, the letters support the "nominal" degree of the variance request and prefer the one-story addition to an alternative of adding a second story to the home.

1. Deny the appeal and uphold the denial of Variance and Design Review.
2. Approve the appeal and grant the Variance and Design Review with attached conditions.
3. Approve the appeal and grant Variance and Design Review with modified conditions.

4. Direct staff as to where additional environmental analysis is required.

1. Because there is not 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 is not found to deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the same zoning district.

Staff has not determined that either an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance is applicable to this property. The property is substandard in area and width, but is in conformance with other properties within the neighborhood. None of the identical substandard properties have a lot coverage that exceeds 36.2 percent. Staff can not find that the property owner would be deprived of privileges that are enjoyed by other properties within the vicinity.

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.

The intensity of the proposed use exceeds the standard coverage threshold of 40%. It may be found that the proposed 42% intensity of use is not detrimental to the public welfare when compared to Floor Area Ratio measurement of intensity. The City of Sunnyvale exercises additional discretionary review for development of single family homes with an intensity exceeding 45% FAR. The applicant's floor area ratio is below such a threshold.

3. Upon granting of the Variance, the intent and purpose of the ordinance will still not be served and the recipient of the Variance will be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners within the same zoning district.

The intent of the ordinance is to regulate the intensity of development by reducing the mass of buildings, uniformity of development, and providing for usable open space. Although the plan would maintain useable open space, the building would be larger than other development in the neighborhood. Staff can not find that the property owner would not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by surrounding property owners as a result of this request.

Findings – Design Review

1. The proposed project design and architecture does 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".

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 maximum lot coverage as required by SMC Section 19.32.020, and for Design Review of a single-story addition resulting in a lot coverage of 42%.
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 developer/applicant shall obtain a building permit.
7. 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.