2003-0836 – Application for a Use Permit on a 9,680 square foot site to allow an overhead patio cover of 850 square feet in the rear yard area.  The property is located at 1582 Belleville Way in an R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District.  (APN: 320-04-033) SL

In attendance: Bob Douglas, Applicant; Victor and Tonga Van, Neighbors; William and Kaye Walster; Fred Bell, Administrative Hearing Officer; Steve Lynch, Project Planner; Mary Bradley; and, Gloria Barron, Recording Secretary. 

Mr. Fred Bell, Administrative Hearing Officer, on behalf of the Director of Community Development, explained the format that would be observed during the public hearing.

Mr. Bell announced the subject application.

Steve Lynch, Project Planner, presented the staff report.  He summarized the subject application and recommended approval of the Use Permit subject to the Conditions of Approval recommended by staff. 

Mr. Bell noted that he read the staff report and visited the site.  He then referred to the staff report and asked staff if the structure had a lattice type of lid or if it was a solid structure.  Staff responded that the structure was open lattice.  Mr. Bell then referred to Condition of Approval #6 and asked staff for clarification on the second bullet.  Staff stated that it should state 6 feet from the side property line and not 8 feet. 

Mr. Bell opened the public hearing.

Bob Douglas, Applicant, stated that he understood and agreed to the setbacks.  He took a minute to review the Conditions of Approval.  Mr. Bell asked Mr. Douglas if he agreed to the side and rear setbacks of 6 feet and 10 feet.  Mr. Douglas stated that he agreed to those setbacks.  Mr. Douglas stated that he was not aware of the permit process for the structure but now understood the proceedings.

Victor Van, Neighbor, stated that he felt the structure was really big. He submitted colored photographs of the structure to the Hearing Officer for review.  He also stated that he felt the structure was too high and asked if it could be lowered.  Mr. Bell responded that the maximum height allowed in that area under the Use Permit was 15 feet.  Mr. Van then stated that the Sunnyvale Municipal Code requires a minimum setback of 20 feet from the rear property line.  Mr. Bell noted that a structure could encroach within 10 feet provided it did not cover 25% of the area of the rear yard. 

Mary Bradley asked Mr. Bell why it was necessary to have a deviation from the statement in the Municipal Code that states that 20 feet is the preferred minimum setback.  Mr. Bell responded that it has to do with the discretion of the process having to do with bulk, mass, height and potential privacy impacts.  Ms. Bradley then stated that the structure puts a significant impact on the neighbor’s privacy due to the height.

Mr. Bell asked Mr. Van if he was comfortable with the setback of 10 feet.  Mr. Van stated that he preferred something more than the 10 feet.

Tonga Van, Neighbor, stated that she would prefer the 20 foot setback and would also prefer the structure to be lower. 

Kaye Walster also supported the 20 foot setback due to the structure being temporary and used for the pleasure and enjoyment by the neighbor. She stated that the structure is in the direct view of Mr. and Mrs. Van’s house.  Ms. Walster would prefer to see the structure set back 20 feet and have the height adjusted.   

William Walster concurred with the comments made by Mrs. Walster and stated that there does not appear to be a strong necessity for the structure to be less than 20 feet. 

Mr. Douglas asked Mr. Bell if the application would then go to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Bell explained the process and stated that after the final action has been determined there is a 15 day appeal period which allows anyone to appeal the final decision to the Planning Commission.  He then explained that there is a fee and application that would need to be completed.  Mr. Bell added that even the outcome of the Planning Commission can be appealed to the City Council.  Mr. Douglas stated compared to the surrounding lots his lot is the highest and that is due to natural dirt level and was not sure if the structure could be lowered.  He then stated that his side yards are 10 feet and he is 10 feet from another neighbor.  Mr. Douglas stated that he would like to be allowed to have the 10 foot setback and explained it would be covered with vines.  Mr. Bell confirmed with Mr. Douglas that the height was defined by the size and scale of the structure and is more of an aesthetic consideration than a structural consideration.  Mr. Douglas agreed and stated that at first he thought taller would look better but then decided to go with the lower height. 

Mr. Bell closed the public hearing.

Mr. Bell asked staff if the height of the vertical posts were 9 feet 8 inches or if that was the height of the cross beams.  Staff responded that it was the total amount of the structure and the total height being allowed. 

Mr. Bell concurred with the Findings provided by staff with a correction to Finding #2 to state: the structure as conditioned is a positive architectural feature that enhances the existing environment of the property; Mr. Bell also modified the following Conditions of Approval to state: #6 The rear setback shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the rear property line for a maximum of 25% coverage of the required rear yard area; The right side yard setback shall be a minimum of 6 feet from the side property line.  Mr. Bell stated that he is not insensitive to the issue of visibility of building mass and encroachment of privacy effects.  He noted that a two story residence can encroach within 10 feet of a property line to a height of 30 feet with windows and balconies. He then stated that he did not find that 9 feet 8 inches was inordinately tall considering the scale of the project or inordinately visible.  He further stated that considering the landscaping and screening he did not deem the structure an unusual intrusion.  Mr. Bell approved the Use Permit with the changes suggested to the Conditions of Approval.       

Mr. Bell stated that the decision is final unless appealed during the 15-day appeal period.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.

Minutes approved by:

__________________________________

Fred Bell, Principal Planner