CITY OF SUNNYVALE
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
MINUTES
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
2004-0525 - Application for a Variance from Sunnyvale Municipal Code section 19.40.040 (b; 3) to allow a shed that is nine-foot two inch high along Coronach Drive front yard at a setback of four feet where nine feet is required. The property is located at 1085 Helena Drive in an R-1 (Low-Density Residential) Zoning District. (APN: 320-12-043) GC
In attendance: Jack and Donna Greenbaum, Owner/Applicant; David and Frances Bartholomew; Greg and Susan Arnold; Fred Bell, Administrative Hearing Officer; Gerri Caruso, Project Planner; 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 and noted that he received and read correspondence dated May 26.
Gerri Caruso, Project Planner, presented the staff report. She summarized the subject application and was not able to make the required Findings and, therefore, recommended denial of the Variance. Ms. Caruso submitted pictures for review.
Mr. Bell referred to Condition of Approval #3 and asked staff where the vines would be planted. Staff responded that the vines would be planted along the street side. Staff noted that the applicant has planted a vine along a section of the fence where the shed it located.
Mr. Bell announced that he read the staff report and correspondence received in opposition of the project. He also noted that he visited the site.
Mr. Bell opened the public hearing.
Jack Greenbaum, Applicant, thanked staff for the opportunity to present their case. He explained that the 9 foot setback was impossible to meet due to a 50 year old pine tree located on the side. He stated that perhaps the shed could be moved about 5 feet from the side property line but would not be able to move it farther than that. Mr. Greenbaum explained that the shed was built professionally and they were told by the company that it met code. He added that he has tried contacting the company and tried working with them to have the issue resolved but they are not willing to work with him. Mr. Greenbaum submitted pictures for review and to also show that there is no other location to move the shed in the back. He stated that he feels it is a safe shed and meets all other necessary code requirements with the exception of the location.
Donna Greenbaum, Applicant, explained that the shed is located in the back of the lot and they have invested a lot of money into it. She also stated that it would be costly to have it removed. She then stated that they have tried accommodating the neighbors with a number of options to screen the shed. She noted that they have not had any other complaints from other neighbors. Ms. Greenbaum stated that the shed is tucked under the pines trees which shade it and when the vines grow they will screen the shed from the street side. Ms. Greenbaum stated that she was under the impression that through a Miscellaneous Plant Permit that was filed that would take care of the back structures.
Mr. Bell confirmed with Mr. Greenbaum that there were two other sheds on the property. Mr. Greenbaum agreed and stated that one is used for pool equipment and the other shed holds gardening equipment. He stated that the third shed is for his hobby. Ms. Greenbaum added that she spoke to the shed company about lowering the roof of the shed but due to the doorway and roots from the pines tree it was not possible.
Greg Arnold, Neighbor, thanked staff for a thorough investigation and report. He supported staff’s recommendation to deny the Variance or have the shed relocated or removed. He stated that the shed has caused them a lot of problems and is very visible from their yard. He also stated that it has impacted the enjoyment of their property, caused emotional distress and impacted their property value. Mr. Arnold noted that the gazebo and play structure in his back yard have passed city requirements and have permits. Mr. Arnold requested that the Variance be denied.
Susan Arnold, Neighbor, urged for the denial of the Variance or have the shed moved to a different location within the yard. She stated that she did not believe vines or lattice would screen the shed. She stated that she has been very upset and shocked with the placement of the shed.
Mr. Greenbaum stated that he was not aware how a shed could cause great stress. He stated that he did not believe it was a fire hazard and stated that the shed is beautiful. Ms. Greenbaum added that when the shed was built they had no idea that it would cause so many problems.
Mr. Bell closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bell made a correction to Condition of Approval #1 to state that the shed shall be lowered in height to a maximum of six feet six inches.
Mr. Bell explained that a Variance application requires making very specific findings in order to grant the Variance. He stated that every time a Variance application is granted it must be based on legitimate findings that are supportable.
Mr. Bell concurred with staff and denied the Variance because the Findings could not be made.
Mr. Bell stated that the decision is final unless appealed during the 15-day appeal period.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.
Minutes approved by:
Fred Bell,
Principal Planner