CITY OF SUNNYVALE
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
MINUTES
Wednesday, March 30, 2004
2005-0130: Application for a Use Permit and multiple Variances on a 6,500 square foot site from Sunnyvale Municipal Code sections 19.34.030, 19.48.050, 19.40.060, to allow 0-foot side and rear yard setbacks, greater than 25% encroachment of the rear yard area, and over 800 square feet of accessory utility buildings. The property is located at 583 Carroll Street (near Old San Francisco Rd) in an R-0 (Low-Density Residential) Zoning District. (APN: 209-31-014) RK
In attendance: Ed Plonka, Owner; Irene Plonka, Owner, Daryl Harris, Architect, Gerri Caruso, Administrative Hearing Officer; Ryan Kuchenig, Project Planner; and, Gloria Barron, Recording Secretary.
Ms. Gerri Caruso, Administrative Hearing Officer, on behalf of the Director of Community Development, explained the format that would be observed during the public hearing.
Ms. Caruso announced the subject application.
Ryan Kuchenig, Project Planner, presented the staff report. He summarized the subject application highlighting site layout and preservation of a large palm tree. He defined a Use Permit and Variance Permit. He also noted a change to Condition of Approval #3b to state that the material should match the existing home and structure. He also noted that no comments from the public were received for the project.
Ms. Caruso confirmed with staff the rear setbacks of the adjacent buildings and also confirmed that the shed was not built. Ms. Caruso then spoke to staff about the width of the lot not meeting current zoning standards.
Ms. Caruso opened the public hearing.
Daryl Harris, Architect, stated that he received and reviewed a copy of the staff report. He spoke about the uniqueness of the property and the surroundings. He then addressed the two Variances staff was unable to support. He then described the site layout and stated that currently the area in the rear yard is existing 39% where a 25% maximum is required. He stated that if they built it as proposed with 0 clearance they would be at 56% but if they were to move off the rear property line they would be back to 46% coverage. He added that once the shed is built there will be no usable rear yard. Mr. Harris then spoke about the preservation of a tree and some apple trees they are trying to retain.
Ms. Caruso stated that the uniqueness they are looking for is something that prevents them from meeting the code. Ms. Caruso felt that she could not make the Findings using that information. Ms. Caruso added that she would like to explore what would be left in terms of their usable rear yard. She reviewed the site layout with Mr. Harris. Ms. Caruso then asked for the total square feet of the shed. Staff responded that including the porch area it was 535 square-feet. Ms. Caruso asked Mr. Harris if there was any thought in doing a smaller shed or reducing the size of the porch. Mr. Harris stated that they could consider reducing the sizes of the porches and redesign the porches to make them comply.
Ed Plonka, Owner, stated that the original property was surrounded by orchards and described the surroundings. He stated that they have been unable to use the back area to grow plants due to poor sunlight. He then spoke about the south side of the property and stated that the parking lot for the clinics were located there along with a dumpster. Mr. Planca then spoke about the trees on site and stated that the diameters of the trees were between 10-12 inches. Ms. Caruso confirmed that the back area would be less desirable due to the transformer noise and dumpster activity that could be heard.
Ms. Caruso closed the public hearing.
Ms. Caruso took the application under advisement until Friday, April 1, 2005 to allow for a site visit.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:21 p.m.
Addendum
Ms. Caruso made a site visit on Friday, April 1, 2005. Based on the fact that the site is surrounded by detrimental commercial development including 14 foot high concrete walls, a commercial parking lot with a nearby trash enclosure and electrical transformer, the administrative hearing officer was able to make the finding that there were unique circumstances that prevented the property owner from enjoying a “residential feeling” in the rear yard. Allowing a shed against the property lines would help block out the surroundings and provide a more typical residential feeling on the project site.
Ms. Caruso approved the project with the following conditions.
1. Allow zero side yard setbacks
2. Allow a zero rear yard setback
3. Reduce the shed/patio room to a maximum 250 feet including porches.
Ms. Caruso stated that the decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission with payment of the appeal fee within the 15-day appeal period.
Minutes approved by:
Gerri Caruso, Principal Planner