2003-0642 – Appeal of a decision by the Administrative Hearing Officer approving a Use Permit and a Variance from Sunnyvale Municipal Code section 19.34.030 regarding the modified conditions on a 6,364 square-foot site to allow a retractable pool cover within the required front yard setback. The property is located at 651 Oneida Drive in an R-0 (Low-Density Residential) Zoning District. (APN: 201-28-007)

Ryan Kuchenig, Project Planner, presented the staff report. He summarized the proposed application highlighting the use and the site layout. He noted that the appellant is appealing the Condition of Approval. He reported that staff received two letters in opposition of the proposed application. He reported that the staff finds the pole to be unacceptable as proposed and staff was unable to make required Finding, therefore recommended denying the appeal and uphold the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer.

Vice Chair Moylan asked staff whether the reason for staff being unable to make the required Findings was due to the height of the pole being unacceptable. Staff clarified that the proposed location pole makes the pole not to be in character with the neighborhood. However, he added that if the pole is located further back from the street, then the pole would be acceptable and more in character with the neighborhood.

Vice Chair Moylan commented that during his site, it appears that the proposed location of the pole as conditioned by the Administrative Hearing Officer is more intrusive than the proposed location of the appellant. Ms. Ryan responded that staff felt that standard 20 foot setback is more in keeping with the neighborhood with or without the middle pole supporting the canopy.

Chair Babcock asked about the permits for the pool. Staff indicated that the pool received a building permit during the 60's which need to include the required fence, noting that there were no planning permits required for the pool.

Kevin Thompson, owner, thanked the Planning Commission for hearing his appeal. He asked whether they received the color renderings. He discussed his appeal and concern on how best to support the canopy. There would be a winch used to open and close the cover. He discussed two alternatives; his is to use the existing fence structure and attached a high wire. To minimize the visual intrusion, he would paint the upper portion dark brown and mount a trellis and plant flowering vines noting that they used to be there.

Vice Chair Moylan asked how many hours of the day the sun shines on the pool. Mr. Thompson indicated it was all day long.

Mr. Thompson then presented what it would happen if the pole is moved back, noting the need for a large horizontal pole to support the canopy.

Comm. Chu noted he had made site visit. He asked if the neighbors are complaining about the cover or the poles. Mr. Thompson stated that he had spoken to his neighbors and that there were five in favor and two against. Those opposed commented on the noise and look of the former temporary canopy. The noise would disappear when the wind is blowing, since it would be retractabel. So the concerns have been addressed.

Comm. Chu asked if the canopy was attached to the bottom or top of the balcony, commenting on the angle in the drawing making it seems pronounced. Mr. Thompson stated that it was pronounced because the angle of the view.

Mr. Thompson also stated that he is willing to use dark gray which would be less obtrusive than white.

Chair Babcock asked the applicant if he considered the canopy being attached in the other direction, perhaps from the garage. He stated that he had looked at it but it was more difficult to attach and thought it would be aesthetically unacceptable.

Thom Mayer, resident, asked if the fence is a permitted fence or grandfathered. Ms. Ryan indicated that it is a legal fence required for the pool.

Mr. Mayer asked the Planning Commission to make sure the driveway vision triangle requirements are met as it appears the vision triangle is blocked. He noted that the City does not approve a canopy and that the canopy could be set back 20 feet.

Chair Babcock asked staff to address the speaker's comments. Staff noted that the fence may have been installed before a requirement for a driveway vision triangle.

Ms. Ryan also noted that figures presented by the applicant may suggest that the planted area is part of the property, however, it is part of the public right of way, and the property line about 5 1/2 feet from the sidewalk.

Mr. Thompson stated that he had no issue with the location of 20-foot setback.

After discussion on the appropriate wording for a motion.

Comm. Chu stated that with the proposed landscaping plan, the mass of the pole would be mitigated. Further, having the canopy with a color that blends in would be visually acceptable. He finds the long horizontal piece to be more intrusive.

Vice Chair Moylan stated a big long horizontal piece is more of a problem for him in concurrence with Comm. Chu.

Comm. Chu added that extending the canopy from the garage would be low and unappealing.

Vice Chair Moylan commented that he would rather deny the Use Permit noting that there are two alternatives, one to deny the Use Permit or grant the appeal upholding the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer.

Chair Babcock did not support the motion. She felt that there are other ways to solve the problem. She would prefer to deny the appeal

Vice Chair Moylan asked Chair Babcock if she would rather deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer. Chair Babcock responded that if the condition as required by staff could not be done, she would rather deny the Use Permit.