March 16, 2004

SUBJECT:	2003-0903: Application for a 8,462 square foot site located at 777 The Dalles in a R-0 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District (APN:  323-15-038):
Motion	Appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission denying a Variance from SMC 19.46.060 (a) (4) to allow a 16 foot front-yard setback where 20 ft. is required.

REPORT IN BRIEF

04-093-Map

PROJECT DATA TABLE

Star indicate requested Variances from code requirements. 

ANALYSIS

Background

Previous Planning Actions on the Site: In 1968, a building permit was obtained to convert the original two-car garage into a one-car garage. At that time, this action did not require replacement of the covered parking space.

Administrative Hearing: The Variance request was reviewed at an Administrative Hearing of January 14, 2004.  The applicant was originally proposing a 14-foot front yard setback where 20 ft. was required.  Staff recommended denial of the Variance, stating concerns about the compatibility of the proposed addition on the streetscape. At the public hearing, the Administrative Hearing Officer took the matter under advisement to make another field visit and look at possible options for the applicant to meet the parking requirement.

After the field visit, the Administrative Hearing Officer approved a modified Variance request for a front yard setback of 16 ft. instead of the 14 ft. originally proposed.  This modified Variance reduced the visual impact of the addition on the streetscape and allowed the applicant to provide the needed parking. (Please see Attachment 5 for the discussion and findings.) 

On January 27, 2004 Councilmember Miller appealed the decision due to concerns about the magnitude of the requested Variance and a desire to have the decision reviewed by the Planning Commission.

Planning Commission Hearing: On February 23, 2004, the Planning Commission considered the appeal of this item.  After presentations by the applicant, the Planning Commission, on a 4-3 vote, granted the appeal and denied the Variance, stating that granting the Variance would constitute a special privilege and disrupt the look of the streetscape (Please see Attachment 6 for Draft Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant appealed this decision on February 26, 2004.

Description of Proposed Project

The proposed project consists of one-story additions to the side and front of a one-story house.  The left-side addition expands the kitchen and dining area. The front yard addition expands the one-car garage into a two-car garage.  The original proposal requested a 14-ft. front yard setback where 20 ft. is required to allow for the parking of two vehicles. The proposed setback required approval of a Variance.

With the conditions imposed by the Administrative Hearing Officer, the front yard setback was increased to 16 ft. over the original request of 14 ft.  For the remaining discussion, this project will be described as having a 16-ft. front yard setback, as per the Administrative Hearing Decision.

Environmental Review

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.

Variance

Use: The proposed use is an expansion of a kitchen, dining room and garage in a single family home. 

Site Layout: The existing one-story house is centered in the middle of the lot with a side-loading garage located 20 ft. back from the property line. The kitchen and dining room expansion have a side-yard setback of 6 ft. 4 in., meeting the requirements for the R-1 Zoning District. The garage addition extends the garage an additional 5 ft., creating a 16-ft. front-yard setback where 20 ft. is required to accommodate two cars in the garage.

Architecture:  The existing house is a one-story ranch home with a brick and wood siding exterior.  The same materials and architectural styles will be used for the proposed addition.

Parking/Circulation: The house currently has one covered parking space and two uncovered spaces on the driveway.  The proposed garage expansion has interior dimensions of 18.5 ft. in width by 20 ft. in depth to accommodate the parking of two vehicles and bring the property into conformance with current Code requirements. The garage area of approximately 370 sq. ft. is consistent with the requirement for a minimum size of 400 sq. ft. due to the separate room devoted to laundry, water heater and furnace. Condition of Approval #6 prohibits mechanical equipment or appliances in the garage to preserve the area for the parking of two vehicles.

Compliance with Development Standards

In March 2003, the City Council approved new regulations requiring upgrading of covered parking in conjunction with single-family home additions over a certain size. Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC) 19.46.060 (a) (4) requires single-family home additions which expand the size beyond 1,800 sq. ft. to provide two covered and two uncovered spaces.  To accommodate the expansion of the dining room and kitchen, the applicant is proposing to extend the garage 5 additional feet, requiring a Variance from SMC 19.34.030 for a 16 ft. front-yard setback where 20 ft. is required in the R-1 Zoning District.

Sunnyvale Municipal Code Section 19.34.030 also states that for developments of multiple homes in the R-1 Zoning District, a minimum front yard setback of 15 ft. may be considered, as long as the average setback for homes in the development is 20 ft. For individual projects such as this, the 20 ft. standard is applied.

If the Variance is denied, the applicant would have to reconvert the garage into two-covered parking spaces in order to add any further square footage to the home. Otherwise, the proposed project meets all development standards including lot coverage, side and rear yard setbacks and uncovered parking.

Expected Impact on the Surroundings

The proposed garage addition would not have a significant privacy impact on the surrounding neighbors. There would be a visual impact on the street as the garage would be closer to the sidewalk than the surrounding structures. Most of the homes on The Dalles and in the surrounding neighborhood meet the 20 ft. front yard requirement. 

Comment on the Appeal

The applicant chose to make the appeal; however, no specific reason was given.

Findings, General Plan Goals and Conditions of Approval

In order to approve the Variance, specific findings must be made as listed in Attachment 2.  As shown in the minutes from both the Administrative Hearing and the Planning Commission hearing, there are multiple complex issues involved in this decision that can affect the Findings. Through the course of these hearings, three primary questions arose:

1. Does the expense associated with reconverting the garage constitute an extraordinary circumstance or hardship?
2. Will the proposed 16 ft. front-yard setback be detrimental to the streetscape?
3. What is the appropriate balance between facilitating reinvestment in single-family property versus meeting the parking standard?

Through the information obtained at the Administrative Hearing, the applicant made a compelling case that the reconversion of the garage would be a financial hardship. To make the necessary findings, the Hearing Officer also increased the proposed setback to 16 ft. to reduce the visual effect on the streetscape and bring the site into compliance with the minimum setback of 15 ft. for multi-home developments in the R-1 Zoning District.

At the Planning Commission hearing, the applicants made a presentation on the hardship of reconverting the garage and their desire to improve their property. The majority of the Planning Commissioners did not find their arguments on extraordinary circumstances compelling, and denied the Variance with a 4-3 vote.  The findings stated that they did not find the financial hardship an extraordinary circumstance and expressed concerns about the visual impact on the streetscape.

As demonstrated at these two meetings, there is significant discussion about making a suitable case for the findings and accommodating the newly-instituted parking requirement for two covered parking spaces for all homes greater than 1,800 sq. ft.  

After reviewing the discussion at the Planning Commission hearing, staff feels it’s appropriate to support that decision. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission’s finding that based on the evidence presented at the Commission’s hearing, one of the findings for the Variance could not be made.  Staff recommends that unless the applicant can provide other evidence to support the findings, the City Council deny the appeal. If the City Council is able to make the required findings, staff is recommending the attached Conditions of Approval.

• Findings and General Plan Goals are located in Attachment 1.
• Conditions of Approval are located in Attachment 2.

Fiscal Impact

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

Public Contact

Notices of the Appeal were sent to surrounding property owners and residents. The site was posted with notice of the Appeal.

Alternatives

1. Deny the appeal and deny the Variance as recommended by the Planning Commission.
2. Uphold the appeal and approve the Variance with recommended conditions.

Uphold the appeal and approve the Variance with modified conditions.

Recommendation

Alternative 1. 

Prepared by:

Diana O’Dell
Project Planner

Reviewed by:

Trudi Ryan
Planning Officer

Reviewed by:

Robert Paternoster
Director, Community Development 

Approved by:

Amy Chan
City Manager 

Attachments:

1. Recommended Findings
2.  Recommended Conditions of Approval
3. Site and Architectural Plans
4. Letter from the Applicant
5. Minutes from Administrative Hearing Officer Decision (pdf format)
6. Minutes from Planning Commission Hearing (pdf format)

Recommended Findings - Variance

1. Because of 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 found to deprive the property owner or privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the same zoning district. (Finding Not Made)

• The lot size is standard for the surrounding area and the Zoning District.
• The house plan is typical for the neighborhood.
• The proposed use is not exceptional or extraordinary for the surrounding neighborhood.
• However, staff was not able to find many other instances on The Dalles where the garage had been converted previously.  This appears to be an unusual circumstance.
• The garage for this house was previously legally converted into a one-car garage with an adjacent laundry area. The floor for the enclosed area was constructed with a very thick (20-inch) concrete foundation that would be costly to convert back to garage.
• The subject site is located across the street from a public park resulting in more vehicles parking on-street placing making on-site parking more important in the neighborhood.

Based on the testimony given at the Planning Commission Hearing of February 23, 2004, staff was not able to make the finding that reconverting the existing garage would be a substantial financial hardship. Staff and the Planning Commission were not able to make this finding.

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. (Finding Made)

The reduction in front yard setback will not create a privacy impact for the surrounding neighbors or create a significantly detrimental visual impact on the streetscape. 

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

The intent of the front-yard setback ordinance is to create a compatible neighborhood setback with adequate distance between the buildings and the streets.  Sunnyvale Municipal Code states that subdivisions in the R-1, R-0 and R-2 Zoning District may have varying front yard setbacks that range from 15 ft. to 20 ft.  The Variance to allow an expansion of the garage area into the average 20-foot front yard setback would still be within the 15-foot minimum setback for subdivisions. This meets the intended goal of creating a variety of front yard setbacks, while allowing the property owner to create a conforming parking situation.

Back to Attachments

Recommended Conditions of Approval - Variance

Staff recommends denial of the Variance.  However, if the City Council is able to make the required findings, staff is recommending the following Conditions of Approval.

In addition to complying with all applicable City, County, State and Federal Statues, Codes, Ordinances, Resolutions, the Permittee expressly accepts and agrees to comply with the following Condition of Approval for this Permit.

1. The Variance shall expire two years from the date of approval by the final review authority if not executed or if the use is discontinued.
2. 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.  This Variance approval is for a front yard setback of 16 ft. where 20 ft. is required.
3. 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.
4. The applicant shall obtain a building permit.
5. 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.
6. No mechanical equipment (e.g. water heater, furnace) or large appliances (e.g. washers, dryers, and freezers) may be located in the garage.

Back to Attachments