March 21, 2006

 

SUBJECT:	2005-0664 – Application located at 885 Lakechime Drive in an R-0 (Low-Density Residential) Zoning District.
Motion	Appeal of a decision by the Administrative Hearing Officer to deny a Variance from Sunnyvale Municipal Code section 19.34.030 to allow for a 264 square-foot accessory utility building with a 2.5-foot side-yard setback where 4 feet is required and a 2-foot rear-yard setback where 10 feet is required.

 

REPORT IN BRIEF

 

Existing Site Conditions	Single-Family Home
Surrounding Land Uses
North	Single-Family Home
South	Lakewood Park
East	Single-Family Home
West	Single-Family Home
Issues	Setbacks
Environmental Status	A Class 5 Categorical Exemption relieves this project from California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines.
Administrative Hearing	Denial of the Variance
Planning Commission Action	Denial of the appeal of the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer to deny the Variance
Staff Recommendation	Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the Use Permit.

 

Click here for map.  (.doc)

 

PROJECT DATA TABLE

*** Starred items indicate deviations from Sunnyvale Municipal Code requirements.

 

 

Description of Proposed Project

 

The proposed project is for a Variance from side and rear yard setback requirements to allow a 264 square foot workshop/shed (built without permits) at the rear of the site.  The workshop enables storage of tools and equipment in addition to construction activities for small household projects. Attachment E includes the applicant’s justifications and intentions for the workshop.

 

Background

 

Previous Actions on the Site: There are no previous planning actions related to this site until this year.

 

Neighborhood Preservation Involvement:  In April of 2005, the Neighborhood Preservation Division was notified of possible un-permitted construction taking place at the site. This construction is in the process of being removed in accordance with enforcement action taken by the Neighborhood Preservation Division. The resident was notified that the existing workshop at a separate location on the site would require permits. 

 

Public Hearings: An Administrative Hearing and Planning Commission meeting have been held regarding this Variance proposal. The Planning Commission upheld the denial by the Administrative Hearing Officer to deny the proposal. More information regarding these hearings is noted in the “Public Contact” section of this report.

 

The applicant requested a continuance from the originally scheduled City Council meeting of January  24, 2006.

 

Environmental Review

 

A Class 5 Categorical Exemption relieves this project from California Environmental Quality Act provisions.  Class 5 Categorical Exemptions include minor alterations in land use limitations, including setback variances.

 

Variance

 

Site Layout: The subject property is a mid-block lot, typical for this neighborhood, located near the corner of Lakechime Drive and Silverlake Drive.  The structure, which has already been built, is located 2’ from the rear property line and 2’ 6” from the side property line.   A 10-foot rear yard setback for one-story additions or accessory buildings is permitted, provided the encroachment does not exceed 25% of the area.  A maximum 276 square feet would be allowed on the subject site.  If the shed was moved to the minimum 10 foot setback, the proposed workshop would comply with the 25% allowable encroachment.

 

In order to meet setbacks, the shed would need to be positioned 10 feet from the rear and 4 feet from the side property lines.    However, at the 10-foot setback, the shed would need to be reduced in overall size, as it would be located too close to the home.  Sunnyvale Municipal Code Section 19.48.040 also requires a ten foot separation between buildings, but that can be reduced to five feet if no windows are facing each other).  This requirement would also require elimination or changes to the window locations of the workshop.

 

Easements and Undergrounding: An existing PG&E easement lies within the last five feet of the property. In certain situations, small structures may be allowed within this area. If this Variance application is approved, staff recommends including Condition of Approval #1D requiring a letter from PG&E permitting an encroachment within the 5-foot easement, prior to approval of a building permit. 

 

Architecture:  The architecture of the proposed building contains an angled roof design that is compatible with the home and other structures in the neighborhood.  The workshop is constructed with stucco siding to match the material used on the home.  The workshop also includes two metal roll-up doors at the front of the structure to enable easier access to larger equipment within the workshop.  The doors are not intended for vehicular access.

 

The following Guidelines were considered in the analysis of the project architecture.

 

Single Family Home Design Techniques (Architecture)	Comments
3.10 B. Accessory structures should use the same wall, roof and trim materials as the main structure.	The workshop is constructed with similar materials and design as the main home

 

Landscaping: There are no landscape requirements for properties located in the R-0 Zoning District. 

 

Parking/Circulation: Required parking is not affected by the proposal.  The site meets the required two covered and two uncovered spaces by Sunnyvale Municipal Code 19.46.050. 

 

Compliance with Development Standards/Guidelines:  The proposed workshop does not meet the required 4’ side and 10’ rear setbacks.  As noted previously in the report, all setbacks are required to be met within the R-0 Zoning District for accessory structures over 120 square feet.  Staff could consider a Miscellaneous Plan Permit application for encroachment within the 10-foot rear yard setback if the workshop was reduced to a 120 square feet or less instead of 264 square feet. The subject lot size is considered "legal non-conforming" with approximately 5,720 s.f., where a minimum 6,000 s.f. is required for the R-0 Zoning District. Many of the properties within the neighborhood have a similar lot size as the subject property.  Additionally, the lot width of the property is sub-standard at 55 feet where a minimum 57 feet is required for mid-block properties within the R-0 Zoning District.  The site is also not unique in this regard to homes within the surrounding neighborhood. 

 

Expected Impact on the Surroundings: The workshop is not visible from Lakechime Drive and is mostly obstructed from view from Silverlake Drive.  The structure can be seen by the neighboring property to the north over an existing fence. The applicant has submitted additional information noting other accessory structures within the neighborhood.   The current structure appears to be well constructed in terms of design and materials used; however, City staff reviews each situation on a case by case basis.  It appears that some of these structures have obtained the necessary permits from the City. The Neighborhood Preservation Division is actively reviewing code enforcement issues related to similar structures throughout the City.

 

 

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

 

 

Although not included within this report, the applicant has submitted a petition containing 116 signatures for support of the proposed Variance.  Attachment F also contains a letter of support from a nearby resident.

 

An additional letter (Pages 2-4 of Attachment F) from a neighboring resident raises concerns regarding the impact of the shed and future plans to expand.  The requirement for a ten or five foot separation of buildings does not apply to structures on separate lots; therefore if approved, the workshop would not impact the neighbor’s opportunity to expand. The resident also mentions concerns with privacy and possible conversion of the accessory building to living area. If approved, the shed shall not be converted to living space per Condition of Approval #1E.  The Building Division has also confirmed that the possible addition would not require fire rating due to the current location of the adjacent structure.

 

Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant submitted a letter from a doctor citing concerns with health and the quality of life for the resident (Attachment F, Page 5) as justification for keeping the shed.

 

Administrative Hearing:  On August 10, 2005, staff noted the application for the Variance was for an un-permitted shed built within the required rear and side yard setbacks.  At the public hearing, the Administrative Hearing Officer took the item under advisement and subsequently denied the proposal on Friday August 12, 2005.  The applicant appealed the decision on August 24, 2005. (The minutes from the Administrative Hearing are included in Attachment G.)

 

Planning Commission Hearing: On November 28, 2005, an appeal by the applicant was considered by the Planning Commission.  The applicant noted support from the neighborhood and the existence of other sheds within the neighborhood that are considered more visible to the public.  The applicant also noted the importance of the shed in consideration of the health concerns of the owner. One neighboring resident spoke in support of the appeal. Another resident noted the importance of enforcing the ordinance related to accessory structures within the Lakewood neighborhood, but also stated that the applicant should be given adequate time to remove the structure. The Planning Commission voted 7-0, to deny the appeal, and uphold the decision of the Administrative Hearing officer to deny the Variance application.  During the discussion, the Commission noted that the Neighborhood Preservation Division should work with the applicant to bring the property in compliance within a reasonable time frame. The applicant appealed the item within the required 15 days. (The minutes from the Planning Commission are included in Attachment H.)

 

Staff Comment on the Appeal:  The applicant/appellant submitted an additional letter prior to the scheduled City Council hearing which is located in Attachment #I.  The letter states that the applicant is willing to reduce the size of the shed. Although the proposed modifications would result in a smaller building that meets the side yard setbacks, staff is unable to support the proposal. Further reductions or an alternative proposal that meets setback requirements could be considered as described in the report. 

 

 

Notice of Public Hearing	Staff Report	Agenda
·         Published in the Sun newspaper ·         Posted on the site ·         6 notices mailed to property owners and residents adjacent to the project site	·         Posted on the City of Sunnyvale's Website ·         Provided at the Reference Section of the City of Sunnyvale's Public Library	·         Posted on the City's official notice bulletin board ·         City of Sunnyvale's Website ·         Recorded for SunDial

 

 

Findings and General Plan Goals: Staff is recommending denial for this project because the Findings (Attachment A) were not made.  However, if the Planning Commission is able to make the required findings, staff is recommending the Conditions of Approval located in Attachment B.

 

Conditions of Approval: Conditions of Approval are located in Attachment B.

 

 

1. Deny the Appeal and Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the Variance.

2. Grant the Appeal and Approve the Variance with attached conditions.

3. Grant the Appeal and Approve the Variance with modified conditions. 

 

 

Alternative 1.

 

Reviewed by:            
Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer

Prepared by: Ryan M. Kuchenig, Project Planner

 

Reviewed by:

Robert Paternoster, Director, Community Development

 

Approved by

Amy Chan, City Manager

 

Attachments:

A. Recommended Findings 

B. Recommended Conditions of Approval

C. Site and Architectural Plans (.pdf)

D. Photos submitted by the Applicant (.pdf)

E. Letter from the Applicant (.pdf)

F. Letters from Other Interested Parties (.pdf)

G. Minutes from Administrative Hearing meeting of August 10, 2005 (.pdf)

H. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of November 28, 2005 (.pdf)

I. Letter submitted by the Applicant since the Planning Commission Hearing (.pdf)    

 

ATTACHMENT A

 

 

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 Met)

 

Staff does not believe that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that deprive the property owner of rights or privileges.  Although, the site is considered undersized in terms of lot size and lot width for the R-0 Zoning District, it is similar to other properties within the vicinity.  The shed could be reduced and relocated to meet current setback requirements.

 

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 Met)

 

Staff finds that the proposed workshop is not materially detrimental to the property or to the immediate neighborhood as it screened and designed appropriately to mitigate aesthetic concerns within the immediate area. 

 

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 Not Met)

 

Similar structures within the neighborhood are required to meet the setbacks and lot coverage requirements of the R-0 Zoning District.  The applicant has noted other accessory buildings within the surrounding neighborhood.   In certain cases, City requirements are met and the necessary permits have been obtained.  As noted in the report, the Neighborhood Preservation Division assists with concerns related to code enforcement of accessory structures that do not appear to meet City ordinances.  Each proposal is reviewed on a case by case basis to determine the appropriate permit process. 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT B