Title
PLN24-0508 - Administrative Variance - 3119 Gibbons Dr. - Applicant: Lawrence Rugg. A public hearing to consider an Administrative Variance to allow the reduction of the rear yard setback from 12 feet to 5 feet, to accommodate an approximately 229-square-foot first-story addition located to the rear of the existing residential building pursuant to AMC 30-2.1.2.
Body
CITY OF ALAMEDA
PLANNING, BUILDING & TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
ITEM NO: 3-D
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PLN24-0508 - Administrative Variance - 3119 Gibbons Dr. - Applicant: Lawrence Rugg. A public hearing to consider an Administrative Variance to allow the reduction of the rear yard setback from 12 feet to 5 feet, to accommodate an approximately 229-square-foot first-story addition located to the rear of the existing residential building pursuant to AMC 30-2.1.2.
GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential
ZONING: R-1, Residential District
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
Categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations.
PROJECT PLANNER: Tristan Suire, Planner II
PUBLIC NOTICE: A notice for this hearing was mailed to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site, published in local newspapers and posted in public areas near the subject property. Staff have not received any public comments on this proposed project.
EXHIBITS: 1. Project Plans
2. Accessor’s Parcel Map with Notes
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the project with conditions.
PROPOSAL SUMMARY:
The applicant is requesting a Variance to allow a reduction in the rear yard setback from 12 feet to 5 feet to facilitate construction a single-story rear addition. The subject property has a very irregular geometry that results in typical setback standards reducing the buildable area of the lot to the extent that it constitutes an unnecessary hardship compared to otherwise similar lots in the same district and vicinity. The proposed variance would only reduce the rear yard setback to the extent necessary to overcome such hardship and would impose conditions of approval to ensure that the granting of the proposed variance will not have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same district and vicinity.
The subject property, 3119 Gibbons Drive, is a 5,610 square foot lot located on the north side of Gibbons Drive, east of Cornell Drive, in the East End neighborhood. The lot in question is an irregular quadrilateral, with a wide front yard property line and asymmetrical side yard property lines. Please see Exhibit 2 showing the Accessor’s Parcel Map with the geometry and approximate dimensions of the subject property.
The lot is zoned R-1, which imposes the following development standards for buildings:
• Maximum Main Building Coverage: 48%
• Minimum Front Yard: 20’
• Minimum Side Yard: 5’
• Minimum Rear Yard: 20’
In addition, this year the City adopted amendments to the Zoning Ordinance reinstating alternative setback standards for lots less than one hundred (100’) feet deep. As applied to the rear yard, the setback is equal to 20% of the average lot depth, with a minimum of twelve (12’) feet. The average lot depth of the subject property is fifty-five (55’) feet, which would result in an eleven (11’) foot setback, if not for the minimum of twelve (12’) feet, which is the actual reduced setback applied to the lot. However, despite the reduced twelve (12’) foot rear yard setback, the existing building is already legal nonconforming, as it encroaches into both the front and reduced rear yard setback areas, even though the main building covers less than 30% of the lot.
To put this in context, the existing building’s nonconformity with front and rear setbacks demonstrates the extent to which the strictly applied setback standards constitute an undue hardship. Specifically, the existing building is setback from the front yard property line 9’-8”, less than half of the required 20’, and the distance between the building and the rear yard property line is only 5’-5½”, less than half of the required 12’. The extraordinary width of the lot allows side yard setbacks to conform to current standards, with the west side of the existing building 5’-7½” from the west side property line, and the east side of the building over 20’ from the east side property line, due to the large portion of unbuildable area on the east side of the property where the front and rear yard setbacks intersect. The rear yard setback in particular limits the use of the property to little more than its current footprint, even though the existing structure covers less than 30% of the lot. By comparison, a typical lot of standard dimensions (40’ x 100’) in this district would have setbacks that limit it to 45% lot coverage, with an overall maximum lot coverage of 48%.
The variance request to reduce the rear yard setback from 12’ to 5’ is intended to facilitate a 497 square foot, first-story rear addition to the existing structure, and removal of 249 square feet of existing family room, which would be well within the development standards if proposed on a typical lot of standard dimensions in the same district. The proposed addition will not modify the street facing frontage, nor will it increase nonconformity of the front yard setback. Further, the addition will maintain compliant side yard setbacks and will only reduce the rear yard setback by 5½”, resulting in a 5-foot rear yard setback. It would also increase the lot coverage by about 4% to a total of 34%, within the maximum 48%, but also representing a total footprint area of 1,744 square feet, which is within the 1,800 square feet of developable area that a typical lot of standard dimensions would have access to.
The section of the Alameda Municipal Code regarding variances requires that no variance shall be granted which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same district and vicinity. To ensure that this is the case, conditions of approval are recommended in conjunction with the variance approval, which limit future projects such that the reduced setback will not result in any development that would not otherwise be permitted on other property in the same district and vicinity. Specifically, staff recommends a reduced standard for maximum main building lot coverage, as well as a prohibition on development above the first floor for any portion of the building that is within the reduced setback area. This approach remedies the hardship imposed by the exceptionally limiting geometry of the property but imposes new development standards to ensure that the variation from the established standard is only to the extent necessary to overcome this hardship, and to make certain that the variance will not constitute a special privilege.
PROPOSED FINDINGS:
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property involved or to the proposed use of the property.
The subject property is a 5,610 square foot interior lot located on the north side of Gibbons Drive. The lot has exceptionally unusual geometry, as it is an irregular quadrilateral with extraordinary dimensions (wider than it is deep). Specifically, compared to a typical 40’ wide x 100’ deep lot in this district and vicinity, the front property line is nearly three times the width, and the average depth of the lot is just over half as deep as the typical. Further, the lot is so shallow that the reduced rear yard setback allowed by zoning for lots under 100’ deep is insufficient to provide a reasonable development area (reduced rear yard setback to 20% of the average lot depth, with a maximum reduction to 12’). Finally, the existing 1,515 square foot residential building on the lot is considered legal nonconforming by virtue of its failure to meet front and rear yard setback standards, precluding all but the most minor alterations, in spite of the fact that the building covers less than 30% of the lot, well within the maximum 48% allowed by zoning.
2. Because of such exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, the literal enforcement of specified provisions of the Development Regulations Chapter would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship such as to deprive the applicant of a substantial property right possessed by other owners of property in the same class of district.
The exceptionally irregular geometry of the subject property imposes an unnecessary hardship when strictly applying the rear yard setback provision provided for in AMC Sec. 30-20, which deprives the applicant of the developable area possessed by other property owners in the same R-1 district, and in the vicinity of the subject property. The proposed reduction in the rear yard setback standard in conjunction with the proposed conditions of approval would allow the applicant the same developable area as a typical property in the same zoning district and vicinity.
3. The granting of the variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to persons or property in the vicinity.
The proposed variance will result in a reduction to the rear yard setback, intended to facilitate a first story rear addition, which would be built no less than 5 feet from the side and rear yard property lines. Many of the surrounding residential properties have accessory structures with comparable proximity to rear yard property lines, and compared to the existing conditions of site, the proposed addition will be only 5½ inches closer to the rear yard property line than the sunroom portion of the existing structure. The proposed conditions of approval are intended to limit future development of the site to ensure that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to persons or property in the vicinity.
4. The proposed variance will not violate any of the disqualifying provisions of AMC Sec. 30-21.2(d).
Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Sec. 30-21.2 authorizes the Zoning Administrator to approve a variance administratively for which all the above findings have been made, and the reduction in requirements is nonsubstantial. The Zoning Administrator may not find the requirements reduction to be nonsubstantial under three specific circumstances. First, a variance is considered a substantial reduction if a reduction in lot area or width would create a division of property subject to review under the subdivision regulations. The proposed variance will only reduce the rear yard setback standard and will not reduce lot area or width requirements. Next, if an application for a variance on the same lot has been heard by the Planning Board within one (1) year then the variance is considered a substantial reduction. There has been no application for a variance received regarding the subject property within one year. Finally, a variance is a substantial reduction if the application is for expansion in an existing nonconforming use or reduction in parking requirements. The project as proposed involves only conforming residential uses and does not reduce parking requirements. This finding can be made.
PROPOSED CONDITIONS:
1. Character and Extent: The Variance approves, with the following conditions, a reduction to the rear yard setback standards applied by both AMC 30-4.1(d)10 and AMC 30-5.6(a)1. b. The extent of the reduction will limit the rear yard setback standard to five (5) feet.
2. Development Standards: The following development standard shall apply to any project requiring a building permit on the subject property: No improvements located above the first story as defined by the Building Code are permitted within twelve (12’) feet of the rear property line.
3. Plans: A copy of this Approval shall be printed on the cover of any future Design Review and/or Building Permit plans.
4. Vesting: This approval is valid upon adoption and will not expire, this Variance will run with the land.
5. Compliance with Regulations: The proposed Variance is subject to, and shall comply with, all applicable City Ordinances and laws and regulations of other governmental agencies.
6. Changes to Approved Plans. This approval is limited to the scope of the project defined in the project description and as depicted in Exhibit 1 and does not represent a recognition and/or approval of any work completed without required City permits.
7. Indemnification. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the applicant (or its successor in interest) shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda, its City Council, City Planning Board, officials, employees, agents and volunteers (collectively, “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval by Indemnitees relating to this project. This indemnification shall include, but is not limited to, all damages, losses, and expenses (including, without limitation, legal costs and attorney’s fees) that may be awarded to the prevailing party arising out of or in connection with an approval by the Indemnitees relating to this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. The City may elect, in its sole discretion, to participate in the defense of said claim, action, or proceeding and the applicant (or its successor in interest) shall reimburse the City for its reasonable legal costs and attorneys’ fees.
PROPOSED CEQA DETERMINATION:
Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 - Class 5 - Minor Alteration to Land Use Regulations - alterations to land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including minor lot line adjustments, side yard and setback variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcels.