Title
A Public Hearing to Consider: PLN16-0592 - 1310 Court Street - Applicant: Michael and Jen McAnaney. The applicant request Planning Board approval for a Design Review and Variance to waive parking requirements for the conversion of an existing basement to create more than 750 square feet of new floor area in a single family home.
Body
To: Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
From: David Sablan
Planner II
BACKGROUND
Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30-36 Design Review requires design review approval for minor modifications to the exterior of a home. The applicant at 1310 Court Street is proposing to excavate an existing basement to create just over 1,000 square feet of new living space (Exhibit 1). The components of the project that require Design Review are: 1) the addition and alteration of windows in conjunction with new floor area, 2) the removal of an existing chimney for purposes other than seismic hazard abatement, and 3) the enclosure of an exterior staircase.
AMC Section 30-7.6 Off-Street Parking requires Alameda homeowners to add an additional parking space when adding over 750 square feet of additional living space, if the property does not currently conform to the off-street parking requirements. In this case, the ordinance requires two off-street parking spaces and the property does not have any off-street parking spaces. Previous property owners built a fence that obstructs access to the existing single-car garage, in violation of AMC Section 30-7.3. Therefore the applicant is required to remove the obstruction and re-establish the single-car garage and to add at least one off-street parking space. The applicant does not want to remove the obstruction nor add the additional space; therefore, the applicant is requesting that the Planning Board approve a variance from AMC Section 30-7.6 and waive the requirement to add an additional parking space and waive Section 30-7.3 which requires that exiting parking be maintained.
ANALYSIS
The exterior modifications to the home are well-designed and are consistent with the City’s Design Review Manual. The proposed windows and window trim match the architectural style of the house in type and material. Areas where existing windows are being closed will be patched with siding to match the rest of the house. The enclosure of an exterior stairwell will match the existing previous addition with a consistent material and building form. The existing chimney is not an historic or important architectural feature that needs to be preserved. Therefore, staff is able to make two of the three findings necessary for Design Review. However to approve Design Review, the application must also be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and AMC.
Staff is unable to make the finding that the project is consistent with the off-street parking provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. AMC Section 30-7.6 Off-Street Parking requires Alameda homeowners to add an additional parking space when adding over 750 square feet of additional living space, if the property does not currently conform to the off-street parking requirements. The AMC requires two (2) off-street parking spaces. Additionally, AMC Section 30-7.3 requires that established off-street parking spaces remain unobstructed. Previous property owners built a front yard fence that obstructed the existing off-street parking space.
Therefore, to comply with the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant must: 1) re-establish access to the existing off-street parking space, and 2) add a second parking space, or reduce the addition from 1,000 square feet to 750 square feet. The applicant would like the Planning Board to grant a waiver or variance from the parking provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an addition of 1,000 square feet and legalize the removal of all parking from the property.
Staff cannot recommend approval of the request for a waiver of the parking requirements for the following reasons:
1. AMC Section 30-7.13 states that the Planning Board may waive parking requirements if the Planning Board is able to make specific findings. In this case, under Section 30-7.13, the only way for the Planning Board to waive the parking requirements would be to find that no parking is necessary for single-family homes. The finding would need to be supported by a Parking Demand Study prepared by a qualified professional arguing that single-family residential uses do not require any off-street parking. Section 30-7.13 states that the Planning Board may waive parking based upon a “Parking Demand Study that demonstrates that the demand for parking from the use is less than the minimum required by subsection 30-7.6 <https://www.municode.com/library/ca/alameda/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CHXXXDERE_ARTIZODIRE_30-7OREPALOSPRE_30-7.6SCREMIMAOREPASP>. The parking demand study shall be prepared by a licensed transportation professional and approved by the Public Works Director.” To prepare such a study, the transportation professional would need to argue that single-family homes do not require two parking spaces. Staff does not believe that this is a practical or useful exercise for the applicant. If the Planning Board wishes to pursue this course of action, the Planning Board could approve the Design Review application, subject to City Council approval of a Zoning Text Amendment to eliminate the off-street parking requirements for existing single- family homes should a Parking Demand Study support such an action. Staff is not recommending this approach because staff does not believe that the City Council will support or adopt the necessary Zoning text amendment.
2. AMC Section 30-21 allows the Planning Board to grant a variance, if there are unusual circumstances related to the physical configuration of the property which effectively makes the citywide Zoning requirement unfair or unjust for this particular property owner. Staff is unable to find any such physical circumstances to justify a variance in this case. The property does not meet the parking requirements not because of unique physical characteristics of the property itself, but as a result of actions taken by the past and current property owners. The reason the property does not have any off-street parking and does not meet the Zoning requirements is because prior property owners decided to fence off and obstruct access to the existing parking and the existing property owner does not wish to remove the obstructions. City records indicate that the subject home, like many Alameda residential lots, historically accessed a garage in the back yard through a long driveway along the side of the house. The property has an easement and encroachment agreement with the adjacent property to ensure access to the parking areas at the rear of the property. (Exhibit 2). Similar situations exist on this block of Court Street. In the 1990’s, a front yard fence was built that obstructed the driveway and the driveway behind the fence was subsequently removed and landscaped leaving only the driveway curb cut at the edge of the sidewalk. None of the work done to block the access to the existing parking was done with City permits or approval. Despite staff’s reservations, the Planning Board could consider making variance findings based upon the above facts and approve the design review application and the parking variance.
3. AMC Section 30-7.3 requires existing off-street parking remain unobstructed in operation unless it is replaced with parking elsewhere on the property. Staff is unable to make any argument that there are unusual circumstances related to the property that justifies the property owner choosing to eliminate an existing parking space in violation of Section 30-7.3.
Conclusion and Recommendations:
Option 1: Modify and Approve the Proposal: Staff believes the exterior modifications proposed by the applicant are of good quality and consistent with the City’s Design Review Manual. However, to comply with the Alameda Municipal Code, the applicant should: 1) re-establish access to the existing off-street parking on the site, and 2) add a second space or reduce the size of the addition to 750 square feet. Exhibit 3 is a draft Resolution approving the project with the above conditions. Staff is recommending this option and the attached resolution.
Option 2: Modify the Zoning: Alternatively, the Planning Board could approve the Resolution with an alternative condition that the approval does not become effective until such time that the City Council approves an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow residents to expand their homes without providing additional parking (Section 30-7.6) and allow residents to remove existing parking (Section 30-7-3). Essentially, the Zoning amendment would eliminate any requirement for off-street parking for existing single-family homes or the expansion of single family homes. This amendment, if approved by the City Council, would allow the applicant to construct a 1,000 square foot expansion without re-establishing the existing parking or adding a second space. Alternatively, the Planning Board could recommend the elimination of the 750 square foot trigger requirement (i.e., addition of living space in excess of 750 square feet triggers the requirement of an additional off-street parking space). This would allow the applicant to add 1,000 square feet of livable space, but they would still need to re-establish the existing parking space.
From staff’s perspective, the idea of eliminating or modifying the 750 square foot trigger for providing an additional parking space is worthy of discussion. As a result of the 750 square foot rule, the City regularly approves additions on small Alameda houses without any parking on the condition that the property owners add a curb cut and a single-car parking space on their property. This requirement gains one (1) off-street parking space for private use by the property owner, but usually results in the loss of one (1) public on-street parking for the neighborhood.
For this applicant, eliminating the 750 square foot rule only solves half the problem. The applicant would also need the City Council to amend AMC Section 30-7.3 which prohibits removal of existing parking. For this reason, staff does not recommend this alternative because staff believes there is a low likelihood of success for the applicant and the process will also be long and expensive for the applicant.
Option #3: Approve Project With Variance: Alternatively, the Planning Board could develop findings for a variance determining that the configuration of the subject parcel is an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance and the literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance provisions results 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 Planning Board’s findings would need to explain not only why the requirement for additional parking is a hardship but also why the requirement to keep the existing space is a hardship that is unique to this particular property. Staff is unable to make these findings. Staff is also concerned that if the Planning Board makes such findings, the Board’s findings will establish a precedent that the Planning Board is unwilling to following in future applications.
If the Planning Board chooses to proceed with Option 2 or Option 3 to allow the applicant to eliminate the parking on site, then staff would recommend that the Planning Board require that the applicant close the curb cut to allow the neighbors of the property to benefit from one additional public on-street parking space in front of the home.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is determined to be Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e), which allows minor alterations of existing private structures involving negligible or no expansion provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet. The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive.
PUBLIC NOTICE and Comments
Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project’s boundaries were notified of the public hearing and given the opportunity to review and comment on the proposal. The applicant submitted a statement along with supporting letters from neighbors as part of the project application (Exhibit4).
RECOMMENDATION
Hold a public hearing and approve Design Review and deny a Variance and Request for Parking Reduction, application no. PLN16-0592 with conditions set forth in the draft resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
David Sablan
Planner II
Exhibits:
1. Project Plans
2. Easement and Encroachment Agreement
3. Draft Resolution
4. Applicant Statement and Public Correspondence