Title
Appeal of Design Review Application No. PLN17-0060 - 40 Garden Road - Applicant: Chung Ly. Appellant: Robert Price. A public hearing to consider an appeal for Design Review Application No. PLN17-0060 for an approximately 978 square-foot two-story rear addition to an existing single-family home. The new addition includes new windows and doors, one new garage door, new siding, and a decorative belly band located on the side and rear elevations. The property is located within a R-1, One Family Residence zoning district.
Body
To: Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
From: Henry Dong
Planner II
Re: Appeal of Design Review Application No. PLN17-0060 - 40 Garden Road - Applicant: Chung Ly. Appellant: Robert Price. A public hearing to consider an appeal for Design Review Application No. PLN17-0060 for an approximately 978 square-foot two-story rear addition to an existing single-family home. The new addition includes new windows and doors, one new garage door, new siding, and a decorative belly band located on the side and rear elevations. The property is located within a R-1, One Family Residence zoning district.
BACKGROUND
On March 27, 2017, staff approved Design Review for an approximately 978-square-foot two-story rear addition to an approximately 1,337 sq. ft. one-story single-family home located at 40 Garden Road. The property is located within an R-1, One-Family Residence zoning district, and the surrounding neighborhood includes single-story and two-story homes. The proposed addition includes living space on the second floor and a new two-car garage on the ground floor (Exhibit 1). Access to the garage would be provided through a joint access easement that exists to provide a shared driveway with the neighboring property at 44 Garden Road. Although the access easement exists for the property, it has not been used by the applicant for vehicle access to the rear yard.
On April 5, 2017, Robert Price, owner of the adjacent property at 44 Garden Road, appealed the Design Review approval citing that the project should use an alternative method of ingress and egress for the rear addition (Exhibit 2).
DISCUSSION
The appellant’s basis of appeal concerns the use of the existing access easement encumbering his property at 44 Garden Road. The appellant indicated to staff that he opposes use of the driveway on his property because he feels that the easement was a mistake and should not have been granted to his neighbors from the beginning. It should be noted that the basis of appeal concerns items that are of a civil matter between the two property owners. The City has no jurisdiction over this civil matter other than to confirm that the easement exists and the easement provides adequate access to the proposed addition. Based on further conversations with the appellant, staff has summarized his concerns below:
1. Location of the driveway access easement: The appellant claims that despite there being an access easement, the actual easement is not long enough to allow the applicant to access the rear yard where the proposed garage is located. Prior to issuing Design Review approval, staff reviewed the legal description of the property, which describes the access easement as 130’ long by 9’ wide, and confirmed that the easement matches the plans provided by the applicant (Exhibit 3). Although not required for Design Review approval, the applicant has hired a licensed land surveyor to survey the property to further confirm the location of the driveway access easement.
2. Potential for cars to hit the appellant’s home: The appellant expressed concerns about the potential for the applicant’s cars to hit his house as they back out of the proposed garage, which is oriented with the garage door facing his home. The City’s parking ordinance, Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30-7, requires a certain amount of back up area for parking spaces. This back up area is intended to provide adequate clearance for safe and unobstructed vehicle access. The approved Design Review plans provide a 21’ back up area for the garage and is compliant with the Code requirements. Since the appeal has been filed, the applicant has revised the plans for the garage such that the parking spaces can enter at a 60-degree angle, which would provide greater maneuverability for vehicular access to the garage. This revision is not required to meet Code requirements, but is being proposed by the applicant to address the appellant’s concerns (Exhibit 4).
3. Potential to require removal of appellant’s gate: Although the access easement extends 130’ towards the rear of the appellant’s property, the appellant has installed a gate over the easement that essentially reduces the driveway to 101’ long. The appellant is concerned that the proposed addition and orientation of the garage will require him to remove his gate. The use of the easement and any obstruction of the easement by either party is a civil matter between the two property owners. However, the proposed orientation of the garage is such that ingress and egress does not affect the location of the appellant’s gate.
Conclusion: The appellant’s basis of appeal primarily concerns items that are of a civil matter between two property owners, for which the applicant has taken steps to address. This appeal does not raise issues that would change the Design Review findings for approval. Staff recommends the Planning Board uphold the Design Review approval, which complies with all development standards and design guidelines.
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. At the time of this report, Staff has not receive any comments for the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, which allows minor alterations of existing private structures involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that which exists.
RECOMMENDATION
Uphold approval of Design Review PLN17-0060 with findings contained in the draft resolution (Exhibit 5).
Respectfully Submitted,
Henry Dong
Planner II
Exhibits:
1. DR Approval and Plans
2. Appeal
3. Legal Description
4. Revised Plans
5. Draft Resolution