Docstoc

Oakland City Planning Commission

Document Sample
Oakland City Planning Commission Powered By Docstoc
					Oakland City Planning Commission                                              STAFF REPORT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Case File Number CMDV02-010                                                           October 2, 2002

                     Location: 3933 Delmont Avenue(APN 037A-2763-010-00) (1/9/02)
                     Proposal: To legalize an existing Secondary Unit and a Variance for decreasing
                                the required sideyard from five feet to one and one-half feet.
            Applicant/Owner: Lew & Elise Martin
           Case File Number: CMDV02-010
  Planning Permits Required: Major Conditional Use Permit to legalize an existing Secondary Unit,
                                and a Minor Variance to reduce the required sideyard (5’-0” minimum
                                required; 1’-6” proposed), and Design Review of the existing structure.
                 General Plan: Detached Dwelling Type
                       Zoning: R-30, One-Family Residential Zone
                Environmental Exempt, Section 15301; State CEQA Guidelines; minor alterations
               Determination:
               Historic Status: Not a Potential Designated Historic Property (PDHP); Survey rating: X
     Service Delivery District: V Central East Oakland
        City Council District: 6
      For further information: Contact case planner Chris Candell at 510-238-6986 or
                                ccandell@oaklandnet.com

SUMMARY

The applicant is proposing to legalize an existing secondary unit located within an existing one-story
structure. To make the unit conforming, the applicants propose to move the division between the existing
units so that the primary unit will be 1,134 square feet and the secondary unit will be 554 square feet to
conform to secondary unit regulations.

As conditioned, the project will comply with all secondary dwelling unit criteria established in Section
17.102.360 (see secondary unit checklist, Attachment B). No external changes are proposed. Portions of
the structure were built illegally.

The illegally built portions of the structure generally match the architectural style of the original portions
of the structure. The project is consistent in character with the surrounding neighborhood that consists of
mostly one-story residences. The findings can be made to support the Minor Variance to allow the
existing building to remain within the required side yard. Staff recommends approval of the project.




                                                            (SEE REVERSE SIDE)                       #6
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                     October 2, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-010                                                                                         Page 3

      PROJECT DESCRIPTION

      The applicant is proposing to legalize an existing secondary unit located within an existing one-story
      structure. Portions of the building were constructed without building permits. A variance is requested to
      legalize a non-conforming sideyard. To make the unit conforming to the secondary unit requirements,
      the applicants propose to add one wall at the entrance to the existing secondary unit living room. This
      room will then be added to the existing primary unit. A closet off the existing secondary unit living room
      will be opened to connect the two units via the primary unit laundry room. The demolition of the closet
      walls is not shown on the plans (See site plans/floor plans, Attachment A). The shifting of spaces within
      the structure will create a primary unit of 1,134 square feet and a secondary unit will be 554 square feet.
      This modification will allow the units to conform to secondary unit regulations. When code enforcement
      visited the site there were three independent units on the property which can be seen on the site plan as
      units one, two, and three. The third unit has already been converted into a storage area and will remain
      as storage as a condition of approval.

      The proposed secondary dwelling unit would contain a kitchen, bathroom, a bedroom plus a laundry
      room. The project site contains two existing tandem spaces in the driveway along the north side of the
      house and one existing independent stall on the south side of the house for a total of three spaces.

      The north side of the building is currently less than 2 feet from the property line and encroaches into the
      required five-foot sideyard. There are no windows along this elevation. As conditioned a one-hour
      firewall will be required to correct this non-conforming condition.

      PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

      The 6,250 square foot lot is located mid-block in an area primarily characterized by one story single
      family residential development. There are a few two-story structures in the neighborhood. The homes to
      the north, south, east, and west are one-story single family residences. The property was originally
      constructed with a single residence with a separate garage, and one accessory structure along the
      southerly property line. At a later date, the garage was converted and a second unit added. Another
      garage and accessory structure was added after that on the north side of the lot.

      In 1957, the Oakland Planning Commission reviewed an application to legalize three units. The
      application was denied and the extra dwelling units eliminated. Finally, some time after 1957, the garage
      on the north side of the lot was enlarged to connect to the house and a secondary unit re-installed. A
      third unit was also re-introduced on the south side of the lot (See site plan Attachment A and Sanborn
      map Attachment B). The house is a not a potentially Designated Historic Property.

      GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS

      This project is located in the Detached Dwelling Type Land Use Classification. The Detached Dwelling
      Type Land Use Classification is intended to create, maintain, and enhance residential areas characterized
      by detached single unit structures. The proposed development is consistent with this neighborhood
      containing small houses on large lots with a number of secondary units. The proposal is consistent with
      General Plan Neighborhood Policy N3.3 that strives to facilitate development of second units that meet
      established criteria.

      ZONING ANALYSIS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                       October 2, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-010                                                                                            Page 4

      The project is within the R-30, One-Family Residential Zone and proposes the legalization of an existing
      secondary unit. Secondary units are conditionally permitted in the R-30 district pursuant to Section
      17.16.070. The project is subject to standards; criteria and conditions for secondary units contained in
      Section 17.102.360 and General Use Permit Criteria contained in Section 17.134.050. In addition, the
      project is subject to the Design Review criteria at Section 17.136.070 and the Minor Variance findings
      for the side yard encroachments at Section 17.148.050. Pursuant to Section 17.116.240, tandem parking
      may be permitted for two of the required spaces on a lot with a single-family dwelling and a Secondary
      Unit. As conditioned, the project will comply with the above referenced zoning criteria.

      ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

      The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines list projects that are categorically exempt
      from environmental review. Section 15303 exempts new construction and conversion of small structures
      including secondary units. The legalization of a 554 square foot secondary unit is consistent with this
      exemption.

      KEY ISSUES AND IMPACTS

      History

      The original house was built under permits in 1924. In 1957, the property owner (not the current
      applicant) applied for a Conditional Use Permit, then known as an Exception to Use, for three existing
      dwelling units on one lot in a one family zone. The application was denied and the extra units
      eliminated. The current application comes before the Oakland Planning Commission as a result of code
      compliance work. Acting on a complaint, code enforcement staff investigated the site and determined
      that there were three dwelling units. The third unit has been eliminated and the applicant has applied to
      legalize the larger of the two units bringing it into compliance with current secondary unit requirements
      for size and parking.

      Engineering Comments

      A review of the project by engineering staff reveals that the project is in an Alquist Priolo special study
      zone due to projected trace faults in the vicinity. Prior to approval of any building permits for a dwelling
      unit the applicant will have to conduct a geologic study to determine if there is any evidence of a trace
      fault on the property. If a trace fault is located too close to the proposed dwelling unit, the use can not be
      permitted.

      Secondary Unit Criteria

      As proposed, the secondary unit would meet all of the criteria for secondary units as conditioned. The
      proposed secondary unit would not meet the required sideyard unless the variance is granted. All other
      setbacks and height requirements would be met.

      The proposed secondary unit meets the Secondary Unit Regulations in the following ways:

      1. The secondary unit is located on a street over twenty feet in width leading to a major arterial
         (Delmont to Hillmont Dr. to Mac Arthur Boulevard or Sunnymere Ave. to Edwards Ave. to Highway
         13) with more than two exits (Sunnymere Ave or Hillmont Dr).
      2. Water flow meets the minimum fire flow and pressure.
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                   October 2, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-010                                                                                       Page 5

      3. The proposed alterations will meet building codes with the addition of one-hour rated walls where
         needed. However, engineering will require a geologic study to determine if a trace fault is present.
      4. The size of the proposed unit is 554 square feet. This is more than the 220 square feet minimum and
         less than the 1,200 square feet maximum allowed. The proposed secondary unit will be 49% of the
         size of the primary unit (554 square feet secondary Unit, 1134 square feet for the primary unit).
      5. There are three off street parking stalls, two tandem stalls and one non-tandem stall. Although it is
         preferable to have three non-tandem stalls, the Oakland Planning Commission has the discretion to
         make exceptions on a case by case basis. In this situation, the existing parking is adequate and
         functional. The existing third stall is located on the opposite side of the lot from the two tandem
         stalls served by an independent driveway. The existing parking follows the historic parking pattern
         dating back to the 1930’s.
      6. The owner will live on site and both units will share a common ownership. As conditioned a deed
         restriction will be recorded prior to issuance of building permits.

      Proposed Minor Variance

      The existing structure is located at about 18” from the side property line. A one-hour fire rated wall is
      proposed and there are no windows on the wall adjoining the sideyard. Staff supports this variance as the
      variance will be very minor and will create a superior design solution. Approving the project including
      the variance will also allow the side elevation to be rebuilt to meet current building and fire codes.

      Design Review Criteria

      The proposed design of the addition will match the existing house using the same type of siding. As
      existing, there are two types of siding shown. As conditioned, all siding will match. The main part of
      the structure will remain as is. The appearance of the house will remain the same. All windows face
      towards the center of the lot and are hidden from view of adjacent neighbors by the accessory building
      along the southerly property line.

      RECOMMENDATIONS:                1. Affirm staff’s environmental determination.

                                      2. Approve the Conditional Use Permit, Minor Variance and Design
                                         Review subject to the attached findings and conditions.


                                                              Prepared by:



                                                              CHRIS CANDELL}
                                                              Planner II


      Approved by:



      GARY PATTON
      Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning
Oakland City Planning Commission         October 2, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-010                       Page 6




      Approved for forwarding to the
      City Planning Commission:



      LESLIE GOULD
      Director of Planning and Zoning
      ATTACHMENTS:

      A. Plans and Elevations
      B. Sanborn Map corrected to 1951
      C. Secondary Unit checklist
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                   October 2, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-010                                                                                       Page 7


      FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:

      This proposal meets the required findings under Sections 17.134.050, Conditional Use Permit Findings,
      Section 17.102.360(C) Use permit standards, criteria and conditions of approval for secondary units,
      17.136.070, Design Review Findings, and 17.148.050 Variance Findings as set forth below. Required
      findings are shown in bold type; explanations as to why these findings {can or cannot} be made are in
      normal type.

      Section 17.134.050 (General Use Permit Criteria):

      A. That the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development will
         be compatible with and will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of
         abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood, with consideration to be given to
         harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density; to the availability of civic facilities and utilities;
         to harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character; to the generation of traffic
         and the capacity of surrounding streets; and to any other relevant impact of the development.

         As conditioned, the proposed attached secondary unit will not adversely affect the appropriate
         development of abutting properties because the scale, bulk, and lot coverage would be compatible
         with the surrounding one story neighborhood and the existing residence.

      B. That the location, design, and site planning of the proposed development will provide a
         convenient and functional living, working, shopping, or civic environment, and will be as
         attractive as the nature of the use and its location and setting warrant.

         The proposed attached secondary unit would be located behind the existing primary unit and would
         not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties as there will be
         adequate open space and parking. The proposed unit, will not require any external changes and will
         be as attractive the existing building.

      C. That the proposed development will enhance the successful operation of the surrounding area
         in its basic community functions, or will provide an essential service to the community or
         region.

         The proposal will enhance the successful operation of the surrounding neighborhood by providing an
         additional housing opportunity.

      D. That the proposal conforms to all applicable design review criteria set forth in the design
         review procedure at Section 17.136.070.

         The proposal conforms to the design review criteria at Section 17.136.070.




                                                                                    FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                      October 2, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-010                                                                                           Page 8

      E. That the proposal conforms in all significant respects with the Oakland Comprehensive Plan
         and with any other applicable plan or development control map which has been adopted by the
         City Council.

           The proposal will add an additional legal housing unit meeting current building codes.

      Section 17.102.360(C) Use permit standards, criteria and conditions of approval for secondary
      units:

            Use Permit Criteria for Secondary Units. A conditional use permit for a secondary unit may be
            granted only upon determination that the proposal conforms to the general use permit criteria
            set forth in the conditional use permit procedure in Chapter 17.134 and to all of the following
            use permit criteria:

      1.    That the secondary unit will be clearly subordinate to the primary one-family unit in size,
            location, and appearance. The secondary unit should not exceed fifty (50) percent of the floor
            area of the primary unit, however the Planning Commission shall have the discretion to allow
            this limit to be exceeded if warranted by particular circumstances in conformance with the
            guidelines adopted pursuant to subsection (C) (5) of this section, provided the secondary unit
            does not equal or exceed the size of the primary unit.

            The proposed secondary unit is located within the existing structure of the existing building and is
            clearly subordinate to the primary one-family unit in size, appearance and the location on the lot. The
            floor area of the proposed unit contains 49 percent of the floor area of the primary unit.

      2.    That the site location, design, and site planning of the building, open areas, and parking will
            provide a convenient, attractive and functional living environment, and will be compatible with
            the neighborhood and with public safety.

           Very little of the design of the structure will be changed by the proposal. The existing structure is
           similar in scale, height, bulk and coverage to surrounding structures. The existing siting provides
           functional open space for the primary unit and the proposed secondary dwelling Unit.

      3.    That the shape and siting of the facility, and especially of any portions thereof which exceed one
            story in height, will be such as to minimize blocking of views and direct sunlight from nearby
            lots and from other Residential Facilities in the surrounding neighborhood;

           The proposed unit will be on the ground level. The existing house is one story in height. Nor does the
           proposed project block views or direct sunlight of surrounding neighbors.




                                                                                       FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                    October 2, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-010                                                                                        Page 9

      4. That there is adequate emergency access to the lot as determined by the Fire Marshal. Streets
         leading to an arterial street should have a minimum of twenty (20 feet of pavement width at all
         locations between the lot and the arterial street and the lot should be located on a street having
         more than one outlet for vehicular traffic. The Planning Commission shall have the discretion to
         waive these requirements if warranted by particular circumstances provided it can be found that
         there is adequate emergency access and that the project is in conformance with guidelines
         adopted pursuant to subsection (C)(5) of this section.

         All streets leading to major streets (Mac Arthur Boulevard and Highway 13) are over 20 feet in width
         and there are two exits on this street (Sunnymere Avenue and Hillmont Drive).

      5. That each secondary unit complies with the City Planning Commission guidelines for
         development and evaluation of secondary units. The Planning Commission shall have the
         discretion to make exceptions to any guideline if warranted by particular circumstances if all
         other criteria in this subsection and in Section 17.134.050 are met.

         The secondary unit complies with the City Planning Commission guidelines for development and
         evaluation of secondary units. See above

         Section 17.136.070 (Design Review Criteria):

      1. That the proposed design will create a building or set of buildings that are well related to the
         surrounding area in their setting, scale, bulk, height, materials, and textures;

         The proposed design will make not external changes to an existing structure that is well related to the
         surrounding area. As conditioned, the any exterior changes (as for creating a one-hour firewall) will
         be required to match existing materials or be replaced with a high quality material.

      2. That the proposed design will be sensitive to the topography and landscape.

         The existing lot is nearly flat. The proposed design will not affect existing landscape or topography.

      3. That if situated on a hill, the design and massing of the proposed buildings relates to the grade
         of the hill.

         The project is not located on a hill.

      4. That the proposed design conforms in all respects with the Oakland Comprehensive Plan and
         with any applicable district plan or development control map which has been adopted by the
         City Council.

         The proposal will add an additional legal housing unit meeting current building codes.
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                     October 2, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-010                                                                                      Page 10


                                                                                    FINDINGS
         Section 17.148.050 (Variance Findings)

      1. That strict compliance with the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or
         unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning regulations, due to unique
         physical or topographic circumstances or conditions of the design; or, in the case of a minor
         variance, that such strict compliance would preclude an effective design solution improving
         livability, operations efficiency, or appearance.

         Strict compliance with the zoning regulations would preclude an effective design solution. The
         legalized portion of the structure would be in the same plane as the original garage and the exterior of
         all portions of the structure will match. Because the structure is less than three feet from the property
         line there will not be any windows to infringe on the privacy of adjacent neighbors.

      2. That strict compliance with the regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed
         by owners of similarly zoned property; or, as an alternative in the case of a minor variance,
         such strict compliance would preclude an effective design solution fulfilling the basic intent of
         the applicable regulation

         The basic intent of the applicable regulation is to provide separation between residences and
         structures to ensure light, views, and privacy. The driveway to the north of the site creates an
         effective buffer to the neighboring house.

      3. That the variance if granted, will not would not adversely affect the character, livability , or
         appropriate development of abutting properties or the surrounding areas, and will not be
         detrimental to the public welfare or contrary to adopted plans or development policy

         If granted, the variance will not adversely affect the character, livability or appropriate development
         of abutting properties or the surrounding areas as non-conforming side yards are common in this
         neighborhood.

      4. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations
         imposed on similarly zoned properties or inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning
         regulations.

         Other homes in the area have non-conforming side yards and some homes in the area have secondary
         units either attached or detached that have a similar character to the proposed secondary residence.




                                                                                    FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                  October 2, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-010                                                                                  Page 11

                                         CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

      STANDARD CONDITIONS:

      1.      Approved Use.
           a. Ongoing.
              The project shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the authorized use as described
              in the staff report dated October 2, 2002, plans dated July 17, 2002 and as amended by the
              following conditions. Any additional uses other than those approved with this permit, as
              described in the project description, will require a separate application and approval.
              Specifically this is an approval to legalize a Secondary Dwelling Unit to a lot containing an
              existing Single Family Dwelling Unit and Secondary Dwelling Unit. There shall only be one
              primary unit and one secondary unit. The third dwelling unit that was converted to storage shall
              remain as storage only.

      2.      Effective Date, Expiration, and Extensions
           a. Ongoing.
              This permit shall become effective upon satisfactory compliance with these conditions. This
              permit shall expire on October 2, 2003, unless actual construction or alteration, or actual
              commencement of the authorized activities in the case of a permit not involving construction or
              alteration, has begun under necessary permits by this date. Upon written request and payment of
              appropriate fees, the Zoning Administrator may grant a one-year extension of this date, with
              additional extensions subject to approval by the City Planning Commission.

      3.      Scope of This Approval; Major and Minor Changes
           a. Ongoing.
              The project is approved pursuant to the Planning Code only and shall comply with all other
              applicable codes and requirements imposed by other affected departments, including but not
              limited to the Building Services Division and the Fire Marshal. Minor changes to approved plans
              may be approved administratively by the Zoning Administrator; major changes shall be subject
              to review and approval by the City Planning Commission.

      4.      Modification of Conditions or Revocation
           a. Ongoing.
              The City Planning Commission reserves the right, after notice and public hearing, to alter
              Conditions of Approval or revoke this conditional use permit if it is found that the approved
              facility is violating any of the Conditions of Approval or the provisions of the Zoning
              Regulations.

      5.      Recording of Conditions of Approval
           a. Prior to issuance of building permit or commencement of activity.
              The applicant shall execute and record with the Alameda County Recorder’s Office a copy of these
              conditions of approval on a form approved by the Zoning Administrator.

      6.      Reproduction of Conditions on Building Plans
           a. Prior to issuance of building permit.
              These conditions of approval shall be reproduced on page one of any plans submitted for a
              building permit for this project.



                                                                 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                      October 2, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-010                                                                                       Page 12


      7. Occupancy and Sale of Primary and Secondary Units
         a. Prior to issuance of building permits.
         The applicant shall record as a deed restriction in the Alameda County Recorder's Office a
         certification by the owner(s) in a form prescribed by the Director of City Planning that one of the
         dwelling units is occupied by the owner(s) of the property as the owner's(s') principal and permanent
         residence. When ownership of the property changes, the new owner(s) shall either submit a new
         owner occupancy certification, or remove the secondary unit. Failure to submit a new certificate or
         remove the secondary unit within one year of transfer of ownership shall be a violation subject to
         civil penalties provided in Title 1 of the Oakland Municipal Code.

      8. Indemnification
         a. Ongoing.
         The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Oakland, its agents, officers,
         and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (including legal costs and attorney’s fees)
         against the City of Oakland, its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, an
         approval by the City of Oakland, the Office of Planning and Building, Planning Commission, or City
         Council. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City
         shall cooperate fully in such defense. The City may elect, in its sole discretion, to participate in the
         defense of said claim, action, or proceeding.
      DESIGN:
      9. Siding/floor plan
         a. Prior to final issuance of building permits
             The applicant shall submit plans for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator showing a
             revised side yard elevation (northerly elevation). The revised elevation shall show siding that
             matches existing architecture and is consistent.
          b.    Prior to final issuance of building permits
               In addition to the plans submitted showing the revised unit size, the floor plan shall be modified
               to indicate the proposed demolition of the closet and construction in the area of the doorway
               leading to the new room. This information is not clear in the floor plan submitted. The
               discrepancy was noted on inspection of the site and interior.
         c.    Prior to final issuance of building permits
               Final plans shall show a one-hour firewall that satisfies the requirements of the Uniform Building
               Code and as modified by building inspection services. Applicant shall submit an Alquist Priolo
               geologic study to building services as part of the building permit application. If a fault trace is
               found or determined to be too close, the proposed secondary unit may not be legalized and the
               existing unit shall be removed.
        d.     As shown on the site plan, the third dwelling unit shall be converted to storage only with all
               kitchen and bath facilities removed with the exception of a sink. All other water and drain lines
               capped off within the walls.



      APPROVED BY: City Planning Commission:                            (date)                           (vote)
                                 City Council:                          (date)                           (vote)




                                                                   CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

				
DOCUMENT INFO