REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT
Title
Public Hearing: Action on a Request for a Variance from the Maximum Height Requirements in the R1-6L Zoning District for a Proposed Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit at 450 Monroe Street.
Report
REPORT IN BRIEF
Project: Request for a Variance from the maximum height requirement to allow construction of a new detached two-story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) consisting of 797 square foot of living area with an attached 311 square foot garage with a height of 22’-6”, By ordinance a maximum of 14’ in height is permissible for an accessory structure in the governing R1-6L Zoning District.
Applicant/Owner: Rob Mayer Architect/Laura and Paul Esber
General Plan: Very Low Density Residential
Zoning: Single Family Residential (R1-6L)
Site Area: 7,625 square feet (0.18 acres)
Existing Site Conditions: Developed with a one-story single-family residence
Surrounding Land Uses
North and South: Single Family residences along Monroe Street
West: Single Family residences along Madison Street
East: Elmer Johnson Ball field across from Monroe Street.
Issues: Consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
Staff Recommendation: Alternative 1: Deny the variance to allow construction of a new two-story detached 797 square foot ADU with an attached 311 square foot garage at a height of 22’-6”.
BACKGROUND
The owners, Laura and Paul Esber, propose to construct a detached 797 square foot square foot ADU incorporating an attached 311 square foot one-car garage in the rear yard of an existing single-family residence. The detached accessary unit is proposed to be two stories with a height of 22’-6”. The structure consists of the one car garage and the living area of the ADU on the first floor and two bedrooms on the second floor. The addition of an accessory unit is a ministerial action when it meets the provisions in Chapter 18.12 (R1-6L "Single Family Zoning District") of the Zoning Ordinance.
The owners are seeking a Variance to allow the ADU to exceed the maximum allowed height by 8’6” (a height of 22’-6” where 14’0” is the maximum established within the Zoning Code for an accessory structure in the R1-6L District).
The site is currently developed with a pioneer cottage style residence constructed circa 1895 which is listed on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory (HRI). The property is not subject to a Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Mills Act Contract). The existing residence is a 1,310 square foot, one-story house with a 527 square foot non-habitable basement located on a 7,625 square foot single-family residential property in the Old Quad neighborhood. The maximum height of the existing residence is 22’-0”. There is no work proposed on the main residence.
The addition of an ADU on an HRI property is considered to be a major alteration pursuant to section 18.106.050(c)(7)(D) of the zoning code and requires a Significant Property Alteration (SPA) permit and review by the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC). On June 6, 2019, the proposed project was presented to the HLC at a noticed public meeting. Six members of the public provided letters of support and several spoke in support of granting the Variance at the meeting. They stated that the proposed design for the ADU would be more compatible than a ranch style design with the prevalent architecture of the Old Quad neighborhood. A few members of the public spoke in opposition to the Variance request and in particular expressed concern that the granting the Variance would set a precedent of allowing a two-story ADU that is taller than the main residence on the property.
At the HLC meeting, a Motion was made by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Standifer to approve the SPA permit approval with the finding that the proposed project would not impact the historical integrity of the main residence. (4-0-0-1, Estes absent). A second motion was made by Commissioner Standifer, seconded by Commissioner Celso to recommend approval of the proposed Variance request to the Planning Commission. (4-0-0-1, Estes absent).
The Applicant’s project statement is attached. A Project Data Sheet prepared by staff is also attached to provide photos and background information for the subject property and the site’s location.
DISCUSSION
The proposed project (construction of an ADU requiring a Variance from the City’s Zoning Code standards) is analyzed below for consistency with the City’s General Plan, and Zoning Code. The applicant has provided a letter of justification to support the Variance request in which they assert that their proposal meets the required findings for granting of a Variance because of the “Unusual condition due to historic characteristic.” Their primary contention is that the lot is “unusually narrow,” given that the lot is only 50 feet wide when the standard for R1-6L properties is 60 feet. Most of their arguments, however, appear to concern the Old Quad itself, rather than the subject property. The applicants suggest that the roof pitch of their proposed ADU would be consistent with the “Victorian style homes throughout the Old Quad,” arguing that “the land and building forms in the Old Quad [are] an ‘unusual condition’”.
Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Conformance:
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential and proposed project conforms to that designation in that ADUs are consistent with single-family development and the General Plan does not include specific height limitations. The General Plan identifies high level goals for neighborhood preservation and compatibility and equitable housing opportunities, but relies primarily on the Zoning Code to implement these goals.
Zoning Conformance:
The Property is zoned Single Family Residential (R1-6L) and an ADU as well as a garage (accessory building) are permitted uses in Single Family Residential Zoning Districts. The project is consistent with some standards of the R1-6L zoning designation for the property, in that the proposed addition would comply with the minimum side yard and rear yard building setback requirements, maintain useable private rear yard open space, and not exceed allowable lot coverage for the property.
However, as reflected in the request for a Variance, the proposed construction of a 22’-6” tall structure would not comply with Zoning Code SCCC Section 18.12.030(d)(5), that limits the height of a detached ADU to 14 feet.
Pursuant to the Zoning Code (SCCC Section 18.108.010) the Planning Commission may grant a Variance where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and effects inconsistent with the general purpose of the Zoning Code may result from the strict application of certain provisions. The granting of a Variance requires making the findings in SCCC Section 18.108.040, including that there are unusual conditions applying to the land or building which do not apply generally in the same district and that application of the Zoning Code standards would prevent the home owner from enjoying the same benefits as those available to other properties in the general vicinity.
The subject lot is 50 feet in width and 152.5 feet in depth. The lot is thus 10 feet narrower than the standard of 60 feet indicated for lots in the R1-6L zoning district, but also 52.5 feet deeper than the R1-6L standard for lot depth (100 feet). The subject property is also larger in size (7,625 square feet) than the standard lot size (6,000 square feet) for the R1-6L zoning district. This additional lot depth and lot size provides abundant space to build a one-story, two-bedroom ADU and a detached garage. The distance from the deck at the back of the residence to the rear property line is approximately 72 feet, providing an approximately 3,600 square foot area within which it would be possible to build an ADU and detached garage structure.
The property is located in the Old Quad neighborhood which includes several similar sized lots. The homeowner essentially concedes this in their letter, acknowledging that “the land and building forms in the Old Quad [are] an ‘unusual condition.’” The findings for granting a variance are limited to a consideration of whether there are unusual conditions about the subject property, not an entire region of the City. Here, adjoining properties have similar large back yard areas which have been developed with various one-story accessory structures. Conformance with the Zoning Code height limit would thus not preclude the home owner from the opportunity to build an ADU otherwise in conformance with the Zoning Code standards.
The applicant has argued that the taller ADU structure would be acceptable because of its location within the Old Quad neighborhood, the site of a variety of historical structures, some of which are non-conforming to current height standards, and that the taller ADU would be more consistent with the historical character of the primary residence on the property. However, as established within the Zoning Code, neither the location of the property in the Old Quad, nor the fact that the existing residence is a historic resource, are qualifying rationale to support the findings for granting a Variance. Furthermore, the intent of the Zoning Code for accessory buildings is that they be subordinate to a primary structure; however in this case the height of the proposed two-story structure (22’-6”) would exceed the height of the existing historic one-story single family residence (22’-0”).
The Zoning Code limits granting of Variances to situations where the peculiar physical characteristics of a site would make it difficult to develop consistent with standard regulations. A Variance may be granted in order to enable development of a disadvantaged property at the equivalent level of use enjoyed by nearby properties in the same zone. For instance, if a property has a portion with a steep slope that in combination with setback standards would render the site undevelopable, granting of a Variance to the setback standards would be a reasonable action to grant the property similar development opportunity as enjoyed by other similar lots in the area which are not encumbered by a steep slope. In this example the steep rear portion of a residential lot makes the site otherwise undevelopable and a Variance might be approved to reduce the front yard setback and thereby create sufficient room for a home on the lot. Similarly, a parcel's shape might preclude construction of a garage unless side yard setback requirements are reduced by approval of a Variance.
There are no such constraints or unusual conditions affecting the developability of the subject site. The applicants have adequate space to build a 14’ high structure consistent with the regulations of the Single-Family Zoning district. Allowing a 22’-6” high detached ADU would create a unique circumstance as compared to the other single-family homes in the R1-6L zone, similarly situated in the neighborhood and in the City.
Circulation and Parking
Currently, the property does not have a covered garage and the proposed 311 square foot garage on the first floor is within the regulations of the R1-6L zoning district. Providing covered parking spaces would bring the project into further conformance with the Zoning Code. However, a Variance is not required to construct a parking garage on the site.
Zoning Code Update
The City is in the process of a comprehensive update to the City’s Zoning Code, with anticipated adoption of the update in early 2020. As part of the Zoning Code update, the City will have the opportunity to review and modify the development standards for single-family zoning districts. If the City determines that taller, 2-story accessory structures are an acceptable use, then the Zoning Code could be amended to include modified standards for single-family districts that could be applied without the need for a Variance process and associated findings otherwise required for consistency with the Zoning Code.
Conclusion
Given that the lot is much larger (7,625 square feet) than a standard lot (6,000 square feet) in the R1-6L zoning district and there is sufficient space available to build a one-story ADU with an attached garage that complies with the R1-6L zoning regulations, staff has determined that there are no specific physical circumstances or unnecessary hardship for the owners to justify granting of a Variance to exceed the maximum allowed height of 14’-0” for the detached accessory unit.
In order to grant a Variance, the Planning Commission must make the findings listed in the Zoning Code (SCCC Section 18.108.040). The project does not however support the key finding: “there are unusual conditions applying to the land or building which do not apply generally in the same district” because the lot is rectangular in shape, larger than the standard lot size in the R1-6L zoning district and located within the Old Quad neighborhood where similar sized lots are common. Granting the Variance without making the required findings would result in an arbitrary granting of development rights not otherwise enjoyed by single-family properties. If the City determines that taller, 2-story accessory structures are an appropriate use on typical single-family residential lots, then the Zoning Code can be amended to establish a new development standard that could be equitably utilized by home owners.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
If the Planning Commission votes to deny the variance, then the Planning Commission’s Action would be subject to a statutory exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guidelines Section 15270, “Projects Which Are Disapproved.” If the Commission votes to approve the variance, the proposed project would be categorically exempt from CEQA per Section 15303(a), Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures,” as the activity consists of the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; specifically, “a second dwelling unit in a residential zone.”
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no cost to the City other than administrative staff time and expense for the typically covered by processing fees paid by the applicant
COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
On July 12, 2018, a notice of public hearing of this item was posted in three conspicuous locations within 300 feet of the project site and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. Six letters in support of the project were received at the HLC meeting on June 6, 2019.
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email clerk@santaclaraca.gov <mailto:clerk@santaclaraca.gov> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the variance to allow construction of a new two story detached 797 square foot ADU with an attached 311 square foot garage at an increased height of 22’-6”, where a maximum of 14’ height is permissible for an ADU .
2. Approve the variance to allow construction of a new two story detached 797 square foot ADU with an attached 311 square foot garage at an increased height of 22’-6 where a maximum of 14’ height is permissible for an ADU.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Alternative 1: Adopt a resolution denying the variance to allow construction of a new two story detached 797 square foot ADU with an attached 311 square foot garage at an increased height of 22’-6”.
Staff
Prepared by: Nimisha Agrawal, Assistant Planner I
Reviewed by: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Reena Brilliot, Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Data Summary Sheet
2. Applicant’s Statement of Justification
3. Development Plans
4. Resolution Denying the Variance
5. Conditions of Approval