REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT
Title
Public Hearing: Action on a Variance (PLN24-00217) to Expand into the Front Setback by 6’-6” to Create Additional Living Space for a Residence Located at 1296 Chapel Drive
Report
REPORT IN BRIEF
File No.: PLN24-00217
Project: Variance request to expand into the front setback by 6’-6” to create additional living space, including portions of a bedroom and a new bathroom.
Applicant: Rohit George John
Owner: Rohit George John
General Plan: Very Low Density Residential
Zoning: Single-Family (R1-6L)
Site Area: 7,468 square foot
Existing Site Conditions: The project site includes a 1,742 square foot three-bedroom, one-and-a-half-bathroom one-story single-family residence.
Surrounding Land Uses
North: Single-family uses
East: Single-family uses
South: Single-family uses
West: Single-family uses
Issues: Consistency with the Zoning Ordinance
Staff Recommendation: Deny the application for a variance to expand into the front setback.
BACKGROUND
On April 24, 2024, Rohit George John, property owner of 1296 Chapel Drive, filed an application for a Variance to encroach 6’-6” into the front setback towards Harrison Avenue. City records indicate the residence was constructed in 1949, and historical imagery indicates that the exterior has not been significantly altered since 1968. The subject site is a corner parcel and is zoned Single-Family (R1-6L) with a General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential.
Variance
The applicant applied for a Variance to encroach into the Zoning Code required front setback to expand the residence, creating a larger primary bedroom with an adjoining bathroom. The City’s Zoning Code requires that single family zoned properties have a twenty-foot front setback measuring from the property line. The Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) states that for a corner parcel, the shorter frontage along a street shall be considered the front yard, and the other street frontage would be considered the street side yard. For 1296 Chapel Drive, the shorter frontage is on Harrison Street, while the street side frontage is on Chapel Drive.
DISCUSSION
Project Overview
The applicant proposes to expand the north side of the residence towards Harrison Street. The residence currently sits about 20-feet from the front property line (consistent with the zoning setback), the applicant has applied to expand that side of the home 6’-6” north, which would result in a 13’-6” front setback. This proposal would be unique to this property, as other properties have a 20-foot front setback on this block and the surrounding blocks, consistent with the front setback zoning requirement. Some other corner lot homes do have a legal non-conforming street side setback of about 13 to 14 feet.
The site currently consists of a single-story single-family residence. The residence has not been significantly altered since being constructed in 1949. The residence is about 1,742 square feet and is on an approximately 7,468 square foot lot. The minimum lot size for a Single Family R1-6L lot is 6,000 square feet. The proposed addition would add 201 square feet to the northern side of the home for a total of 1,942 square feet. The expansion would add a full bathroom and additional storage space for the primary bedroom.
While the expansion is minor, it would result in this particular property having the shortest front setback on the block. The house is situated 15-feet from the interior side property line, where a five-foot interior side setback is the requirement. It is reasonable that the applicant could add the 201 square foot addition on the interior side portion of the house while maintaining all SCCC rules and regulations.
Consistency with the General Plan
The General Plan designation for the project site is Very Low Density Residential. This classification is intended for residential densities of up to ten units per gross acre. Development is typically single‐family in scale and character, with a prevailing building type of single‐family detached dwelling units. Development in this classification maintains a feeling of suburban living with setbacks between structures, parking, large, landscaped yards and tree lined streets. The proposed project would expand the existing single-family residence and is inconsistent with the following General Plan Policies and Goals:
5.3.1‐P29 Encourage design of new development to be compatible with, and sensitive to, nearby existing and planned development, consistent with other applicable General Plan policies.
5.3.2‐G4 Respect for the existing character and quality of adjacent neighborhoods from new residential development and redevelopment.
The proposal is inconsistent with the pattern of development in the neighborhood. A reduced setback for the front would be out of character with the surrounding area and disrupt the streetscape that has been created by standardized and established setback requirements.
Zoning Conformance
The zoning designation for the project site is Single-Family (R1-6L). The intent of this zone is to protect and preserve the residential characteristics of existing single-family neighborhoods and to provide a suitable environment for family life. The proposed project does not comply with Zoning Ordinance Table 2-3, which requires a 20-foot front setback for all R1-6L properties.
Pursuant to SCCC Section 18.124.010, variances shall only be approved when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of this Zoning Code denies the owner of the property privileges enjoyed by other property located nearby and in an identical zone. Specific findings are required and associated conditions are applied that would work together to guarantee that the Variance shall not constitute an approval of special privilege(s) inconsistent with the limitations upon other property in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located.
The required findings are as follows:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property or existing buildings (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification;
a. The property at 1296 Chapel does not have unusual conditions, the lot is larger than the minimum lot size and the residence is similarly sized to surrounding single-family homes.
2. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification;
a. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the enjoyment of the property, the homeowner could expand towards the interior side property line and add the 201 square foot addition while still meeting the zoning code.
3. Approving the Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; and
a. The subject property is like many other corner properties in the R1-6L zoning district, the residence is situated towards the street side yard instead of the front yard. The granting of this reduction would be a special privilege as this condition exists for many R1-6L zoned lots in this neighborhood and throughout the City.
4. Granting the Variance will not adversely affect the interests of the public or the interests of residents and property owners in the vicinity of the subject property in question.
a. The granting of the variance would adversely impact the general interests of the residents or property owners in the vicinity of the subject property because placing the building closer to the front setback may introduce visual impediments for the users of the neighboring driveway. Developing the house closer to the street may disrupt the harmonious streetscape for the neighborhood that residents have enjoyed for years from established setback requirements.
Conclusion
In reviewing the SCCC and the proposed project, staff finds that the proposed addition on the north side of the house would not meet the findings for a variance. The proposed project is located at 1296 Chapel Drive which does not have any unusual or special conditions that do not apply to surrounding properties. The project could be relocated to the interior side of the property which would allow the project to move forward without a variance. The granting of this variance may be a special privilege as this property’s layout exists for many R1-6L zoned lots in this neighborhood and throughout the City. The granting of this variance, however, would be adverse to the general interests of the residents or the property owners because the project may introduce visual impediments and disrupt the harmonious streetscape enjoyed by residences created by well-established setback requirements. Therefore, staff does not support the granting of the variance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Since staff’s recommendation is that the Planning Commission deny the Variance application, CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a) provides that “CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.”
If, however, the Planning Commission votes to approve the Variance, the project could be categorically exempt per Class 1, Section 15301 (e) Existing Facilities, which allows for additions to existing structures that will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the City for processing the requested application other than administrative staff time and expense typically covered by processing fees paid by the applicant.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
On August 8, 2024, a notice of public hearing on this item was posted in three locations within the City and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. At the time of this staff report, Planning staff has not received public comments in support or opposition to the proposed project.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
1. Adopt a Resolution to deny a Variance to expand into the front setback by 6’-6” to create additional living space for a residence located at 1296 Chapel Drive
Staff
Prepared by: Daniel Sobczak, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Lesley Xavier, Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Resolution to Deny
3. Development Plans / Justification