11/09/2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye: Commissioner Bhatnagar, Commissioner Biagini, Chair Cherukuru, Vice Chair Herro, Commissioner Huang, Commissioner Bouza, and Commissioner Saleme
7 -
3. 22-1313 Action on a Variance to the Rear Accessory Building Setback and the Accessory Building Setback from the Main Building, in Order to Allow a 68 square foot accessory building in the rear of a Single-Family Residence at 2121 Sheraton Drive; and Action on a Class 1(e) CEQA Categorical Exemption
Recommendation: Decline to utilize a Class 1 CEQA Categorical Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(2) and adopt a resolution to deny the Variance to the Rear Accessory Building Setback and the Accessory Building Setback from the Main Building for a 68 square foot hobby hut Associate Planner Daniel Sobzak provided the staff PowerPoint.
Commissioners inquired as to why this item was being presented to the Planning Commission and staff clarified this was a inquiry from the public that prompted a code violation. Commissioners noted that the there is no safety hazard for this project as noted by staff in the PCC meeting minutes.
Applicant/Homeowner Jim Horner provided a presentation and clarified the structure was originally a dilapidated shed and also showed a slide with similar rear units throughout the neighborhood that also violate city code.
Public Speaker:
Anndeathrin Chatterjee spoke in opposition of the project Grace Duran spoke in favor of the project
Assistant City Attorney Alexander Abbe clarified that land use decisions are largely non-precedential and that approval of the variance for this property would obligate the City to approve a variance for a different lot. .
A motion was made by Commissioner Saleme, seconded by
Commissioner Biagini to close public hearing.
Aye: Commissioner Bhatnagar, Commissioner Biagini, Chair Cherukuru, Vice Chair Herro, Commissioner Huang, Commissioner Bouza, and Commissioner Saleme
7 -
11/09/2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Biagini, seconded by
Commissioner Bouza, to approve the variance with the following four findings and to bring the approval resolution to the December 7, 2022 meeting as a consent item.
1. That unusual conditions apply to the land or building, in that the project site is trapezoidal and the existing landscaping and building configuration limit options for the location of the storage shed
2. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights of the owner, in that relocating the storage shed would be infeasible, given the shape and configuration of the lot, without adverse impacts such as blocking windows and disturbing the homeowner’s considerable investment in the existing landscaping
3. That granting a variance shall not materially affect the health, safety, peace, comfort or general welfare of the persons or property in the neighborhood of the owner’s property, given that the project site has been occupied by a shed in the same location in prior years with no adverse effects, and the neighborhood is full of similar structures.
4. That granting a variance is in keeping with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance, in that the zoning ordinance recognizes that practical difficulties that could result from strict application of the Code’s standards justify departure from those standards
Aye: Commissioner Bhatnagar, Commissioner Biagini, Chair Cherukuru, Vice Chair Herro, Commissioner Huang, Commissioner Bouza, and Commissioner Saleme
7 -