/31/23 Item #6
Council and
Authorities
Concurrent
Meeting
CITY OF
Item #6 RTC 23-1533
1852 Appeal of a Planning Commission
THE MISSION CIT Approval of a Variance for a
Single-Family Residence at 2121
Sheraton Drive
January 31, 2023
1 City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
2121 Sheraton Drive
Project Description Sheraton Dr
Sheraton Dr
Appeal of the Planning
Commission's Approval
of a Variance to the
required rear yard and
main building setbacks
for an accessory building
2 POST MEETING MATERIAL
1 City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
2121 Sheraton Drive
Background
• Applicant began replacing a spa in rear yard with accessory building • Code Enforcement complaint received on April 11, 2022 • Structure determined to conflict with required setbacks per Code • Applicant applied on August 3, 2022 for a Variance to allow for the accessory structure to remain
• Planning Commission approved Variance on December 7, 2022 • Commission's approval appealed to City Council on December 8, 2022 3 3
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
2121 Sheraton Drive
Accessory Building Setbacks
• Per Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) -
Accessory structures must be
- 5 feet from the rear property line
- 3 feet from the side property line
- 6 feet from the main structure
• No accessory building is allowed in
front of the main building, except
for garages or carports
Setback areas for
accessory buildings
(approx.)
4 2
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
2121 Sheraton Drive
Request
Variance to allow a 68 sq it accessory
structure (with electricity, but no
plumbing) with reduced setbacks:
Required Proposed for
Setback
by Code Variance
Rear Yard 5 feet 3 feet, 5 inches
View Looking South
Building
6 feet 3 feet, 7 inches
Separation 5
5 City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
2121 Sheraton Drive
Variance Criteria
A. That there are unusual conditions applying to the land or building which do not apply generally in the same district.
B. That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the Property Owner.
C. That the approval of such Variance, under the circumstances of the particular case, will not mat realy affect advisely the neith, safe peace Property oversal operay, and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said neighborhood.
D. That the approval of the Variance is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the 6 Zoning Ordinance.
6 3
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
2121 Sheraton Drive
Planning Commission Hearing
• Staff recommended denial of the
Variance based on other possible
locations that would conform to the
setback requirements
• Public Comment from two neighbors,
one in support, one in opposition to the
request
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
2121 Sheraton Drive
Planning Commission Findings
1. The lot is trapezoidal in shape and due to the configuration and the significant landscaping improvements already made to the lot, would limit the options for the installation of the hobby hut.
2. Relocating the storage shed would be infeasible, other possible locations on the site would have blocked the views from the house or the use of the carport on the property.
3. The neighborhood is filled with similar structures and the exact location of proposed shed had been the site of a shed in the past with no significant adverse effects.
4. The zoning ordinance recognizes that difficulties may arise from strict interpretation of the code and the City Code allows the granting of a variance in these instances. 8 8
4 City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
2121 Sheraton Drive
Appeal to Council
"The purpose and intent of the City Code, is to promote development in an orderly manner. This means that code enforcement is an expectation of the public. Failure of the City to not enforce the actions of others is not a reasonable burden on the public. Enforcement of the City Code should not fall to residents to complain then the violator is rewarded for non- compliance. One of the Planning Commissioners stated, "there are other violations in the neighborhood, so no big deal," which means that the Planning Commission should also disregard city code, according to the commissioner."
9 9
City of
Santa Clara
The Contara Whats Possible
2121 Sheraton Drive
Considerations
• Unusual conditions applying to the
land or building which do not apply
generally in the same district
• Necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property
rights of the Property Owner
• In keeping with the purpose and
intent of the Zoning Ordinance
10 City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
2121 Sheraton Drive
Considerations
• Not materially affect adversely the
health, safety, peace, comfort, or
general welfare of persons residing
or working in the neighborhood
• Not materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to
property or improvements in the
neighborhood
11 City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
2121 Sheraton Drive
Recommendation
Sustain the appeal and overrule the Planning Commission's approval of a Variance to maintain a 68 square foot accessory building in the rear yard of a single-family residence with a 3'-5" rear setback and a 3'--" setback from the main building, for a site located at 2121 Sheraton Drive, Santa Clara.
OR
Overrule the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of a Variance to maintain a 68 square foot accessory building. 12 6
Council and
Authorities
CATA CLARA CARE Concurrent
Meeting
20000 Item #6 RTC 23-1533
1852
Appeal of a Planning Commission
THE MISSION CIT Approval of a Variance for a
Single-Family Residence at 2121
Sheraton Drive
January 31, 2023
13 7
1/31/23
Htem#6
Appeal to Deny Variance
Application
for 2121 Sheraton Drive
Shed
Item 6 - RTC 23-1533
Annekathrin and Amlan Chatterjee
January 31, 2023
1 The Property in
Question
2121 Sheraton Drive
2 POST MEETING MATERIAL
1/31/2023
Applicant's Justification Requiring Variances
Non-compliant structures at other addresses in the neighborhood From an examination of Google Satellite view, there are many structures in the immediate neighborhood which appear to be in violation of the code. Allowing these other structures to exist and requiring me to destroy mine is selective enforcement of the code and is not right. One address in particular, 2361 Alberta Ct, has 3 structures which appear to violate the code. This address is visible from my back yard and is adjacent to the complaining neighbor's property (2365 Alberta Ct.) I fail to understand why my smaller structure should cause an issue when the larger ones at 2361 Alberta Ct. do not?
The following table lists the addresses of the properties in the neighborhood which have non-compliant structures.
The reference letters are used to locate these addresses on the neighborhood photo which follows the table. I've . included closeup pictures of the properties also.
3 Beautification justifies violating codes?
Where to locate the structure?
• Front Yard is a no - go
• Carport? Significant slope to
driveway would require leveling
and remove a useful feature Lington
from the property 2121 Sheraton Dr.
• Behind carport? Blocks
bathroom windows and access
to side gate
• In middle of back yard? Not
after all the beautification work
done
Steraton Dr
Sheraton Dr
4 2
1/31/2023
Zone Code Variance Findings
18.108.040 Findings:
(a) That there are unusual conditions applying to the land or building which do not apply generally in the same district.
A shed is an accessory use and not necessary for the use and enjoyment of the property and only allowed if a variance is to comply with a deviation from the minimum requirements of the City Code. If the lot is not shaped in a manner that allows continued building construction, that is not a practical difficulty that the public should bear.
Findings-continued
18.108.040 Findings:
(b) That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights of the petitioner The petitioner (applicant) has other options available including relocating the shed further north on the lot, converting the carport to his shed or perhaps moving the shed closer to his house to relieve the need for the variance next to the property line. He could also move back to working in his garage. The burden to comply with the minimum requirements of the variance is that of the petitioner, not that of the abutting property owners.
3 1/31/2023
Findings-continued
18.108.040 Findings:
(c) That the granting of such variance shall not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the applicant's property, and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such neighborhoods.
The City Code is written to protect property owners from buildings that include density of construction on properties, which in turns leads to a peaceful and comfortable environment. The inconveniences of the applicant should not outweigh the regulations for building setback requirements.
Findings - continued
18.108.040 Findings:
(d) That the granting of the variance is in keeping with the purpose and intent of this title.
The purpose and intent of the City Code is to promote development in an orderly manner. That means code enforcement is an expectation of the public. Failure of the City to not enforce codes as well as the City's willingness to allow ongoing zoning violations is an unreasonable burden on the public. Enforcement of the City Code should not fall to residents to first complain and then hope violators do not receive variances.
8 4
1/31/2023
City Planner Recommendations
Due to a lack of evident hardship and practical difficulty presented by the Petitioner, the recommendation of Assistant Planner for the City of Santa Clara, Daniel Sobczak states the following in his report to the Planning Commission and by default to the City Council:
"Deny the Variance to the Rear Accessory Building Setback and the Accessory Building Setback from the Main Building, in Order to Allow a 68 square foot hobby hut." Despite the above recommendation by the City Planner as well as the City Attorney to not grant variances, the Planning Commission decided to overlook the egregious violation and grant them.
9 Conclusion
We request the City Council to follow the recommendations of the City Planner and Attorney and rescind the approval of the variance by the Planning Commission to complete the unfinished construction of the shed.
Either using the current accessory structure (carport) or garage, while an inconvenience for the applicant, will bring the applicant back in compliance to the code.
We want to mitigate noise, paint fumes, hazardous chemicals, potential fires, spills, electrical issues, etc.should a shed be six inches from our fence and 15 feet from our home (dwelling).
If the council feels that code enforcement no longer applies in city of Santa Clara, cannot be followed or is not valid in its original intent, we urge the council to remove, change or update the code and not arbitrarily and capriciously ignore the code.
Please rescind the the variance.
10 5
1/31/2023
Appeal to Deny Variance
Application
for 2121 Sheraton Drive
Shed
Item 6 - RTC 23-1533
Annekathrin and Amlan Chatterjee
January 31, 2023
11 1/31/2023
Hem #6
Introduction
Jim and Rita Horner
2121 Sheraton Dr.
• Purchased house in May 1992.
• Accessory structure to provide dedicated space for
hobbies (electronics, 3D printing, building plastic and flying model airplanes).
• Fully finished stucco exterior, drywall interior, window, door, skylights, full insulation
• Replaces Pre-existing structures: 1992-2003, metal
garden shed against rear fence after which the pre-
existing hot-tub was moved to this location
1 Applicable Code Sections
Two areas of the City code apply:
Chapter 18.66 - SPECIAL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS • Sets forth rules determining use, setbacks, etc. for accessory buildings not intended for residential use
• Stipulate that the accessory structure does not conform to all of the prescribed setbacks Chapter 18.108 - Variances
• Provides a means by which a property owner can be granted exceptions to compliance with
18.66. • Planning Commission voted 7-0 in favor of granting the variance If a variance is granted in accordance with 18.108, non-conformities to 18.66 are NOT "code violations"
2 POST MEETING MATERIAL
1 1/31/2023
Comparable Accessory Structures in neighborhood
• Approximately ~30% of properties in the
immediate neighborhood have
unpermitted accessory structures. (~60
total unpermitted structures)
• Many, many others in the rest of Santa
Clara
Upholding of the appeal would be highly
selective enforcement.
3 Appellants' Accessory Structure
City Code: 18.66.020 - Detached Accessory Buildings
(f) Setback from Main Building. Any portion of said use shall be at least six feet from the main building.
• A detached accessory structure approximately 90 ft? is in the appellants' back yard in clear violation of 18.66.020(f) • No permits or variance requests found for this structure • How is it okay for the appellants to violate 18.66.022(f) without a variance while at the same time demanding
demolishment of our structure?
2 1/31/2023
Overview
2121
Accessory structure only
blocks view of my house
3 Large, unpermitted
accessory structures with
Distances measured via larger height above fence
Google Maps
~16 1/2 ft
Typical house to house
spacing: 10ft (18.12.090)
Appellants claim 6"
pacing. In fact, it's more
ike 17" to the center of
the fence.
Appellants' unpermitted
accessory structure
Specific rebuttals:
18.108.040(c) That the granting of such variance shall not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general weltare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the applicant's property, and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said neighborhood.
Appellants have failed to demonstrate how the accessory structure has an adverse effect
Greater distance from structure to their house than standard house-house spacing.
Use of X-acto knives, 3D printers, Electronics testing, etc. is unlikely to create a lot of noise.
Adhesives, paints, and solder are low VOC (Super Glue) and will be contained by the insulated Appellants themselves engage in objectionable behaviors which are a detriment to our quality of life. We have not complained
Dog barking in back yard at 6:00 am many mornings
• Cigarette smoke right next to fence
Many dog feces in back yard go for significant amounts of time before being cleaned up Many large (5 at least) Antennae on appellant's roof is eyesore to multiple neighbors. 3 1/31/2023
Summary
Request City Council Overrule the Appeal and allow the variance to stand in accordance with 18.108 and 7-0 planning commission vote.
CITY 0 HTA CLARA
Santa Clara, January 29th, 2023
Subject: Appeal #PLN2Z-00652 of variances granted to 2121 Sheraton Drive; Santa Clara Dear Mayor Gillmor and City Council Members,
I am a neighbor of the Chatterjee family.
I fully support their request that variances not be granted for an uncompleted shed at the fence line. Why would city code be ignored for no reason? If the codes need to be updated, please update. If they are no longer valid, please rescind. It is my understanding that both County and City Codes are the same and state:
Chapter 18.02.020 -
(1) To promote the public health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare. (2) To conserve the values of property throughout the City and to protect the character and stability of residential, commercial, professional and manufacturing areas, and to promote the orderly and beneficial development of such areas. (3) To provide adequate light, air, privacy and convenience of access to property.
Providing variances negates the above chapter.
Further I am concerned that the recommendations of both the city planner and the city lawyer to NOT approve the requested variances at the November Planning Commission were disregarded. I believe that the planner and the lawyer would be the most knowledgeable of the codes but their input was ignored.
Respectfully request, the Council review the variances and rescind them.
Thank you.
Regards,
COraße
C Grassl