HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2016-02-09 #2Community Deve lopment Oepartment -Planning Division
P. O . Bo x 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
P HONE : (415) 485 -3085/FAX: (415) 48 5-3184
Meeting Date: February 09 , 2016
Agenda Item:
. 2-
Case Numbers: V15-005 , ED16-010
Project Planner: Alan Montes (415) 48 5-33 97
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 39 Harcourt Street (Denning Garage Variance) -Request for a Variance and Design
Review Permit to convert the existing two car garage to a one car garage and increase
living space ; APN : 010-185-02 ; R5 Zorie; Jeff Kroot, Applicant ; Judy Denning, Owner;
Case Number: V15 -005 , ED16-01 O.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project requests a Variance and Design Review Permit to convert one of the two existing garage
spaces into habitable space, thus reducing the existing required two car garage to a one car garage . The
proposal would convert 292 square feet of garage space to living space due to the fact that the applicant
believes that the eastern most garage space is too difficult to access for use and the fact that the site has
a o~e car curb cut with a significant public street tree abutting the curb cut , preventing the widening of
the driveway . .
Typically, this type of Variance would be acted upon by the Zoning Administrator. However, given the
uniqueness of this request and ihe fact that Staff has never granted a Variance to required covered
parking , the matter has been brought to the Commission for consideration . Staff does not recommend
that the required findings for granting of a Variance can be made , therefore, has recommended denial of
the appli cation. The reason for this .recommendation is based on the fact that it has not been proven that
the one garage space is truly unusable and if granted , this could be considered a grant of special
privilege to the property .
-If the Commission through their deliberation can make the findings to grant a Variance , the Commission
can direct staff to return with a resolution granting the Variance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that th e Planning Commission adopt a Reso lution denying the Variance and Design
Review Permit applications.
PROPERTY FACTS
I Address/Location: I 39 Harcourt SI. I Parcel Number(s): I 010-185-02
I Property Size : I 3,500sg . ft . I Neighborhood: I Sun Valley
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation Zoning. Designation Existing Land -Use
Project Site: LOR R5 Single Family
Residence
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Numbers: V1S-005; ED16 -010 Page 2
North : lOR R5 Single Family
Residence
South : MDR DR Single Family
Residence
East: LDR/MDR R5/DR Single Family
Residence
West: LDR R5 Single Family
Residence
Site Description/Setting:
The subject property is a rectangular substandard lot with 3,500 sq . ft ., where 5,000 sq . ft. is , the required
minimum lot size for the R5 zon ing district. The property is generally flat, with an approximate slope of
4 .5%. The 'property is currently developed with a two story, s ingle-family residence, including the
attached two car garage . The property has a one car curb cut located on the western edge of the
property , leading to the two car garage, with a significant public street tree abuttin~ the eastern side of
curb cut. The majority of homes in the neighborhood were built around the late 19 h and early 20 th century
and have one car garages .
BACKGROUND
In the ea rly 1990's the structure on 39 Harcourt St. burned down and a new two story single family '
structure was rebuilt on the site . The new building received approval of a Design Review Permit , which
was required in 1993 based on San Rafae l Municipa l Code section 14.25.040(8)(1)(b), which stated "Any
residential structure where desig n review is required by adopted neighborhood or specific plan, and
where not otherwise specified in this chapter".
The new building was required to comply with all applicable z oning regulations, including the requirement
of 2 covered parking spaces which was sa tisfied through the provision of a two -car garage . During the
Zoning Administrator meeting on the Design Review Permit on July 14 , 1993, several neighbors
expressed concern regarding the garage fac;:ade and the Zoning Administrator meeting was continued to
July 21 , 1993 to allow revisions . During the July 21, 1993 Zoning Administrator meeting the applicant
presented changes to the front fac;:ade that included off-setting the garage doors. The p roject was
subsequently conditionally approved on September 24 , 1993 with the change to the garage facade and
was later constructed .
The prior Design Review Pe rmit approved 1,584 sq. ft. of living space , approximate ly 514 sq. ft . garage
space in addition to the living space , and 60 sq. ft . of covered deck. The lot has approximately 1,339 sq .
ft . (38%) of lot coverage with 821 sq. ft . the upper floor . The current parking situation on the site consists
of two (2) covered spaces and one (1) driveway parking space , accessed by a single car driveway cut.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant has filed an application requesting a Variance to reduce the covered parking on site from
the required two spaces down ,to one covered space . The current garage is 522 sq . ft ., as presented on
the proposed plans , and the applicant is requesting to convert on e of the two covered spaces (eastern
most space) into 292 sq. ft . of additional living space . The project also proposes to reconfigure the
driveway in an attempt to provide two (2) uncovere d parking spaces and one (1) remaining covered
space . Staff has requested on several occasions that the turning movements be provided on the plans to
show how the new uncovered space will be accessed .
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Numbers: V15-005; ED16-010 Page 3
The applicant contends that the easternmost covered space is very difficult to access and maneuver;
therefore it is unusable and should be allowed to be converted into living space . See Exhibits 3 and 4 for
the applicant's project description , Variance rational, and findings made by the applicant.
ANALYSIS
Zoning Ordinance:
Section 14 .18 (Parking standards)
This section of the San Rafael Municipal Code requires every single-family residential use to have two
(2) covered spaces . Furthermore , this section requires the minimum interior dimension for a two car
garage to be 20 ft wide by 20 ft deep. Lastly, Section 14 .04.040 requires a 20 ft setback from garage
face to the property line , so that cars can be parked on the driveway apron, without overhanging the
sidewalk or street. When this structure was built in 199;3 it conformed to the code for the number of off-
street spaces (two) as well as the driveway setback and exceeded the minimum required garage
dimensions (interior). .
Staff notes that access to a two car garage is typically provided through a two car driveway apron and
two car curb cut, so cars can independently access the garage space(s). In this particular case, when the
new house was approved in 1993, it was approved with a one car curb cut, opening to a two car
driveway apron . Staff is unclear how this was approved, however, typically , for a one car curb cut to
access two off street spaces , there would need to be a deeper than normal driveway apron to allow one
car to get around an car parked on one side of the driveway apron .
Section 14.18.250 (Permanence of off-street parking), states "that once any off-street parking or loading
space has been provided, which wholly or parlially meets the requirements of this title, such off-street
parking or loading space shall not thereafter be reduced, eliminated or made unusable in any manner
which renders the on-site parking inadequate for the building andlor uses in ex istence on or created after
the adoption of the ordinance codified in this title . Covered parking shall not be converled to uncovered
parking". The proposal would deviate from this section , and therefore , the applicaflt has requested a
Variance .
Section 14 .23 (Variance)
This section establishes the Variance process and required findings to grant a Variance . This section
states that the purpose of a variance is to provide flexibility from the strict application of development
standards consistent with the purposes of this title . Variances are intended to resolve practical difficulties
or unnecessary hardships resulting from the strict application of development standards when special
circumstances pertaining to the land such as size , shape, topography or location deprives such property
of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zonin.g district. In order for a
variance to be granted the following findings are required to be met:
A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the properly, including size ,
shape, topography, location or surroundings; the strict application of the requirements
of this title deprives such properly of privileges enjoyed by other properly in the
viCinity and under identical zoning classification;
B . That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properlies in the vicinity and zoning district in which such
properly is situated;
C. That granting the variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the zoning district in which the
subject properly is located; .
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Numbers: V1S-00S; ED16-010
D . That granting the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity of the development site , or to the public health, safety or
genera l 'welfare .
Page 4
Staff has performed a site visit to the property, reviewed the applicant's justifications for the Variance and
reviewed past cases where Variances to off street parking have been requested . Based on this analysis ,
staff is unable to meet all the required findings above for the following reaso ns :
A . Special C ir cumstances exist on the property-Despite being a substandard lot size (3,500 sq ft
where 5,000 sq ft is requ ired), the property was able to comply with the 1993 parking
requirements and provided a 2 car garage . The garage met and exceeded the minimum required
interior garage dimensions and has not been denied any privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity . The applicant contends that the plans that were approved and ultimate ly built for
access to the two car garage are not realistic , and a driver cannot safely navigate into or out of
the eastern space . This is based on the fact ttiat there is only a one car curb cut plus the fact that
there is an off-set in the two garage spaces, with a beam/post.
B . Will not constitute grant of special privileges -If the variance were to be granted it would be
g ran ting special privileges as it would have reduced the required on-site parking for this site due
to its lot size and limited curb cut. There is concern that this could create precedent. During the
site visit , a representative from Public Works Department (DPW) was also in attendance . DPW
staff performed the maneuvering to access the easternmost garage space, using a Prius .
Although the movement into and out of the easternmost space was difficult and slow, it was
performed . DPW staff felt th at there cou ld be several improvements to the garage to make the
space more accessible , such as removing the shelving along the easte rnmo st outer wall in order
to allow the wheels to turn ea'rlier while backing out of the, space or removing the beam/post.
C . Does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized -Complies . The
use will continue to be used as a s ingl e-family residence .
D . Will not be detrimental or injurious to property in vicinity or to public health and welfare -
Complies. Converting the garage will not be inju rious to property or improvements in the vicinity
of the development site, or to the public health , safety or general welfare.
As noted above, staff does not believe the required findings to grant a Variance can be rj'lade in this
particular case . However, this is a bit of a unique application and thus, the referral of this matter to the
Commission for consideration . After reviewing the appl ic ation, performing a site visit , and accepting
public testimony, should the Commission find that the findings to grant the Variance can be made , the
Commission can direct staff to prepare a revised resolution , incorporate the findings from the
Commission 's deliberation and return to the next Commission meeting with a revised Resolution to grant
the Variance . ' .
Section 14.25 (Environmental and Design Review Permit)
Given that the original home was approved through a de,sign review permit, any changes to the site plan
or building design requires a Design Review Permit. In this case , the Design Review Permit is minor
level , as the only changes to the s ite are to the parking and the garage door. Without meeting the
findings to the variance the design review cannot be supported .
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The exterior changes t.o the s ite and building are exterme ley minor, thus review of the proj ect design
Design Review Board is not required .
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION · Case Numbers: V15-005; ED16 ·010
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed project is statutori ly exempt from the California Environmental Quality Acl (CEOA),
pursuant to Section 15270(a), which exempts projects which are disapproved ,
Page 5
Should the Commission be able to make findings to grant the Variance, staff would recommend that a
project to grant the Variance , would also be exempt from CEQA, (categorically exempt), pursuant to
Section 15301 (a) of the ,CEQA Guide lin es which exempts interior alterations
CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of hearing for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in
Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance . A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within a 300·foot ra'dius of the subject site and the Sun V alley Neighborhood Association , and
all other interested parties , 15 calendar days prior to the date of this hearing . Public notice was also
posted on the subject site 15 calendar days prior to the date of this hearing .
Copies of all written public correspondence on the proposed project received to date are attached to this
report as Exhibit 5.
At the time of submittal staff had received several letters of support from nearby neighbors . Several
weeks after the submittal staff received an additional letter of support explaining the p'roperty history and
reasoning why the granting of the variance would not be a granting of special privilege , based on the
small lot size , the fact that the other properties in the vicinity have one car garages, and the significant
public street tree .
On February 4 , 2016, staff received an email urging the Plannin g Commission to deny the variance
request, given that parking is already tig ht and that the City should not reduce parking .
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options :
1, Deny the applications as presented (staff recommendation),
2 . Continue the applications to allow the applicant to address any of the Commission 's comments or
concerns .
3. Approve the project and direct staff to return to a continued hearing date with a revised
Reso lution ana condilions of approval.
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity/Location Map
3. Letter from applicant, 09130/15
4 . Revised letter from applicant , 11130/15
5. Public Correspondence
Plans have been distributed to the Planning Commission only
Exhibit I -Draft Resolution for VIS-OOS and ED16 -010
RESOLUTION NO. 16-
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A
VARIANCE (ViS-OOS) AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
(ED16-010) TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF ONE OF THE TWO EXISTING
GARAGE SPACES INTO HABITABLE SPACE LOCATED AT 39
HARCOURTST(APN: 010-185-02)
WHERAS, on October 5th , 2015, the applicant, Judy Denning, submitted applications for
a Variance and Envirorunental and Design Review Permit to allow the conversion of one of the
two garage spaces into habitable space, reducing the required two covered parking spaces to one
covered parking space at 39 Harcourt Street in the R5 Distriot; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the app li cat ion, the project has been determined to be
exempt from the requirements of the California Envirorunental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section IS270(a) of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts project which are disapproved ; and
WHEREAS, a notice for the P lannin g Commission hearing was posted on the project
site and mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subjeot property on
January 22, 2016; and
WHEREAS, on February 9th, 2016 the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on the Variance and Environmental and Design Review Permit
applications, accepting all oral and wr itt en public testimony and the written report of the
Community De,velopment Department staff.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , the Plaruling Commission hereby denies the
Variance (VIS-OOS) and Envirorunental and Design Review Permit (EDJ6-010) applications,
based on the following findings:
Variance Findings (VlS-OOS)
A. The proposed project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the Califomia
Envirorunental Quality Act (CEQ A) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section I S270(a) which
statutorily exempts projects that are disapproved from further CEQA review;
B. There are no special circumstances applicab le to the property, including siz e, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, for which the strict application of the requirements of
this title deprives slIch property of privileges errjoyed by other property in the viCinity and
under identical zOhing classijicat ion;
By requiring the property to conform to the parking requirements the property is not being
denied any privileges enjoyed by oth.er properties in the vicinity under identical zoning
classifications: .
C. The Variance will constitute a grant of special privileges incOI7.~istent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and zoning district in which such property is situated
When the subje<;t home was rebuilt in 1993 it was required to comply with the 1993 San
Rafael Municipal Code, which required two covered parking spaces. The home was .
designed and approved with a two car garage If any of the other homes in the neigbborhood
were rebuilt in that time , they would have been required to comply with the same
regulations. If the Variance were to be granted in tbis case, it would be granting special
privileges as it would reduce the required on-site parking for this site.
D. That granting the variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not
otherwise expressly authorized by the zon ing re g ulations for the zoning district in
which the subjec! property is located;
The proposed project meets the finding in that the use would not change from a single
family residence, which is a permitted use in fue R5 zone.
E. That granting the application will not be detrimental or injurious (0 property or
improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health,
safety or general welfare.
The proposed project meets the finding in that the conversion ofthe garage to
living space will not be injurious to 'property or improvements in the vicinity of
the development site, or to the public health, sa fety or general welfare.
Design Review Permit Findings (ED16-010)
A. That th e project design is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the zoning
ordinance and the purposes of this c~apter
The project , without an approved variance , will not be consistent with the objectives of
the zoning ordinance as it will not meet the parking requirement of two covered parking
spaces, as specified in chapter 14.18 .040 of the San Rafa el Municipal Code.
B. That the project design is consisteni with all applicable site, architecture and
landscaping design criteria and guidelines for th e dis/;'iel' in Which the site is lo cated;
The project would be consistent with all site, architecture and landsc'aping criteria in that
the design will promote good design and 'fit the character of the neighborhood.
C. That the project design minimizes adverse e nvironmental impacts; and
The proposed project i~ statutorily exempt from the requir ement s ofthe California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a)
which statutorily exempts projects that are disapproved fi'om further CEQA review.
-2-
·D. That the project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The·project, as proposed, would not propose a use or activity that is prohibited but would
continue the existing single-family r.esidential use in the Single-Family Residential (R5)
District, which is permitted by-right pursuant to 14 .04.020 of the Zoning Ordinance .
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission
meeting held on the 9th day of February, 2016.
Moved by Commissioner _-_____ and seconded by Commissioner ______ -'
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: __ -..,,-_____ _
Paul A Jensen, Secretary
BY: _______ -------
Mark Lubamersky, Chair
-3 -
1848
I
18 38
L~
'; J58'O . --_1 -'.
m
)( ::::r _.
a' _. ,....
N
W
\.0
:I:
QJ
'"' n o c:
~
< _.
n _ .
. ::l ;::;:
<
s:
QJ
"C
VARIANCE FINDl,NGS for 39 HARCOURT ST., SAN RAFAEL, CA
Addition Remodel for:
Judy Denning
39 Harcourt St. !
San Rafael, CA
APN 010-185-02
September 30, 2Q15
Jeff Kroot Architect
P. O. Box 246
San Anselmo, CA 94979
(415) 456-5531
A. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES: The unique circumstance is a heritage
tree on city property located directly in front of Judy Denning's east
garage space. The heritage tree makes it almost impossible to enter and
exit the east one car space in the garage . The only way to attempt to
enter or exit the east garage parking space is through multip le forward
and reverse movements both on the driveway and the lawn. This
difficult approach makes it likely the car will be scratched upon entering
and exiting the g~rage. Because of this difficulty the east garage space
has never been used for parking a car.
B. N'O SPECIAL PRIVILEGE: The granting of this variance will not
constitute a grant of special privilege because the majority of houses in
the neighborhood have either a single car garage or do not have a
garage. All of the garages in the neighborhood can be entered without
multiple forward and reverse maneuvers as is required at the Denning
garage. The resulting 1,841 sq. ft. the home is modest by neighborhood
standards.
C. NO UNAUTHERIZED USE: R5 zoning aIJows 1,841 sq. ft. residences
and garages.
D. NO ADVERSE IMPACTS: The change to a single car garage will create
an adverse impact to the neighborhood. Besides parking in the garage
there will be two additional guest parking spaces in the driveway. The
existing arrangement allows only two off street parking spaces. The
proposed garage and driveway change will allow three off street
parking spaces. Several neighbors have signed a letter of support for the
project. Neither Judy Denning nor her neighbors want the .heritage tree
removed ..
I
November 3D, 2015
"Exii lh;t Y
JUDITH DENNING
39 Harcourt Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
Raffi Boloyan, Planning Manager'
City of San Rafael Community Development Department
14005'· Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
RE: 39 Harcourt Street Request for Variance
Dear Raff!:
r;" r",,,,,, ""... < nu:;,'U & •. ,. ' ...... _
IlED U '\ I!ur ~
PLANN ING
I am submitting this letter in response to the letter that I received frpm the City dated November 3,
2015 indicating that staff does not believe that the findings for the variance can be supported. I am
asking you to cons id er the points that I raise below so that you may favorably process my variance
application .
It Is my understanding that variances are granted when the following finding can be made:
1) Unique Circumst~nce -That because of special circumstances applicable to t he property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance deprives such property of privilege s enjoyed by other
property in the vicinity and under identical zon ing classification.
My home is on a substandard lot; it is 3,500 square feet iii size ' where the Municipal Code
requires a minimum size lot of 5,000 square feet. There is an existing heritage tree : that
dominates the entry tp existing parking. The driveway has only a sing le car curb cut for access to
both the easterly and westerly parking spaces. To enter the easter ly garage in a full sized vehicle
requires the driver to make an awkward approach to avoid hitting one side or th'e other as the
vehicle enters the eastern parking space. Although the eastern garage Is not accessible In a
straight line from the curb cut and th e space is tight, entry is po ss ible and I have said so to you
and your staff during our meetings . When driving Into the garage, the driver can e nter if
cautious. Exit ing the east garage Is another matter. To turn the wheels of the car as it exits is
not viable. The driver cannot see the three post points at the entrance to the space without a
person standing In the garage and guiding them out so that the fenders wi ll not hit th e entry
way into the garage. Shelving on the eastern wa ll of the garage has nothing to do with the entry
, way posts -the car will hit the entry post s long before hitting the shelve s since the she lves are
rec esse d. Vehicles must also exit the east garage at night and in the rain and vi sibility is further
reduced . It is not reasonabl e to have a garage in which one cannot exit when it Is ni ght, when it
is raining, or when a person is not available to help guide the car-safe ly out of the space. Parking
may appear to be viable on paper or if a computer were driving the car, but as a practical matter
the parking is not viable. A fuJi sized vehicle wou ld exist the east garage straight out until the
front of the car was beyond the entry posts. This leaves t he back of the car less than a car I,ength
awa y from the heritage tree which by now is west of the back bumper. At this point it i s
necessary to make as many t hree point turns as needed to cl ear the tree and get back onto the
si ngl e cut curb. There are seve ral unique circumstances as it relates to this property and It's
parking spaces. .
2} No Special Privilege -That the variance must not constitute a grant of special 'privileges
in consiste nt with the limitations upon other properties in th e vicinity and zon in g district In
which such property is situated.
Per the City of San Rafael Planning Divi sio n Community Development Department definition of a
Vari 'ance published In 2006, a variance is "perm ission to depart from the literal requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance . Further" v ariances provide the discretion and flexibility necessary to
resolve practical difficulties or unnecessa:; hardships resulting from a zo nin g requirement".
To deny a 'var ianc e by dedarlng that the granting of my variance i s a special privilege because
there is a zon ing requirement defeats the fundamenta l purpose of a variance.
The practical situ ation is that of 752 square feet of living area on the ground f loor and 522
square feet of garage space. The east garage space is su itab l e for storage and not a functional
parking space. The premier parking space on this lot is the westerl y garage. The next choice for
parking as a practical matter is the uncovered parking space directly behind the western ga ra ge .
When these two spots are so occupied, no one can enter th e ea stern garage via th e single curb
cut -period . As the property Is configured, there is one viable co vered parking space and one
u.ncovered parking space . The homes In my vicinity are similarly situated and the granting of my '
variance would not be allowing me to have a specia l parking situation unlik e that of my
neighbors. I have previously submitted pictures of the hom es in my vicinity and have submitted
l etters of support f rom my neighbors who do not think that I am being granted anythi ng special.
3} No Un authori zed Use -the variance does not authorize a use or activity that is not otherwise
express ly authorized by the zon in g regu lat ion s.
The hou se will not be used for any other pu rpose than as a sing l e family residence.
4} No Adverse Impacts -t h e variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements In the vicinity of the development site.
I have the sup port of my neighbors and they are prepared to help me ,,!Ith the granting of t hi s
variance by the City . As property owners, they are duly Interested In the avai labi lity of parking
on our street and believe that the granting of t hi s variance will not increase on -street parking In
this cas e.
I realize that the City has Municipal Code Section 14.18.250 and it also has Municipal Code Section
14.18.040 which says that the parking requirement ca n be modified . There is also a Vari anc e procedure
that allows for di scret ion and flexibility. There are four findings to the request for a varian ce and I hav e
met those four. findings. Denying the variance request because to do so would be a specia l privilege
,.. .,
becau se th er e is a Municipal Code r equiring two covered parking spaces is to deny that th er e Is a
vari ance proc edure.
I resp ect fully reque st that staff r econ sid er th e matter at hand.
Sincerely,
~~~~~.
JudithDenning . ~.
To the San Rafael Planning Dept;
I am a neighbor of Judy Denrting who lives at 39 Harcourt Dr., San
Rafael. I underst<\nd that Judy is requesting a variance to remove one of
her garage car spaces and remodel it into interior floor area. I also
understand that San Rafael's Planning Code requires a two-car garage
for homes. The mature tree between the sidewalk and curb in front of
Judy's east garage space has made it necessary for her to request a
variil.llce. The tree is located in such a way' that it is almost impossible to
maneuver a car in or out of the 'east garage space .
. I strongly support Judy in her variance application to close off the ea~t
garage car space and remodel it into interior space in her home. I
further understand that she will retain the west garage car space and
her driveway will be widened to accommodate two additional guest
parking spaces.
Siglied:
Name printed: r: Y' { 'S:h-z-nUl ~e--Cp
Address: <;1--; cS ~ fl1?C-dl-C1r-
f jLf5 0 1
Date:
To the San Rafael Planning Dept.
I am a neighbor of Judy Denning who lives at 39 Harcourt Dr., San
Rafael. I understand that Judy is requesting a variance to remove one of
her garage car spaces and remodel it into interior floor area. I also
understand that San Rafael's Planning Code requires a two-car garage
for homes. The mature tree between the sidewalk and curb in front of
Judy's east garage space has made it necessary for her to request a
variance. The tree is located in such a way that it is almost impossible to
maneuver a car in or out of the east garage space.
I strongly support Judy in her variance application to close off the ' e,ast
garage car space and remodel it into interior space in her home. I
further understand that 'she will retain the west garage car space and
her driveway will be widenea to accommodate two additional guest
parking spaces.
Name printed: (? .~
~y\ lie.-k>. L.,I CA '{\ L
Address:
Z 1 ~'I'"' C-O u-r-f-c:s.-lv e.L +
SlM\.-12..GPOIQI, OA-04'10 I
Date: '
·q/2..0!\-o
To the San Rafael Planning Dept.
I am a neighbor of Judy Denning who lives .at 39 Harcourt Dr., San
Rafael. I understand that Judy is requesting a variance to remove one of
her garage car spaces and remodel it into interior floor area. I also
understand that San Rafael's Planning Code requires a two-car garage
for homes. The mature tree between the sidewalk and curb in front of
Judy's east garage space has made it necessary for her to request a
variance. The ~ree is loc ated in such a way that it is almost impossible to
maneuver a car in or out of the east garage space.
I strongly support Judy in her variance application to dose off the east
garage car space and remodel it into interior space in her home. I
further understand that she will retain the west garage car space and
her driveway will be widened to accommodate two additional guest
parking spaces.
Signed:
Nameprinte \\"'~lf.1.P \ ",lE ~{V1.1\: 'S
Address: \ f r.:: y I::: C"?-'t-l-...-G .2l l .
Date: q /25/15
To the San Rafael Planning Dept.
I am a neighbor oOudy Denning who lives at 39 Harcourt Dr., San
Rafael. I understand that Judy is requesting a variance to remove one of
her garage car spaces a'nd remodel it into interior floor area. r also
understand that San Rafael 's' Planning Code requires a two-car garage
for homes. The mature tree between the sidewalk and curb in front of
Judy's east garage space has made it necessarY for her to request a
variance. The tree is located in such a way that it is almost impossible to
maneuver a car in or out of the east garage space .
I.strongly support Judy in her variance application to close off the east ,
garage car space and remodel it into interior space in her home . I
further understand that she will retain the west garage car space and
her driveway will be widened to accommodate two additional guest
parking spaces.
S~gried:
Name printed:
Address:
Date:
I-0 !A-/ s e. lCtA....-b ,?;. e-/c 7
Ch e.r;/ ;1/ tl-A,th'
~'1 1-f~~5f .
~ If aft:U-t U4-1 '19 () I
'1/'1--7' I /~
\ \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
To the San Rafael Planning Dept.
I am a neighbor of Judy Denning who lives at 39 Harcourt Dr., San
Rafael. r understand that Judy is requesting a variance to remove one of
her gar(j.ge car spaces and remodel it into interior floor area. I also
. understand that San Rafael's Planning Code requires a two -car garage
for homes. The mature tree between the sidewalk and curb in front of
Judy's east garage space has made it necessary for her to request a
variance. The tree is located in such a way that it is almost impDssible to
maneuver a ca r in or out of the east garage space.
I strongly support Judy in her variance application to close off the east
garage car space and remodel it into interior space in her home. I
further understand that she will retain the west garage car space and
. her driveway will be widened to· accommodate two additional guest
'parking spaces .
Signed: ~ .------
Nameprfnted: ~()vk rn o..y
Lf 0 I~Co~Vv-{-J' J--
,J'wv, .~~ efT
Address:
Date:
To the San Rafael Planning Dept.
I am ,a neighbor of Judy Denning who lives9 Harcourt Dr., San
Rafael. I understand that Judy is requestin!;lriance to remove one of
her garage car spaces and remodel it into irtor floor area. 1 also
Qnderstand that San Rafael's Planning Cod€tuires a two-car garage
, for homes. The mature tree between th,e si~1k and curb in front of
Judy's east garage space has made it necessifor her to request a
variance. The tree is located in such a way t1it is almost impossible to
maneuver a car in or out of the east garage s~e.
Istrongly support Judy in her variance appli~on to close off the east
garage car space and remodel it into interior~e in her home. I
further understand that she will retain the w garage car space and
her driveway will be widened to accommodilt '0 additional guest
parking spaces.
Signed:
Address: ::(0 !/ctY'CJ)u ri &"'f
\ \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
October 26, 20 15
DMH LAND US E PLANNING
980 Fifth Avenue, Suite 203
San Ra fae l, CA 94901
415457-0525
Raffi Boloyan, Planning Manager
City of San Rafael Comm uni ty Development Department '
1400 5th Aven ue
San Rafael, CA 9490 I
RE: 39 Harcourt Street Request for Variance
Dear Raffi:
I am Writing thi s 'lett er in supp ort of my neighbor Judy Denning 's req ue st for a parkin g
variance at 39 Harcourt Street. Ms. Denning desires to construct a min or addit ion to · her
bome which includes converting a portion of her ga rage to living spac e. ~'h e proposal
wi .1I result in one covered parking space, which is why Ms. Denning is requesting a
variance. Two uncovered parking places are proposed , resulting in a tota l of three off-
street parking spaces .
Some historic background : there was a small cottage on the parcel at 39 Harcourt Street
which was destroyed by tire nearly 20 years ago. The cottage had no covered parking.
, When the fire-destroyed home was removed and a new residence constructed, it was
required to hav e two covered parking spaces, consistent w ith Municipal Code
requirements. A ne,,! hom e was constructed that has garage space for two vehicles,
although it is nearly impossible to drive int o the more eas terly parking space due to the
configura ti on of th e driveway. As a result , only one covered parking place ha s ever been
utilized on-site.
Because of an existing heritage tree in the planting strip adjacent to the street frontage,
the driveway has on ly a sing le car curb cut which accesses an odd ly-angled driveway that
flares out to provide access to the easterly parking space in the garage . I often pick up
Ms , Denning 's mail and newspapers when she is away; if I am stopping on my way to or
from work , and I am in my car, I have learned not to pull into her driveway, as it takes
me many attempts forward and back to get my car out of her driveway due to the odd
configuration (and in fact , if I am trave Uin g westbound on Harcourt Street, it is virtually
impossible for me to turn into the driveway at 39 Harcourt Street due to tbe odd ang le of
the driveway). While the design appears on paper to meet the requirements of the
Municipal Code, in fact, the second covered parking space has never been a viable
covered parking space due to the inability to access it.
[have li ved within 300 feet of the property at 39 Harcourt Street for more than 20 years
and I have never observed a parking problem in thci area (even in recent years when there
have been major construction projects nearby with numerous construction vehicles on the
street every day). A majority of the homes in the area have no covered parking or only
one covered parking space (in~luding my own home and homes immediately adjacent to
and across the street from Ms. Denn in g's property.) As a result, allowing Ms. Denning to
convert one of her two covered parking spaces to li ving area wou ld not be a grant of
special privilege.
The parcel at 39 F(arcourt Street is substandard in s ize, on ly 3,500 square feet, where the
Municipal Code requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The fact that this
property is a legal parcel which is 30% smaller than the minimum lot requirement allows
the City to make the fi)1ding that there are special circumstances app li cab le to this parcel,
w hi ch warrants the granting of a variance. As 1 have previous ly indicated , other
propertie s in the area which are much larger than Ms. Denning's do not.have two covered
parlcing spaces, and therefore this would not constitute a grant of special privilege. In
fact, to deny Ms. D enning's request would be treating her differently than other
properties ,in the area.
Because of the small parcel size, the existing bome includes on ly 752 square feet of
livin g area on the ground floor, consisting of a s mall living room , kitchen , family room
and powder room. Ms. Denning can only accommodate four people for sit down dining
at a small bistro table located in her family room. She desires to convert the lmusable
portion of the garage to dining area so that she can fit a normal sized 'dining table and
cbairs. I believe that this is a reasonable request, and I believe that every other home in
tbe area has a similar dining area. The proposed remode l will not expand the footprint,
mass or bulk of the structure, nor will it intensify the existing use of the home .
Section 14.18.040.B of the San Rafael Municipal Code states:
The parking requirement for any specific use listed may be modified so as to provide
adequate parking which isfair, equitable, logical and consislentwith the intent of this
chapter.
In light of the substandard lot s ize, the fact that other properties in the immediate area
have only one covered parking space, and t he location of tbe heritage tree at the property
frontage, granting the parking vari~nce is the fair , equitab le and logical thing to do . The
fact that Ms. Denning's proposal wi ll provide three off-street parking spaces, one of
wh ich is covered, makes the plan consi.stent with the intent of Chapter 14.18 Parking
Standards of the San Rafael Mup.icipal Code.
Thank you for your consideration of Ms. Denning's variance application . If you hav e
any questions or I may provide additional infonuation, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Diane Henderson, AICP
cc; Judy Denning
JeffKroot, Architect
Alan Montes
From :
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Planning Commission ,
Judy <judyferg @co mcast.net >
Thursday, February 04 , 2016 8:54 AM
Alan Montes
Request for variance at 39 Harcourt Street, San Rafae l, CA
As a neighbor to 39 Harcourt Street, I would like to urge you to deny the request for a variance to
reduce the required existing two car garage to a one car garage, allowing for th e creation of additional
living space .
It is my und e rstanding that San Rafael requires new single family homes to provide two covered .
parking spaces. Given the same single-family residential parking requirements were app'licable in
1993 when this home went before design review prior to its construction , it seems unusual to grant
this type of a variance now.
Parking has become a hot topic in San Rafael. The recent approval of Junior Secor]d Units will put
additiona l strain on the a lready tight parking in many neighborhoods. Last year's approval of an
increase in e nrollment at Marin Academy might do the same to our Forbes Neighborhood .
I urge you to think hard before a llowing a variance for something that is still at the forefront of design
review in our town of San Rafael.
Respectfully ,
Judy Ferguson
222 H Street
San Rafael. CA 94901
1