To: PLANNING COMMISSION From: Stephen M. Haase[PL1]
Subject: SEE BELOW Date: October 17, 2003
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6
SUBJECT: PDC03-060.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PREZONING OF A 0.19 ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF BIRD AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 490 FEET NORTHEASTERLY OF SNYDER AVENUE TO
ALLOW A HALF-STORY OFFICE WITHIN AN EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING.
BACKGROUND
This item, a Planned Development Zoning to allow a half-story office within an existing single-family residential accessory building, was last before the Planning Commission on September 24, 2003. At that time, the Commission heard public testimony, discussed the proposal at length and continued the item to allow staff to work with the applicant to further clarify the nature of the proposed office use, and for the Commission to work with staff to draft recommendations to the City Council regarding possible changes to the R-1 Zoning Districts to provide for a wider range of uses in accessory structures. The Commission discussion of the item raised three possible use scenarios for approval of a proposed Planned Development Zoning that would allow the applicant to retain the 530 square-foot half story and office use. These scenarios included: 1) use of the half story for a home office within the accessory building; 2) use of the half story for a commercial office within the accessory building; and 3) connection of the garage to the house and use of the half-story space as a home office incorporated within the residence. In the context of the Commission discussion, the City Attorney provided clarification regarding Zoning Code and General Plan implications of the first two scenarios. This memorandum summarizes this clarification and provides additional analysis of a third scenario discussed by the Commission involving connection of the garage to the house.
ANALYSIS
Home Office within an
Accessory Building/Second Living Unit
Title 20 of the San Jose Municipal Code specifies that an accessory building “…is a separate and subordinate building the use of which is purely incidental to that of the main building and cannot contain living space”. The Code further defines living space as a room designed for living, sleeping, eating, study, home office, sewing room or recreational room. At the September 24th Planning Commission hearing, the City Attorney clarified that providing living space in an accessory building was therefore inherently contrary to the Zoning Code definition of “accessory building” in Title 20, and that the “accessory building” definition could not be changed for a specific site through a Planned Development Zoning, but would require an amendment to the Zoning Code. The City Attorney concluded that approval of living space within the subject garage and half-story space would constitute the approval of a second living unit on this site. Staff pointed out that a second dwelling unit on the parcel would not conform to the density range of the site’s Medium Low Density Residential (8 DU/AC) General Plan land use designation. The addition of a second living unit on this site would result in a density of 10.5 units per acre.
While a General Plan Discretionary Alternate Use Policy provides that parcels under 2 acres may be developed at the next higher or lower density range, the Plan prefaces use of this “2 acre rule” as appropriate to respond to site characteristics or constraints, neighborhood compatibility issues, and isolated infill opportunity sites. Staff and the Attorney have indicated that under this policy it would not be appropriate to allow a second dwelling unit through the Planned Development Zoning process for a single family property located within a large neighborhood of similarly-situated properties that would not enjoy the same benefit. Staff and the Attorney advised the Commission that the issue of second dwelling units in single-family neighborhoods would need to be addressed through amendments to both the General Plan and Title 20 so that any benefits afforded one isolated single-family property would be made available equitably to similarly-situated properties. Staff also alerted the Commission that a citywide study of the issue of secondary living units is currently underway by the City Administration.
Staff further clarified that a home office within a separate dwelling unit would also need to conform to the home occupation provisions of Title 20. The applicant has indicated that his proposed use generally conforms to the home occupation requirements, except that he has an employee, an assistant, who works on the site an average of 2 to 4 hours per week. Under the City’s home occupation requirements as shown in Section 20.80.710 of the Zoning Code, only occupants of a dwelling may be employees or volunteers of a business operated in a dwelling as a home occupation. Based on this clarification from the applicant, staff concludes that even with approval of the garage structure on this site as a second dwelling unit, the applicant’s proposed office use would not be allowed as a home occupation. Even assuming the applicant occupied that secondary unit, the applicant’s employee, partner or assistant, is not also an occupant of that proposed second dwelling unit.
Commercial Office Use
The City Attorney clarified for the Commission that an office use that does not conform to the home occupation requirements of Title 20 would be considered a commercial use. Such a commercial use, and therefore the PD Zoning to allow such a commercial use, would not conform to the subject site’s Medium Low Density Residential (8 DU/AC) General Plan designation. Given the employment, customers and traffic associated with commercial businesses, the General Plan does not provide that stand-alone office uses on the same site, as single-family houses are a compatible mix within single-family neighborhoods. In specific instances, generally in areas planned for higher density, the General Plan does provide specifically for mixed-use or live/work options. For a commercial use to be suitable for this site, it follows that it would be suitable for thousands of other similarly-situated properties throughout the R-1-8 Residence Zoning District citywide. For the City to allow commercial uses as distinct from home occupations within the R-1-8 District would require amendments to the Medium Low Density Residential (8 DU/AC) General Plan designation and the R-1-8 Residence Zoning District to allow some range commercial uses in these residential areas. Absent these changes, staff cannot make findings of General Plan conformance for the proposed stand-alone commercial office use in this single-family residential district.
Attach Garage to House in one single-family residence
Section 20.200.020 (B) of Title 20 specifies that a structure shall be considered a separate building unless it shares an integral roof structure having the same framing system and roof covering as the main building. Incorporation of the subject garage and half-story into the existing residence with an integral roof structure would be a significant challenge. The main residence, built in 1876, is listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory as a “Contributing Structure”. Even if the integral roof connection could be achieved, it could significantly alter the existing historic structure. Prior to approval of any such proposal, it would be necessary to determine whether or not the connection could be made without a significant impact on the historic resource and to prepare any additional environmental documents necessary to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Such an integral connection of the existing house and accessory structure would result in a very large house with only a five-foot rear yard setback, which would be incompatible with the existing development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood and inconsistent with the Single-Family Design Guidelines. A Planned Development Zoning would still be necessary to allow a house with said setbacks, as it would not conform to the development standards of the R-1-8 Residential Zoning District.
Even if the garage and half-story were made a integral part of the existing residence, the applicant’s proposed office use, including an on-site employee, would not conform to the home occupation provisions of Title 20 and would not be allowed. It should be noted that the applicant has not proposed, nor indicated interest in incorporating the existing garage and half-story into the residence.
Conclusion
For the reasons identified in the previous staff report dated October 8, 2003, and in the supplemental analysis above, staff concludes that a rezoning of the subject site to allow either an additional dwelling unit or a separate commercial office use on the parcel is not consistent with the General Plan or compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Rezoning of the site to allow the garage to be attached to the residence would not be consistent with the Single-Family Design Guidelines, or compatible with the neighborhood and could result in significant impacts on the historic residence. Due to the absence of unique circumstances that would set this property apart from other similarly-situated properties within the R-1 Zoning Districts throughout the City, staff believes approval of any of the Planned Development Zoning use scenarios discussed above would not conform to the General Plan and would be detrimental to the integrity of Title 20. Such a rezoning would allow uses on this particular property without sufficient facts to support findings regarding the unique characteristics of the property that would warrant disparate treatment from other similarly-situated properties. Additionally, given the applicant’s clarification that the proposed office use includes a non-resident employee, the option for allowing a second living-unit would not meet the applicants stated office needs, but would provide for use of the half-story as living space. Again, for reasons cited above, staff does not support a two living-unit proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff continues to recommend that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to deny the subject rezoning for the following reasons:
1. The proposed project that includes an office use with an employee, which cannot be allowed as a home occupation, does not conform to the General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Low Density Residential (8 DU/AC).
2. The project if developed as two dwelling units on one parcel would be incompatible with the surrounding single-family neighborhood.
3. The project would allow a single property to enjoy uses not available to other similarly-situated single-family properties in the same neighborhood and throughout the City.
STEPHEN M. HAASE, AICP, DIRECTOR
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
c: Stan Davis
1023 Bird Avenue
San Jose, CA 95125