Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Garage Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves variance reducing garage setback for 670 Oak Lane
Summary
The commission unanimously granted a variance allowing an 8-foot garage setback (rather than 20 feet) for a proposed single-family home at 670 Oak Lane, after hearings that included neighbor complaints about noticing and safety concerns.
The Sonoma City Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve a variance reducing the required garage setback for a new single-family dwelling at 670 Oak Lane, allowing the garage to be sited 8 feet from the front of the house instead of the 20 feet required in the current development code.
Staff explained the parcel is one of the smaller lots in the Vintage Estates subdivision and that strict application of the current code would significantly reduce the developable floor plate and make compliance with the subdivision map and reasonable floor-area-ratio difficult. The adopted subdivision map had previously provided a garage setback measured from the back of sidewalk; staff said the proposed layout is consistent with how other homes in the subdivision were developed.
Local architect Robert Baumann, representing the property owners, told the commission the two lots at the south end of Oak Lane are among the smallest in the subdivision and said moving the garage further back would make single-story floor plans impractical. "These are the 2 smallest lots in the entire neighborhood. With that comes a challenge architecturally to make a layout for a home work," Baumann said.
Neighbors raised objections during public comment. Richard Preis (spelled in the transcript "p r e I s s") asked the commission to delay the hearing, saying notices and plan availability did not meet legal timelines: "I don't believe that adequate notice has been provided for this meeting," he told the commission, arguing notices were not posted on-site 10 days before the hearing and that full plans were not available at city hall until later.
Other neighbors described safety concerns with garages close to the sidewalk on a one-block street used heavily by pedestrians, children and dog-walkers. Greg Johnson, who said he and his wife live next door, argued the requested setback would move parked cars closer to the sidewalk and reduce sightlines: "The variance... moves the garage closer to the street by 12 feet... There will be about 11 feet from the bumper of the car to the sidewalk," he said, urging the commission to deny the request on safety grounds.
Planning staff and several commissioners responded to noticing concerns, saying mailed notices were sent more than the minimum 10 days before the hearing and that materials were made available online and at city hall; staff said they had personally posted the site notice on January 3rd and documented it. The commission discussed the tension between the subdivision—s historic development pattern and the updated development code, which staff and several commissioners characterized as an aesthetic "new urbanism" change adopted in 2003.
Several commissioners said they could make the findings required for a variance, noting the lot—s size and shape posed a practical constraint and that similar front setbacks exist in the subdivision. Vice Chair Wyrick, Commissioner Willers and others said denying the variance would likely force a two-story house or a reduced floor area; they supported the owners' request to build a one-story home compatible with nearby houses.
After deliberation, a motion to approve the variance carried on a unanimous roll-call vote. Commissioners asked staff to ensure follow-up on site conditions and to monitor construction activity.
