HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 3 P.C. CUP 90-08 06-18-90DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JUNE 18, 1990
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
t
PUBLIC HEARING N0a ,3
�`6/ 18/, 90
{
Inter - Com
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 90-08
APPLICANT: FERIDOUN REZAI
203 TROJAN STREET
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92804
OWNER: SAME
LOCATION: 15642 PASADENA AVENUE
ZONING: R-31 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT
REQUEST: APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY, 11
UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON A PARCEL THAT IS ADJACENT
TO AN R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) LOT AND WITHIN
150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
RECOMMENDATION
Pleasure of the City Council.
BACKGROUND
At their regular meeting on June 4th, the City Council continued
the appeal hearing on CUP 90-08 to June 18th and directed the
developer and residents to meet in a workshop on June 7th and
attempt to work out a design compromise. Attendance at the
workshop numbered approximately 40 people including City staff, the
developer and his architect, attorney and consultants and concerned
residents. In order to facilitate discussion and maximize the
possibility of reaching an acceptable compromise, the participants
were contacted in writing before the meeting and asked to prepare
and bring to the meeting a design proposal other than what had been
discussed at previous public hearings. . The workshop itself was
conducted using the "Delphi" Process; each party or individual is
City Council Report
Continuation of Appeal of CUP 90-08
June 18, 1990
Page 2
given an opportunity to propose a solution, all of which are
written on a flip -chart. After all proposals have been made, they
are discussed and analyzed by the group to identify the pros and
cons, strengths and weaknesses of each proposal, arriving or
reaching concensus on a final solution which may be a combination
of several proposals.
DISCUSSION
A total of 12 proposals were made and discussed throughout the
course of the workshop. These are summarized and attached as
Exhibit A in the general order in which they were proposed.
While a number of the proposals bear a strong resemblance to each
other, there was no significant progression during the workshop
towards a compromise that the residents supported. As best as
staff was able to determine, the bottom line proposals for each
party were as follows:
Developer - The Developer presented two bottom line alternatives:
1. Eliminate unit #6 (end unit in Building A) and remove the
2nd floor of unit #11 (end unit in Building B); or
2. Remove the 2nd floor of units 5 and 6 (two end units in
Building A) and the 2nd floor of Unit 11 and h of the
second floor of Unit 10 (Building B).
The developer indicated at the end of the workshop that these were
the only two proposals he was prepared to "guarantee", and was
unwilling to commit to any other proposals because he stated that
he would first have to get approval from the bank that made the
construction loan.
If unit #6 were eliminated (Alternative 1), the rear setback for
Building 'A' would be increased from 10 feet to + 35 feet. Under
either alternative, the rear setback for Building 'B' would remain
at + 25 feet for the first floor and approximately 60 feet to the
2nd floor. The developer recommended flat roofs for single story
portions of the building with second floor roofs modified to
incorporate gables at the end units. If the second floor on Units
5 and 6 were eliminated (Alternative 2), the rear setback for
Building A would be 10 feet for the first floor and 60 feet to the
2nd floor.
Community Development Department
City Council Report
Continuation of Appeal of CUP 90-08
June 18, 1990
Page 3
Residents - A number of residents presented the following bottom
line:
Remove the 2nd floor from both buildings within 100 feet of the
rear property line, and eliminate unit #6, with the one story
portion to have a flat roof. On Building 'A', this proposal would
only leave the first two units of Building 'A' unaltered (numbers
1 and 2). In the case of Building 'B', this proposal would also
only leave the first two units unaltered. A total of seven units
would be reduced to one story. It is not known at this time
whether the unit count would have to be reduced from the existing
total of 11 units.
The rear setback to Building 'A' would be increased to 35 feet at
the 1st floor and + 117 feet to the 2nd floor. For Building 'B',
the rear setback of the 1st floor would remain at + 25 feet and
increase to + 100 feet at the 2nd floor.
A recurring feature of the residents' proposals is to eliminate or
cut back unit #6, which presently maintains a 10 foot rear setback.
Pursuant to the R-3 zoning standards, a 20 foot, one story building
would be permitted within 10 feet of the rear property line without
any discretionary approval (i.e. a CUP). If unit #6 is reduced to
one story, or 20 feet, it may be inappropriate to require a setback
greater than the minimum required by code.
The final proposals made by each party incorporate a flat roof
design for the one story portion. During the workshop, staff
attempted to explain the visual impact of a flat roof, which would
be out of character with the project's architectural style and
design and the design of other improvements in the area. A flat
roof was desired by residents to minimize the overall height of the
project; however, it should be noted that a one story building is
permitted by code to go up to 20 feet in height. A pitched roof
could be incorporated into a one story design, with the peak able
to be designed at or below the 20 foot limit without impacting
privacy on adjacent R-1 properties, which are permitted a building
height of up to 30 feet without zoning approvals. The average
height of the one story portion of those buildings to be altered
would be significantly lower than 20 feet. Pitched roofs would
greatly improve the quality of the project. The purpose of the
City's design review process, to achieve design compatibility and
quality, should not be ignored in any design compromise for this
project. Staff recommends that some degree of pitched roof be
incorporated into any revised plan that includes a one story
Community Development Department
City Council Report
Continuation of Appeal of CUP 90-08
June 18, 1990
Page 4
design.
A number of additional peripheral issues were discussed at the
workshop which do not affect the building design, but were concerns
of the residents. These issues included the location of the trash
enclosure, a proposed spa in the southeast corner of the site and
landscaping. The following were those items upon which consensus
was reached by all parties, regardless of the final design of the
buildings:
The trash enclosures would be relocated towards the front
of the project with a location to be approved by the
City.
The proposed spa would be eliminated.
At least one specimen size tree would be planted in place
of the spa, and minimum 24" box trees would be planted
along the side and rear property lines. All trees would
be evergreens and special attention would be paid to
their review, planting and maintenance.
CONCLUSION
A design compromise acceptable to both parties (Developer and
Residents) was not reached at the June 7th workshop. At this time,
the City Council should review the various proposals discussed in
this report and take whatever action it deems appropriate. Staff
would be prepared to support the Council with Resolutions at the
meeting as necessary. One additional alternative would be to
instruct staff to facilitate one more meeting between the parties
in an effort to obtain greater consensus between the parties and
to avoid costly potential litigation.
Steve Rubin Christine A. Shi eton
Associate Planner Director of ComnidInity Development
SR:CAS:kbc
Attachments:
Exhibit A
June 4th staff report
Community Development Department
EXHIBIT A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROPOSALS
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
JUNE 71 1990
1. (Proposed by Developer) - Remove the 2nd floor from the
rear lz units of Building 'A' (units 5 & 6) and rear one
unit of Building 'B(unit 11). This proposal also
entailed:
° Modifying the roof lines to incorporate flat roofs
on the one story portions.
A 50 foot rear setback to the second floor of both
buildings; 10 feet and 25 feet to the first floor.
The one story units would have one -bedroom.
The total unit count would stay at 11 units.
2. (Proposed by Residents) - Tear down all but the front
units of each building (units 1 and 7).
Build one story behind with flat roof.
Unit #6 would be eliminated completely.
° No specific rear setbacks were identified for the
one story portions.
3. (Proposed by Residents) - Remove the second floor of the
rear four units of each building (Units 3, 41 51 6, 81
91 10 and 11).
° This would leave the two front units in Building 'A'
unmodified and the one front unit in Building ' B'
unmodified.
° Use flat roofs on one story portions.
° Eliminate Unit #6.
(This proposal is very similar to #2 above)
4. (Proposed by Residents) - Remove the two end units from
each building, leaving the rest at two stories without
further modifications.
5. (Proposed by Residents) - Remove the three end units from
each building, leaving the rest at two stories without
further modifications.
6. (Proposed by Residents) - Reduce the entire project to
Preliminary Design Proposals
Community Workshop
June 7, 1990
Page 2
one story (modifying the existing buildings).
Proposals made by the Developer and Residents were, to this point,
fairly divergent. For purposes of discussion and in an effort to
bring the two parties closer together, staff suggested removing the
second floor from both buildings within 75 feet of the rear
property line. This suggestion entailed:
Removing the 2nd floor from the three rear units in each
building (units 4, 5, 61 91 10 & 11).
Incorporating a pitched roof over the one story portions
with a maximum height of 20 feet.
Maintaining existing rear setbacks to the one story
portions of the buildings.
Following the above suggestion, additional proposals were made:
8. (Proposed by Developer) - Remove the 2nd floor from the
two rear units of Building 'A' (Units 5 & 6 ) and the rear
lz units of Building 'B' (Units 10 & 11). This is very
similar to proposal #1 above, involving , a unit more in
each building.
9. (Proposed by Developer) - Remove Unit #6 down to the
parking level. The rest of both buildings would remain
as is.
10. (Proposed by Residents) - Remove the 2nd floor from both
buildings within 100 feet of the rear property line and
also eliminate the rear 15 feet of unit #6. One story
portions to have a flat roof.
11. (Proposed by Developer) - Eliminate unit #6 and remove
the second floor of unit #11 ( involving the two end units
of each building).
12. (Proposed by Developer) - Remove the 2nd floor of units
6 and 11 (two end units).
"E:
JUNE 41 1990
6/4/90
Inter - Com
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING C0Y-MISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 90-08
APPLICANT: FERIDOUN REZAI
203 TROJAN STREET
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92804
OWNER: SAME
LOCATION: 15642 PASADENA AVENUE
ZONING: R-31 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT
REQUEST: APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY, 11
UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON A PARCEL THAT IS ADJACENT
TO AN R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) LOT AND WITHIN
150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
RECOMMENDATION
Pleasure of the City Council.
BACKGROUND
On March 13, 1989, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use
Permit 89-05, authorizing the construction of a two and one half
story, 11 unit apartment project on a 20,184 square foot lot in the
R-3 zoning district.
City Council Report
Appeal of P.C. Denial
i June 4, 1990
Page 2
of CUP 90-08
A conditional use permit was required since the subject property
abuts R-1 zoned properties on its eastern (rear) property line.
Provisions of Section 9226(c) of the Tustin Municipal code state:
"...when a lot in the R-3 District abuts at any point
along its property lines or is directly across a street
or alley from a property zoned R -A, E-4 or R-1 (developed
or undeveloped), no main building shall be erected on
said R-3 lot to a height to exceed one (1) story, and/or
twenty (20) feet, whichever is more restrictive, within
one hundred fifty (150) feet of said R -A, E-4 and R-1
zoned property, unless the Planning Agency shall grant
a conditional use permit thereof."
Building permits for the apartment project were issued in May,
1989. During construction (framing), staff began to receive
complaints from several owners of the single family residences
located immediately to the east of the subject property concerning
privacy and the height of the buildings. In March, 1990, staff
reviewed the mailing list used for notification of the public
hearing for Conditional Use Permit 89-05 to determine why these
residences were only now voicing their concerns about the project.
Review of the mailing list, which was prepared by a title company,
revealed that while all affected properties were shown on the 300
foot radius map, the typed mailing labels provided to the City did
not include the owners of the R-1 properties adjacent to and east
of the subject property.
Based on several decisions of the California Supreme Court, the
City Attorney determined that Conditional Use Permit 89-05 was
invalid due to improper notification. Consequently, the building
permits for the project were revoked and construction halted.
Conditional Use Permit 90-08 was filed by the applicant, seeking
re -approval of Conditional Use Permit 89-05. A new mailing list
was provided to the City which was verified for completeness and
accuracy.
As part of his written appeal Mr. Rezai submitted a statement
saying that he was directed to go to Orange Coast Title for his
mailing list by staff because the list he submitted with his CUP
application was not acceptable, as it was not on pre -gummed labels.
Mr. Rezai was shown a set of typed, pre -gummed labels that had been
prepared for another project by Orange Coast Title to clarify what
was expected of him; however, he was not directed to go to any
specific title company. Pursuant to the City's guidelines for
Community Development Department
City Council Report
Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08
June 4, 1990
Page 3
"Filing an Application for Public Hearing", Mr. Rezai was
responsible for supplying the list of property owners within a 300
foot radius' of the- subject property on pre -gummed labels (see
Exhibit -A). Mr. Rezai executed an affidavit stating that the
mailing list he submitted (identified as Exhibit 2 on the
affidavit) was true and correct (see Exhibit B) . A response to Mr.
Rezai' s appeal has been prepared by the City Attorney' s of f ice and
is attached to this report (see Exhibits C and D, respectively).
A new public hearing was held with the Planning Commission on April
91 1990. In response to public testimony, the Planning Commission
continued the April 9th hearing to April 30th and directed the
applicant to explore design modifications to the buildings that
would mitigate the concerns of the owners of the adjacent single
family residences.
At the April 30th hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the
applicant's proposed modifications and took additional testimony
from the public. After consideration of testimony and proposed
modifications, the Planning Commission adcpted Resolution No. 2762,
denying Conditional Use Permit 90-08. This matter was appealed by
the City Council on May 7, 1990.
A notice of public hearing for this meeting was published in the
Tustin News and posted on the subject property on May 25, 1990.
A copy of the notice was mailed to the applicant and property
owners within 300 feet of the subject property on May 15, 1990.
DISCUSSION
The following discussion contains a brief summary of legal issues,
a description of the originally approved project as well as
modifications proposed by the applicant, issues raised by residents
at previous public hearings and alternatives available to the City
Council.
Summary of Legal Issues Raised by the Appellant
The appellant raises several legal issues which are as follows:
1. Revocation of the building permit without notice and
hearing was in violation of law.
Community Development Department
City Council Report
Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08
June 4, 1990
Page 4
2. Under Government Code Section 65093, the failure of a
person to receive notice is not grounds for holding any
action taken to be invalid.
3. The City was negligent and therefore the Applicant cannot
be held responsible for the defective notice.
The City Attorney's opinions with respect to each of the
issues raised above is as follows:
1. The building permit was revoked in accordance with law.
Conditional use permits require notice to all owners of
real property within 300 feet and an opportunity to be
heard so that such landowners are not deprived of their
"substantial or significant property rights." Horn v.
County of Ventura, 24 Cal. 3d 605 (1979). A conditional
use permit that is approved without such notice is
fundamentally defective and is invalid from the outset.
An -invalid conditional use permit is different from a
valid conditional use permit that the Council may revoke
only following due notice and hearing to the applicant.
Likewise, a building permit that is issued in error, such
as this case, upon the basis that a valid conditional use
permit existed, may be summarily revoked without notice
and hearing in conformity with State law and the United
States Constitution. In particular, Uniform Building
Code Section 303(e) which has been adopted as part of the
City of Tustin's Code, provides as follows:
"The Building Official may, in writing,
suspend or revoke a permit issued under
the provisions of this Code whenever the
permit is issued in error or on the basis
of incorrect information supplied, or in
violation of any ordinance or regulation
or any of the provisions of this Code."
A void or invalid building permit does not establish a
vested right to develop property. Sierra Club v.
California Coastal Commission (1976) 58 Cal. App. 3d
149. This point is clearly illustrated in Millbrae
Association v. City of Millbrae (1968) 262 Cal. App. 2d
222, 246,. wherein the court held that a party did not
have a vested right even though they spent over $600,000
to develop the property in reliance on an erroneously
Community Development Department
City Council Report
Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08
June 4, 1990
Page 5
approved permit. The case law is uniformly supportive
of this position. As Mr. Rezai did not have a vested
right to develop under the invalid CUP, there is no
violation of substantive or procedural due process.
2. Government Code Section 65093 does not apply in this
situation. It only applies when notice has been
properly given, but for some reason neighboring property
owners have failed to actually receive the notice. In
this case notice was not provided to all property
owners.
3. Negligence is not relevant to the issue before the
Council. The City's decision to summarily revoke the
building permit and to renotice the conditional use
permit cannot be challenged based on the alleged
negligence of the City to verify the list of property
owners submitted by Mr. Rezai. The public policy issue
at stake is notice to neighboring property owners, which
cannot be defeated by allegations of City negligence,
even if such allegations are true. Separate and apart
from the relevancy of negligence, there is significant
reason to believe that Mr. Rezai and not the City was
the negligent party. Pursuant to the City's Guidelines
For Filing An Application For Public Hearing, Mr. Rezai
was responsible for supplying an accurate list of
property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the subject
property. Mr. Rezai subsequently executed an affidavit
stating that the information supplied was true and
correct.
For a more detailed discussion of each of these issues,
see the attached Memorandum from the City Attorney
(Exhibit "D").
Project Description
The project as originally approved by CUP 89-05, and as partially
constructed, consists of two separate, two and one half story
buildings containing a total of eleven townhouse type apartment
units. Six units are located in a building that is parallel to
the northern property line of the site and five (5) units are
located in a building that is parallel to the southern property
line. The units are.approximately 11200 square feet in size and
contain three bedrooms and 2-1/2 baths. The overall density of
Community Development Department
City Council Report
Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08
June 4, 1990
Page 6
the project is 23.7 units per acre. Under current provisions of
the R-3 District, the. maximum number of units that could be
authorized on the site is 11 units.
Building coverage on the site is approximately 38%, with setbacks
proposed of approximately 31 feet along the front of the property,
eight feet along the north side lot line, 15'-6" along the south
side lot line and 10 to 24 81
at the rear of the property,
adjacent to the R-1 zoned property.
A total of 25 on-site parking spaces are provided; 11 two -car
garages and three open, covered guest spaces. Parking is provided
under each building and is partially below existing grade. Access
to all parking is from a 27 foot wide central driveway.
The proposed grading scheme for the project involved excavating
approximately five (5) feet below existing grade for the central
driveway and tuck under parking which results in the two and a
half story design.
The grade level in the front and rear yard setbacks remains
unchanged except for landscape berming and drainage.
The architectural design for the project is a modified cape code
design which combines wood lap -siding and stucco with wood trim.
The color and material scheme is compatible with that of
surrounding developments.
Proposed Modifications
In proposing design modifications to the project, it was the
applicant's objective not to eliminate units. Consequently, the
modifications presented to the Planning Commission on April 30th
incorporated alterations only to the end units of each building.
These alterations consisted of:
° eliminating one corner bedroom from each end unit.
revising bathrooms as affected by deletion of bedrooms.
° combining hip roofs with the existing gable roof.
using obscure glass in bathroom windows.
placing vision cut-off screens over bedroom windows.
Community Development Department
City Council Report
Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08
June 4, 1990
Page 7
The elimination of a bedroom from each
to step down in height from two to one
range from 18 feet to 29.5 feet.
originally the same for all stories,
feet for the northerly building and
southerly building.
Major Issues Raised by Residents
end unit causes those units
stories. Resulting heights
Rear setbacks, which were
vary from 10 feet to 22.5
241- 8" to 37 feet for the
During the April 9th public hearing, numerous nearby residents and
property owners spoke in opposition to the project, raising a
number of issues, which were reiterated at the April 30th hearing.
These are discussed below.
Lack of conformance with existing single family homes to
the east and apartment protects to the north and south.
All of the existing single family homes to the east and
apartments to the south of the project site are one
story. The apartments to the north have two story
structures at the front near Pasadena Avenue and one
story structures on the rear 150 feet of the property.
The apartments across Pasadena Avenue to the west are
all two story structures. However, the existing
apartments located at 17212 - 17288 Nisson Road have two
story structures that are within 40' of the rear
property lines of the single family residences along
Corla Avenue.
With the proposed modifications, the project remains two
stories in height for the length of both buildings,
dropping down to one story for a portion of the two end
units. This is inconsistent with existing apartments on
Pasadena, but is consistent with existing apartments on
Nisson Road.
° Impacts on privacy of adjacent single family residences
and inability to use their backyards.
The applicant attempted to mitigate impacts on privacy
by eliminating corner bedrooms whose windows had the
most direct view of the neighboring yards, incorporating
obscure glass in bathroom windows and by installing
vision cut-off screens on the remaining bedroom windows
of units 5, 6, 10 and 11 (the two end units of each
Community Development Department
City Council Report
Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08
June 4, 1990
Page 8
building).
Another modification to the project that would provide
additional privacy would be to require the applicant to
plant minimum 24" box evergreen trees at approximately
10 foot intervals along the rear property line and also
the side property lines within 150 feet of the adjacent
R-1 lots. Deciduous trees could be permitted along the
north and south, (past units 5, 61 10 and 11) Also, as
many specimen size trees as possible should be planted
in the southeast corner of the site for additional
screening. The number of such nature trees will be
dictated by space requirements for canopies and roots.
Affect on micro climate in the area and the creation of
permanent shade conditions on manv properties.
The applicant prepared a preliminary Shade and Shadow
Study to determine such impacts on adjacent properties.
The study is based on the Summer and Winter solstices
(6/21 and 12/21), the longest and shortest days of the
year (respectively).
The shade and shadow analysis is not based on the actual
proposed building height. Because of time constraints,
the consultant did not factor in the sloped roof,
staggered height, and one story building height at the
rear yard and the various articulations of the building
design. Instead the analysis was done using a 271- 6"
height (measured at the side elevation) and assuming a
flat roofed, block shaped building. Consequently the
resulting shadows do not accurately reflect the shape of
the buildings (they are, in fact, worse than actual
conditions). All shadows were depicted at 9:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m.
The Winter Solstice results in the worst case
conditions. Under these conditions, the shadows from
Buildings A & B will extend out over the Pasadena Avenue
right-of-way at 9:00 a.m., sweeping over the existing
apartments to the north of the subject site and
extending over the immediately adjacent single family
properties to the east at 3:00 p.m. Under these
conditions, the late afternoon shadows will often
encompass a majority of the rear yards of these
Community Development Department
City Council Report
Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08
June 4, 1990
Page 9
residences and in some cases will often extend beyond
the houses themselves into portions of the front yard.
A reduction in building height to 20 feet (one story),
could shorten the shadow cast on the single family
residences -by + 22 feet. This would still cover the
majority of their rear yards but would not extend into
front yards.
Shadows cast at 9:00 a.m. on June 21st are limited to
the subject site, while shadows cast at 3:00 p.m. would
extend + four (4) feet onto the rear yards of the single
family residences (Building A only, Building B shadow
limited to subject site).
Because the submitted shade and shadow study does not
reflect proposed architecture, heights, and roof
configuration or address shadows that would be cast as
the sun moves from its position at 9:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m., staff was not able to fully determine all of the
affected properties and the extent of the impacts.
Staff noted at the April 30th hearing that the study
should be revised to address additional hours between
9:00 a.m. and noon and between noon and 3:00 p.m., as
well as use the actual building shapes to provide the
most accurate information possible. A revised study has
not been submitted to date.
Inadequate quest parking for prosect and potential
traffic hazards to vehicles and pedestrians resulting
from the semi -subterranean garages.
The approved project meets all of the parking standards
of the R-3 zoning district, which include two (2)
covered spaces per each unit and one (1) unassigned open
guest space for every four (4) units. At 11 units, the
project requires 22 covered and assigned spaces, and
2.75 open and unassigned guest spaces. As presently
configured, the project provides 11 two -car garages
(with automatic door openers) and three (3) covered
guest spaces (no garage doors). The City does not have
the ability to require more guest parking than is
required by the zoning code.
Potential hazards to vehicles and pedestrians could be
mitigated by incorporating a speed bump in the driveway
Community Development Department
City Council Report
Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08
June 4, 1990
Page 10
ramp and requiring a stop sign at the driveway.
Redesigning buildings to one story.
As noted earlier, the applicant's objective in modifying
the buildings was not to reduce the number of units.
The applicant has represented that reducing the
buildings to one story would entail significant redesign
including the possibility of demolishing the entire
project and starting over. Based on their testimony at
the April 30th hearing as well as corments in letters of
protest submitted to the City Council in April,
demolition of the project and reconstruction of one
story buildings is the most acceptable solution to the
single family property owners. Although there are
significant cost issues associated with a reduction in
the number of units and/or demolition of the project,
this alternative should not be automatically excluded
from consideration, as all factors and alternatives must
be weighed.
Impact on pronertY values.
This is very difficult to assess. Numbers quoted by
affected property owners note a reduction of $20,000 to
$50,000 in property values. To accurately assess this
impact, an impartial appraisal may be necessary.
Light and glare from project lighting into rear yards of
adjacent single family properties.
Light and glare is always a potential impact when new
development occurs, regardless of building height. To
mitigate potential impacts, the City imposes a condition
on all new projects (residential, commercial or
industrial) requiring that the design of all exterior
lighting fixtures incorporate cut-offs and shielding so
light rays do not extend beyond the property lines of
the subject property. Beyond this, all developers are
also required to comply with the City's Security
Ordinance requirements for lighting in parking and
pedestrian pathway areas. Security lighting must also
meet glare cut-off standards.
Community Development Department
City Council Report
Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08
June 4, 1990
Page 11
Approval would be precedent setting.
Conditionally permitted uses are recognized as being
appropriate in some locations within a particular zoning
district but not necessarily in others. The CUP process
enables the City to review each such use based on its
own merits and the issues that are unique to that
situation; approval of a use at one location is not a
guarantee of approval in another location. The CUP
process also allows the City to impose specific
conditions to ensure compatibility with surrounding
uses.
ALTERNATIVES
There are essentially three (3) alternatives that are available to
the Council:
1. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny
Conditional Use Permit 90-08. This would require the
applicant to completely redesign the project and would
likely necessitate the City requesting that the existing
structure be demolished. Any new proposals would be
required to go through the design review process, and if
appropriate, the CUP process as well.
2. Approve Conditional Use Permit 90-08 based upon the
modifications that have been proposed by the applicant.
3. Direct the applicant to further revise the project and
send the matter back to the Planning Commission. With
this alternative, the Council must provide clear and
specific direction to the applicant and Commission as to
what they want to accomplish. Further revisions will
need to be the responsibility of the applicant and his
architect as design by committee is simply not a viable
solution. This course of action will require a level of
compromise by all parties involved.
No resolutions of approval or denial have been provided with this
staff report. Should the Council follow alternative number 1 or
2, staff will bring back an appropriate resolution at the June
18th City Council meeting.
Community Development Department
City Council Report
Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08
June 4, 19.90
Page 12
CONCLUSION
The City Council should review the issues concerning this matter
and provide direction to staff, the applicant and the Planning
Commission as appropriate.
Steve Rubin Christine A. Shi-ingletpfY
Associate Planner Director of Communit_ evelopment
SR:CAS:kbc
Attachments: Exhibits A, B, C, D and E
Elevations and Site Plans
of Proposed Modifications
Community Development Department