Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 CUP 90-08 DENIAL 07-02-90DATE: JULY 21 1990 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT runLIU MCMMINU ivv. 1 7/2/90 Inter - Com SUBJECT: 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 18th, the City Council continued the appeal hearing on CUP 90-08 at the request of the applicant, and directed the developer and residents to meet in a second workshop on June 21st to try to reach an acceptable design compromise. As with the previous workshop, staff notified interested parties in writing before the meeting and asked them to bring new ideas to the workshop. City Council Report Appeal of CUP 90-08 July 2, 1990 Page 2 DISCUSSION The June 21st workshop was conducted using the "Delphi" process, as described in the June 18th staff report (see Attachment I). In an effort to solicit more specific input about past proposals and new ideas, each participant at the workshop was also asked to fill out a questionnaire (see Attachment II). The results of the questionnaire showed no movement by the developer or residents in reaching a mutually acceptable compromise. According to the developer, the two bottom line proposals that he made at the June 7th workshop were the only modifications to the project that the bank holding the construction loan would support. Therefore he was not prepared to offer or accept further design modifications. The proposals discussed in the attached June 18th staff report remain as both parties' bottom lines. CONCLUSION No further design proposals were made or discussed at the June 21st workshop. At this time, the City Council should review the various proposals discussed in the June 18th staff report and take whatever action it deems appropriate. Staff would be prepared to support the Council with resolutions at the meeting as necessary. Steve Rubin Christine A. Shing on Associate Planner Director of Commu y Development SR:CAS:kbc Attachments: Attachments I and II Community Development Department LU94 _ 0� PULL I C HEARING N0. 13 - `6/18/90 ..... •--.ter G` �. ' DATE: Inter - Com JUNE 18, 1990 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: 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-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL I 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 ATTACHMENT I 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 , 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 Continuation June 18, 1990 Page 4 design. Report of Appeal of CUP 90-08 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. IVX Steve Rubin Christine A. Shi eton Associate Planner Director of Comnfdnity Development SR:CAS:kbc Attachments: Exhibit A June 4th staff report Community Development Department EXHIBIT A PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROPOSALS COMMUNITY WORKSHOP JUNE 7, 1990 1. (Proposed by Developer) - Remove the 2nd floor from the rear 1-, 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 61 8, 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, 6, 9, 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 12 units of Building 'B' (Units 10 & 11). This is very similar to proposal #1 above, involving 2 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). 4EIG11130IRHOO ) WOR S11OP QUESTIONNA. JUNE 21, 1990 In order to facilitate workshop discussion, please fill out this questionnaire independently. 1. Please check the appropriate distance you live from the project: immediately abut project more than 300 feet from the project within 300 feet of the project within 100 feet of the project unknown don't live within above distances 2. Please check below the applicable category that applies to you: property owner within 300 feet renter within 300 feet developer other (describe)_ 3. In attending tonight's workshop, what 3 major goals would you like to accomplish (no more than one line per goal): 1. 2. 3. 4. At the previous workshop, the developer presented the following two (2) alternatives to modify the project: A. Eliminate unit #6 (the end unit in the northerly building identified as Building A) and remove the 2nd floor of unit #11 (the end unit in the southerly building identified as Building B); or B. Remove the 2nd floor of units 5 and 6 (two end units in the northerly building identified as Building A) and the 2nd floor of Unit 11 and %, of the second floor of Unit 10 (the two end units on the southerly building identified as Building B). Recognizing that you may not like either alternative, please check the alternative that is most preferable to you? Alternative A Alternative B 5. Briefly explain the justification for your response to question #4 above. 6. Also at the workshop on June 7, 1990, a number of residents presented a proposal to: A. remove the second floor of both buildings within 100 feet of the rear property .line, (leaving only the first 2 units of each building as two stories); ATTACHMENT 11 B. eliminate unit #6 completely (the end unit closest to the rear property line; and C. to incorporate a flat roof into the one story portion of the buildings. Please rank the level of importance to you of each component of the proposal made by residents with 1 being most important and 3 being least important to you personally. A B C 7. There is a significant difference between the developer's design alternative proposed and the design proposal made by residents. Do you have any other ideas or alternatives that would attempt to resolve this difference? No Yes If yes, please describe: 8. Please feel free to provide any additional comments or observations. 9. Please identify your property address below: