Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 4 VARIANCE 81-4 06-15-81DATE: TO: FROH: SUBJECT: June 15, 1981 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 4 Inter-Corn Honorable Chairman and Planning Agency Members Co,mnunity Development Department Variance 81-4 Location: 1461 San Juan Street 13691 Red Hill Avenue Applicant: James Kincannon BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION An application requesting authorization to vary with certain requirements of Zoning Ordinance No. 157, as amended. Although this application was filed as a single variance, it involves two separate properties. Therefore, each property will be discussed individually. Variance requests include: 1. 1461 San Juan Street a) Minimum lot frontage, 70 feet. Lot has a 50 foot frontage. 2. 13691 Red Hill Avenue a) Minimum front set-back, 20 feet is required. Front set-back is 12 feet now, 2 feet after 10 foot dedication. b) Minimum lot size 7000 square feet. Lot is 5,750 square feet. c) Minimum lot frontage 70 feet, lot has a 50 foot frontage. Both properties are zoned R-3 2700, which allows a professional office with a use permit. The surrounding land uses include older single family homes, and a duplex. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT The drive aisle to the parking stalls at the rear of each site scales at 12 1/2 feet in width. This is very narrow for public access, and limits one-way access to 67% of the parking at 1461 San Juan and to 100% of the parking at 13691 Red Hill Avenue. Variance 81-4 June 15, 1981 Page Two The drive approach and drive aisle at 13691 Red Hill is so narrow that vehicles may be required to either back out onto Red Hill or back to the parking area at the rear of the site in the event two vehicles meet each other headed in opposite directions. As indicated in previous developments located adjacent to substandard width arterial highways, either a dedication of 10 feet additional right-of-way or an irrevocable offer of dedication of same should be required at the site located at 13691 Red Hill Avenue. This action will keep the City in compliance with previous co,m, itments of the Arterial Highway Financing Program (A.H.F.P.). PLANNING DEPARTMENT e The site development for both projects is below minimum design standards for access and parking circulation. A minimum two-way drive is 25'-0", the applicant is proposing a 12 1/2 foot drive aisle on the San Juan project, and 11 1/2 feet for the Red Hill Avenue project. This precludes any two-way access, and is even below the cities standard for one way access, which is 14 feet. Drive approaches should be a minimum of 25 feet, in lieu of the proposed 20 feet. It will be virtually impossible for one vehicle to exit and another to enter at the same time, creating a traffic hazard on both San Juan Street and Red Hill Avenue. Internal circulation is below minimum standards, and will be very difficult to negotiate for parking. Conflicts with walls and/or planters may be a future problem. Staff is not adverse to the development of professional offices at this site and agree with the applicant that they may be an appropriate buffer to the R-3 residences to the west. Staff is not in favor, though, with the piecemeal planning of these sites,,and precedent setting nature of this project. There are several R-3 properties within the City with conditions similar to this project. If this project passes, others may approach the Agency with similar requests, setting this project as a precedent. The city could conceivably have several of these Variance 81-4 June 15, 1981 Page Three variance projects with below minimum development standards creating conflicts for years to come. In addition this project does not represent a comprehensive project development, but is essentially two small office projects surrounded by residential uses. By ordinance (Section 9271i(2)a), a 6'8" masonary block wall shall have to be constructed that separates the residential from the office, and these two sites would be required to construct block walls on three of the four sides. Staff suggests that the applicant attempt to secure the two adjacent sites, creating a larger, more comprehensive site. Development of the site could be more in keeping with good planning practices, and through conscientious site development, conform to the cities development standards. In the past, staff has recommended approval for variance projects involved a lot which is now non-conforming due to a subsequent subdivision ordinance. These favorabe recommendations, though, have been only for new construction primarily residential, which has been designed 'in substantial conformance with the cities development standards. As this project is proposed, numerous standards are deviated from that could conceivably become a public concern. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends to the Planning Agency that they deny Variance 81-4 without prejudice to a future application that would consolidate additional lots. EMK/dat rB NQNNI~'CINI)! ; '1Vt' Br'If~BA~' ~ ~3BId LmtK~ III