Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 10960 (41 Valencia Ave.)RESOLUTION NO. 10960 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED 99-104), VARIANCE (V 01-05) AND EXCEPTION (EX 01-02) REQUESTS FOR A FOUR -UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT PROPOSED AT 41 VALENCIA AVENUE (APN: 014-032-15) (IJITHOUT PREJUDICE) WHEREAS, on August 26, 1999, Craiker Associates, Architects submitted an application to develop a four -unit apartment building on a 9,033 -square -foot parcel located at 41 Valencia Avenue; and WHEREAS, upon review of the application, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and made available for public review on June 6, 2001, consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, on June 26 and August 14, 2001, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the proposed Environmental and Design Review Permit, Variance and Exception requests, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Department of Community Development, and voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial of the project; and WHEREAS, on August 28, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying the project on a 4-2-1 vote (Chairman Scott and Commissioner Atchison dissenting and Commissioner Lang abstaining); and WHEREAS, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, the Planning Commission did not act on the Mitigated Negative Declaration given their intent to deny the project applications; and WHEREAS, within the statutory appeal period an appeal was filed together with the required filing fee; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2001, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Department of Community Development; and WHEREAS, consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, the City Council did not act on the Mitigated Negative Declaration given their intent to deny the appeal and thereby deny the project applications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael does hereby deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's action and thereby denies Environmental and Design Review Permit, Variance and Exception requests for 41 Valencia Avenue, based on the following findings: Environmental and Design Review Permit Findings (ED 99-104) 1. The project design is not in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purpose of Chapter 25 (Design Review) in that: a) the location, size and design of the proposed parking area in front of the building is not consistent with the Montecito/Happy Valley policies, which encourage development to provide adequate and attractive parking areas with a pedestrian friendly street front design; and b) the intensity of the development with four two-bedroom apartment units does not adequately respond to the site topography, narrow lot width and the existing infrastructure constraints (i.e., narrow street width, lack of on -street parking and lack of direct connections to municipal drainage facilities to handle the additional runoff). Therefore, development should, at a minimum, be reduced to the lowest end of the density range of three units with a design that appropriately responds to the site constraints. 2. The project design is not consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the district in which the site is located given that the parking area encroaches into the front and side yard areas thus reducing landscaping opportunities, and also is located in the front of the lot. This is not appropriate because the parking area cannot be adequately screened from public view and would be located too close to the neighboring apartment units. 3. The project design does not minimize adverse environmental impacts because the project would result in over -development of the site. The site is located along a narrow street which has very limited space available for on -street public parking. The proposed project would increase the existing density of the site from one unit to four units, and would increase the amount of hardscape (i.e., impervious surface area) from 20 percent to at least 66 percent of the site area. The four -unit apartment project would increase the demand for overflow and visitor parking on Valencia Avenue, and parking demand already exceeds the supply on this narrow road. The site also does not allow for storm water to drain to the street nor does it drain directly into any storm drain connections that would tie directly to the City storm drain system. The majority of the additional storm water runoff would need to be detained on the small site, and released in the small rear yard area thus substantially reducing time and amount of area for which infiltration can occur on the site. This drainage solution is not considered to be acceptable for the small site given that: a) it is not a typical municipal drainage solution used for small individual lots developed at the intensity proposed; b) the facility would present a health and safety hazard and would need an effective maintenance program to be established, which is not a typical requirement for a development of this type thus it cannot be reasonably foreseen that an effective maintenance program would be implemented; and c) the amount of pervious surface area provided to handle the release of storm water runoff is too limiting to allow for water to infiltrate on the site. This intensity of development cannot be adequately accommodated given the site constraints described above, and should be further reduced to minimize the parking and drainage impacts of the development. 2 4. The project design would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity due to the fact that the size and type of development proposed would adversely impact the privacy of neighboring apartment units, additional on -street parking impacts could result if the site is developed at the proposed density, and the project requires on-site detention facilities to be constructed within the small 9,033 -square -foot in -fill site to accommodate the additional storm water runoff that would result from the development, and such facilities create significant drainage concerns including maintenance, containment and dispersal issues which have not been satisfactorily addressed by the project. Variance Findings (V O1-05) 1. It has not sufficiently been demonstrated that, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification to permit a reasonable development of the site, as permitted under the High Density Residential (HR 1.8) District, unless parking areas are allowed to encroach into the required setbacks. Although the site has a steep down slope of 14 percent and a narrow lot width of 50 feet, there may be design alternatives, such as a reduction in density and relocation of parking areas, that would eliminate or reduce the need for a Variance to allow parking in the required setbacks. 2. It has not been demonstrated that the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and HR 1.8 District in which the subject property is located because the property could be developed at a lower intensity which would reduce or eliminate the need for a Variance to the parking standards. 3. Although granting the Variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the HR 1.8 District in which the subject property is located, given that the proposed land use is permitted, the Variance would permit the intensity of development to be greater than that which has been considered feasible for the site and, therefore, is not warranted. 4. Granting of the Variance would be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety, or general welfare given that the Variance would permit over -development of the site which could cause parking impacts to spill over onto Valencia Avenue, which is already experiencing parking problems due to the narrow street width and lack of on -street parking, and would place on-site parking areas too close to the adjacent properties. Exception Findings (EX O1-02) 1. Although there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including a steep down slope of 14 percent and narrow lot width of 50 feet, granting of an Exception from the strict 3 application of the standards in Zoning Ordinance to permit a reduced driveway width and a reduced back out area may not be justified as the project, as a whole, is not considered appropriate as it overdevelops the site, and site density could be reduced eliminating or reducing the need for an Exception, therefore, the Exception request is not warranted. 2. Granting the Exception will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety, or general welfare in that it would permit development that is considered inappropriate for the neighborhood and surrounding properties. I, JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday, the 19th day of November, 2001 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller and Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller and Mayor Boro ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 4 AJEA M 'LEONCM, City Clerk