Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 9950 (875 Patricia Way Denying Appeal)RESOLUTION #9950 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DENYING APPEALS AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 APPROVAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW AND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR SECOND DWELLING UNIT AND ELEVATED DECK; 875 PATRICIA WAY (AP#165-083-15) WHEREAS, on March 31, 1997, applications requesting an environmental and design review and use permit to construct a second dwelling unit and elevated deck were submitted to the Planning Department; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 1997 the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the environmental and design review and use permit application, accepting public testimony and the written report of the Planning Department staff and voted to approve (3-2; O'Brien and Smith dissenting) the environmental and design review and use permit for one year, or until September 9, 1998; and, WHEREAS, Gary and Viane Coronado appealed the Planning Commission's decision in a letter dated September 16, 1997 and requested that the approval be denied based on the following reasons quoted and listed as Points 1 through 3 below: Point 1: The fence and retaining wall should be moved back to the property line. Point 2: The retaining wall will affect the slope and the corrected fenceline location will affect the 40% density limit for adding a second unit. Point 3: Prompt replacement of the fence and retaining wall is a safety issue and should be completed within thirty days and thirty days prior to the onset of winter rains; and, WHEREAS, Vincent Gould appealed the Planning Commission's decision in a letter dated September 15, 1997 and requested that the approval be denied based on the following reasons quoted and listed as Points 1 through 7 below: Point 1: His dining room extension would project eleven feet past the end of my house and present me with a wall to look at from my back deck and parts of my house. It would also obstruct my view by about 20 degrees. ORI`311�IAIaa° Point 2: His two unit plan is not commensurate with the neighborhood pattern, which is all single family dwellings. Point 3: He cannot justify a "Mother -in -Law" (second dwelling) unit and therefore this simply becomes two rental units. Point 4: Depending on the number of renters he has and the number of their cars, it could easily cause parking problems. Point 5: There is a concern that the project could be left partially completed and the unfinished house would be an eyesore. Several of Mr. Farman's projects have been left half done. Point 6: The installation of the two dwelling unit next to my property and an architecturally undesirable wall facing my back deck will certainly result in a devaluation of my property. Point 7: The decision of the Planning Commission was by a three to two vote in favor of the project. If the whole Commission had been present, it is very possible a different outcome would have occurred; and, WHEREAS, the City Council considered the appeals at a duly noticed public hearing on November 3, 1997 and received public testimony on this item from all interested parties; and, WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the appeals were without merit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Rafael City Council hereby makes the following determinations and findings related to the Points of the appeals: Coronado appeal: Point 1: The fence and retaining wall should be moved back to the property line. That portion of the appeal relating to Point 1 of the Coronado appeal has been denied. The City Council has determined that the applicant has already agreed to move the fence and retaining wall back to the surveyed property line. Point 2: The retaining wall will affect the slope and the corrected fenceline location will affect the 40% density limit for adding a second unit. That portion of the appeal relating to Point 1 of the Coronado appeal has been denied. The City Council has determined that the retaining wall will not have a negative impact on the slope and that the corrected fenceline location does not affect the 40% square footage limitation for adding the second unit. The lot size has been verified by a licensed land surveyor and all measurements for lot coverage, setbacks, and second dwelling unit maximum square footage remain the same with the adjusted fenceline location. Point 3: Prompt replacement of the fence and retaining wall is a safety issue and should be completed within thirty days and thirty days prior to the onset of winter rains. That portion of the appeal relating to Point 1 of the Coronado appeal has been denied. The City Council finds that the fence and retaining wall would not pose an imminent threat to the public's safety. The indicated time limitation would be an undue hardship placed on the property owner. Gould appeal: Point 1: His dining room extension would project eleven feet past the end of my house and present me with a wall to look at from my back deck and parts of my house. It would also obstruct my view by about 20 degrees. That portion of the Gould appeal relating to Point 1 is denied. The City Council finds that the dining room extension is reasonable and will have a negligible impact on the neighbor. Mr. Gould's view obstruction is from private property and is therefore not required to be protected. Only a minor portion of the view is affected and his property will still have a panoramic view. Point 2: His two unit plan is not commensurate with the neighborhood pattern, which is all single family dwellings. That portion of the Gould appeal relating to Point 2 is denied. The City Council finds that the project meets all required performance standards for a second dwelling unit and is consistent with the General Plan. Second dwelling units encourage the voluntary delivery of rental housing by allowing units in locations consistent with ordinance requirements and criteria. The City Council has determined that the second dwelling unit is compatible with surrounding uses, maintains the residential character of the neighborhood, and ensures a healthy and safe residential living environment. The character of the existing structure has been maintained by designing the exterior of the addition and the second unit to match the existing structure. The height of the structure, building materials, roofline, and roof materials are the same as the houses currently next to and in the neighborhood of the site. This will still look like a single family residence from the street because the second unit entrance is not visible. Point 3: He cannot justify a "Mother -in -Law" (second dwelling) unit and therefore this simply becomes two rental units. That portion of the Gould appeal relating to Point 3 is denied. The City Council finds that the applicant has met all standards set forth in the California State Planning and Zoning Law and the zoning ordinance related to second dwelling units. State Law allows local agencies to adopt their own standards for second dwelling units which include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, and maximum size of a unit. The City of San Rafael has adopted a standard for second dwelling units which requires one of the units be owner occupied. The applicant has stated by letter and in public record that he intends to make 875 Patricia Way his residence. The City Council has determined that since the owner intends to occupy one of the units, both units would not become rental units because the owner would occupy one. Point 4: Depending on the number of renters he has and the number of their cars, it could easily cause parking problems. That portion of the Gould appeal relating to Point 4 is denied. The City Council has determined that adequate parking has been provided for the second dwelling unit. Two covered parking spaces are required for single family residences and one additional parking space is required for second dwelling units. The applicant is providing the required two covered parking spaces for the single family residence and one additional parking space, which has been reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer, for the second dwelling unit. Point 5: There is a concern that the project could be left partially completed and the unfinished house would be an eyesore. Several of Mr. Farman's projects have been left half done. That portion of the Gould appeal relating to Point 5 is denied. The City Council has determined that it would be discriminatory to require a bond for this project unless a finding can be made that there is a threat to public health and safety. No provisions currently exist to require the posting of a performance bond on a project. Point 6: The installation of the two dwelling unit next to my property and an architecturally undesirable wall facing my back deck will certainly result in a devaluation of my property. That portion of the appeal relating to Point 6 is denied. The City Council has determined that second units provide a valuable source of housing within existing neighborhoods. State law states that a city cannot create requirements which unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to create second units. The City does have standards, including requiring a separate entrance not visible from the street, intended to preserve the appearance of a single family neighborhood. Second units have been approved throughout the City. There is no evidence that second units devalue property. Point 7: The decision of the Planning Commission was by a three to two vote in favor of the project. If the whole Commission had been present, it is very possible a different outcome would have occurred. That portion of the Gould appeal relating to Point 7 is denied. The City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's vote was legal. State law requires a majority of Commissioners to be present. Of a total of seven members, five were present and voted at the September 9, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council denies the appeals and readopts the following findings of the Planning Commission: 1. The proposed second unit and elevated deck are in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the R7.5 District in which it is located because General Plan Policy H-27 encourages second dwelling units, the second dwelling unit and elevated deck are consistent with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance and second units are permitted in single-family residential districts. 2. Establishment of the second unit, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City because the second unit and the elevated deck have been reviewed by the appropriate City departments and have been conditioned accordingly. 3. The second dwelling unit and elevated deck comply with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance including the required setbacks, lot coverage, height and parking of the R7.5 Single Family District. 4. The proposal is consistent with the second dwelling unit ordinance in that it is structurally attached to the main residence, it meets the size restrictions, required outdoor area and the required parking for a one bedroom unit. 5. The project design is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of Chapter 25, Environmental and Design Review Permits, of the Zoning Ordinance because the second dwelling unit and first and second floor additions have been designed to match the existing residence with painted plywood siding and tar and gravel roofing. 6. The project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the district in which it is located because the second unit, elevated deck and first and second floor additions have been designed to match the existing residence. 7. The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts because the second unit, elevated deck and first and second floor additions have been located in the general area where the existing concrete slab patio is located and minimal new site disturbance is proposed. 8. The project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity because the project has been reviewed by the appropriate City departments and has been conditioned accordingly. 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 Council of said City on Monday, the Third day of November, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS : None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS : None JEARNE M.EONC' NI, City Clerk