Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 9909 (729 Fourth Street Appeal Denial)RESOLUTION NO. 9 9 0 9 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF JULY 29,1997, APPROVING FINAL BUILDING DETAILS (CONDITION NO. 47) FOR A FOUR STORY MIXED USE BUILDING LOCATED AT 729 FOURTH STREET, AP 11-275-01 WHEREAS, the proposed project consists of an Environmental and Design Review Permit and Use Permit application for a mixed use project at 729 Fourth Street; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the subject applications an environmental Initial Study was prepared consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ; and, WHEREAS, on July 1, 1997, the San Rafael Planning Commission had previously held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the proposed Negative Declaration, Environmental and Design Review Permit and Use Permit for the mixed use project at the 729 Fourth Street address, accepted public testimony and the written report of the Planning Department staff, and voted to adopt the Negative Declaration and approve said Environmental and Design Review Permit and Use Permit with the condition that the details of the project be reviewed by the Design Review Board and approved by the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, on July 29,1997, the San Rafael Planning Commission considered the design details of the proposed mixed-use project and voted to approve said details of the Environmental and Design Review Permit with the provision that certain details be reviewed by the Design Review Board while the building was under construction; and, WHEREAS, on August 5,1997, Glenn S. Koorhan of 43 Estates Court appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the design details of the Environmental and Design Review permit based on the following reasons quoted and listed as Points 1 through 3 below: Point 1: The details provided do not, in the appellant's opinion, elevate the building into the landmark quality called for in the Vision. Point 2: The applicant has made changes to the drawings subsequent to receiving Planning Commission approval on July 1, 1997, which are not consistent with the approved drawings. Point 3: The Planning Commission has failed to adequately consider the revised access plan from Tamalpais Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the City Council considered the appeal at a duly noticed public hearing on September 2,1997 and received public testimony on this item from all interested parties; and, WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the appeal was without merit and made the following findings relative to the points of the appeal: Point #1- The details provided do not, in the appellant's opinion, elevate the building into the landmark quality called for in the Vision. -2- That portion of the appeal relating to Point 1 is denied. The City Council finds that based on review by the Design Review Board, the project is consistent with the Vision in that the building is large and has a distinctive clock tower element, the upper floors are stepped back, and that the details of the building are adequate for the prominent corner location. Additionally, the Vision Committee stated in July of 1996 that the building concept is consistent with the Hetherton Gateway District and meets the general design principles of the area. Point #2 - The applicant has made changes to the drawings subsequent to receiving Planning Commission approval on July 1, 1997, which are not consistent with the approved drawings. That portion of the appeal relating to Point 2 is denied. The City Council finds that the driveway change does not change any design details of the project. The applicant has changed the location of the entrance driveway so that the driveway is entirely on land owned by the applicant. This change was seen by the Planning Commission on July 29, 1997. The City Attorney has stated that if the changed driveway conforms with all zoning ordinance requirements, the General Plan, traffic regulations, etc., then a change can be approved. Staff has indicated that the reconfiguration of the driveway does not change any important design details of the project. Point #3 - The Planning Commission has failed to adequately consider the revised access plan from Tamalpais Avenue. That portion of the appeal relating to Point 3 is denied. The City Council finds that the Planning Commission, at their meeting on July 1, 1997, added condition #59 stating that "Proof of access from Tamalpais Avenue shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Attorney before issuance of a building permit." The applicant revised the access driveway to a more southerly location so that the access driveway is entirely on the applicant's property. This revision was discussed at the July 29, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. The appellant contends that moving the driveway southerly takes away established parking. No establishment of this area for parking exists in City records, as this area formerly served as an entrance area for the gas station that occupied the parcel for many years. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council denies the appeal and readopts the following findings of the Planning Commission: -3- Negative Declaration: 1. The Negative Declaration for the project is consistent with the provisions of CEQA in that an Initial Study has been prepared on the project which determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment. Mitigation measures have been attached to the project which reduce the potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Public notice of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration has been done pursuant to state law. The proposed Negative Declaration has been considered in conjunction with the comments received during the review period and at the Planning Commission hearing. Design Review Permit: 2. The project design is in accord with the General Plan and the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, including General Plan Policies DT -5, DT -6, DT -15(b), DT -16, DT -18, DT -19, DT -20, DT -24, DT - 27(c), DT -27(d), DT -27(e), LU -13(p), LU -14(c), LU -20, LU -21 and LU -23 and the Review Criteria for Design Review permits contained in Section 14.25.050 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria for the district in which the site is located because the project has been conceptually recommended for approval by the Design Review Board, and will be reviewed by the Design Review Board before issuance of a building permit, and their recommendations are incorporated into the project through conditions of approval and will be incorporated through project design. 4. 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 agencies and has been modified through design changes or conditions of approval. Use Permit: 5. The proposed residential use of the third and fourth floors is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of Section 14.17.100 of the zoning ordinance, and the purposes of the HO zoning district in that the units are part of a mixed use development, are located above the ground floor level, the units have a separate and secured entrance and exit, parking is provided for the residential units, the units will be designed to meet the residential noise standards in the zoning ordinance Section 14.16.260, adequate exterior lighting will be established for the units, and adequate refuse and recycling area will be provided for the residential use and the location of the new residences has considered existing surrounding uses in order to minimize impacts from these uses. 6. The proposed third and fourth floor residential use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City. 7. The proposed residential use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance listed in Section 14.17.100. 8. The granting of the density bonus will not 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 staff has concluded that the additional units are desirable for a building in this urban location as the additional units are dedicated as Below Market Rate units. Exception to Loading Requirement: 9. The granting of an exception to Section 14.18.050, Off Street Loading and Unloading, shall be allowed in that the project is similar to many other Fourth Street projects where loading is accomplished from the front and no special loading zones are provided. Special circumstances apply to this property in that provision of the maximum number of parking spaces in the garage is important and the elimination of heavy truck traffic from the rear of the building is desirable. 10. The granting of the exception to eliminate the on-site loading zone will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community in that the proposal is similar to loading zones for other downtown properties. I, JEANNE M. LEONCEl TI, 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 Tuesday, the Second day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Heller NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor B.oro !- , _ML OUR Z i JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk -5-