Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 8122 (1 Highland Ave)RESOLUTION NO. 8122 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF s89-15 AND ED89-45, TWO LOT SUBDIVISION WITH DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AT 1 HIGHLAND AVENUE. WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael received and deemed complete for review a subdivision application and Environmental and Design Review application to create two lots on Assessor's Parcel #151-202-37 at 1 Highland Avenue; and WHEREAS, access to the proposed lots 1 and 2 of this subdivision would be across private property and Section 15.12.050 of the Municipal Code requires that the Planning Commission may only approve such access subject to the grant of an exception and findings of fact set forth in Section 15.52.020; and WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael Planning Commission considered the proposed project at a public meeting on November 14, 1989, accepted public testimony, reviewed the staff report and directed the Planning Department to prepare a resolution denying the project; and WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael Planning Commission adopted Resolution 90-1 denying s89-15 and ED89-45 on January 9, 1990; and WHEREAS, the applicant and property owner of the project appealed the decision of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Rafael conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal on February 5, 1990, considered public comments, reviewed the staff report including the Planning Commission minutes and Resolution and information provided by the applicant including photographs of the property from the proximity of Third Street, north of the site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael does thereby deny the approval of the Planning Commission denial of s89-15 and ED89-45. BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council denies the exception based on the following findings: - 1 - (1) Section 15.52.020(a) requires a finding that there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property. Topographic maps submitted with the application show that all portions of the subject property adjacent to public roads have slopes in excess of thirty percent rising from the roadways. Due to this steeply sloped condition, it is not possible to design access directly from the public roadway to the proposed lots 1 and 2 at angles of incline that can be safely negotiated by motor vehicles and pedestrians. Based on these facts the Planning Commission finds that the topography of the subject property constitutes special circumstances and conditions affecting the property. (2) Section 15.52.020(b) requires that the exception is necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. The site is presently developed with a Single Family Residence, detached garagae and studio work room, swimming pool and detached second dwelling unit. The Planning Commission finds that this development constitutes a substantial property right and that the exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of that right. (3) Section 15.52.020(c) requires a finding that granting the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity which the property is situated. Granting the exception will result in widening the existing driveway to accomodate additional traffic. This widening will require construction of retaining walls up to 12 feet high which will be highly visible off-site. The alignment of the private right-of-way will result in the location of the proposed dwelling unit on lot #2 adjacent to a prominent rock outcropping. The private right-of-way joins the public right-of-way at the five way intersection of Marinita Avenue, Jewell Street, Hubbell Court, and Highland Avenue. This intersection is difficult to negotiate because of its awkward five -point configuration and it is dangerous because of short sight distances. The City Council finds that granting the exception would be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to other property in the vicinity because the high retaining walls and the location of the dwelling near the rock outcropping would adversely change the appearance of the hillside from its natural configuration. The City Council also finds that putting additional traffic on the private right-of-way at the five -point public street intersection would increase traffic hazards and therefore would be detrimental to the public welfare. - 2 - BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council denies the subdivision based on the following findings: (4) The project's consistency with the intent of General Plan Policy LU -1 has not been demonstrated. The policy states that maximum densities are not guaranteed and residential development on any site shall respond to factors including site resources and constraints, potentially hazardous conditions, traffic and access, adequacy of infrastructure, City design policies and development patterns and prevailing densities of adjacent developed areas. In this case, the steep slopes of the property are constraints to development in that the site cannot be developed without extensive grading and retaining walls. The steep slopes are resources in their natural condition because they are visually attractive and provide a backdrop to urban development. The awkward access is a site constraint as it is not possible to design access directly from the public roadway to the proposed lots 1 and 2 at angles of incline that can be safely negotiated by motor vehicles and pedestrians as required by the subdivision ordinance. These site constraints distinguish this property from others in the neighborhood. (5) The project's consistency with General Plan Policy LU -36(a), Community Design Considerations, has not been demonstrated. This policy requires that the natural appearance of the site be preserved by minimizing grading for roads, driveways and homesites. Through staff analysis and public testimony, the City Council has determined that the project is inconsistent with this General Plan Policy in that there would be significant grading to create the new access road which will change the natural appearance of this site. This grading will create highly visible retaining walls along the access road that are necessary for development of this site. These retaining walls change the appearance of the site from its natural configuration. (6) The project's consistency with General Plan Policies LU -22 and NE -20 has not been satisfactorily demonstrated. These policies encourage preservation of hillsides to provide backdrops to urban development and preservation of views of the hillsides from public streets. The project as designed does not minimize visual impact but increases the visual impact by the necessity of the extensive grading and proposed retaining walls contrary to the site constraints and resources of the property. - 3 - (7) The project's consistency with General Plan Policy LU -34 has not been demonstrated. This policy states that residential projects should be designed to recognize site constraints and resources and to avoid sensitive hillside areas. The steep slopes of the property are constraints to development in their natural state in that they cannot be developed without extensive grading and retaining walls. The steep slopes are resources in their natural condition because they are visually attractive and provide a backdrop to urban development. The southeast slope of the hillside is sensitive because it is visually prominent. The City Council finds the project is not consistent with policy LU -34 in that it proposes extensive grading and retaining walls contrary to the site constraints and resources of the property, and it proposes visually prominent grading and residential construction on a sensitive hillside. (8) The project's consistency with General Plan Policy LU -35, Project Design Considerations, has not been demonstrated. This policy describes overall criteria used in evaluating excellence in project design. These criteria include sensitivity to the natural landscape, visibility from off-site and safety. This project fails to conform to this policy in that extensive grading of the natural landscape is proposed for access which will create high retaining walls which are not sensitive to the natural condition of the site and will be very visible from off site. Additionally, the project does not conform to the General Plan policy in that the five -point intersection is difficult to negotiate because of its awkward five -point configuration and it is dangerous because of short sight distances. (9) The project's consistency with General Plan Policy RES -1, Development in Residential Neighborhoods, has not been demonstrated. This policy requires that new development respect site features and avoid highly visible hillsides and steep or unstable slopes. The project is inconsistent in that the new dwelling would necessitate the construction of high retaining walls along the access road which would be highly visible from off site. Additionally, the project is not consistent with the General Plan Policy in that it proposes extensive grading and retaining walls contrary to the site constraints and resources of the property, and it proposes visually prominent grading and residential construction on a sensitive hillside. =W BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED this resolution shall take effect upon its adoption. 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 TUESDAY , the 20TH day of FEBRUARY 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mul ryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner (due to potential conflict of interest) PVI9 JEANN(-jj cj , City\Clerk - 5 -