APPEAL OF PROJECT NO. 2005-108 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is for the City Council to consider an appeal of the Planning Board�s decision to conditionally approve Project No. 2005-108 Development Review, a request by Ahmad Heydar to construct an eight unit, two story, multi-family project at 1515 Kenwood Street.  Appealing the Planning Board�s decision to conditionally approve the project is William Birtell, a property owner of an adjacent multi-family parcel.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

Project Description and History:

An application was submitted on July 15, 2005 to construct an eight unit multi-family residential project.  The building is two stories with a semi-subterranean level of parking, which includes tandem spaces.  The property is a corner lot fronting on Edison Boulevard and Kenwood Street and abuts an R-4 zoned property.  The rear of the lot abuts an alley and an R-1 zone is south of the alley.

The application was deemed complete prior to the change of the new multi-family codes and therefore was subject to the old multi-family codes.  Once deemed complete, the application and plans were routed to the various City departments and a Development Review staff meeting was held.  At this meeting, it was discovered that the plans contained significant problems and that modifications needed to be made to bring the project into code compliance.

The applicant was notified of these significant problems and decided to hire another architect to correct the plans.  Revised plans showing the same approximate layout, but with the revisions necessary to meet most code requirements, were made and the project was approved by the Director on April 20, 2006.

William Birtell, a property owner of the abutting multi-family building, filed an appeal of the Director�s decision on May 1, 2006.  The entire Planning Board staff report, including the original Director�s approval and the details of the appeal, are attached. (Exhibit 1)

Planning Board Deliberations

At a public hearing on September 11, 2006, the Planning Board voted 3-2 to deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director�s decision to approve the project. (Exhibit 2)

The Board was concerned about what the disabled access to the courtyard would look like since the current plans did not show it. (Exhibit 3)  The Board was also concerned about privacy for the abutting multi-family residential building.  They therefore placed a condition on the project which required a six foot balcony enclosure.  The Board asked questions about the revised plans and staff assured them that the application was deemed complete and any revised plans submitted did not change that status.  The Board questioned the density permitted under the new code and staff explained that only five units and no tandem parking would be permitted under the new code.  Some Board Members stated concern over the size of the project while others noted the building was a good fit for the area.  One Board Member stated that Edison was transitioning from duplexes and triplexes to larger multi-family developments and that the size of this structure, not including density, would be the same under the old or the new multi-family code.

One woman spoke during the hearing stating that eight units would be too dense on this sized lot.

Appeal Arguments:

After the Planning Board�s decision, William Birtell again filed an appeal of the approval. (Exhibit 4)  Mr. Birtell believes the project is too dense for the site.  He also argues that tandem parking is problematic and that the entrance to the underground parking severely impacts the privacy of the adjacent R-1 neighbor south of the alley.  Mr. Birtell contends that because revised plans were submitted after August 15, that the applicant should conform to current multi-family development standards and not the previous code.

The Planning Division received many applications in the weeks and months prior to the multi-family code change.  The City Council was aware of the many applications in process and could have made all these projects subject to the new multi-family code since they did not yet have building permits and many did not have approval letters.  However, Council elected to allow all projects to be subject to the old code requirements as long as a complete application was submitted prior to the ordinance effective date of August 15, 2005.  In order to deem an application complete, all application forms must be submitted, radius map and labels, plans drawn to scale showing a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and a conceptual landscaping plan.  There are specific application requirements, but the application does not have to show compliance with all codes.  The purpose of Development Review is so the applicant can learn prior to plan check what areas of the plan are not in compliance with code.  The submittal did constitute a complete application.  After the Development Review staff meeting, however, it was determined that changes required to the plans were significant enough to request the applicant to provide revised plans.  Specifically, an alley dedication was not accounted for and compact parking spaces were included.  When significant changes such as these are required, staff often allows the developer the opportunity to submit revised plans rather than significantly condition the approval.  In this case, the developer not only wanted to make the changes, he wanted to hire a new architect who could provide a better product for him to submit.  There is no question that this project is subject to the old multi-family codes.

With regard to tandem parking, it is not an ideal situation.  However, the proposed project will provide full sized spaces and the required back-up distance.  When a neighborhood has limited street parking, residents tend to use the tandem spaces rather than searching for a parking space on the street.

Staff does not believe the entrance to the parking garage impacts the privacy to the adjacent R-1 neighbor as the appellant contends.  The alley (widened by this project) and landscaping provide an adequate buffer.  Currently, very few lots use this alley to gain access to their parking areas.  This proposal will actually remove direct access to parking for this site from the alley.  The driveway will provide an additional buffer and will not decrease privacy for the R-1 lot.

Under the previous code, 13 units were permitted, but this project provides only eight.  If more units were provided, the applicant would likely have to construct another subterranean level of parking.  The multi-family project next door provides a density of approximately one unit for every 946 square feet of land area, the property across the street provides approximately one unit for every 928 square feet and this project provides one unit for 1,267 square feet. Therefore, although this site could accommodate more units, the proposal is keeping in line with the transitioning neighborhood.

CONCLUSION:

The project is subject to the old multi-family standards and therefore should be analyzed accordingly.  Staff believes that the findings for approval of the Development Review can be made and that the project as proposed and as conditioned is �reasonably compatible and consistent with existing residential properties and structures in the surrounding neighborhood.�  The applicant has provided revised plans showing the disabled access to the courtyard as requested by the Planning Board. (Exhibit 5)

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Board�s decision to conditionally approve Project No. 2005-108 Development Review.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit  1          Planning Board staff report dated September 11, 2006 including all exhibits

Exhibit 2           Planning Board Resolution #3039 dated September 11, 2006

Exhibit 3           Planning Board minutes from the September 11, 2006 public hearing

Exhibit 4           Appeal form submitted by William Birtell

Exhibit 5           Revised plans submitted by the Applicant

go to the top