APPEAL OF PROJECT NO. 2005-86 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is for the City Council to consider an appeal of the Planning Board�s decision to deny Project No. 2005-86 Development Review, a request by David Meissner to construct an 11 unit, two story, multi-family project at 401 Delaware Road.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

Project Description and History:

An application was submitted on June 30, 2005 to construct an 11 unit multi-family residential project. (Exhibit 1)  The building is two stories with a semi-subterranean level of parking with 24 spaces.  The property is a triangular shaped lot which fronts streets on all sides.  Delaware Road is considered the front yard and East Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard are considered street facing side yards.  The property is surrounded by R-4 and R-1 developments.

The application was deemed complete on July 30 prior to the change of the multi-family codes which became effective August 15, 2005, and therefore was subject to the old multi-family codes.  The project was conditionally approved by the Community Development Director on October 7, 2005 and appealed by John Mercado, a property owner across Delaware from the project site.

Planning Board Deliberations

At a public hearing on April 24, 2006, the Planning Board voted 5-0 to uphold the appeal and deny the project. (Exhibit 2)

The appellant and other neighbors from the area spoke at the meeting stating the project was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and was going to cause too much congestion to the area. (Exhibit 3)  They felt the style of the project did not fit with the character of the single family neighborhood and that it was too dense and too massive.  They also expressed concern that there were no community outreach meetings and the units did not have the appearance of the adjacent R-1 properties.  The neighbors were also concerned about the project being apartments and not condominiums.  The neighbors expressed concern over traffic in the area and the amount of street parking that would be used with this project.  An additional petition was submitted to the Board at the hearing along with e-mails staff had received since the packets were published. (Exhibit 4)

During deliberations, the Board echoed some of the sentiments from the community.  They wished the applicant had solicited input from the community by conducting outreach meetings (although not required by code at that time).  They also felt the units did not complete the look of the neighborhood through use of front porches or entryways.  They stated concerns over traffic safety because of the proximity to intersections and because development was too close to the intersection of East and Delaware which �encroached� into the single family residential area.

Appeal and project changes:

After the Planning Board�s decision, the applicant filed an appeal. (Exhibit 5)  The applicant stated his intent to meet with the neighbors (he actually held one neighborhood meeting prior to filing the appeal) and revise the plans to attempt to meet their concerns and the concerns of the Board.

The applicant held three community meetings since the Planning Board denial. (Exhibit 6)  The first one was on May 9, 2006, and he did a 300 foot radius mailer and 14 people attended.  The second one was November 8, 2006, and he did a 1000 foot radius mailer and 22 people attended.  The applicant gathered input at these meetings and stated he would contact them again once he had revised the plans to meet some of their concerns.

The applicant then submitted revised plans to the City. (Exhibit 7)  On December 18 and 19, the applicant walked the neighborhood and phoned residents to show them the revised plans.  He was able to meet with some people during this time.  The applicant held one final community meeting (for which he noticed a 1000 foot radius) on January 10, 2007.  This meeting was attended by 10 people and again, the applicant presented the revised plans.  In general, many of the neighbors have been pleased with the changes the applicant has made.  However, there are still some people who believe it is too many units for this area and therefore they will not support the project.  Some also believe there are more units proposed then the new multi-family code would permit.

Subsequent to the first community meeting, the applicant filed for a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) on August 8, 2006, to make the project a condominium project.  The applicant had received several comments from neighbors who believed a condominium project would be a better fit for the neighborhood than an apartment project.  This TTM was noticed to a 1000 foot radius and approved by staff on October 24, 2006, subject to the Council approval of the Development Review.  No appeal was filed on this approval and it was made clear to the residents that if Council upheld the denial of the project, the TTM would also be denied.

The following describes the changes that were made to the project proposal:

• The applicant applied for a TTM to make the project condominiums, not apartments.  Storage units within the garage were also added as a requirement for condominium projects.

• Two main pedestrian entrances on East still exist, but the units that are on this frontage and on the Delaware frontage also have access from the street.  They have been reoriented so that they have front doors with porches and steps leading from the public right-of-way to the front door.  This change was in response to comments that the units need to address the street and have a look similar to the single family homes which have front entrances that face the street.

• The elevations significantly changed.  On the Glenoaks side, it is predominantly similar, but fa�ade treatments are now included which give the building a better �base.�  This treatment is also wrapped around so it adds more interest to each side as well.  The Delaware elevation has been split into two which create two distinct looking structures.  The one facing Glenoaks has more of a multi-unit building look, but roof pitches ensure the look is residential.  The other building, across from the single family homes, has more of an attached tri-plex look with the roof pitches and individual entry doors.  The roof tile is flat as compared to the barrel style and the windows are large divided-light bay windows for a more single family feel.  The East elevation has both distinct styles in an effort to �separate� the building.  The garage is subterranean at the corner of East and Delaware making the building no taller than a two-story single family home facing the R-1 neighbors.

• Common open space has been extended out toward Delaware which breaks up the building mass.

• The corner common space area was revised to provide more open landscaping.  This change was in response to comments from the Board who felt some of the amenities may not be used at this intersection of East and Glenoaks and a more passive open space area would be preferred.  The applicant has made this simply a landscaped area which could be used for sitting or reading, but amenities have been placed in a more internal location on the project site.

New multi-family codes:

Staff compared the project to the new codes because there has been discussion about how the project would compare to the new multi-family codes if it were submitted later.  The project would meet the new code in almost every aspect including: density (12 units permitted under new code, 24 units permitted under old code), lot coverage, height, front average setbacks, one street side average setback, parking spaces, minimum parking space size, private open space, open space exposure, amenities, percentage of landscaped area and number of trees.  It would not meet the new code with regard to street side average setbacks on the Glenoaks side (approximately 3� short of requirement), bicycle parking (not currently shown on plans, but applicant states he will include these in the garage), common open space minimum dimension for all of the open space requirement, and payment of the affordable housing in-lieu fee.

CONCLUSION:

The applicant has made changes to the project to address some of the concerns of the Planning Board and the nearby residents.  They have not made all suggested changes like reducing it to one story along East and Delaware or reducing the number of units.  Staff, however, believes the changes made have improved the project and make it compatible with the neighborhood.  Staff believes that the findings for approval of the Development Review can be made and that the project as proposed and as conditioned is compatible and consistent with existing residential properties and structures in the surrounding neighborhood given the various zoning designations.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the appeal and reverse the Planning Board�s decision thereby conditionally approving Project No. 2005-86 Development Review.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit  1          Planning Board staff report dated April 24, 2006 including all exhibits

Exhibit 2           Planning Board Resolution #3023 dated April 24, 2006

Exhibit 3           Planning Board minutes from the April 24, 2006 public hearing

Exhibit 4           Appeal form submitted by David Meissner

Exhibit 5           Additional petition and e-mails submitted after the Planning Board packets

                          were prepared

Exhibit 6           Sign-in sheets from three applicant-sponsored neighborhood meetings

Exhibit 7           Revised plans submitted by the applicant

go to the top