ITEM 12-A
Council Mtg: July 10, 1990
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT Appeal of a Planning Commission Condition of Approval
and an Appeal of a Planning Commission Approval of
Conditional Use Permit 90-005 to Allow a Five Unit
Condominium at 1405 Ocean Park Boulevard.
Applicant: Selivestr Savarovsky
Appellant: Selivestr Savarovsky
Appellant: 2525 14th Street Homeowners Association
INTRODUCTION
On April 18, 1990, the Planning Commission approved CUP 90-005 to
allow a five unit condominium at 1405 Ocean Park Boulevard by a
vote of 5-0 with one absence and one abstention. The applicant
has filed an appeal regarding one condition of the approval, and
a group of neighbors has filed an appeal of the project approval.
The appeal forms are provided as Attachments A and B. This
report recommends that the City Council approve the appeal of the
condition of approval and deny the appeal of the project
approval. The two appeals were filed after the ten day appeal
period for the Tentative Tract Map which ended April 28, 1990.
Therefore, the appeals are for the Conditional Use Permit only,
the Tract Map is approved.
This item was originally scheduled for the City Council meeting
of June 12, 1990. Due to the fact that the original 500' radius
notification labels were incomplete, the item was continued and
new labels were prepared.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing the construction of a five unit,
three-story condominium building with a thirteen space
subterranean parking garage accessed from Ocean Park Boulevard.
There is no rear alley. An existing three unit residential
building would be demolished. The new building would feature
three, two-story units on the first and second floors and two,
one-story plus loft, units on the third floor.
ANALYSIS
Applicant's Appeal
At the Planning Commission meeting of April 18, 1990, the
Commission approved the proposed condominium with the conditions
contained in the attached Statement of Official Action. In
addition to the standard conditions of approval, the Commission
imposed a condition that there be a 4 ft. unexcavated side yard,
with box trees, along the west side of the property. The
applicant is appealing the added condition of approval.
Section 9040.17 (SMMC) states that in the R3 District, on parcels
having a width of 50 feet or greater, there shall be provided and
maintained an unexcavated area equal to 4 feet in width along the
entire length of at least one of the side property lines.
However, the subject parcel is only 46 feet in width, and
therefore the Zoning Code exempts the property from the
unexcavated side yard requirement. The Commission imposed the
condition of approval in an attempt to provide space for the
planting of trees which would help to lessen the impact on the
adjacent residents. The applicant contends that providing the
unexcavated side yard would eliminate two of the thirteen parking
spaces and would therefore require that the three, three bedroom
units be reduced to two bedroom units. Five two bedroom units
would require 10 parking spaces plus one guest space for a total
of 11 spaces.
The applicant has reviewed the project in terms of the Planning
Commission's action of approval and has concluded that it would
be difficult to redesign the project with the condition. The
applicant has chosen to appeal the Planning Commission decision
rather than to redesign. As a way of achieving the Commission's
objective of providing tress along the west elevation, but not
requiring the full unexcavated side yard on a 46' wide lot, staff
suggests that the applicant be required to provide a minimum of 5
tree wells adjacent to the west property line, subject to the
review of the Architectural Review Board.
Neighbors' Appeal
Following the April 18, 1990 Planning Commission approval of the
proposed project, a group of neighbors ("2525 14th Street
Homeowners Association") appealed the Commission's action. The
group's appeal is based on an overall concern about the
compatibility of the proposed structure with the existing
neighborhood. The neighbors' letter (see attachment B) states
that the project provides no setbacks of upper stories or other
design elements to relieve the massing effect of the building or
to allow light and ventilation to pass to the adjacent
structures. The neighbors are requesting that the Council either
overturn the Planning Commission approval, require that the
building height be reduced from three stories to two stories, or
at least maintain the Planning Commission's condition of approval
related to the 4' unexcavated side yard.
The Planning Commission approved the project with several
conditions, including the following conditions directed to the
Architectural Review Board:
Plans for final design, landscaping, screening and trash
enclosures shall be subject to review and approval by the
Architectural Review Board.
The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay
particular attention to the project's pedestrian
orientation and amenities; scale and articulation of
design elements; exterior colors, textures and materials;
window treatment; glazing; and landscaping.
The neighbors' concerns are based on the project scale, design
and articulation. The project is located in a R3 District and is
therefore permitted to be 3 stories and 40' in height with 50%
lot coverage. The Commission's approval was based on the fact
that the project complies with all applicable standards for the
R3 District. In terms of the building design, the Commission
approved the project with specific conditions to the
Architectural Review Board regarding their review and approval of
the project. Staff recommends that the applicant meet with the
neighbors prior to the ARB meeting, in an attempt to resolve the
design issues raised in the appeal.
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission's condition of approval is an attempt to
mitigate the impact of the project on the adjacent property
owners. Staff feels that the objective of providing trees along
the west side property line can be achieved by requiring tree
wells rather than a full 4' unexcavated side yard. Therefore,
staff suggests the following condition in place of Planning
Commission condition #36:
The applicant shall provide a minimum of five tree wells,
along the west side property line large enough to
accommodate 24" Box trees, subject to the approval of the
Architectural Review Board.
The neighbors' appeal is related to the scale and design of the
building. The proposed building size is permitted by the Zoning
Ordinance and the building design is subject to the Architectural
Review Board approval. In order to ensure that the neighbors'
concerns are considered in the final building design, staff is
recommending the following condition:
Prior to the Architectural Review Board hearing, the
applicant shall meet with the surrounding property owners
and residents to discuss the proposed building design and
landscape plan and to consider design changes to provide a
mutually acceptable transition between the two properties.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council approve the
applicant's appeal, deny the neighbor's appeal and otherwise
uphold the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit
90-005 with the findings and conditions contained in the April
18, 1990 Planning Commission Statement of Official Action, the
revision of Condition #36 and the added condition related to the
ARB review as stated above.
Prepared by: David Martin, Associate Planner
Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
Attachments: A. Appeal form dated 4/30/90
B. Appeal form dated 5/02/90
C. Planning Commission Statement of Official
Action dated 4/18/90
D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 4/18/90
E. Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations
NOTE: Attachments are not available on PEN, but may be obtained
from the City Clerk's office.