2004-0857 - Iraj Dehnow [Applicant] Ray and Stella Underhill Trustee [Owner]: Application for related proposals on a 12,120 square-foot site located at 1276 Poplar Avenue in an R-2 (Low Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. (APN: 213-44-034)  KD (Continued from 12/13/04)

• Rezone from R-2 (Low-Medium Density Residential) to R-2/PD (Low-Medium Density Residential/Planned Development) Zoning District;
• Special Development Permit to remove two homes and construct three new homes, and
• Parcel Map to subdivide one lot into four lots.

Kelly Diekmann, Project Planner, presented the staff report.  He summarized the proposed application highlighting the use, site layout, architecture and landscaping.  He corrected the surrounding land use description that the property directly to the north is one-story residential triplex. Staff noted that the project request includes only a few deviations from the code: 1) lot size minimum area for ownership units; 2) front yard setback of 15 feet on the first floor and 20 feet on the second floor for Unit #1; 3) Unit #3 in the rear yard a six inch deviation from the 20 feet standard. He noted that the project has approximately 60% FAR.  He stated that there are mature trees that would be retained in the southeast corner of the project site. Further he reported that there is a large grade separation to the south where the property is higher than the subject site noting that this vertical change is a pattern consistent in the neighborhood.  Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended approval of the Rezone, Special Development Permit and Parcel Map.

Comm. Simons asked whether staff had specific recommendation to the modest reduction to the size of the homes. Staff responded that the Commission could provide direction on appropriate reductions.   

Comm. Sulser asked staff whether the large tree located in the back of the property would be removed. Staff identified the significant trees referred to in an e-mail and confirmed they would be retained. 

Chair Moylan asked staff about Condition of Approval #5A whether the sidewalk would be constructed by the project and if there is clearer language regarding this condition. Staff responded that the project will provide a sidewalk and referred the Commission to Condition of Approval #12B Right of Way Improvements.

Further, Chair Moylan asked about the e-mail received from the public if staff has the name and address of the member of the public.  Staff responded that the e-mail has her name and did not include her property address.  However, staff spoke with her and that she owns a property on Valerian Court.

Chair Moylan opened the public hearing.

Iraj Dehnow, applicant, presented his development plans. He addressed the concerns expressed by the neighbors such as protecting privacy by not placing windows in the back. He also addressed the drainage mentioned in the e-mail and will make sure that this will be taken care of. He stated that he will install new sidewalk as conditioned.  He stated that the three new homes will have a good appearance and would be a good addition to the neighborhood. He concluded that he is happy to accommodate the neighbors’ concerns.  He urged the Commission to support his project.

Tony Toy, adjacent property owner, provided documents to the Commission expressing several concerns such as mass, height and the negative impact such as noise and loss of privacy. He stated that his tenants did not receive a notice of the proposed rezone and that they expressed concerns with the rezoning, the density and loss of privacy and shading.  He stated that included in the packet are the tenants’ letter and that the Commission could contact them directly. Further, he stated that there is an existing fence between the subject site and his property which is falling apart.  He did not know who the owner was till that evening and asked the applicant to fix the fence.

Grace Toy, adjacent property owner, expressed concerns that the project is large for an 8,000 square-foot lot. She stated that small lot development standards should not be used as guidelines since the design is massive and too bulky for the small lot size. She further stated that the design is out of scale and does not blend in with the character of the neighborhood. She commented that she has made several upgrades to her own property. She directed the Commission to the documents she distributed noting that her apartment is approximately 33% FAR with an inviting design with seven parking spaces and mature trees and shrubs. She stated that Marie Gato, another property owner who sent the e-mail, felt that Building #3 is too close invading the privacy of both their properties and would have noise impacts. She commented that currently there is plenty of buffer between properties and that she gets along well with her neighbors.

Chair Moylan commented that there appears to be a contention between them and the applicant and asked Ms. Toy to comment on it. Ms. Toy responded that she and two other neighbors have been trying to find the owner to address the fence up to this date. 

Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, explained that there was a change of ownership and the applicant could clarify on when he actually took ownership of the property

Iraj Dehnow, applicant, stated that this is the first time he heard about the fence issue since taking ownership of the property in May of 2004 and would be willing to discuss this concern. He addressed the privacy concern stating that there would be no windows.  He stated that he is willing to meet the 20 feet rear yard setback requirement should the Commission so desire.  

Chair Moylan closed the public hearing.

Comm. Fussell asked staff whether there are any construction hours in the conditions.  Staff responded that typically construction hours are as specified in the city code.

Comm. Simons asked staff about Condition of Approval #9D whether permeable pavers last longer and are more aesthetic than concrete.  Staff responded permeable pavers may not hold up as long concrete and the additional installation and higher maintenance costs.  Staff has asked for permeable pavers as accents in this case.  He further explained the different basic options and associated costs.   

Comm. Simons offered a friendly amendment to add stormwater maintenance and aesthetic materials to the landscaping plan.  Accepted by the maker.

Comm. Babcock commented that the proposed project appears to be too large for the lot size.  The houses are extremely large. She suggested reducing the size to meet the guidelines and to be more compatible with the neighborhood.

Chair Moylan supported the motion and he was happy that the required setbacks requirement is being requested.

Final Motion:

Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, stated that the item will be considered by City Council on 01/25/05.