July 13, 2004 

 

 

 

SUBJECT:      2004-0300 – Mark Anderson [Applicant] John Heine Trustee [Owner]: Application for related proposals on a 8,320 square foot site located at 529 South Murphy Avenue in an R-2/O (Low-Medium Density Residential/Office) Zoning District (APN:  209-30-004)

 

Introduction of an Ordinance	Rezone from R-2/O (Low Medium Density Residential/Office) Zoning District to R-2/O/PD (Low- Medium Density Residential/Office/Planned Development) Zoning District;
Motion	Special Development Permit to allow the remodel of an existing 2,185 square-foot two-story house  and the construction of a new 1,758 square-foot two-story house, and
Motion	Tentative Map to subdivide one lot into two lots.

 

REPORT IN BRIEF

Existing Site Conditions	Heritage Resource, Two-Story Single-Family Home
Surrounding Land Uses
North	Single Family Homes, Duplexes, Offices
South	Duplexes and Commercial Uses
East	Mixed Commercial Uses
West	Single-Family Homes
Issues	Use and Architectural Compatibility Parking Configuration
Environmental Status	A Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines.
Planning Commission Action	Approve with Conditions
Staff Recommendation	Approve with Conditions

 PROJECT DATA TABLE

 

 

 

Starred and shaded items are  deviations from Zoning Code.

 

ANALYSIS

 

Background

 

Previous Actions on the Site: The following table summarizes previous planning applications related to the subject site.

 

File Number	Brief Description	Hearing/Decision	Date
2002-0458	Variance to allow a reduced landscape buffer, reduced stall widths and a second driveway.	City Council/ Approved on Appeal	10/15/02
2002-0388	Use Permit to allow acupuncture office with residential use.	City Council/ Approved on Appeal	8/16/02
1977-0313	Use Permit to allow a 600 s.f. one-story addition to an existing two-story house for use as an upholstery workshop.	Planning Commission/ Approved	10/18/77

 

The Planning Commission considered this item on June 28, 2004 and voted   3-2 to recommend approval in accordance with the staff recommended conditions in Attachment 2.  Draft Planning Commission Minutes are in Attachment 9.

 

Planning Commission Hearing

 

On June 28, 2004, the Planning Commission considered this item.  That report presented a revised proposal addressing comments made by the Planning Commission at the May 24, 2004 hearing.  A discussion of the revisions can be found on page 6 in the Description of Proposed Project section of this report.

 

Two members of the public spoke at the June 28, 2004 public hearing.  Both members expressed concerns regarding the bulk of the new home given the size of the subject site, the number of deviations being requested for setbacks and the compatibility of the proposed new home in the neighborhood.  One member also expressed concerns of the possibility of damage to a redwood tree on a neighboring property (this same concern was also raised in an e-mail sent to Planning staff as discussed below).

 

Staff also received letters from two members of the public (see Attachment 8).  One letter was sent to Planning staff via e-mail by a neighbor concerned about the impact construction might have on the roots of a redwood tree on an adjacent property.  Public Works staff conducted a site visit as part of their review for the Project Review Committee and presented recommendations for tree protection.  Those recommendations have been incorporated as conditions of approval for the project (see page 3 of Attachment 2, Conditions # 13 and 14).  No issues with roots of neighboring trees were identified.  However, staff has asked the applicant to contact the neighbor directly to ensure that all concerns are addressed. 

 

The second letter, also submitted by a neighbor, was given directly to the Planning Commission prior to the June 28, 2004 public hearing.  The neighbor expressed concerns with the bulk of the proposed new house in relation to both the project site and the neighborhood.  As part of that discussion, the proposed deviations from the Zoning Code (taken from the staff report) were listed.  As a point of clarification, staff would like to note two corrections to the numbers shown in the letter:  1) in item 1(a), it is stated that the rear yard encroachment of the new house would be 37.5%, but the correct number is 26.2% where up to 25% is allowed, and 2) in item 3(b), it is stated that the maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for a two-story house is 40%, but there is no maximum.  The Zoning Code requires Planning Commission approval for new homes and additions resulting in 45% or more FAR.

 

Following discussion about the neighbor’s concern of the bulk of the new house, the Planning Commission approved the project with staff-recommended conditions with a 3-2 vote, stating that the benefit the City would receive from restoration of the historical house justified the deviations and size of the new house.

 

Description of Proposed Project

 

The applicant is proposing a Rezone from R-2/O to R-2/O/PD, subdivision of one lot into two, construction of a new 1,758 sq. ft. two-story single family home, and exterior remodel of an existing two-story heritage resource house to restore it to its original appearance.  The subdivision would create one front lot of 3,931 sq. ft. and one rear, flag-shaped lot of 4,324 sq. ft.  The new house would be located on the rear lot (see tentative map and site plan in Attachment 4).  The one-car garage and driveway of the existing house would be restored to provide two parking spaces for that unit.  The new house would have a two-car garage and two partially covered parking spaces for a total of four parking spaces.

 

This proposal is a revision to a proposal presented at the May 24, 2004 Planning Commission hearing.  The applicant originally proposed a new 2,014 square foot two-story house on a 4,341 square foot lot with a parking configuration that made garage access difficult.  In response to the Planning Commission’s request to redesign the site to improve garage access to the new house, the applicant has slightly increased the rear lot size to 4,371 square feet, reduced the gross floor area of the new house to 1,785 square feet (including the garage), and reconfigured the parking.  With this new proposal, parked cars would not be visible from the street.

 

Environmental Review

 

A Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines.  An initial study has determined that the proposed project would not create any significant environmental impacts (see Attachment 3, Initial Study).

 

Rezoning

 

Change Under Consideration: Rezone the site from R-2/O (Low-Medium Density Residential/Office) to R-2/O/PD (Low-Medium Density Residential/Office/Planned Development).

 

Discussion: The R-2/O Zoning District allows residential and office uses by Use Permit.  The Planned Development (PD) Combining District allows for special consideration of any modifications, additions or limitations to the project.  In this case, the PD Combining District would allow the applicant to subdivide one lot into two lots that are less than the minimum 8,000 sq. ft. required and setbacks that are less than those required in the R-2 Zoning District.  At 10.5 d.u./acre, the proposed use meets the Residential Low-Medium Density General Plan Designation, allowing up to 12 d.u./acre without a density bonus (1 d.u./3600 sq. ft.).

 

 

Use: The Special Development Permit would allow construction of a new 3-bedroom, two-story house on a newly created rear lot of the site.

 

Site Layout: The subdivision would result in two lots, one of which is flag-shaped to allow separate driveway access to the new rear unit.  Front and right setbacks of the existing house are legal nonconforming.  The proposed subdivision would result in the following nonconforming setbacks for the existing house (also see Compliance with Development Standards section of this report): 

·  &n