|
Motion: It was m/s by McGovern/Sullivan to adopt Resolution No. 08-189 upholding the
<br />Planning Commissions decision to deny Conditional Use Permit No. PAP-119 (PCUP-200).
<br />Motion passed by the following vote:
<br />Ayes: Councilmembers McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman
<br />Noes: None
<br />Absent: Councilmember Cook-Kallio
<br />17. Public Hearing: PAP-120, Xin Chen, Appellant (PADR-1762/PUD-99-09-02M, Aman
<br />and Tee Bawa -Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of an
<br />application for administrative design review to construct an approximately
<br />700-square-foot, detached second unit with an approximately 250-square-foot covered
<br />porch at the property located at 2632 Ingrid Court, and for a major modification to an
<br />approved PUD development plan, Case PUD-99-02, to allow additional grading and
<br />retaining walls along the rear and side yard slope banks of the property and to relocate
<br />two developer-installed trees along the rear yard slope bank of the property.
<br />Principal Planner Donna Decker gave the staff report, described the location and site, said the
<br />owners have obtained a permit to build a swimming pool and is requesting the modification
<br />allow a retaining wall 2-4 feet in height, grading, and a second residential unit. Mr. Chen filed an
<br />appeal citing the second unit would block his views, voiced issues of life safety and increase in
<br />density, more traffic on the roads, that emergency vehicles would not be able to reach his home
<br />and others in the neighborhood, that the re-grading in the plan would cause potential landslide
<br />threats and that the action or allowance of a second residential unit would reduce property
<br />values.
<br />She said Mr. Chen lives on the down hill slope of the Bawa property, all slopes are 3:1 and
<br />concerns have been raised about privacy impacts, view blockage, property values, parking
<br />impacts, and increased density.
<br />She presented the site plan for the proposed project, said the second unit is in the rear corner
<br />tucked into the slope bank, the retaining wall would be 2 feet, 4 feet and then dropping down to
<br />3 feet, creating an area for the second unit. Above that, the existing pool has been approved
<br />through the permit process, it has been dug, gunited and is awaiting finish, with the Bawa's
<br />awaiting action on the appeal.
<br />Ms. Decker said the location of the second unit was discussed at the Planning Commission in
<br />terms of where else the unit could be placed. The unit is proposed at 700 square feet, there is
<br />limited discretion that the City has due to State legislation allowing second units in any zoned
<br />properties with discretionary review, which is based on the following facts: That the unit cannot
<br />exceed 15 feet in height, that it meets the setbacks, that it be less than 1200 square feet in floor
<br />area, that at least one unit needs to be owner occupied, one additional parking space must be
<br />provided, the design and architecture needs to match and be compatible with the surrounding
<br />areas and existing home, that the maximum FAR not be increased or above the FAR, that the
<br />unit be provided with 80 square feet of open space, requirement for address signs for each of
<br />the units, that there is adequate off-site infrastructure to serve the unit, that the applicant will
<br />participate in the City's monitoring rent program, that the unit cannot be located on property that
<br />is historical in terms of a California historical site, that it complies with all zoning and building
<br />requirements and it meets all Class I accessory structures under Chapter 18.20, and the
<br />proposal meets (with an additional recommendation for parking) or exceeds in some cases all of
<br />City Council Minutes 10 May 6, 2008
<br />
|