city council meeting september 8, 2014

11
Planning & Community Development Department Consideration of a Call for Review Hillside Development Permit #6190 New Single Family Residence 835 Linda Vista Avenue City Council Meeting September 8, 2014

Upload: aiko-blevins

Post on 03-Jan-2016

28 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Consideration of a Call for Review Hillside Development Permit #6190 New Single Family Residence 835 Linda Vista Avenue. City Council Meeting September 8, 2014. Call for Review. Before the City Council is a request for a call for review of a decision made by the Hearing Officer. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: City Council Meeting September 8, 2014

Planning & Community Development Department

Consideration of a Call for ReviewHillside Development Permit #6190

New Single Family Residence 835 Linda Vista Avenue

City Council MeetingSeptember 8, 2014

Page 2: City Council Meeting September 8, 2014

Planning & Community Development Department

Call for Review

Before the City Council is a request for a call for review of a decision made by the Hearing Officer.• If the Council decides to Call for Review, a

hearing will be scheduled before the Board of Zoning Appeals.

• The tentative hearing date is October 15, 2014

2

Page 3: City Council Meeting September 8, 2014

Planning & Community Development Department

3

Hearing Officer Action

• August 20, 2014: Hearing held> Three speakers in opposition – concerned about conversion of

existing residence to accessory structure, size of structure, possible illegal conversion of accessory structure to habitable space, use of accessory structure for home business.

> One speaker in favor – Abutting neighbor supporting the project.> One letter of support– Adjacent neighbor supporting the project.

Entitlement application was taken under advisement

• August 22, 2014: Hearing Officer approved entitlement application

• August 23 to September 2, 2014: Appeal Period

• September 3, 2014: Effective date of decision (if no appeal is filed or no call for review)

• September 2, 2014: Councilmember Madison called item for review

• September 2, 2014: Appeal application filed by resident Nina Chomsky questioning the historical significance of the existing residence

Page 4: City Council Meeting September 8, 2014

Planning & Community Development Department

4

Hearing Officer Action, Cont.

• If there is a Call for Review, the appeal period continues to run (PMC Section 17.72.060.B.4)

• If the Council decides not to Call for Review, the decision of the Hearing Officer would normally be effective (PMC Section 17.72.060.B.4.d). However, an appeal was filed and will serve to protect the rights of the appellant in the event that the Call for Review fails. If the Call for Review fails, the appeal will be scheduled before the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Page 5: City Council Meeting September 8, 2014

Planning & Community Development Department

5

Requested Entitlements

• Hillside Development Permit: To allow the construction of a new 3,620 square foot,

one-story single-family residence with a 568 square foot attached garage.

As part of the proposal, the applicant is requesting to convert the existing 2,426 square foot one-story single-family residence on the site into an accessory structure .

Approval of a Hillside Development Permit is required for the construction of a new single-family residence in the Hillside Overlay District. No protected trees are proposed for removal as part of the project.• No Variances requested.• No trees are proposed to be removed; a Tree Protection

Plan is required.

Page 6: City Council Meeting September 8, 2014

Planning & Community Development Department

Proposed Site Plan

6

Converted SFR

Lind

a V

ista

Ave

Proposed SFR

Page 7: City Council Meeting September 8, 2014

Planning & Community Development Department

Project Description

• New Residence:> Single story, 3,620 square foot residence.> Meets all applicable development standards, including: • Gross Floor Area:

Max 9,250 sf,Proposed 5,984 sf

• Lot Coverage:Max 35%Proposed 19%

• Setbacks: All compliant• Height:

Max 28’Proposed 17’-8”

• Neighborhood Compatibility: Max 3,629 sfProposed 3,620 sf

7

Page 8: City Council Meeting September 8, 2014

Planning & Community Development Department

Project Description, Cont.

• Existing Residence Conversion to Accessory Structure:> Single story, 2,426 square foot residence to accessory structure.> Meets all applicable development standards, including: • Accessory Structure Size:

Max 2,100 sf (6% of lot size), Proposed 1,796 sf. (5.1%)630 sf of structure modified to have open roofs and removed exterior walls. Areas with roofs open 50% or more do not count towards max size.

•Restricted Facilities: Kitchen and bathtubs removed, the fireplace will be sealed rendering it inoperable.

•Allowed Facilities: A/C, heating, toilets and showers. • Height: Max 15’, proposed 14’-7”

• Setbacks: All compliant> Covenant required: stating that the structure is an accessory structure

and shall not be used for sleeping quarters or be converted to a residential use. 8

Page 9: City Council Meeting September 8, 2014

Planning & Community Development Department

9

Proposed Floor Plan

Accessory Structure Floor

Plan

Page 10: City Council Meeting September 8, 2014

Planning & Community Development Department

Consideration of a Call for ReviewHillside Development Permit #6190

New Single Family Residence 835 Linda Vista Avenue

City Council MeetingSeptember 8, 2014

Page 11: City Council Meeting September 8, 2014

Planning & Community Development Department

11

Historic Preservation

• Project provided to Design & Historic Preservation for review and comments.

• As part of analysis, staff reviewed:

“2007-2008 City Wide Study of Cultural Resources of the Recent Past”, the subject structure was not documented in the study;

Photographs of the existing structure; and

Development plans of the proposed modifications.

• It was found that the home was designed by Kemper Nomland, a local architect and as such may be eligible for landmark designation.

• However, It was determined, based on the scope of work, that the project would not adversely impact the building because it removes a small portion of exterior walls and roof at the rear of the building and would not affect character defining features.