Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-Development Services ,- ""'" - '-- - ',-, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Valerie C. Ross, Director Dept: Development Services Subject: Findings of Fact for denial of Development Permit 3 No. 06-14 - A request to construct a 3-story, 93-unit senior housing complex at the northwest comer of Medical Center Drive and 16th Street in the CO, Commercial Office land use district. Date: December 18, 2007 MCC Date: January 7,2008 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: December 17, 2007: The Mayor and Common Council granted an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Development Permit 3 No. 06-14 and continued the item to adopt findings of fact for denial of the Development Permit. Recommended Motion: That the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Findings of Fact for denial of Development Permit 3 No. 06-14. f;.wD; t/. "RHY Valerie C. Ross Contact Person: Aron Liang Phone: 384-5057 Supporting data attached: Staff Reoort Ward: 6 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) Finance: Council Notes: Agenda Item No. /0 I 1/7/0 ( - '- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Findings of Fact for denial of Development Permit 3 No. 06-14 - A request to construct a 3-story, 93-unit senior housing complex at the northwest comer of Medical Center Drive and 16th Street in the CO, Commercial Office land use district. BACKGROUND At their meeting of December 17, 2007, after hearing from the appellant and other local residents, as well as the applicant and applicant's representatives, the Mayor and Common Council granted Appeal No. 07-04, an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Development Permit 3 No. 06-14. In so doing, the Mayor and Council denied the Development Permit in concept. The item was continued to the next meeting, to allow staff to prepare Findings of Fact to support the intended action of the Mayor and Council, based on the analysis expressed during the appeal hearing. Section 19.44.060 of the Development Code states that all of the eight required Findings of Fact must be made to approve a Development Permit. Based on the discussion and comments of a majority of the Common Council at the appeal hearing, Findings 1,3, and 8 cannot be made. Therefore, Development Permit No. 06-14 should be denied. - '- FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL 1) Is the proposed development permitted within the subject zoning district and does it comply with all of the applicable provisions of the Development Code, including prescribed site development standards and any/all applicable design guidelines? Senior housing is permitted in the CO, Commercial Office land use district, at a maximum density of 47 dwellings per acre. Although the proposed project conforms to the maximum permitted density, it does not comply with the lot coverage standard of 50% building coverage. The approval recommendation of the staff and Planning Commission relied on an interpretation of this Code requirement that is not accepted by the Common Council. Structural coverage of the site, including the parking structure and buildings as proposed would be 65%, which exceeds the 50% maximum standard prescribed in the Development Code. 3) Is the proposed development harmonious and compatible with existing and future developments within the land use district and general area, as well as the land uses presently on the subject property? .- The proposed development would not be harmonious and compatible with existing development in the surrounding area. The massing of the building, including the podium- style development above the parking deck and the 3-story architecture would not be consistent with the character of existing low-density residential development in the area. '- ,.,-. '-' 8) The location, size design and operating characteristics of the proposed development would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development would be detrimental to the public interest, safety and general welfare. The enclosed design of the parking area would be an indefensible space, hazardous to public safety. The intensity of development would generate excessive traffic at the proposed location, and the proposed right-in, right-out access on 16th Street would be inadequate for safe and convenient public access. The proposed security and management plan is not adequate to compensate for these design deficiencies, to ensure the safety of residents and the public. FINANCIAL IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION That the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Findings of Fact for denial of Development Permit __ 3 No. 06-14. '- ~-, '-"