HomeMy WebLinkAbout34-Planning
-
!1. 4-
4.
-
CI1O' OF SAN BERNARDIQD - REQUIOI" FOR COUNCIL ACOON
From:
Frank A. Schuma
Planning Director
Subject:
Appeal of Planning Commissionos
Denial of Review of Plans No.
86-43
Mayor and Council Meeting of
February 2, 1987, 2:00 p.m.
Dept:
Planning
Date:
January 20, 1987
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
11/5/86 -- Planning Commission denied appeal.
12/22/86 -- Mayor and Council rejected decision of Planning Commission,
granted approval of appeal and referred project back to the
Planning Commission.
1/6/87 --
Planning Commission unanimously denied Review of Plans No.
86-43 based upon aesthetics, incompatibility with the
surrounding area and the social implications of the
project.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing on the appeal be closed and the decision of the
Planning Commission be affirmed, modified or rejected.
G-J- CLAA
Signature F k ASh
ran . c uma
Contact person:
Frank A. Schuma
Phone:
383-5057
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: --
Source:
Finance:
Council Notas:
15-0262
Agenda Item NO~ C
,
o
0FRANK DELoANDRAr:
~,0 ARCHITECT AR.A
o
(714) 689-510
4205 MARKET ST. . DE ANZA BLDG., SUITE 2 . RIVERSIDE. CA 92501
PLANNING
January 15, 1987
Office of"C1ty Clerk C,lty of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Beno,ardino, Ca.
ENGINEERING
Re: Appeal of Case No. 86-43 L"c~'T~':> """I Gc>Il,M ...0.... ..... ",L~ ~'...eE T
) "tA>I"T .....~T .... 'Tote! C~""\"II""E "" lli'..c...o
~~,'''' 2.-a"'~",,"Z.....a ,t>C.t>"~'fl\IC.{"
Dear Ma: Ag "''''''I ~-S"T"Q'" ~W\..~., <,OMP...e...o
I have received a letter dated Jan. 9, 1987 from the
Planning Director, Frank SchUl!\a regarding the Planfling
Commission action on Jan.6, 1987 which in essence re-
versed the decisi6n of the Development Review Committee
granted to me on August 25, 1986. '
ARCHITECTURE
I grievously wish to state at this time thst this adverse
decision places my client in a dilemma without benefit of
sid nor direction as to what anyone can hope to do to assist
in the endeavor to develop this ill-timed parcel of land
that would be financially feasible.
For four years now the owner has become perplexed by the
maneU\-ering by various individuals, to halt the hopes and
patient progress to install a beautiful building that would
be a boon to the site.All this has been at a great expense
and effort, for which so far has come to naught.
Therefore, on behalf of my client, I wish to respectfully
submit this letter of appesl to be conducted through the
appropriate channels, so as to be heard in accordance with
the relevant Municipal Codes.
Respectfully Submitted,
C:1
"7'
G~#AI'fl11c!1PC
Frank Del'Andrae. Architect
,'n
-,
,
~
c.
FD'A/es
:~?
-,)
cc: Irma Ernst. Owner
Darwin Reinglass, Developer
m m(t][~nwr:,: Wi
JAN 16 1987
Lift' rLl1r'f'jl'I',; i', ":' "" tl'.!T
ssm iJ,nrif.IiDirJll, I:"
OCITY OF SA~ BEf?NARDINOO - MEMORANDUa
To Planning Commission
Subject Appeal of Review of Plans No. 86-43
From Pl anni ng Department
Date January 6, 1987
Approved ITEM NO 0 9, WARD NO. 3
Date
Owner:
Mr. Darwin Rein9lass
1901 East Fourth Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Applicant: Mr. Frank Del 'Andrae
3243 Arlington Avenue, #180
Riverside, CA 92506
Review of Plans No. 86-43 is a proposal to construct a 48 unit, three-story
apartment complex on approximately 1.3 acres of land located on the southside
of Mill Street, west of Rancho Avenue and in the R-3-1200 Multiple Family
Residential zone. This item was ori9inally presented to the Development
Review Committee for the review and approval at their meeting of May 16, 1986.
At the request of the Planning Department staff, the development proposal,
which was Ultimately approved by the Development Review Committee at their
August 7, 1986 meeting, was altered several times to insure compatibility with
the surrounding area.
One of the issues concerning staff was the issue of three-story structures in
an area where the predominance of development is single story with some two-
story development in the immediate area.
The letter advising the applicant that the application had been approved was
dated August 25, 1986. The letter contained the approval along with the
appropriate standard requirements and conditions applicable to the project.
The letter further stated that the approval of Review of Plans No. 86-43 was
final unless appealed within 10 days of the date of the approval letter.
Councilman Hernandez, at a meeting of the Mayor and Council on August 18, 1986,
indicated his desire to appeal Review of Plans No. 86-43. At the City Council
meeting of September 8, 1986, Councilman Ralph Hernandez reaffirmed his appeal
of the decision of the Development Review Committee. A letter indicating such
was sent to the owner on September 25, 1986. The appeal was based on the pro-
posed three stories, and the incompatibility of the structure and resulting
density with the surrounding uses. Density at the site is proposed at 36
units per acre. Surrounding land uses include: a single family tract to the
north, directly across Mill Street; two-story apartments to the west; commer-
cial uses to the east; and single story apartment units to the south (these
are within the City Limits of Colton).
On November 5, 1986, Review of Plans No. 86-43 was before the Planning Commis-
sion to determine if the appeal by Councilman Hernandez was filed in a timely
and appropriate manner. At that hearing, it was determined that the appeal
had not been filed in a timely or appropriate manner.
ClrY 011 rH':::M~"
o
o
o
o
Planning Commission
Appeal of Review of Plans No. 86-43
January 6, 1987
-2-
On November 13, 1986, the November 5 decision of the Planning Commission was
appealed by Councilman Hernandez, in writing, to the City Clerk's office.
That appeal was heard at the December 22, 1986 meeting of the Mayor and Common
Council. At that meeting it was determined that the previous appeal was both
timely and appropriate, that the item should be reviewed by the Planning
Commission based on the merits of the proposed project, and that all property
owners within 500 feet of the project should be notified by mail of the hearin9
date.
The proposed project was orginially approved by the Development Review
Committee based on the fact that it had met the minimum requirements of the
applicable codes in effect at the time. Since the original approval, a number
of revisions relative to appeal proceedures of the Development Review Committee
decisions and development standards of the R-3 zone have become effective.
The proposed project does not correspond with the new standards of the adopted
R-3 ordinance regarding front and side setbacks, ground floor patios, required
open space and amenities, and building separations. The new ordinance also
prohibits 3-story structures on the periphery of a project.
Although the proposed project does not meet the new standards, the Planning
Commission is requested to review the project based on the applicable stan-
dards in effect at the time of the original approval.
Respectfully submitted,
FRANK A. SCHUMA
Planning Director
~~~~~
Associate Planner
JL
.
o
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCATION
CASE REVIEW OF PLANS 36-43
HEARING DATE January 6'- 198 i
9
C,M
!-..-. -I "-2 \
l.~ Jr
~1(Y
1"= '
.-,
101-1
Rol
R-I
C-3A
C-3A
R-I
----
y
R-Z R-I
C-3A
R-2
R-I
.,1
...
"
R-30
2000
R-3
101-1
. --
CG:k
R-I
--
101
.
21
')
\..~O"
tOe
I
I
R'I
R-I
R-I
--
.--
.1_1T8
......:
.: :
---:!J..: I;.".>.. - I
III
I
....
I 000,
I
IIV..
I
1
R-t
.&
J
4-- 41.
o
o
(714) 689-50.
A.R.A.
4205 MARKET ST. · DE ANZA BLDG.. SUITE 2 . RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
PLANNING
February 11, 1987
City of San Bernardino
Shauna Clark, City Clerk
To: Mayor and Coaaon Council
300 North ''D'' Street
San Bernardino, Ca.
~ ::0
m
n
m
..., <:
s:l ITI
-=:)
- I
- 2
~
::g -<
N (')
- .'Tl
c:> O'='
ARCHITECTURE
ENGINEERING
Re: Appeal of Planning COJIIIIlission' s Denial of Review
of Plans No. 86-43
Subject Property: Rectangular shaped parcel of land
1.3 acres 498 ft. on south side of Mill Street 200 ft.
West of cenerline of Rancho Ave. In R-3 1200 zone.
Hearing Date and Time: Feb 16. 1987 2:00 pm
Dear Ms Clark:
Please note a letter, included herewith, from Irma Ernst
the owner of the subject property. Letter is addressed to
the Mayor and Common Council. It is self explanatory and I
must defer to her request for more time in order to be better
able to join Mr. Reinglass and myself in presenting our case.
I also wish to remind the Mayor and Common Council members
to what occured at the hearing on Feb. 2, 1987, during which
time Mr. Reinglass was vilified by Henery Steil. I would have
wished that this had not happened and there is no assurance
that it could not happed again. Therefore, with all due respect
to the Mayor and 60unci1men, I ane my associates wish to be
excused from appearing on Feb. 16, 1987. But, be that as it may,
we h4pe that a decision will be rendered, to grant Irma Ernst
a continuance of her case as she has requested.
Respectfully yours,
cYA"'A' tJ,.J'~..
Frank De1(~rae Architect-and Applicant
ro'AI es
(2) Enclosures
c :Darwin Reinglass. Developer
Irma Ernst. Owner
./~tD-~At1~
GiJ
.J....
L
w ~
o
o
o
o
810 1I1i~ter Dr.
P\1l1ertcn, CA 92633
February ll, 1987
RE: Case No. 86-43
Dear MlIdlIme Mayor ana Oluncilmen:
~ ::0
rn
0
rn
..., ::;::
~ :-n
0
- I
C>
- :=i
-<
::sz Q
N ,
;..:;. ,..,.,
ex:> ~
'!he HCllorable Mayor ana 0....110.. COUncil
300 North "0" st.........t.
San Bemardi.ro, CA 92418
I, Inna Ernst, am the owner of :record of subject property. In regard
to the Mayor ana Oluncil meeting to be held at Febroaxy 16, 1987
at 2:00 p.m., I respectfully request a tluD4---..e.u...,t because of my
i.rv-;oI"""itati.cm to ~... CD that date due to ill health, caused by
stress ana frustration regarding this property. I am uOOergoin:]
trea170ent for hypertensi.OD ana mental fatigue ana have therefore
been advised by my PtYsician to rest ana avoid any stressfJll situations
for at least another IIDnth, so that I may be able to recover ana
c:xmtinue with this DBtter.
I would like to discuss at that time the following itens that are of
interest to!ll:!. 1) I wish to know why Case No. 82-19 was initiated
on Septanber 16, 1982 ana October 19, 1982 where the Plannin:J Department
Director and his AsSOC'iate attenpted to change zoning, ana then was
cL.~ causin:] !Il:! to be c:xmfused about this matter ana wish to have
clarified. 2) <k1 the m:mUng of January 26, 1987 I received a
teleplDle call fran cmncilman Hel:narx3ez regarding my }'L"l-""'-ty. He stated
the property sOOuld be zcmed cx:mnercial to make it DDre valuable.
I wish to know has a f......ibility study been cble to IUJstantiateHhis
statenent. .
At the presEnt time I have advised Mr. Frank Del Armae to ~.<-,,-' to
obtain a clarification of the zoninq of the }'L"l-""'-l)', 80 that I may
go on with my life and recovery. I sincerely lqle you will CXlIltinue
the hearing for 30 days at which time I will be belL& able to pJ:eseut
my case.
I wish to state that I lID a sin:]le' llaDah, age 60, and liviDJ alene.
My entire life saviDJs ana all I have got for my mti,-......L years
is :invested in this }'L"l-""'-L)', 1ihich I _ fcnoed to aquite by
forcJ.osme in 1972, and have ..L~bcd to sell ever since. Encouraged
by ~rt; signs of iIIptoved IIIlIrket .........itiaw I .-.tAowl to list the
property again in 1985. I received a total of 7 olfeL.. lot1ich 10lere
all later withdrawn after makin:J cOntact with the City Ball.
JlIl
-
~ ~
-
-
.0
o
o
o
February 11, 1987
Page 2
SbJuld II\Y health CXlI1tinue to suffer it may Lc.......,e neoeSa:o-ry for me
to tlIke early reti.nment. I 11II totally inexperienced in real estate
.w.liTJ;JS and truly feel I have been discriminated against and victimized.
o
",.!llI.~ .
.'
.- - .~ ..- -"'.-......--
, .
o
o
o
copy
c
IDna Ernst
810 1Ihitewater Dr.
~, CA 92633
Fet:Iroazy 6, 1987
cD ::0
...., ~
",
ia ~
o
,
'-,
::::;
:Ji! -<
N ,-)
Want to let ~ know that en the IIDD1ilJ:J of J8IIJlI%y 26, 1987, _ C;
nuch to my SUIprise, I :teceived a call frail Cooncl.lman RalP1 Ht:..~, ='"
regaxdinJ my plqlert:y in San Bemardi.no. He wanted to know if escrow
had closed or was the property still available.
Frank Del Andrae
4205 Marlcet: street
SUite 12
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Frank:
-
-
I let him know how nuch grief and hardship he has caused me by blocking
every c:hanoe I ever had to sell the }I-L"l-'CLly. He replied that his
~isim was to retire in the near future and 1iIIIlted to do lIilat was
best for everybody ooncemed. He then went CII to say that the now
p.t:~. project woold never be awroved not even if the case 100Iellt
to ClOOrt.
His reason for calling me was to let me know that he was c:xntac:ted by
an anonyDDlS party interested in b1ying the property for .........e:cial use.
~ asked for what p.u:pose he stated that he _ merely plI'J$;nq en the
infODlllltion and knew nooe of the details. He also at~ to ocnvince
me that under OoIlIle.t:Cial zoning the p.."I:'""I-ty would be IIIIXe valnahl...
I an rather curims how he lea.med of my hol",J~ pwm-- since the
P1crle is listed under a friend's nse. Let me knew if ~ hear of
any ~.
Sincexel.y, (~