The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About43-Planning CI'L.! OF SAN BERNARD( ~O - REQUr 'iT FOR COUNCIL AC lON '. j Frank A. Schuma Appeal of Variance 85-24 From: Planning Director Subject: No. Dept: Planning Mayor and Council Meeting of March 17, 1986, 2:00 p.m. Date: March 6, 1986 Synopsis of Previous Council action: Previous Planning Commission action: At the meeting of the Planning Commission on January 21, 1986, the following action was taken: The application for Variance No. 85-24 was denied based upon findings of fact contained in the staff report dated December 17, 1985. Vote: 4-2, 3 absent. Recommen<:led motion: That the hearing on the appeal be closed and the decision of the Planning Commission be affirmed, modified or rejected. (~~ Signature Frank A. Schuma Contact person: Frank A. Schuma Phone: 383-5057 2 Supporting data attached:_ Yes, Staff Report Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: Finance: Cou nc i I Notes: 75.0262 Agenda Item NO.~ 3.= . !E8\ElWRAD& BANK January 24, 1986 Mayor and Common Council City of San Bernardino 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Re: Variance No. tS-24 Dear Sir or Madame: Our application for this variance was denied at the Planning Commission meeting of January 21, 1986. \,e hereby appeal that decision to exhaust our adminis- trative procedures. Sincerely, ( " Douglas M. Boyd Sr. Vice President Real Estate Loan O}\B/bb cc: H. Thackerv SVP/Chief Credit Officer ".(-,\ j 1\0 ,',. ,-~-<- / '- .nr, '. I,-'r.,.;. 'f' SA~ B[R:'\ARDI~() (>IIIC[ .!:'"III >':t1t1h C' ~ll('('.t S.lll Bern.udlno. C.lhiorl1I.1 q~..Jll1 .\\1\11 I"\.;( ,t\J)l)f\(:-," p.n Bo\ ; \h7. "I.11l B("rnardlno. t.lhll lOll,] II ~.; 1 ~ (--1:1'''''';-' . . , ./"-1 I FAS..,=- I ~.A"-+_ I' 'J~l .~ ,. +- I .... '-' , I~.':I-I I E.G - \ G.G._ t..M._ IM,B._ !",.,.- M.N._ !1.~._ s. w. vR LA~'OrnCc.s .~':. ROBERT F. NICHOLS. JR. "" ..O"I[..~ON"" cO..O..T10.... j 50UT...Cllt.... CA!...rOR""IA SANM eVIl-DING .c1Li::- Ma,.6'r and City Council City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 00 ~ ~~,-:-r" ,"j..V:' " J" .::: ,. ".,- - ,_~ ".11 '\ .. - - ~~~'.' .-c. ~.0 , \'(I' 0"- R ,.., - - _., -, r"1\, /' C'., L,; l~ ~ Uw [ J ~ FE B 2'G 1986 , ~'\, &0"'0 TCl.E.GAA~"" ROAD. SUITE. 203 DOWNEY. CALIFORNIA 90240.2391 1213) eOI-3308 . 773-5808 ,- \ / February 11, 1986 ,:,:') - '- 4../- , , ' ., , ,. Reference: Variance No. 85-24 CITY PLANNii~G C~r;~ilTMWT SAN BERNARDINO. CA Gentlemen: Pursuant to your request, this letter is written as a further explanation of Eldorado Bank's appeal filed on January 24, 1986 by Douglas M. Boyd. The variance is sought to allow a four to eight fpot encroachment within a fifteen foot setback of a ninety-five per cent c5mpleted fourteen (14) unit apartment complex. The variance was applied for by the construction lender, Eldorado Bank when the contractor abandoned the project after it was stopped by the Building Department. The primary issue was whether or not the City would develop the dedicated ease- ment now a roadway into a through city street. The Engineering Department in a memo supplementing the Planning Department's summary indicated that the roadway would never be improved as a thoroughfare. However, at the Planning Commission hearing one of the Planning Commissioner's asked the deputy City Attorney "if the City granted the variance would the City be liable for any accidents on the roadway?" The deputy City Attorney who ap- parently was not appraised of all of the factors of the situation responded in a general way that "there is a possibility that the City could be liable". It is submitted that the possibility of .the City being liable for granting the vari- ance is about as great as if she said "there is a possibility that the sun will rise in the west". However the damage was done. The Planning Commissioner who asked the original question began to repeat '~ou mean Eldorado Bank is trying to pass on their liability to the City". As a result the variance was basically denied because of a overbroad legal generalization and to teach contractors that they can't come into San Bernardino and disregard city building codes. We have requested the City Attorney's office to respond more specifically to the question raised by the Planning Commissioner. Assuming this is forthcoming but c_ Mayor and City Council Page 2 February II, 1986 there are strong economic reasons for granting this variance to say nothing of the fact that the Building Department did not discover this problem until the building was ninety-five per cent completed. It is hoped that a variance will be granted so that the project can be completed. If it cannot be accomplished through the City Council then this appeal as was stated before is necessary to nhaust the bank's administrative remedies since Eldorado Bank now stands in the shoes of the defaulting contrsctor. RFN/rmr ~. l.AW OF"F'ICCS OF ""'1..1.1"''' 5 ..EI.I..YER ENOS C REID .,JOMN O. BI"IIIBAGE ROBE,QT.J lI'ER5C"'SAC'" HORAe!;; Q. COll_ JOE SAX OONAI"O ,.. ,"DWELL DAVID G ..OO"H: I'"IU'NK J. OEI,.ANY JOHN K "'I"AU .,JAMI[5 J ....AN....'NG ...1'1 .J"'''''II: W CA,IIIINEY "'''1..'''''' Ill. ""I.""ER VERONICA M GRAY O'ANI: 5 ItIlllI!:WER ""e...."'o 0 ,",or", DARYL D. ..ANSEN CATloIERINE E. 5 ."'....11.... DAN G. MCKINNEY ......RK C E:OWAROS ",-E:X"""O"'A 5 WARD WILLIAM .,J. wARD C><...!:tI,.E5 T 5CHUl.TZ C,",."RLE5 F" MEYER F>AUL IE: SCI-lRIf::R OAVIO'" SC""C"'TER ""e,"" SCHOUTEN .,JOSE"'''' '" TAII"',SKY Reid & Hellyer A P"'Ol'"E::SS'ONAI,. CORPOR""T10N 599 N ARROWI-lEAO AVENUE POST OFFICE: eox 608e SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFbHNIA 92412 (714) 884-4704 17141 824-53ZS HOWARD SUR'" Ileeg.,g471 GIEO. w. MEI..LYER ,,866-19691 ...0><"" B SUR'" H908-,971' .........e:5 R e:OWARDS 11920-'97'" TEl..E:COPIEA 11141 381-4Z8S RIVE:RSIDE O~~ICe: 3800 OR....NGE STREET RIVERSIDE:, CA ~Z50i!-383. (71",' 882-1771 March 4. 1986 ORANGE: COUNTY OFFiCe: IQOI NEWPORT BLVD. SUITE 239 COSTA MESA. CA 9Z6i!1 (".. 831-.495Z Delivered by Courier 00 rn @ rn n \Yl rn rID MAR 4 1986 OUR FILE NUMBER C0069-013 Mayor Evlyn wilcox and the Common Council 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino. CA 92418 CITY PLANNING DEPART_ SAN BERNMIIIID, . vFrank A. Schuma. Planning Director City of San Bernardino Planning Department 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino. CA 92418 , .' STAFF ROUTING F.A.S._ D.A. v,s. A.L., 0.. E.G. G.G._ K.M._ M.B._ M.F._ M.N._ R.R._ s.w._ V.R Michael Perbix City Attorney 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino. CA 92418 Re: Notice of Appeal of Denial of Variance No. 85-24 FIL.E_ To the Honorable Mayor Wilcox. City Council. Planning Department and City Attorney: We are counsel for Eldorado Bank ("Eldorado") with respect to the above-referenced appeal. This Notice of Appeal is submitted as a supplement to letter dated January 24. 1986 from Eldorado Bank by Douglas M. Boyd and letter dated February 11. 1986 submitted by Robert F. Nichols. Jr. Eldorado is appealing the San Bernardino Planning Commission's denial of Eldorado's request for a variance to waive Section 19.12.060 to allow an encroachment into a setback area in the R-3-1200 Multiple Family Residential District. . '" Page 2 The subject property ("Property") is owned by Stephen McCarty ("McCarty") and located at 1721 North conejo Drive. San Bernardino. California ("Project"). Eldorado is the construction lender and is bringing the appeal since McCarty has abandoned the Project. The Project consists of two buildings: (i) Building A consisting of ten units and carports; (ii) Building B consisting of four units and carports. Building B is in issue in this appeal. E1dorado appeals the Planning Commission's denial of Variance No. 85-24 on the following grounds: I. The Location Of The Buildinq Was Approved Without The ~- Setback. On December 1. 1983. the Development Review Committee approved McCarty's plans (Plan No. 83-105) to construct a 14-unit apartment complex at the intersection of Conejo Drive~and 17th Street (herein the "Project"). In approving the site plan on December 1, 1983. the Development Review Committee did not require the ten foot setback. On July 7. 1984. the Building Safety Department issued building permits to McCarty for the Project without requiring the ten foot setback. The inspection records of the Department of Building and Safety of the City of San Bernardino indicates that the setback was inspected for Building B on August 2, 1984 and that the slab grade was inspected on August 7, 1984. Additional inspections regarding the progress of construction of Building B were made thereafter. No objection was made to the location of Building B. As of April, 1985. Building B was 95' completed. It was not brought to Eldorado's attention until July. 1985 that Building B was encroaching in the "setback area." Building B, located at the southeasterly corner of the Property was constructed at an angle approximately 1.58 feet at its closest point from the south property line increasing to approximately 4.23 feet from the south property line at the building'S west end. .. Page 3 When the Building and Safety Department became aware of the encroachment. a stop order on construction was issued and McCarty abandoned the Project. Since Eldorado is the beneficiary under a construction deed of trust in the sum of $322.000.00 which encumbers the Property. Eldorado is requesting approval to allow Building B to remain in its current location based on the fact that the City has previously approved the location of Building B. To deny the variance at this time would require Eldorado to tear down Building B which would cause an extraordinary loss to Eldorado. II. There Afe ExcePtional Or Extraordinarv Circumstances And Conditions With Respect To The Proiect. As set forth above in Section I. the City has already approved the location of Building B and it would create great economic waste if the variance is not granted. On or about March 5. 1970. Dean A. Raub and Ruth E. Raub ("Raub") granted to the City of San Bernardino an easement of the South 15 feet of the Property. When Raub conveyed the Property to McCarty on September 19, 1983, the grant deed conveyed all of the Property without any reference to the easement. Moreover. with respect to the grant of the 15 foot easement made by Raub. the Engineering Department has already indicated that the dedication of said easement is not adequate for road purposes in that an additional 10 feet is required. This requirement for the dedication of the additional 10 feet was never made by the City to Raub or to McCarty. Accordingly. the development of that portion of 17th Street which is parallel to Building B is extremely remote if not impossible. Additionally. the Engineering Department has further indicated that completion of that portion of 17th Street east of the Project is difficult in that the City needs to acquire a right-of-way from the Fairfax Elementary School. Finally. the development of 17th Street as a through street is not necessary and that portion parallel to the Property could be vacated and closed to the public. \-.- , Page 4 AcCordingly, the use of 17th Street parallel to Building B as a thoroughfare is extremely remote. 111. The Variance Is Necessary For The Preservation And Enioyment Of Substantial Property Riqhts. The project is 95% complete. If Building B has to be torn down, the economic waste is substantial. In reliance on the City's approval of the site plan and the location of Building B and the issuance of building permits: (i) McCarty constructed the Project; and (ii) Eldorado made a construction loan in the sum of $322.000.00. It is too late for the City to withdraw its approval and take away the right to complete construction of the Project. It has long been the rule in California that if a property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a permit issued. he acquires a vested right to complete construction. (Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Reqional Commission. ~7 Cal.3d 785. 791.) . The fact that other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification have not been granted variances allowing the reduction of the required building setback is not relevant and should not be controlling in this application for a variance. The correct standard to be applied is that a variance should be granted to restore parity where the strict application of the law deprives the property owner of a substantial (vested) right. It is sUbmitted that the City is equitably estopped from denying the variance. IV. The Grantinq of a Variance Will Not be MateriallY Detrimental to the Public Welfare or Iniurious to Property and Improvements in the Neiqhborhood in Which the Proiect is Located. The Project is consistent with the zoning and enhances the area in which it is located. Although Building B encroaches on the "setback area", it does not encroach on the easement or interfere with the roadway. .. Page 5 In balancing the interest of the owner of the project and the entire community, it should be acknowledged that there. J.s absolutely no detriment to thEfcommiiriity~ . The granting of a variance will be in harmony with the general 'purpose of the variance procedure and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or public welfare. -- .. _..- - . V. The Grantinq of Such a Variance Will Not be Contrary to the Obiectives of the Master Plan. There is no basis for the Planning Commission's finding the granting of a variance is requesting a waiver of the objectives of the San Bernardino General Plan. The 14-unit project is consistent with the Master Plan and has already been approved by the City. VI If the Variance is Granted the City will Not be Liable for Accidents on the Road as a Result of the Grantinq of the Variance. At the Planning Commission meeting in January, 1986, when a member of the Planning Commission asked the deputy City Attorney "if the City g.ranted the variance would the City be liable for any accidents on the roadway," the City Attorney responded that "there is a possibility that the City could be liable". This seemed to persuade the Planning Commission to deny the request for the variance. It is submitted that the granting of the variance will not effect the liability of the City with respect to any accidents on the roadway. Additionally, based on the facts sUbmitted by the Engineering Department, it is extremely remote that the dedicated easement (17th Street) will ever be developed into a through city street. Very truly yours, By N REID & A PROF 6539f/ras cpy: Robert F. Nichols, Jr. Douglas M. Boyd W. Thackery Encls: Notice of Appeal - Letter dated January 24, 1986 and letter dated February II, 1986 , . C:-"".," i; ""e.. ,.~.., _ : "'." ,...--.; .L. _ !.l fIe;. l:ii U' ~ "I .l"'''' -..~." . Io"', .... ;,j"".')inJ C~ rEG ~3 r:: 4: 14 Mayor Ev~lyn Wilcox ~ City Council M~mb~rs 300 N. 0 St. San Bdno., Ca. 92402 RE: Varianc~ # 85-24 r January 2, 1985 Tina M. Gonzal~s 135E. E. 17th St. San Bdno., Ca 92404 I am writing to you in r~qu~st that I be notifi~d of any me~tings which may b~ h~ld r~garding the fat~ of variance number 85-24 or th~ prop~rty located at 1721 C,:mejo Driv~. In addition, I am ~n,:losing a copy of the p~tition which was circulat~d and sign~d by the r~sid~nts of the n~ighborhood ( due to various r~asons, it was not m~ntion~d at the planning commission me~ting on January 21, 1985). This p~tition shows that th~ community, as a whole, feels it would be unsafe to l~t th~ disput~d build- ing remain where it is. STAFF ROUTING FA.S. O.A. V.B. A.L. D.W._ E.G.._ G.G._ K.M.__ M.B. ___ M.F._ M.N. _ R.R._ s.w._ V.R .fiLE - Sincerely, ____.--' _ "') '1 '1 ~': ! ", -?~ ;"'....cL/ ((X'7v'fC.<0 Tina M. Gonzai~s 00 :~ i~ ~ rw~ rID FEB 5 1986 CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SAN BERNARDINO. CA . The Eldorado Bank is seeking a variance apartment building at 1721 Conejo Drive to the required 10 foot rear yard setback. t 0 all 0... t he e-ncyoach intc. We, the undersigned, feel variance 85-24 is not in the best interest of the community because potential dangerous situations could occur. To date, one accident has occur~d as a result of the bUllding's close proximity to 17th Street. The location of the structure is attributable to negligence on the part of the o...ner. It is possible to relocate the building meets ...ith the specifications established by the to construction. We believe this is the only course of actiot, to pursue. S';) that it city prior 1 e g i t i n,a t e NAME ADDF.:ESS DATE ------------------------------------------------------------ '. ~..-~--~'"=--=-~~.&-,.c"~J>,----=~"'=-'J-;.' ~ _1:_~~----------Jl~-~-------l-~~~- 3 ~~r_---=-&C,-~jLG~:..-))~~-=-n-1:k.c:-~!,=- ~ _~,_(~~~y~________=_~0J_~_~~~E_J?~______=_~7__!Z~~_l~ /' (' ~ ' ~ _=~:.~~~-~'l>:n..~~-=~JJ2sJ21z-~~C~--=-l]--}J!s.--;;.[ & _~_ ~~------------=--~]5--r-~~~+~~-------=-J7--~{~--~- 7 " ~ /l - 0", I'. ., 1.7::- ''''J" - -..-C),;.L-- _ _--:::-_ '1,,"~<:~- _ __ _ ~1cJ.D_2EL&_J_ llc,,-_ ________.!. L_f::C ~.Y.-_ /) CJ <? _ _ _~ ~U _2.. L _,kL~,;."_..,"'''_ __ =_!.f..?_-'-~ ~/f"- _'P________=_.L.Z- d.~ _r~__ l' _~~~~%lJh2---=-k~:'"L(;+U;-j..c....kL--=-1;~J-1-~) ! c _~-f&'~~---=-Jc~~J-..c...~-0.f'-~~~-~L~~1 ~ II __p';':L_~~ t,/J/~:),L~_1~f~~__f~~k~=-k~-LZ~+~~- /7 -1):://1 Ii'; -j'/c;// 11"111.111, -"iili ,Jr' f~ -,1r-~-----~~------r---- -~-~-~--~-J4~~-------~.---- r~-~- " -.L'(. '" A A 4 I. _ . 1 f' n, . ) ~7'.k--~!=~=-lfz:f;]2f!.~~=~~----=-I/kC-'-2-g-~-- flf __~~V~--_-=L~--?:.~--~-~,---=-4-.....LZ:js: /5 ~/ Ii;' J<,,.-/; // - i -7'7 r 'ilL (t1..id~{'~ -rJU... /2 vr II q;;:;;~f1{;j);j~=~L~:r~- t~~ r~~~JJ:i2j~if::I~ '" . \ ' - The Eldorado Bank is s~eklng a variance apartment building at 1721 Con~jc Drive to the required 10 foot rear yard setback. to allow the en,:roach into w.;., .... ho? ',Jrid'?y '31 Gtlcd t f :--e-l \"~,r 1 anI.- t 55~-:,,~ 1::' ......:.t 111 ttlt:> b~st lntt?r,:-st ,:., thto' CC'fllfllUtllty b.:.-.:aus€- p.:.tt?ntlal dangt-Y':'LIS si t llat 1 e.ns c ,:.ul d IJI: c ur. To dat e, .=.ne ac c i dent has .:..: ': ur €-d as a result of the building's clost? proximity to 17th Street. The location of the structure is attributable to n~gligenct' on th~ part of t.lt- owner. It is possible to relocate the buildIng (Ileets with the speci ficatiol1s established by the to construction. We believe this is the only course of action to pursue. SG that it city prior 1 e 9 i t i r"a t e N(;ME ADDF:ESS DATE /?--77~-- - - _u__ --- -- - -----~-r--/ --;,;,_:--- - - __u___ ----- /7 C-~~L~~- --~--./~.:JL~~~.::.2.___=_.!2(LZ~f!,J=_ l'i :1//1..:4 '-{)?('C~__ =U 3Lf'::.'_':3.!.'-'-<J-:;'~IS-_L~)lJ:L.i2L,--2/CU- /'7 -~~~.6.JCt.--;-"--~,t--=-L12.;!-]L}5:''''~vJ);1ff-1Jl_FL_~?~_~ 0 jr ~?:0cv!-d~-=-.J:J..iLLL!;6~.w.:~-!!-_2L:_12~ r JI . _. _ .-,'~~~~-=_Ll)O--C-Q _' (~fl\=,-_L~_jL_QS__ ;../ (f~; -'I -: ~ f!t:;-:.-- .,~L--__ .c--uJ:z,f!i_)-!-z:d::z'"~_/2-~L?-'--- d Y/ )If{~r.-:- --r-.:~. -'j f~~~ --_=___ .J.!_~__f____{;:_~~...p _ J72__ _IJ_ ~_a.:.~.)~ .2 p'"' 'j1J-I.t1t -- 1!'"#m(r:13'i'fi:i':<,,~-r:__ F~ ~ - . --~-"--~.::,~1'=~':'.<'----'/,j[:U.~..:z.A::-6.:.'wn."--CLi____(~_:!2::._ ____ 'l- L.I 1 -? - - ~:> _ ,./) .. /:' , - -'-7' ./1~. /-oc.i:;. "/ ?""" c:- .f. /- / /?3 --"'-'"'-j---x'-,-L.J:;t2(:/-l'.. }- -. ----- "'"'---. ----.--------<. - - -------'=- - -- ---.- 1 . . J -I / ,,-t{. < I I'. rc- c>' ~ '-;(, ~ J','_..~~',:r - I}'I_ _c J; - _'2, -- 7- -- /. ,,_' __..L'-~ _ . .._'_ __ _ _L___:>-"'___ ____.__...; ___._____ ___ _ _. ________._________u _.,___ ,) 71t~Lli.7~rru---=('-t;-=-~-?J-4!:.J-'I-------!.:~-.Lz.:J:t-u ,) ~ct-~-~SLti1- -- ~ :2_ ----=-l(.;.!1.5J}LG.~I.JC'-- ______=_JJ_-J'J..:'_~.::.n C'w/VC'p-- 17ft! C-<P-rf )-r J. 9tl1:v.k2 ' t-i-t --~_7nR_f.'di:'J.€:(;~______=_jl.:.LZ=J'.L.. 30_ _~ JJ;)SS-.h)_Co~_ _h =.bL=J3:-~_ - --------------.--------------------------------------- _ _.u.__,_ _0"'_.______ _____ _ __ _ __...._ ___. ___. __._________________________..________ . ><F:~'- /_-/i'~./ - -, -., '-:;::::".y :: CIT'Y'" OE S-AN 'BERN ARDINO 300 NORTH '.0" STREET. SAN BERNAROINO. CALIFORNIA 924'B . ,--.=---- -- EVLYN WILCOX Mavor Members ot the Common Council Est"., Estrada. . . . . . . . . . . . . First Ward Jack Reilly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second Ward Ralon HernanCJe.z . . . . . . . . . . . Third Ward Steve Marks. . . . . . . . . . . . . Fourth W.,d GorClon Qui_I . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flftn Ward Oan Frazier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sheth Ward Jack Strickler. . . . . . . . . . . .S.."enth Ward January 27, 1986 ... Eldorado Bank 250 North "G" Street San Bernardino, CA 92412 Dear Sir or Madame: f At the meeting of the Planning Commission on January 21, 1986, the following action was taken: The application for Variance No. 85-24, to allow a building encroachment into the required front setback area for a recently constructed apartment building in the R-3-1200 Multiple Family Residential zone on property consisting of approximately .74 acres located at the southeast corner of Cross Street and Conejo Drive, was denied based upon findings of fact contained in the staff report dated December 17, 1986. According to the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Section 19.74.080., the following applies to the above variance: "The decision of the Commission shall be final unless an appeal therefrom is taken to the Common Council as provided for in this section. Such decision shall not become effec- tive for ten days from the date that the written decision has been made and notice thereof mailed to the applicant, during which time written appeal therefrom may be taken to the Council by the applicant or any other person aggrieved by such decision. The Council may, upon its own motion, cause any Commission decision to be appealed." /~ ;>>\. ,,-~"\ \.I:~ - . '.... .. Eldorado Bank January 27, 1986 Page 2 If no appeal is filed pursuant to the previously mentioned provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, the action of the Commission shall be final. Respectfully, SCHUMA Director mkf ---.. cc: Engineering Division Stephen McCarty 5957 Path Finder Way B~~ita, CA 92404 . '-CITY OF SAN -,E'--NARDIN~- ..JEMORANDlJr.I1 To Planning Commission From Planning Depanment Subject Variance No. 85-24 Dale .J<.1llUU1:Y ~ 1, t 11tH) Approved Agenda Item #9, Ward 2 Date Owner: Stephen McCarty 5957 Path Finder Way Bonita, CA 92404 Applicant: Eldorado Bank 250 North "G" Street San Bernardino, CA 92412 The application for Variance No. 85-24, to allow a building encroachment into the required rear yard setback area for a recently constructed apart- ment building in the R-3-1200, Multiple-Family Residential zone on property consisting of approximately .74 acres located at the southeast corner of Cross Street and Conejo Drive, was continued at the meeting of the Planning Connnission on December 17, 1985 at the request of Mr. Robert Hinkalls, attorney for Eldorado Bank, to allow him the op~ortunity to investigate the matter of the easement Dr street. ~ The Engineering Department has submitted another memo (attached) revising the required dedication. Staff has included a copy of the original staff report, dated December 17, 1985 in which a reconnnendation for denial of Variance No. 85-24 was presented. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of Variance No. 85-24 as presented in the staff report dated December 7, 1985. Respectfully Submitted, FRANK A. SCHUMA, Planning Director CITY Oil TH.=*~ . (..;ITY OF SAN r ~K:JARDINO - , 1\ ~MORANDUL. FRANK SCHUMA, Director To Planning Department ~ubject Va ria nc e No. 85- 2 4 & R. P. No. 83 -1 0 5 Southeast corner Conejo Drive and Cross Street -- Owner. Steve McCartv Appl i cant: El Dorado Bank Approved ROGER G. HARDGRAVE, Dir. From Publ ic Works/Ci ty Eng. Date J an u a r y 9, 1986 File No. 11.50 GEN Date . -. In reference to our memo to you, subject as above, dated December 13,1985, based on further review we find it unlikely that 17th Street can be extended across the flood control channel within the foreseeable future. The existing width of IS' provides satisfactory access for the single residences which it serves. Therefore, we recommend the appl icant pave 17th Street IS' wide and provide a guard rail or curb adjacent to building "B" as a minimum requirement should the variance be approved. This supercedes the recommendation contained in our previous memo dated December 13, 1985. The comments and recommendations in our memo of December 13, 1985, would be applicable to "new" development of undeveloped land, or a "first" review of proposed modification to existing developments. In this instance, con- struction is already complete and more stringent requirements would entail excessive costs to implement. . .- ROGER G. HARDGRAVE Director of Public Works/City Engineer (((t~ ff' B Senior Civil Engineer MWG:pa I V"V CITY Oil THI:::M~~ . '- - - BERNARDINO -" PLANNING - -. DEPARTMENT ~i CITY OF SAN SUMMARY ILl (f) <t CJ t; ILl :J o 1&.1 a:: '" <t ILl a:: <t APPLICANT. Variance No. 85-24 OWNER, AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE WARD 9 12-17-85 2 Eldoracio Bank 250 North "G" Street San Bernardino, CA 92412 Stephen McCarty 5957 Path Finder Way Bonita CA 92404 To waive wection 19.12.060 to allow encroachment into a setback area in the R-)-1200 Multiple Family Residential District. GEOLOGIC / SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE .. 1721 North Conego Drive. San Bernardino, CA 92404 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION Sub j ec t Single Family Res. & R-)-1200 Residential 15-)6 ulac Apt. Complex North Single Family Residence R- )-1200 Residential 15- 36 ulac South Single Family Residence R-3-1200 Residential 15- 36 ulac East Single Family Residence R-3-1200 Residential 15-36 u/ac West Single Family Residence R-)-1200 Residential 15-36 ulac ...J ~ Zen l&.I(!) 2Z Z- OO a::Z >u:: Z ILl DYES GgNO DYES 1]1 NO FLOOD HAZARD IlO YES OZONE A ZONE 0 NO rlIZ0NE B ( SEWERS ~ ~~S ) HIGH FIRE HAZARD ZONE AIRPORT NOISE / 0 YES CRASH ZONE I'iU NO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ARE^ DYES IZJ NO o NOT APPLICABLE o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WITH MITIGATING MEASURE S NO E.1. R. o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WITH MITIGATING MEASURES o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E. R. C. MINUTES o EXEMPT ONO SIGNIFICANT EFFE CTS NOV 19.. "!VISCO JULY I..a ..y Z o - tc 1&.0 I&.ffi ~2 en2 o CJ ILl a:: o APPROVAL o CONDITIONS (]l DENIAL o CONTINUANCE TO .. ..... CITY OF SAN BER'f:IARDINO PLANNING DEP ARTMENT ~ CASE VA. Nn R~ ?~ OBSERVATIONS ~ 1?-17-R'i AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE r 1. The applicant, Eldorado Bank, is requesting a variance to allow an apartment building to encroach into the required 10 foot rear yard setback at 1721 Conejo Drive. 2. The subject site is zoned R-3-1200, Multiple Family Residential with surrounding zoning consisting of R-3-1200. The City of San Bernardino General Plan designates the site and surrounding properties as Residential at 15 to 36 units to the acre. Background History: 3. At the Development Review Committee meeting on Decembero1, 1983, Review of Plans No. 83-105 to construct a 14 unit apartment complex was approved. On July 7, 1984 building permits were issued by the Building and Safety Department and construction of the units began. Building "B", located at the southeasterly corner of the site was constructed at an angle approximately :. 1.58 feet at its closest point from the south property li ne increasing to approximately 4.23 feet from the south property line at the buildings west end. The south property line abuts a substandard 15 foot wide dedicated right-of-way, 17th Street, however, the submitted site plan incorrectly indicated said right-of-way as a 20 foot wide non-dedicated easement from which the proposed building setback would have exceeded the required 10 foot rear yard setback. Following a complaint by an adjacent property owner, the discrepancy relative to the building setback was observed. Stop orders on the construction of the apartment complex were issued by the Building and Safety Department, however, were ignored. Subsequently, the Building and Safety Department taped off the buildings, at which time the builder abandoned the project. Eldorado Bank (the applicant of the subject variance) is the beneficiary under a deed of trust to secure an indebtedness. Eldorado Bank requests approval to allow building "B" to remain in its current location. The subject building encroaches into the required 10 foot rear yard setback approximately 4.77 feet at the southwest end of the building and approximately 8.42 feet at the southeast end of the building thereby necessitating request- ed varinace. 4. Eldorado Bank has indicated that they would provide the following improve- ments to help mitigate any adverse impact which the variance might create. a. Repave 17th Street including curb and gutter from Conejo to the bridge on 17th Street. b. Install two street lights along 17th Street. c. Provide dense landscaping along the south side of 17th Street contiguous to the single-family residence to the south. . CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ""\ CASE VAR NO. 85-24 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE g 12-17-85 ? 4. Cont'd d. Install a guard rail along the north side of 17th Street between the subject building "B" and the bridge. Replace the 17th Street sign. 5. The Engineering Department has indicated that the strip of dedicated right- of-way along the south line of the subject property is actually IS feet wide which is a portion of 17th Street and which ultimately intended to be SO feet in width and may eventually connect to an existing stretch of 17th Street, approximately 500 feet east of the subject site. Engineering has indicated that the existing IS foot wide dedication is not adequate and should be 25 feet wide. The requirement for dedication of the additional 10 feet and the setback was not required at the Review of Plans in 1983. The Engineering Department further indicates that bridging Del Rosa Channel and the need to acquire right-of-~ay from Fairfax Elementary School, along the south side of the proposed alignment may make completion of 17th Street difficult . 6. The Engineering Department has indicated that the previously mentioned offer of improvements from the Bank does not appear possible unless the improve- ments can be installed to ultimate width and grade. The Engineering Department is also requiring the installation of twenty feet of pavement on 17th Street and would not suggest street lights until the street is fully improved to the ultimate right-of-way and also suggests that private lighting be used if such lighting is needed. The following are the four required Findings of Fact for Variance No. 85-24 with the Applicant's and Staff's response to each: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions appli- cable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the porperty, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district and neighborhood. Applicant's Response: The City approved this 14 unit apartment with 29 parking spaces on 12/1/83, under #83-105. Eldorado Bank's construction loan recorded on 5/31/84. It was not until 7/17/85 that the apparent encroachment was brought to our attention through our own inspector. The contractor, McCarty, and/or his engineer set the foundation in apparent error according to the City Engineer, encroaching 3 ft. into a 20ft. setback/easement/street line on the southeast corner. The building is now 95% complete with a high risk of vandalism and extraordinary loss of economic value. ~:"'''' , ; CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE VAR NO. 85-24 OBSERVATIONS 9 12-17-85 3 AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE , Staff's Response: Variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance shall be granted only because of special circumstances applicable to the property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. The subject property possesses none of the above mentioned special circumstances and to deviate from es- tablished building setbacks within 1.58 feet from a public right-of-way. The current situation was created by the applicant and is not due to any physical circumstances of the site. B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Applicant's Response: As the developer, McCarty, avoided stop notices, proceeding with construc- tion until such time as the City sealed the building and filed Munt~ipal Case No. #2758 and obtained a default judgement. McCarty's failure to resolve the dispute places Edlorado Bank at risk due to rental income loss of $5,000. monthly plus a monthly interest loss of $3,175. Staff's Response: Substantial property right refers to the right to use the property in a manner which is on a par with uses allowed to other property owners which are in the vicinity and have a like zoning. The purpose of the variance is to restore parity where the strict application of the zoning law deprives such property owners of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. There have been no other variances granted allowing any reduction of the required building setback in the vicinity under identical zoning classification. C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood in which the property is located. Applicant's Response: The present mix of the residential use of single family residence/duplex/ four-plex and small apartments, ranging from 5 to 40 years of age indicates that this new project can only be an enhancement to the area. Staff's Response: In determining the application for a variance, the best interest of the entire community is the controlling factor rather than the suitability or adaptability of the property in question for a particular use. l . , ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE VAR NO. 85-24 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE q 12-17-85. 4 Staff's Response Cont'd: To approve the requested variance would not be in the best interest of the entire community in that a potential dangerous situation could occur. To approve the variance would be a financial suitability for Eldorado Bank. The subject apartment building can be moved and could meet the required setbacks, however, to do so would be a great expense upon the bank. D. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Haster PJ.an. Applicant's Response: The 14 unit project is an approved used project under the Master Plan. Staff's Response: The Comprehensive General Plan of the City of San Bernardino projects the property to be developed as Residential at 15 to 36 units to the acre and the requested variance is not in conformance with the goals and objectives of the San Bernardino General Plan in that the San Bernardino Municipal Code was adopted to execute said objectives and policies which the variance requests a waiver of. 7. The applicant is also requesting approval to allow a modification to the approved elevations, since the buildings do not resemble the elevations approved under Review of Plans No. 83-105. In order to modify the approved elevations, plans would have to be resubmitted to the Development Review Committee. Recommendation: Based upon the observations and findings of fact contained herein, Staff recommends denial of Variance No. 85-24. Respectfully Submitted, FRANK A. SCHUMA, Planning Director ~~AA~/ AN LARSON, Assistant Planner . . .- r l f t' ~ "tI ~,.-' , ..' I I -, I t I I 10 I~ 'VI IVI IVI 1,-1 I I I , I" " il I @) ~ ~ .. = ~t~~ !d~ ~ 1111 j!2 " i )> .. ~ z "" ~ ~n ~ ~. ". - o "i ~ .....Ji. l~ ... \ , I , , , :--t~; , , : , : ~l I I I ~ , \11 , , I ~ ,.... . i 'I I , I I b - ~ '\ I .~~ . t't ....~ \ . . t .. , >> r r;;mm 17.;zy~ ,4/. C;'AVY ~ _.-- IS:- ......- -. I. , .....- .......~f AGENDA ITEM # CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATION ... fl.1 H fl-' 1-1 R-I ~ ~ R.I R-' R-I R.t ~ R.t IE R-' R-' R-l ~ R.l ~ . - R.3~ R-, ~ 0 . .. .., . ;1.1 T 0 . C:-3A C-3A -, C-3A C-3A . . IiIGHL..1NO p.VE. . C-3A ."0" " I I I ~ . R-I '0' R-3 R-'Z R-' R-I g ''3CHOOL -- PAC'FIC ST. a .. .. Q " .. .. ~ - CASE Var. 1185-24 9 HEARING DATE 01/21/86 . . . . o~,~ '3~ II I I 1 =800 · L . . i :; I> RoO' I~ eLl_. . SCHOOL .. ~ '" ~ c-u R-3 R .. " .. -0 0 R.! .. ~ '" c- 3A Q C-3A C-3A -- > v, T ~~'_3 C-3A 0.' aooo C'3M - . '" > .. IHCHL.ANO _ AvE. ~ IC-3A !I C-3A_1 C-3 <t T I C . 11-3- 3000 I I ~l - ns PA.ClfIC ST. .. ~I Q ~I " ( .c Q "I 8 n!l: