Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-19-1993 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission April 19, 1993 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF APRIL 5, 1993 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of April 5, 1993 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-93 -DOUG MANISTA A request to allow an automotive retail accessory and service facility in the C-1 (Limited Business) zone. Subject property is located at 4935 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Negative Declaration 1423-93 has been prepared for this project. This item was continued from the March 15 and April 5, 1993 Planning Commission meetings.) Mr. Godlewski stated the Commission reviewed this application at their last meeting and the applicant agreed to a continuance in order to resolve some questions about access and vision clear zones on the first stall and around the trash enclosure. Modifications to the plan were made and were included in the plans sent to the Commission on Thursday. The modifications include moving the trash enclosure and cutting back on the radius to allow better vision on that driveway with the adjoining property, and changing the configuration of the retail portion of the building so that there is a minimum of three feet back up distance separated by landscaping so incoming traffic can get a chance to see vehicles that are backing out of the service bay. Additionally, a window was placed in the service bay wall so that some movement could be detected if there is a car backing out of the bay. Information was included regarding the noise levels and Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1993 type of equipment that would be used in the facility, and a recommended condition concerning the noise. Commissioner Cathcart asked to re-open the public hearing to hear further testimony from the applicant and response from the public. He hoped the public would be able to see what has been modified/changed, hear the applicant, and then speak if they wanted to. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to re-open the public hearing. AYES: Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The public hearing was re-opened. Applicant Gregory Bennett, 12821 Newport Avenue, Tustin, represented Doug Manista as his architect. They made quite a few changes to the site plan and he briefly discussed them. There was discussion on the drive approach to protect bay 1 and bay 2 to protect cars that would back out of the bays. They narrowed the building, reducing the width, adding a little extra mathematics to the drive aisle, extended three foot landscape fingers that would be restricted to low ground cover. They extended and added a window between the retail portion and bay 1 to allow for people backing out to see on- coming traffic. Another point of discussion was the circulation to the west. They widened the drive approach from the west to 30 feet and then they narrowed a landscape strip and shortened a landscape strip adjacent to the trash enclosure allowing for a greater radius to come from the Circle K property onto the Chapman automotive property. The net square footage of the building stayed exactly the same; the parking stayed exactly the same; and the net landscaping stayed the same. Those two areas were the primary site concerns. They also prepared a diagram which illustrated the location of the compressor unit which will be housed at the rear of bay 1. A separate structure within the structure will allow for the sound to be further attenuated by isolating it on a separate footing system, isolated by rubber gaskets. It's really a block wall within a block wall. The isolators are connected to the compressor unit, which isolates the sound from vibrating the slab or area around it. It's approximately 210 feet from the closest residential boundary to the north. It will be at the back corner of the solid block wall built on the back edge of bay 1. Technical information and sound data were also included the packet of information given to the Commissioners. The conditions of approval have been modified so that an operational test could be done after the building was opened to make sure it complies with the standards that have been set forth. Those speaking in opposition Ruby Maldonado Kobayashi, 321 Prospect Park South, Tustin, represented her parents who live at 19101 East Center Street. She was still concerned about the proposed use as it was incompatible with the existing adjacent land uses. There is no need for another repair shop in the area as the applicant stated there were over 17 repair shops in the immediate area. The applicant is proposing 7 service bays; it will be a noisy operation. The noise levels cannot be mitigated to where the neighbors are not 2 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1993 negatively affected. The circulation plan for the project is nothing more than an accident waiting to happen. Every car coming to the business will have to access it through the Circle K driveway either to enter or exit the property. Peak hour traffic will affect this business; the intersection will be even more impacted by additional cars and drivers unfamiliar with the area. The neighbors will appeal any approval of this proposed project. John Delgado, 18971 Pearl Street, lives in EI Modena. He spoke about the childrens' safety. There are a lot of kids at Circle K. An accident will happen sooner or later. He talked to a couple of major air compressor manufacturers. With 7 bays they will need at least a 10 1/2 hp. air compressor for each bay. That doesn't include other equipment, which would require 15 to 20 hp. The minimum for each gun they use is 90 psi. Safety requirements are needed to control the equipment and ventilation is needed for the large compressors. He played a taped recording of air compressing and air gun equipment. He was standing outside, 20 feet from the buildings and the equipment was enclosed in a regular room with fiberglass insulation. Eleanor Mead, 19062 East Center, fears for the children's safety. She wrote letters to the City Council and Commissioner Smith and explained why she opposed the proposed project. The hours of operation will also create stress as the business will be open on Saturdays and Sundays. Rebuttal Mr. Bennett explained the difference between this type of automotive use -automotive retail and retail itself. A retail use could have a significantly higher traffic count. From a traffic count and a safety issue standpoint, an automotive accessory store is a much safer use as far as ingress and egress. The school supports the proposed project and felt it would be a better neighbor to them than the existing condition. The transportation issues have been addressed by staff. There will not be depreciation between the residential units and this facility. Economic studies indicate that an increased business will make the whole area economically more viable rather than depleting the economic ability of the residences. Their facility will have a peak traffic day on Saturday. That is not the peak traffic day on Chapman. A lot of jobs will be created by this new business. They are sensitive to the community; people are not going to be adversely affected by sound or noise. The sound levels currently on Chapman exceed the restrictions being imposed on this new project and they can live within the parameters of the conditions. Commissioner Cathcart asked if the Sunday operation was absolutely necessary? Mr. Bennett responded to restrict Sunday operation in the absence of a sound study is restrictive trade without due cause. Sunday operation value cannot be determined until given a chance to operate on that day. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart asked staff how the Montessori School accessed their property from Chapman? Mr. Johnson didn't have the exact information, but didn't believe they were restricted by any left turn pockets that give the official right-of-way to a dedicated street. 3 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1993 Commissioner Walters didn't have a problem with this project, given the unusual nature of the lot and the fact that all the adjacent neighbors are not in opposition to the project. However, he believed there should be a stipulation requiring a mirror on the northwest corner of bay 1 to aid in the egress of traffic in and out of that bay. Commissioner Bosch also appreciated the changes made to assist in gaining vision and concurred the mirror would be helpful at bay 1 and suggested a mirror, if the angle could be worked out, to protect parking space 31 at the north end of the building as a condition. He noted staff recommended a condition that stereos and alarm installations not be permitted at this facility. He recollected the applicant stipulated that they would not have stereo and alarm installations. He recommended adding that condition. The noise becomes a real serious problem. He added another condition for a noise level test to be performed by a licensed acoustical engineer to determine conformance to City standards during business hours. Said noise level test to be performed at 6 months and 12 months after occupancy with power wrenches and pneumatic guns in operation during test; and that additional conditions may be imposed at that time to assure conformance to the City's Noise Ordinance. He was extremely concerned about the traffic circulation. This intended use is not serving the neighborhood, but serving a larger area. It does benefit itself economically from having the reciprocal easement, but not the community. The gate and access way should not be there. He didn't think it was an attractive nuisance to have a wall there; there would be fewer problems. There are some conditions that cannot be mitigated (i.e., the bus stop). In looking at the zoning map and the neighborhood, the primary neighbors to the parcel are residential neighbors. This site is clearly in the transition zone from the heavier East Chapman commercial into the further East, which is truly residential. The City must decide what is best for the community. He believes there will be more impacts on residential neighbors rather than commercial neighbors. Commissioner Cathcart asked if the 6 and 12 month noise tests were to be paid for by the applicant? (Yes.) Commissioner Smith found herself in the middle on this project. She was extremely concerned about the noise in the residential neighborhood, especially on Sunday. Sunday should be honored as a family day and quiet day for everyone. She also appreciated the need for a businessman to stay open in these times to make a business work. She was concerned about the presence of this type of business in a single family neighborhood and about the precedence this auto repair sets in a C-1 zone, especially one that borders single family homes. The residents don't want this particular project in their neighborhood. She was, at the same time, impressed by the desire of a businessman to bring a good business to Orange. The project itself is well done, but it is in the wrong location. She doesn't see a good fit for it at this location with the proximity to the school and convalescent hospital. She tried to find the other 17 auto repair shops in the neighborhood and couldn't. Commissioner Cathcart added his concern about the residents' quality of life being impacted to the point of deterioration. The C-1 zoned property, without having to obtain a C.U.P., would allow much more traffic and could generate much more of a devastating effect to the community than the proposed use. If there was a way to take this project and mitigate some of the negative issues and environmental concerns, it would be more beneficial to the community than some other C-1 projects that could be issued over the counter. He was struggling with the noise issue, especially on Sundays. 4 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1993 Commissioner Walters asked if the Commission had the ability to specify any restriction of hours of operation? If the hours of operation were restricted to 11 or 12 noon on Sunday, the problem probably would be solved without unduly infringing on the businessman trying to make some money on Sunday afternoons. Condition 3 would be amended to the hours of 12 noon to 7:00 p.m. on Sunday. The sound tests would be a good procedure, but he thought perhaps the day the business opened would be an appropriate test day and then 6 months later. Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to accept Negative Declaration 1424-93 as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and to approve Conditional Use Permit 2004-93 with the added or amended conditions as discussed, including mirrors to be installed in the northwest corner of bay 1 and parking space 31; the hours of operation on Sunday be restricted to not open before 12 noon; sound tests by an acoustical engineer, paid by the applicant, occur on the first day of business operation, followed by a subsequent test 6 months into the operation; and, stereo and alarm sales and installations shall not be permitted at the facility. AYES: Commissioners Cathcart, Walters NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith MOTION FAILED Commissioner Bosch thought the motion had a lot of good mitigating conditions and would have provided the best project to the site for this use. The zoning ordinance can allow much heavier impacts of other uses on the site. He felt they must always be careful to consider under a conditional use permit they will not be causing deterioration to the surrounding land uses/specific uses. He felt this was the wrong location for a great business idea. Mr. Godlewski explained the action taken would be considered final unless the application is appealed within 15 days. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-93 -CITY OF ORANGE A proposed ordinance amendment adding provisions to Orange Municipal Code, Title 17 -Zoning Ordinance to establish the procedure for granting density bonuses and additional concessions as incentives for the development of affordable housing, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65915. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Negative Declaration 1412-93 has been prepared for this project. This item was continued from the April 5, 1993 Planning Commission meeting.) Mr. Godlewski stated a number of modifications were requested to the ordinance. The revisions have been given to the Commissioners and highlighted in the recommended document with strikeouts and bold type. Commissioner Walters asked if the State has done anything to clarify or reduce the occupancy permitted per dwelling and room? 5 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1993 Mr. Godlewski said there has been no discussion in relation to occupancy of a room and the density bonus ordinance to tie the two together. Mr. Herrick stated their office is monitoring that issue quite closely. There is no solution to the City's problems with that issue at the present time. The League of Cities and the Association of Building Officials are each independently sponsoring legislation. He believes that legislation will be carried in the next legislation session. There are some commitments from some legislators who have taken an interest in the issue, but it will be a long process of dealing with Sacramento. Commissioner Walters believed it was a closely related issue to allow 25% and 50% additional density when the issue of occupancy and how dense the number of people can be inside each unit is not addressed. He realizes that is an issue created by the State; he further realizes the ordinance amendment is required by the State. But he finds it distasteful that the City runs the risk of creating the technique and tools by which significant density can be created by apartment and housing units per lot without addressing the issue of occupancy which presently allows an unbelievable number of people per room, much less per apartment. He thought they were playing with disaster in the long term sense for the community. He hoped the City Council would consider that situation when taking final steps on the ordinance amendment, and hopefully support proper action that might gain some resolution from the State. Commissioner Bosch also concurred and thought it would be beneficial to include that encouragement to the Council to continue their efforts towards that resolution. The public hearing was opened and closed. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to recommend to the City Council to accept Negative Declaration 1412-93 as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and recommend the City Council approve Ordinance Amendment 1-93; Commissioner Walters' comments are to be included with this motion. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2010-93 -SANTIAGO CREEK ASSOCIATES A request to allow the following: 1) the construction of a senior citizen residential development; 2) the construction of a building exceeding two stories in height within 120 feet of residential zoned properties; and 3) the reduction of the development standards for senior citizen housing. Subject property is located west of Tustin Street and south of the Santiago Creek Channel. The site is within the boundaries of the Sycamore Crossing residential development (Lot #47 of Tentative Tract Map 14752). NOTE: Negative Declaration 1428-92 has been prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of this project. 6 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1993 Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The proposal is for an 83 unit senior citizen development that is a part of the Sycamore Crossing residential development that was recently approved by the Commission and City Council. The residential component of this project is north of the creek and includes 240 units. The proposal is on the designated commercial site of the project and it's 2.5 acres. At the time the City Council approved the Development Agreement for this project, it designated that this site would be developed with only a senior citizen development due to concerns from surrounding property owners. It is proposed to be a 4 story building, containing 83 efficiency units and 1 bedroom dwelling units for senior citizens only. It includes a 1,000 square foot detached recreational building and parking is provided on the south side of the building. There will be attached, tucked under garage spaces underneath a portion of the building. A portion of the building on the south side has been lowered to three stories to reduce the impact on the adjacent residences. The applicant, as part of this proposal, is requesting the additional building height, the reduction in parking standards, reductions in fence setbacks and a reduction in the multi-purpose and recreational area provided. However, the applicant will present a revised plan that will resolve most of those concerns. The ordinance. does allow the applicant to apply for these reductions in development standards of the City's Senior Citizen Ordinance if 25% of the units are provided as affordable housing. In this case it would be 21 of the 83 units. The Environmental Review Board reviewed the project and came up with two minor concerns. One was that the site plan did not indicate a "far side bus bay turn out as required when the Tentative Tract Map and original C.U.P. were approved, and .that the emergency access onto Tustin be redesigned so as to discourage any future consideration for that being used as public access. The proposal is to have half raised curbs and concrete paving that allows for grass to grow. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1290, Newport Beach, presented their request for a conditional use permit for the Sycamore Crossings project. He reviewed the history of the project and showed exhibits of the project. It was recognized that senior housing would be desirable and positive for the City. They looked at the adjacent land uses when working on the senior citizen housing proposal. Access to the greenway was considered in order for the residents to enjoy the open space. Their original proposal was to have 91 units and since that time, staff convinced them to reduce the number of units and to change some of the elevations. He summarized the issues raised by staff: 1) the density, which was compared to four or five other projects; 2) a parking reduction -staff made their surveys and based on those, could support a parking reduction; 3) the building height -they reduced the height of the buildings from 42 feet to 33 feet (only 3 feet higher than what they could do, 10 feet from the property line for a commercial development). The closest single family home is 70 feet from the project; and 4) the project will not create any shadow impacts on adjacent properties. Staff did have concerns about the size and location of the multipurpose room. Staff felt it was an improper location due to the usage proposed and also felt it needed to be larger than 1,000 square feet. Staff suggested it be relocated to the central portion of the actual site. They agree to the conditions of approval and stipulate that the maps be changed when they are submitted in final form. The other concern is the fence setback. They also agreed to relocate that fence. The project basically complies with staff's recommended modifications and/or conditions. The map before the Commission is the one they are proposing and they will accept the conditions which 7 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1993 are stipulated in the draft conditions of approval, which require them to meet those revisions. They've added a garden area that would be a good improvement to the site plan where the multi-purpose room was originally located. Renderings and site plans were displayed. The only modification they have on the conditions of approval is condition 3 (Page 14), item 1. is to change "lower income" to "low-moderate income" as that wording would be consistent with the ordinance. Commissioner Walters asked why such heavy density had to be entertained for this residual piece of property? Mr. Elfend responded they anticipated back in 1992 providing for a commercial site which had a certain economic value or providing for a senior citizen project. This project required exhaustive and extensive negotiations with the City and community in terms of providing a greenway corridor, making improvements to the flood control channel, which had a certain economic nexus to the amount of units that would be constructed and/or the type of commercial development. This was a component part of a trade off that exists for the overall development of the property and the provision for about 40% of open space. Commissioner Walters' other question was regarding the odd shape of the entrance roadway. It seems to be a dangerous crossover and seems to be eating up a lot of space that could otherwise be used for the project. Mr. Elfend said he would need to defer to the engineer to answer that question, but he did know there was substantial work done with the Flood Control District in terms of the manner in which they desired to have the crossing of the creek. The design of that has been engineered by the project engineer with input by the City. Commissioner Smith asked about the designated low income units? How many are designated? (21 units) Does that fulfill the 25%? Mr. Godlewski explained staff has made the recommendation that it be designated as low income", not "low to moderate". On Page 11 of the staff report there is discussion pertaining to that issue. Commissioner Smith asked how many square feet the revised multi-purpose room had? Mr. Elfend said it meets code requirements of 2,075 square feet. Commissioner Smith did not see an age limit in the staff report that would be attached to this project. Mr. Elfend said the age limit must be 62 unless the development exceeds 150 units. Commissioner Smith asked if there was a link to the larger open space of the multi- family site? Will there be a safe pedestrian access to the other site which includes the 3 acres of open space? Mr. Elfend said they are providing a residents' garden area and he pointed out on the map an access to the open space, but the exact design has not been determined. They would agree to a condition if it were needed for control. 8 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1993 Commissioner Bosch said they proposed to relocate the multi-purpose room into the body of the building. Has more of the building become 4 stories? Mr. Elfend said the buildings will remain 3 stories in that particular location and the remainder has been distributed in the project primarily in the location where they previously had 1,000 square feet, which has been moved back. The provision is consistent with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Bosch asked about handicap parking and trash enclosures? He didn't see that on the plans. Where are the handicap accessible units located? Jeff Larson, 695 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa, said there were 3 spaces of handicap parking being provided as required. The trash enclosure has not been called out, but will be put in under the tuck under parking area (southeastern portion of the site). The units comply, as drawn, with FHA and California Title 24. There are a percentage of units designated for handicap accessibility, pertaining to the kitchen areas. Commissioner Bosch was concerned about the scale and outlook of the 3 stacks of units in the center courtyard. It's a very tiny space; it seems like a close proximity -- how can the privacy of the decks and living areas be accomplished? Mr. Larson said there was an attempt to orient one of the stacks at an angle that would not be parallel to the ones across from them. The other two units pair up side by side and view out an obscured angle to the unit, allowing triangular spaces of greater depth in front of each of the units. The size is adequate and he has dealt with this design and parameters in the past on 4 story projects. Commissioner Bosch noted the Commission has received several written communications, including a letter dated March 31 from David Clemens and one from Mike Cordero, 1533 East Fairway Drive, dated April 4. Those speaking in favor Alice Clark, 205 North Pine Street, spoke positively about this project; it looks like a good project and senior housing is needed. Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, thought this was one of the best projects for the area; the community does not need commercial business on the site. Those speaking in opposition Myrtle Arends, 1340 East Fairway Drive, favored senior housing, but when it's in the path of a river and a person is stuck up on the 2nd or 3rd story, how will they get down? Stairs cannot be navigated by older people. She would favor single story housing at this location. Liability will become an issue at some point. Richard Swager, 1511 East Fairway Drive, said the first six homes on Fairway Drive did not receive notification of this public hearing. He didn't feel the people involved have had a right to review the plans/design presented at the hearing. He does not object to senior housing as long as it is built in a good manner. He objects to too much height. There are no 4 story buildings on Tustin. The height of these buildings will impact three or four residents and it's not the best deal for them. It's going to diminish their property 9 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1993 values and will not enhance it. It's unfair that they were not aware of all the changes being presented. Commissioner Bosch asked staff how notification was undertaken for the hearing? Mr. Godlewski responded an address listing is provided by a title company fora 300 foot radius for the project area and the addresses are generated by assessor parcel numbers. Additionally, they notified anyone who spoke at the previous hearing on this subject. Commissioner Bosch stated the applicant is suggesting he would prefer the Commission approve the plan exhibited on the wall with conditions that alter the plan after it leaves the Planning Commission, and has demonstrated with an exhibit that he believes he can accommodate conditions in the staff report with the revised plan, without major alterations to it. Bill Kiel, 1429 East Fairway Drive, does not object to senior citizen housing, but objects to the height of the project. It will negatively impact the resident's homes. It seems the setbacks are getting smaller and there will be less of a greenbelt area. Sharon Weber, 1429 East Fairway Drive, spoke about the traffic issue. Her concern is for the excess traffic, as there is already a traffic impact from the new housing projects. Rebuttal Mr. Elfend addressed the comments from the public. An enormous amount of engineering work has been done by the City and other agencies for flood control measures to make sure there will not be a flood control impact on the project. They do not believe that to be a problem. The plan shown on the wall behind the Commissioners is the one they will deliberate on. Some homes will no doubt be affected by the proposed project, but setbacks will be adhered to. They are going to preserve the 250 foot average setback they agreed to provide and that is not being reduced. Only one home will be directly impact by the height. The height is 3 stories or 33 feet, with a 70 foot setback from the single family home to the closest structure on the site. The greenway will not be impacted one way or another. The proposed project will have less of a traffic impact than would an active commercial shopping center on the site. Commissioner Smith asked how many elevators were proposed and where would they be located? Mr. Larson responded there would be one elevator centrally located near the lobby. It will serve all four floors. Commissioner Cathcart had a frustration that sometimes the code doesn't give them what would be convenient. He personally thought one elevator for four floors and that many units is restrictive. It's too bad two elevators are not required. Commissioner Bosch commented he believed the suggestions the applicant has put before the Commission demonstrate they can meet with the proposed conditions. The relocation of the recreational building is a significant improvement. What's most important to him isn't the density because it isn't that great when you consider the 10 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1993 normal population occupancy of a senior housing complex. This is very appropriate in that regard. The concern about the height and the distance to the adjacent single family residential homes was brought out, but he didn't think the 33 feet to the point of the roof was an excessively high building. He'd be more concerned about the invasion of privacy for people in the dwelling units, yet the low occupancy, the screening, and the distance from the property line successfully mitigate that. The site design is one that is very workable for the site and he appreciated the effort that went into it. Commissioner Walters thought if something were done to add a vegetable growing area in the western corner of the property, it would help the adjacent land owners. He hoped they proceeded with that because it was a handsome addition to allow the retired people to have something to do other than sit in their rooms all day long. He was not opposed to the low-moderate income category personally. Commissioner Cathcart was familiar with Triangle Terrace. There is a lot of people with their names in requesting low-income housing. He appreciates the fact they have a lot of senior citizens that are capable economically of taking care of themselves. There are also a lot of senior citizens that do not. Triangle Terrace provides a low income housing inventory that is wonderful, but more is needed. He personally would like to see that 25% kept for low-income housing. He would hate to restrict some of the low-income seniors from being able to move into these units. Commissioner Bosch believed Commissioner Walters' comment with regard to the recreational space should be incorporated in condition 4, but not so specific as a community garden. A sentence should be added to condition 4: "The westerly area of the site that the originally proposed location of the community room shall remain developed as recreation-open space such as a community garden or other resident recreational outdoor use. He noted in condition 10 it states "should provide" and it needs to be changed to "shall provide". Also, delete the last sentence of condition 11. Commissioner Smith commented she had difficulty with the plans before the public hearing. She met with Mr. Elfend a week ago Monday to discuss the plan. At that time the plan was not in a form that it is now. She also had concerns about the flood plain and if it were her decision, she would not build senior housing on a flood plain, but that is a mute point for this body; that has already been determined. She was concerned that this project go forward as a premiere senior housing project and that some of the conditions and variances attached to it are not appropriate because the senior citizens deserve the highest quality project available. She thought it needs to be more than adequate; it needs to be superior. She had concerns that senior housing has attached a 15 to 30 year tenure as a deed restriction. When she is 75 years old, this could turn back into multi-family housing. Maximum conditions need to be applied because time passes quickly. She felt strongly there should be no mitigation of the parking spaces and that there should be one parking space per unit, as seen in the other four projects. The only deviation was that all of the large projects had 1:1 parking spaces and the only one mitigated was the 15 unit project, which is not built yet. There is no off site parking and no other place to park. A 1:1 parking requirement is too much to ask when a 73% variance has already been considered. She concurred with the Commissioners who asked that the low income housing be designated at the 25% level. That is also supported by the fact that a 73% density variance has been requested, and the interpretation of low to moderate could mean there are no low income units provided to the senior citizens. She would like to see two additional conditions -- a link to the larger site across the creek area for walking and the walkway down to the creek. She was 11 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1993 also concerned about one elevator in the complex. She would like a condition to provide at least two elevators at the project. She wanted to make sure the age qualification is age 62. If the age is 55, the parking is definitely inadequate. Her strongest preference is to look at the parking requirement and she felt no variance or special condition should be allowed to deviate from the one space per unit, which would be 83 parking spaces to 83 units. The proposal at the present time is 64 parking spaces, which is 19 shy of a 1:1 ratio. Commissioner Cathcart would like to respectfully argue against increasing the parking, but he concurred the age limitation should be 62 years. He would rather see the vacant parking places be used as landscape area than asphalt and they are not used on a 1:1 ratio. Commissioner Bosch clarified the wording of condition 14 - "Provide a paved, handicap accessible walkway from the property entrance to adjacent greenbelt access points." He suggested condition 5 state, "The project shall be restricted to senior citizen housing with residents of a minimum age of 62, for the life of the structure. The designated affordable units shall remain affordable for at least 30 years." He would also add to condition 5 to make the reasoning clear, "That the waiver of code minimum parking requirements is provided with respect to the minimum age limit of 62." He concurs with the concept of leaving the lower income phrase in there because he felt they were looking at a variety of waivers or reductions in development standards. These are waivers that relate to California Administrative Code requirements relative to encouraging the provision of affordable senior housing. Because there are more than the minimum, it's important to tie that added benefit for the community and for the senior citizens per se on the project and that means keeping the lower income. Commissioner Smith asked for clarification on the elevator issue? Mr. Herrick explained this was a conditional use permit and as such, reasonable conditions that are intended to enhance the viability of the project for its intended purpose can be imposed even if they do exceed code. Commissioner Cathcart would like to add condition 15 that would add an additional elevator in the northeast area of the project or where it would be most appropriate as determined by the architect, but be spacially separated at opposite ends or reasonably close to opposite ends of the projects to provide for good circulation. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to accept Negative Declaration 1428-93 and the previously certified E.I.R. 11-43; and approve Conditional Use Permit 2010-93 with amended conditions 4, 5, 10 and 11 and added conditions 14 and 15, as discussed by the Commission. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Informal discussion of zoning alternatives for East Culver zone change area: Comments have been received from residents in the neighborhood asking for a split zoning that would leave the R-1 zoning in front and R-2 zoning in back. Staff has 12 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1993 explored the possibility of a specific plan for the area. Specific findings would need to be made to show that the area is unique from other properties in the Old Towne area. Perhaps because of its large lot size, but it warrants a specific plan for just that block where the Commission could address the issues of preservation of the existing historic quality of the neighborhood and to allow the addition of dwelling units to the rear of the properties. There are other zoning designations -- one story overlays, R-C-D's that require special consideration, etc. There is no threshold designated for specific plans, but it's an option that is available. Commissioner Cathcart would hate to see the area become a specific plan due to the uniqueness of the large lots. He liked the idea of the split zone because a lot of people wanted to build homes in the back without demolishing the front house. Mr. Godlewski had a little bit of concern with the split zone in that they would be dealing with those zones specifically outlined in the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance, in being so general, can cause problems such as height limits. Commissioner Walters shared with some of the Culver residents how Orange Park Acres emerged with very special zoning, which accommodated not only the size of the lots, but more importantly the total number of units that could be designated overall on those collective 30 or 40 lots. A special unique zoning is needed with an upper cap for development in the area, not subject to variances. Commissioner Cathcart concurred, but had a question about the collective and accumulative development standards. Wouldn't that pit one against the other? Commissioner Walters explained they designated different geographic areas that would have other zoning in the general consensus that was arrived at. Orange Park Acres ended up having R-1-40, R-1-6, 10, 20 -- a variety was created which to an extent you would need for Culver because the lots are not uniform. He would designate the smaller lots with the single family homes as the appropriate designation they should have, applicable to the area. Commissioner Bosch said the key thing he looked at was setting development standards, if they can be found, that protect the lots and land owners that want to be assured of minimized intrusion from development on the adjacent lots. A specific plan could allow this and can help to preserve the quality of the existing street and historical context of the home in front while still granting some development rights beyond what exists there now. A study session would be appropriate to discuss this at length and to get participation from the citizens. Commissioner Smith has heard many times that all of Old Towne should be considered in a specific plan, but that has never been looked at. It would solve some of the zoning battles to consider a specific plan. The mile square should be looked at in the study session as well. Public comments Carole Walters asked how much money would be spent on this study and felt it was not necessary. 13 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1993 Ralph Zehner said there could be an overlay with a designation of R-2-6 P to preserve the first house. That would be simple, to the point and direct. He didn't think a study session would be needed either, unless it was for Culver Street only. Shannon Tucker considered herself just as much a part of that block as anyone else, but was not informed of this hearing. She addressed the question of density and the general plan. She concurred with the study session and agreed the entire Old Towne area needs to be addressed. Irene Hertfelder found out accidentally about the meeting and they weren't trying to keep secrets from the neighbors. The Commission clarified why they were discussing this issue and they as a body would like to help direct staff in trying to resolve the issues of Old Towne. It would be nice to be able to work together to come to a positive solution. Transportation Planning Committee: Mr. Godlewski informed the Commissioners a representative needs to be appointed since Commissioner Murphy has departed. C.I.P. study session -May 18, 1993: A tentative date has been scheduled for a joint study session with City Council. As more information becomes available, staff will advise the Commission. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn at 10:05 p.m. sld 14