Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-1994 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters ABSENT: None August 1, 1994 Monday - 7:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney; Bob VonSchimmelmann, Assistant City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF JULY 18. 1994 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to approve the Minutes of July 18, 1994 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2064-94 -JERRY GREUBEL A request to allow the construction and operation of a 94 dwelling unit "Senior Citizen Apartment Project", and the construction of buildings exceeding two stories in height. The proposal includes a request for a density bonus in exchange for renting 25% of the units to low or very low income senior households. Subject property is located on the east side of Newport Boulevard, 400 feet south of Chapman Avenue, addressed 340 North Newport Boulevard. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1454-94 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project. This item was continued from the July 6, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.) Mr. Jones noted a letter was just received requesting the hearing be continued from Russell & Lori Miura. They listed several problems in their letter, which will be made part of the public hearing. Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to develop a 2.77 acre site with 94 units for senior citizens. The subject site is zoned C-1 and the City's Senior Citizens Housing Ordinance permits the development of a commercially zoned property subject to approval of a conditional use permit. The request also includes a density bonus and a reduction in development standards in regards to parking, and allow the project to exceed the zoning classification's maximum building height of 2 stories. In exchange for these concessions, the applicant's proposal includes that 25% (or 24 of the 94 units) will be rented to low income households. The affordability of the units is set for 30 years by state law. The units will be rented to senior citizens for the life of the project. Specific development of the site includes substantial grading to create a developable pad. It will require the removal of 24,000 cubic yards of dirt. The proposal includes three buildings, of which the front building closest to Newport Boulevard will be three stories on one side and step back up slope to a 2-story building. The two rear buildings will be four stories towards the east or Newport Boulevard, and three stories behind it (back side). The proposal will have a 27 foot high crib wall behind the two buildings. The applicant will also be completing a segment of the City's recreational trails by adding a horse trail along its eastern property line that will connect from a horse trail above the development to an existing horse trail along Newport Boulevard. The proposal will also be gated and will have guest parking in a Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 1994 turnabout right off Newport Boulevard behind the gates. Staff's review of the project found after several revisions to it, that it should not have an impact on the surrounding area because the site is not highly visible. It was reviewed from Santiago Hills, Cowan Heights, High Horse Trails, Orange Park Acres and the Santiago College. In most cases, the existing trees, walls and buildings limits the visibility of the site. The top of the proposed structure's roof will be 55 to 60 feet lower than the residential pads above it in High Horse Trails. Due to the existing hill and how the Cowan Heights development to the south is layed out, there is one house that is directly adjacent to the site that may be able to see the roof and top floor; but the proposed 4 story structure to the rear of the site, the closest structure to the site is approximately 100 feet away. Staff has found that the proposed use should not have an adverse impact on the living environment in the area because of the nature of the use. It will not create traffic, noise or a high impact on the site. The site has access to public transportation and an existing commercial center. Staff found the proposal, with the density bonus and the request in parking reduction, is similar to other requests the Commission has considered and approved. Since the proposal is within the boundaries of the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan, the proposal was reviewed twice by the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee. It was the consensus of the committee the proposal would not have an adverse impact on Orange Park Acres or the surrounding region due to its use, placement of the structures or their size; however, the committee could not recommend approval of the proposal with the 4 story buildings. It was their opinion that by allowing a project with 4 stories would set a precedent out in the East Orange area and other 4 story buildings would be requested and approved by the City if this one were approved. Staff has recommended 9 conditions of approval as presented in the memo dated July 21, 1994. The recommended conditions include two mitigation measures (included in Negative Declaration 1454). It also includes a request by the applicant to change the length of affordability from 55 years as originally stated in the staff report, to 30 years. This request is due to different financing of the project and the 30 year length is what is required by state law. Commissioner Cathcart asked if the length of time - 30 or 55 years -was up to the discretion of the Planning Commission? Mr. Soo-Hoo read directly from the Senior's Housing Ordinance -Section 17.14.290 C -Tenure Requirements: "Senior units shall be reserved for a minimum of 30 years when a density bonus and an additional incentive is granted." An additional length of time is required when the City or another governmental agency participates in financing of the project. But when it is handled privately, the City will normally focus in on the 30 year requirement. Commissioner Smith wondered if there was a formal program in place to monitor the tenants for the affordable housing units (if a project were not being financed through the City). She raised the question of what the monitoring compliance agreement entailed? Mr. Carnes responded a formal monitoring program was in place through the City's Housing Division. Existing projects go through annual reviews to check the affordability of the units. Chairman Bosch thought that might be compounded. Typically the Housing Division may desire to participate in a project, but it doesn't consider or agree to participate until after land use decisions are in place. The first key is what is appropriate for application and how is it put into effect when the City is not buying into the project. The Commission could place a condition on the project to assure a monitoring process will be in place, even if the City doesn't participate financially later. Commissioner Walters has been reminded that a 4 story project through the C.U.P. process should not be considered as setting a precedent. He was told that no precedent would be created because the C.U.P. is special in nature. He cautioned if there is to be no precedent, then they should be reluctant to use other projects, also granted by C.U.P., as a comparative in staff's presentation to justify the one being heard. The public hearing was opened. A~olicant Adele Chang, architect for the project, 300 North Lake Avenue, Pasadena, said the site was composed of three buildings of varying heights. The buildings work with the site, stepping down the slope of the hillside. The 27 foot high crib wall will be a very nice, sloping way to retain a lot of grade and plantings. Eventually, it will blend easily into the existing slope. There are only six living units out of the entire 94 units that are in a 4 story condition. The 4 stories are atechnicality -- it's a building which by U.B.C. can 2 Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 1994 be defined as 3 stories plus a basement. A large part of the basement area will be used for public areas -- community kitchen and meeting areas for the residents. The site is accessed at one point off of Newport Boulevard with a gated entry and guest parking. The three buildings are tied together with a motor plaza which will be enriched with nice paving. There will also be a raised terrace area for a pool. There will be more amenities than what is required and the units exceed the City's minimum standards for 1 and 2 bedroom units. The exterior's elevation design are meant to be calm and dignified buildings. The use of color is important to break down the massing of the buildings. Exterior deck spaces are also utilized to break down the height and length of the buildings. Chairman Bosch heard there would only be 6 dwelling units on the fourth floor during the presentation. Ms. Chang was referring backwards to the basement area. At the bottom level there are six dwelling units. There are 10 units on the fourth floor. Chairman Bosch referred to the Orange Municipal Code definitions of stories. Therefore, there would be 20 units on the fourth floor of the upper two buildings. He encouraged clear communication so as not to confuse everyone over the third and fourth stories --the units are on the same level. Commissioner Walters was concerned about the 30 year requirement; after that time the project becomes available to the general public, there is always the danger of only having a .8 parking space per unit and it could pose a problem. There is no off-site parking available in the area. Ms. Chang said if the units were converted to apartment use, it would be non-conforming and it would not be able to function normally. There are some built-in constraints to regulate the type of use. She believed the City would also have some requirements regarding this. Chairman Bosch said the only way this type of development is allowed in a commercial zone is as a seniors project with a conditional use permit; thus, that would continue through the life of the project. It would not automatically revert to general housing after that. Those speaking in favor Jerry Greubel, the developer, 12805 Newport Avenue, Tustin, has been in the business of senior housing since 1986. They feel the parking is very much justified. He brought some slides and will show them at the conclusion of the meeting. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, reported four members of the Orange Park Acres Committee met twice with the developer, owner and staff to discuss the project. Their final consensus was that they could live with the senior housing project as Tong as there were not four stories above ground). They only want to see three stories above ground. There are no 4-story buildings anywhere near Orange Park Acres or Santiago Hills. They do not want to see 4-story buildings sprouting. They want to maintain the quality of life for the area. The density doesn't bother him; older people will not be driving that much. He wanted to know if the Commission could place a condition on the project since it was in a C-1 zone) that it could only be built for senior housing given the unusual nature and density involved. This would protect the people living in that area for future years. Chairman Bosch read condition 5 -- "The project shall be restricted to senior citizen housing for the life of the structure." The Commission will discuss adding a deed restriction as well in case the Zoning Ordinance changes. Mr. Soo-Hoo said if there is any reuse of the property after the life of the structures, the subsequent use would either have to comply with the zoning (C-1) or go through another hearing process. It's difficult to see what future proposals would take place. Allen Heller, President of Real Estate Management Systems, has been chosen to manage this particular site. He thought the site would provide a pleasant place for the senior citizens to live. It would provide an attractive alternate for housing for seniors in the area. He explained his involvement with a couple of other senior citizen housing projects in Anaheim and Santa Ana, which have been successful. It has been the hope of the owner the building would stay in a pride of ownership condition and provide a nice environment. Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 1994 Those speakinca in opposition Bob Hahn, 7620 East Briarcrest Lane, was an area representative of the Santiago Hills Action Committee, which was formed by a number of the homeowners within the Santiago community to address different issues that might affect them. They were opposed to the 94 units of senior housing. Height was a major concern and would be a definite problem to the area. He found it difficult to believe a person would not be able to see a 3 or 4 story building. There are no other buildings in the area over two stories in height. They don't see how this could be aesthetically rural in its character by having such a development on this piece of property. They disagree with the mass of excavation of the site. The proposed crib wall will not be aesthetically compatible with the area. Traffic issues were voiced. There is an existing dangerous situation for the turn lanes entering into the Ranch Market. The proposed development would only increase the dangerous situation. Their committee is not opposed to senior housing; it's a good idea and would be a welcomed addition to the community. But the way it has been proposed is not acceptable. Chairman Bosch noted the Commission also received a letter from James Onak dated July 13, 1994, representing the Santiago Hills Action Committee. James Onak, 221 Sweetwater Lane, made it clear the homeowners did not have a problem with the senior housing development; it's a good type of development. But in regards to the specific project and the way it is planned for the site, they do have opposition and strong views. The scale of the project and the fact that variances are requested are their main reasons for opposition. The codes should be adhered to. The area should remain as it is. Commissioner Pruett asked if the homeowners were opposed to 3 stories? Mr. Onak said they wanted the project to be in compliance with City codes. Chairman Bosch asked if the Santiago Hills Action Committee were part of the homeowners associations or was it independent from them? Mr. Onak said it was independent from the homeowners associations. There were eight areas within Santiago Hills. There was an area representative on a volunteer basis from each of the areas. Chairman Bosch clarified there were no variances being requested. The code does allow for senior housing to be in a commercial zone and in exchange for having affordable housing, certain relaxations of development standards were subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The purpose of the C.U.P. per City ordinance is to see whether the request meets the neighborhood plan, all the impacts and concerns of the neighborhood. If the project does not cause a hardship or damage to the surrounding neighborhoods, is not negative to the plans in place, and creates a good living environment, it does meet the City ordinance. Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Onak if he received formal notification of the public hearing? (No.) Was he within the 300 foot radius of the project? (He was not within 300 feet.) Mr. Onak thought a project of this size has greater impact than just on the area of 300 feet. Russell Miura, 319 North Willow Springs Road, lives in the Cowan Hills Homeowners Association. He felt he would be the greatest impacted of all. Between his property line and the proposed building, there is only 18 feet. The City should move slowly on this project. How does the State feel about the earthquake fault? Can these buildings be built next to a fault line? Trees will be removed during grading and the project will stick out like a sore thumb. The neighbors' property values will go down. He was concerned about the grading. Which way will the horse trail go and who will maintain the trail? Landscaping and air conditioning units are a concern. It will affect everyone. The parking reduction will create more problems on the outside. They do not want to look out their back door at a 4-story building. He has problems with the existing horse trails. The City has no control over the horse trails. He preferred not to see a project at all. Commissioner Walters shared many of Mr. Miura's concerns. However, as an active member of the Orange Park Acres Association, any homeowner in any homeowner group in the surrounding hills can always come to the OPA Association and they will help fix the horse trails -- no matter whose they are. 4 Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 1994 Gene Beckerbauer, 298 North Willow Springs Road, was not notified of the public hearing, but heard of the meeting from Russell Miura. When he bought his property, he liked the view, area and people. He does not object to senior housing; it's a necessity, but he questioned the 4-stories. Four stores is not necessary for senior housing. There needs to be a happy medium somewhere for some give and take. He didn't approve of cutting the hill and grading. He didn't know if he objected to 3 stories, if one were down in the basement. Mary Haupt, 182 North Cobblestone, Cowan Hills, expressed her distress about the project. The developer has asked for three major concessions and she understands it's his legal right to do that. But it's her job and the City's to protect the neighbors from excessive requests. Her first concern is density. To promote senior housing, a 25% density bonus is allowed, which will give them 83 units. The applicant is requesting 94 units -- a 43% increase in density. The height of the building is also a concern. It's in a C-1 zone -- it's suppose to be 2 stories or 30 feet. The applicant is requesting 4 stories and 52 feet. She was angry and disappointed over the favorable staff report. The third problem is parking. The Senior Citizen Housing Ordinance already reduces the parking to one space per unit, which is a 40% reduction, including guest parking. The applicant wants to reduce that down to .8 spaces per unit. This complex only has 25% affordable units. Seventy-five percent of the units are not affordable and will be occupied by relatively affluent people who will more than likely own two cars. She would like the project modified as follows: 1) The density reduced to 30 units per acre, which is 83 total units. 2) The height reduced to no more than 40 feet. That would be a 33% increase and would be reasonable given the concession of the lot. 3) Parking increased to 1.0 spaces per unit, which is the minimum requirement per the Senior Citizen Housing Ordinance. Terry Sargeant, 137 North Cobblestone Drive, Cowan Hills, reviewed the plan and staff report and had serious concerns about the proposed project. Senior housing is a necessary element for the City and seniors would be welcomed in the neighborhood. But they must keep in mind senior housing is not a charitable venture, but afor-profit project. The Senior Housing section of the zoning has reduced the standards already that would be applied to other multiple unit apartments. She was concerned for the future residents of the apartment complex because: 1) An active fault line runs through the site. She sees no conditions for additional structural reinforcement of the buildings to compensate for being on the fault line. 2) There is no identifiable handicapped ramp. 3) The only entrance/exit driveway to the project is at an 11% grade. This would be a safety hazard for the residents and pedestrians on Newport. 4) Parking is inadequate. There is less than one parking space per unit and only six guest parking spaces outside the security gate. 5) A 27 foot high crib wall at the back is the back view for many residents. Crib walls are ugly and it would be a disservice to future residents to have them look at the wall everyday. The density is way too high and the 4-story building is not consistent with the surrounding R-1 neighborhoods. Massive grading and hauling have not been addressed. She would like the City engineers to confirm the number of 24,000 cubic yards being removed from the site. Many safety concerns have not been addressed as it relates to the hauling of the dirt. The Cowan Hills community was ignored in the staff report as being one of the areas affected by the project. The project may be feasible on the site if modified to reduce the density, reduce the height, provide one parking space per unit, provide a conceptual grading plan for public review, provide access for the handicapped, reduce the 11% grade on the driveway, reinforce the buildings on the fault line, require disclosure to potential residents and work with Cowan Hills Association to mitigate the landscape easement concerns. She clarified no one received public notice for the first public hearing. The second noticing took place promptly. Ms. Sargeant provided her letter to the Commission, as well as a letter from her neighbor. Pete Veenhuyzen, 7334 East Morning Glory Way, Cowan Hills, was concerned about the density and height of the proposed project. They were not opposed to senior housing, but this project would be like having a hotel in your back yard. Ted Stewart, 7344 East Saddlehorn Way, added the High Horse Trails community did not feel the proposed building would blend itself with the area. Their group was not aware of the public hearing. The new building will obstruct their view and degrade their property values. Chairman Bosch talked about the public process of everyone helping to inform one another of proposed projects. It doesn't fall completely on the staff. It's on the public to inform their neighbors as well. On- going communication and notification is something the City is working on. Don Bibona, 7336 East Saddlehorn Way, didn't object to senior housing, but he was concerned about the grading. How will the grading affect his property and what assurance does he have his property won't 5 Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 1994 be damaged? He will be looking down on the roofs of these new buildings. Where will the air conditioners be placed and will he have to listen to that noise? Why do the buildings need to be four stories? Why didn't they submit a plan that conforms to the City's requirements? Craig Fleming, 7431 Morning Glory Way, Cowan Hills, was concerned for the elderly people negotiating the 11 % grade; it will be dangerous. The traffic flow through his neighborhood will be increased. He was not informed of the public hearing and was not within the 300 foot radius. Hopefully that rule can be changed in the future. Chris Schoenkopf, 307 North Willow Springs Road, received a second notice of the public hearing, but not the first one. She was concerned with the 4-story height, density and parking issues. She knew the property was being considered for commercial use at one time. She had heard one of the reasons commercial use could not be considered was because of the fault. How can senior citizen housing be built on an earthquake fault? Mr. Miura asked how records of who owns the properties were obtained for mailing notices? Chairman Bosch explained the applicant pays for the title company to provide address labels for notification to property owners using the current assessors rolls. Mr. Jones said it was staff's intent to properly notify everyone within that 300 foot radius and anyone else that has shown an interest in the site or asked for their name to be placed on a notification list. The assessors rolls are updated on an annual basis. Rebuttal Mr. Greubel explained he obtains mailing labels from the title company for the notification process through City staff. He felt some of the misinformation needed to be cleared up; most of them have been exaggerated. The building is higher than what is out there, but not twice as high in terms of overall footage or stories. They originally came in with 120 units, but it has been pared down to 100 units. The horse trail is on the north side of the property, but it is not adequate. The most logical place for the horse trail is to bring it along the easterly property line, which they will do. He researched excavations and grading for the area. They are not requesting a large amount of dirt to be moved -- 24,000 cubic yards of dirt is substantially less than what has been moved out there in the past. The site has a commercial designated zone that has the privileges and rights of that designation. Traffic on their site is 373 additional trips per day. There is nothing less than that. Traffic will be very light. They are living within the standards of the report that was approved by the City Council regarding the earthquake fault. They're not asking to encroach any closer. They don't plan to impede anyone's view; they're far below from that happening. He's willing to put in writing for every tree they remove, they will put ten in. He will stipulate to that in the conditions of approval. The air conditioner units will be individual. They're very quiet and efficient. The standards must be balanced. They're doing a few things better than what minimum code allows. Senior citizens are a stabilizing force in the community. They don't have the same life style as other people. Their main objective is to provide senior housing and they are a profit motivated company, which means they want to make sure it is successful. Commissioner Cathcart said one of the issues is balancing grading with the end product. Twenty-four thousand cubic yards sounds like a lot of dirt, but it's not a large grading operation. An 11% grade could potentially be a danger. He's not sure if a trade off of doing more grading to bring down the road may not be a good idea. He wrote down the developer was willing to replace 10 trees to one. The handicapped issue was brought up and he was sure the State would follow the project closely. The Building Department will also follow closely to make sure those handicapped requirements are met. Mr. Greubel believed their handicapped amenities exceeded what was required by code and would comply with all requirements. Commissioner Cathcart asked about a 3-story project. Could it work for them; would they be willing to live with that? Mr. Greubel said in terms of density, they must maintain 100 units to provide the services to the senior citizens. He could not answer that question at this time. He didn't really want to build a 4-story building, but it was the best solution for the site. 6 Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 1994 Commissioner Pruett said if they were going to deal with the 11% grade going into the property, the unit in front is a split 2 level/3 level.. It could be a 3 level -- a 3 level on the back; he would lose only 4 units. That might be a solution to the problem. The program to monitor compliance (condition 4) and to execute an agreement with the City, would the developer object to including an agreement to reimburse the City for its cost of monitoring the compliance? Mr. Greubel assumed that was the case and have programmed that fee in. Commissioner Pruett thought it was important to have a shuttle service available to the active seniors -- not just during the day, but extended day and evening as well. Mr. Greebel was in agreement. That was part of the balance act he spoke about. It is good business to provide a shuttle service. Everyone wins on that, but the economy of scale is critical. Commissioner Cathcart said two entlemen were concerned about the hill's stability and grading. He wanted the developer to address those issues. Mr. Greubel read the soils report on file with the City. It appears in the language of the report the engineers took the most stringent requirements for grading. He didn't feel the cnb wall area was the affected area. One of the conditions addresses this issue. Commissioner Pruett stated the earlier report talked about having the project restricted and designated affordable housing for 55 years and now they're looking at 30 years. Was the original proposal on the part of the developer at 55 or where did that number come from? Mr. Greubel explained the Tax Credit Allocation Committee had certain criteria that were different from financing. They discussed at one time a higher ratio of low income tenants with Redevelopment. To achieve that ratio the Committee required the 55 year cap. They've taken a more conservation approach with respect to low income tenants and feel. the neighborhood will support 25% affordability. Thus, it was reduced to 30 years. Commissioner Smith asked where the air conditioning units would be located? Mr. Greubel said the a/c units would be located .on the decks. They definitely will not be located on the roofs. On a one bedroom unit, there will be wall units. On the two bedrooms, they will run a central system and the coolers will be placed on the decks. It will be the size of a trash can. Commissioner Smith wanted to know if there was going to be a walkway to the commercial center? She was concerned about the seniors walking the 11 % grade. Mr. Greubel knows the shopping center will be accessible, but he didn't know how many steps were involved. It will be a reasonable walk down to the shopping center. He didn't want to see two flights of stairs. Chairman Bosch felt very strongly about this issue as well. The maximum vertical slope allowed to conform to ADA requirements is 1:12. He will insist on a condition that there be pedestrian access by ramp in ADA conformance to the public sidewalk. Commissioner Smith thought she would feel comfortable with the developer trying to get as many units as he could at a 3-story height. She wanted a more definitive answer from the developer regarding this. Mr. Greubel thought they had a good plan, but realizes it wasn't perfect. When they revise their plan, it is going to change the massing. Commissioner Cathcart commented it was appropriate for staff to be appraised of the problem with widening City streets and senior citizens trying to get across the street at traffic lights. He thought the Engineer. should take back to Bernie Dennis that we need to be careful about extending the control for walking across the streets. The "little walk" doesn't last very long. It becomes even harder to cross the streets as a person ages. Everyone needs to be concerned that the traffic signals are able to handle an older person walking across a busy street. For the seniors to get to the buses from this project site, they must cross the street. 7 Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 1994 Mr. Careubel wrapped up his presentation by showing a few slides of the proposed project site and other senior citizen developments that were similar in nature. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Bosch asked staff about horse trail maintenance and how the City is able to coordinate questions relative to horse trail maintenance in the O.P.A. area? Mr. Von Schimmelmann understood the maintenance of the trails was not a function of the City. All of the questions are referred through the Community Services Department. Mr. Carnes stated once the trails are installed, the High Horse Trails Community Association has the responsibility of maintenance. Their insurance policy will cover the liability use of the trail. The Association has keen sent a letter from Mary Anne Chamberlain that the trail is proposed to go in and they will be responsible for maintaining it, as described in the Recreational Trails Element. Commissioner Pruett noted the issue is accepting responsibility. There is going to have to be some record of them accepting that horse trail and the liability associated with it. This should become part of the process. Chairman Bosch addressed how the review of the geotechnical report and crib wall design and foundation will b~e undertaken. How does the City interface in checking that w-th regard to the proximity to a fault line to assure that it meets the standards? Mr. Von Schimmelmann responded that the crib wall, after it has been designed by a licensed engineer, goes to the Building Department and is checked there by a licensed engineer and then it is inspected by the kuilding inspectors as it is being built. As far as the geotechnical reports, those reports are reviewed in the City Engineer's office. The grading inspector goes out to verify the work with the geotechnical and soils engineers. During the process, he continues his inspections on site to ensure what was :stated in the report is being built to the report standards. If anything new is discovered, that is taken back to the geotechnical engineer and reviewed for modifications if .necessary. With regard to existing crib walls or any type of retaining facility in the City, he was not aware of any problems that would endanger its structural integrity. Commissioner Pruett referred to condition 7. It indicated the City Engineer shall review a revised site plan to ensure that the residential structures shall not be built within the fault zone. He was concerned that there be some stipulation that if it does require a revised plan, or changes the setbacks that was approved by the Commission, or changes the grade level, those changes should come back to the Planning Commission. Chairman Bosch agreed the condition should be amended to reflect that type of review by the Commission. Regarding the grading, a question was raised whether City staff had done any verification of the estimate on the earth to be removed. Has that occurred? Mr. Von Schimmelmann responded no, they have not received a grading plan. But when the plans are received, staff review will occur. Commissioner Smith said concern was expressed regarding the right and left turns in to the senior housing project. Has there been any plans to enhance or do anything different on Newport Boulevard for the turning into the project? Chuck Glass said the answer was no. They have a two way left turn out there now, which will remain unless traffic were to build up to some point where they would restrict ingress/egress to right turns only. They have a normal residential driveway; the driveway itself is located close to the property line which prohibits putting any kind of a radius type return there. Commissioner Walters said the project lies within the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan. That is not a Genaral Plan, nor a casual statement. It is a Specific Plan. He noticed in the specific actions to take for the application it does not include amending or altering the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan, which at the present time only allows two additional residences to be constructed of any type. He encouraged reading of the OPA Plan to realize how it is structured. It is by housing count in seven or eight different sectors of Orange Park Acres, this being one of them. 8 Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 1994 Commissioner Walters was long aware of the particular area and the efforts and various plans in the past. The question was raised to the justification for issuance of any conditional use permit. This particular lot is owned by a gentleman who technically is doing the development and has been owned by him for some time. He did not believe economics forces the hand to this higher density. He also pointed out what is happening here needs to be more carefully looked at. They're asking or granting a 25% allocation of low rent housing for senior citizens. That is the lowest percentage that can be offered and be considered a low rent protect for special consideration from the City. One of those considerations is a 25% housing density bonus, which in this case would bring it to 83 urnts (above the 24 units per acre normally allowed). To seek, as this application does, a 43% increase he didn't find justified. They're not using a 49% allocation of low rent housing. They have athree-fold request that needs to be carefully looked at and he personally opposes it. A 25% density bonus is all he believes is earned by allocating a 25% factor for low rent units. The area calls out clearly for two story dwellings; they're seeking 4-stories. In the spirit of compromise and finding the right way to get along, he would not have trouble with a 3-story configuration perhaps for two of the buildings. He also believed the parking needs to be one parking space per unit. In terms of time, this is a 30 year building -- not 55. It's a 25% factor -- not 50% or 100%. Frankly, one per parking spot is not, in his opinion, excessive at all. He didn't think the project is giving that much to the City that the City has to give that much in terms of modifications or relaxation of the rules to the developer. Commissioner Smith said 25% of 94 units is 27 units. If it were two or three units, she might tend to agree with Commissioner Walters, but she thought 27 units of affordable housing was a large portion. She was in favor of senior housing being constructed all over the City of Orange, including East Orange. She has heard the concerns of the community and it sounds like the height and density are the maior concerns. She wanted to be sensitive to those concerns of the public. She didn't know which way to go on this and she wanted to hear the others comments. She strongly felt there should be a ramp to the public sidewalk and if the project were approved, she would include that as a condition. She also wanted a condition included that the monitoring of the affordable housing would include a fee to the owner to compensate the City for the cost of that process. It was a project she could approve at three stories and she would not have a problem with the number of units because the more units there are, the more seniors could be housed, and the bigger that 25% allotment of affordable housing goes. The developer has made a good attempt to come in with something that is financially feasible and also good for the community. She would not want to put a hardship on the project by limiting the number of units, but would hope there could be some happy medium struck between 83 and 94 urnts. She also agreed with Commissioner Walters there should be one parking space per unit. Although they have not always held to that for senior projects, the reason is because there is no alternative for parking. Six spaces for guest parking is not enough. Commissioner Pruett had a problem with the 4-stories. The project can achieve their goal with a 3-story project. The developer may not be able to reach the number of units that were proposed; however, with the 24% density bonus plus one for the shopping center being next door that gets them to 84 and that can be achieved rather easily. In terms of the parking: he was not necessarily opposed to fewer parking spaces than one per unit provided that as a condition, there is a shuttle bus service for the people living there. They have to have some form of transportation available to them. If there was an agreement to a condition that shuttle bus service would be provided, he might be able to live with the 8% parking requirement. His hot button was with the monitoring and compliance. The City needs to be reaching agreements now where the developer is paying for that. It's very important that any revised site plans based upon grading come back to the Planning Commission if it changes the height or elevation of the buildings, as well as the setbacks to where the setback becomes closer to the lot line. There also needs to be a condition that the acceptance of the horse trail by the Association is critical before the horse trail is put into use. The Commission will hold the developer to the ten trees for every one removed and that's an important issue as well. The six guest parking spaces may be on the low side; that needs to be looked at. He's not in a position where he can support the prolect as proposed, but he encouraged the applicant to take a look at it and deal with the issues outlined and bring back a protect the community can live with, as well as the Commission can find acceptable. Commissioner Cathcart felt there was a common thread running through the Commissioner's statements, as well as a coinppromise that was running through the public. He, too, found it difficult to justify the 4-story building. He agreed with the developer that while those units will not be viewed from up above there is a concern of the 4-stories being viewed from down below. He agreed with Commissioner Pruett about the 84 units and 3-stories is the max that would be acceptable. Parking should be looked at from a reality standpoint rather than a code. Senior housing in the past has always had less than one parking space per unit. As a landscape architect, he finds asphalt obnoxious. So if it's not being used to park a 9 Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 1994 car and it's not a road, it should be something else. But in this case and since the developer has made such a point that this is going to be active seniors, he thought given the concern of the Commission that six guest parking spaces are not enough, that if one were to add one parking space per unit, the problem will be solved for tenants as well as guests. He jotted down a few additional conditions: To condition 3 add that the Design Review Board pay particular attention to the irrigation and planting of the crib wall and perimeter planting: To condition 4, add #9 -- monitoring fee for protect compliance. On condition 7, the Planning Commission shall review the revised site plan within the City Engineer's report to ensure that the residential structures shall not be built within the fault zone. Also add condition 10 -- for every tree removed, the developer will add ten trees. Condition 11 -- the ADA conforming access to the street level be adhered to. Condition 12 -- the entry road be reduced in slope below 10% grade. Condition 13 -- the horse trail maintenance must be specified before opening. He would be willing to vote favorably for this project if the added conditions were met. Chairman Bosch thought condition 13 should be a maintenance and liability agreement with the homeowners association. He appreciated adding in the conditions to the text to help inform the City Council as to the feelings of the Commission, along with the findings. Parking may not be the pivotal issue, but the key to parking is first the guest parking is not enough. They need more guest accessible parking spaces. With the age limit at 62 vs. 55, which is another threshold for senior housing, there is less need for parking in the projects. He thought this was a great site for senior housing; it's a great entry into the community if site accessibility is provided. He didn't have a problem with the density, but the site constraints are the things that must be looked at. The Commission has to look at potential deterioration of bordering land uses or creation of special problems, sound land use principles and responsible service. A fault zone through the site is apre-determined condition. It doesn't automatically mean there is a way to gain height or density if the basic site won't support it. It's a difficult site to develop. It needs very special care. It can't produce what a flat site in a more urban setting without the geotechnical problems it has to face. He thought going over the 25% bonus isn't worth the trade offs seen. There can be good parking; there is a way to get a bit more on. There can be good access in exchange for that. The views are not just for the people above, but for the people below (up views). The gain proposed isn't worth the pain. The constraints on the site with the neighborhood doesn't allow the 4-stories. He's talking about the third story on the back side, the slope and the access needs for the driveway. More power to the applicant in developing something that works there. He hopes it will be economically viable, but his first choice has to be what is best for the community and the site. The architect did a great lob in designing a project to meet a program proposed by the developer who has to look at economics. The City wants housing that does work through private enterprise; not public housing. Commissioner Cathcart thought the applicant would be willing to go back once again and revise his plan based on what he has heard from the community. Chairman Bosch wouldn't advise a continuance unless the applicant feels he had a clear direction from the Commission on density, parking, etc. The clear element is access, protection of neighbors, views, solid engineering on the walls and grading, and not have four stories. Beyond that, there is a difference of opinion on parking that would need to be studied. Mr. Greubel felt it was unwise to try to come up with a solution at this hearing. They would like to look at the plan and try to meet all the issues, but frankly it's a tough job. He was willing to stipulate to a continuance as long as he could read the Minutes or work with Planning staff to get a clear direction on the revisions he needs to make to his project. The revised plan would need to be submitted to staff by August 25 -- three weeks from now. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2064-94, with the applicant's concurrence, to September 19, 1994. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Walters MOTION CARRIED The public hearing will not be re-advertised. Information will only be distributed through contact with staff. Mr. Bennyhoff was asked to include the continued hearing in his publication. 10 Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 1994 IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2072-94 -BARRY COTTLE A request to allow the operation of a furniture upholstery shop within a commercial center zoned C-1 Limited Business) district. Subject property is located on the southwest corner of Chapman Avenue and widler Street, addressed 3624 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (c). There was no opposition to this request and the full reading of the staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Barry Cottle, 3624 East Chapman Avenue, said an upholstery shop in the City code goes in an industrial zone, but in talking with the staff it was learned that when upholstery shops were first considered, they were thought of to relate with cars and seat upholstery. This is the same location where they attempted to put in a church earlier in the year, right across the street from EI Modena High School. The new tenants were present to answer any questions. Between the two of them, they have over 40 years experience in the upholstery business and they do nothing auto-related at all. That's why they feel it is appropriate to have a furniture only upholstery shop in a commercial strip center. The tenants specialize in antique furniture. The tenants do not have a spray booth and do not intend to have one. It's a small shop and it will be limited. They agree to the conditions and to the hours of operation. Commissioner Cathcart thought there should be a monitoring program in place for many of the CUP requests, including this one. It's a way to make sure over a period of time that the noise and fumes do not become noticeable. Mr. Jones stated the Planning staff does verify the conditions of the report are implemented. However, if a problem arises, staff only becomes aware of it on a complaint basis. Commissioner Cathcart did not want to wait until there were complaints and suggested adding condition 3 after six months of operation, staff shall review and monitor the work to see that it is in compliance with the approved conditional use permit. Mr. Cottle did not object to the added condition. Commissioner Walters liked the bullet points found in the Development Proposal on Page 2 of the staff report. He thought they should be incorporated in the conditions for issuance of the C.U.P. They were not mentioned on Page 4. In fact, it was not clear what the conditions were, other than the two mentioned on Page 4. Mr. Cottle agreed and thought they were part of the conditions of approval. Chairman Bosch added condition 4 -- the operation of the proposed furniture upholstery shop shall be limited to the following: (add the 6 bullet points from Page 2). Commissioner Smith thought it would be too restrictive to limit the operation to two employees. What if the business expands and they need to hire another person? It was agreed to delete the one bullet point restricting the number of employees. The public hearing was closed. 11 Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 1994 Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2072-94 subject to the conditions highlighted on Page 4 presented by staff, to which the bullet items on Page 2 will be added with the exception of the third bullet restricting the two employees on site. Also, add a condition for the City staff to monitor the operation after six months of operation. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: PUBLIC COMMENT Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, suggested the notification process to include active homeowner groups that may be affected by proposed projects. Put the monkey on their backs for them to tell concerned neighbors/members about public hearings and dates. IN RE: OTHER ITEMS Commissioner Pruett coin limented Chairman Bosch on his leadership. He felt the comments and direction provided by the Chairman at the meetings is very productive and brings the people to the table to discuss the issues in a manner which leads to a consensus. It's very valuable to the Commission as well as to the community. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. sld 12