Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-19-1994 PC Minutesc.aso~ , ~-~ ~.MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith, Walters ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart September 19, 1994 Monday - 7:00 p.m.STAFFPRESENT: Vem 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 SEPTEMBER 7 1994 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of September 7, 1994, with the Tollowing correction requested by Commissioner Cathcart: Add to the Minutes the findings that were made on Variance 1976-94 regarding St. Joseph's Hospital: 1) That this project, subject to the conditions, allows development similar to other properties in the area; and 2) That the property has unique and special circumstances due to its irregular shape and the constricted spaceavailablefordevelopment. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2064.94 -JERRY GREUBEL Mr. Greubel requested a continuance to the second Agenda item as his architect, Adele Chang, had not arrived from Pasadena. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to reverse the Agenda order and hear Conditional Use Permit 2064-94 second.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARING ZONE CHANGE 1171-94 -PACIFIC RIDGE PARTNERS Commissioner Pruett excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest.The applicant is requesting a zone change to amend certain development standards contained within the Southridge Development Plan" text with regard to multi-family development. The Belmont Development (formerly known as Southridge), consists of 258.6 acres located north of the Southern California Edison transmission lines between Loma Avenue Punning commission Minutes September 19, 1994 NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. The full reading of the staff report was waived as there was no opposition and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Bob Mickelson, 328 North Glassell, spoke on behalf of Pacific Ridge Partners. He passed out a map to put things in a historical perspective. The map showed the entire Southridge development as it almost stands today. Many months ago they came in with a conditional use permit covering the entire area on the south side of Via Escola between the park site and Loma. Their purpose for doing that was to create four different product types within that C.U.P. area and to use that process to allow a higher density at the east end and to limit the density at the west end to a lower density to have an overall not to exceed 15 to the acre, which was a General Plan requirement for the area. They are proposing some revisions --arevised site plan for The Bluffs. The Terraces and Vistas were both approved by the Commission and Council as revised plans. They were changed from condominiums to planned unit developments with single family detached homes on smaller lots with common recreation areas and private streets. In doing so, they dropped 32 units out of the Terraces and 58 units out of the Vistas. The purpose in doing that at that time was to create a product that was in demand in the market place and to improve the quality of life within the project. The people demanded the single family feel, but they wanted some of the amenities of a planned development such as the recreation center and private streets. They also have large rear yards. The project that was approved on the Bluffs site was for 175 condo units. They were flat over flat townhomes and carriage units. They had mostly single car garages and open parking. Because they were smaller units and the project proposed a lot of open parking, the appearance of the open space was greater, particularly the common open space. What they propose now for the Bluffs is all townhomes and carriage units, flat over flat. They're slightly larger. All the townhomes have a double garage with direct access into the units. All the carriage units have a single car garage with direct access to the units. In addition, the floor plans are designed to take all of the normal things found in a garage and put them in the floor plan of the house to make a better living environment inside the house. The garages will not have washers, dryers, or water heaters. In order to accomplish that, they requested some modifications. Their architect purposely designed the garage units at 19 feet clear instead of 20,thinking an administrative adjustment permit would be acceptable. Single garages are 10 x 20. The reduction in width would allow a wider entry court. It allows the buildings to be moved a little bit on the site as they relate to one another, and in some cases, there is a greater than minimum setback from the private street. They are asking for a change of 1 foot in the garage size. The other issue is one of open space. Years back, they were allowed to accumulate pieces of open space and put them into one column to call "open space". The code, however, can be interpreted rather clearly that you should have one single unified recreational open space based on a ratio per unit. They don't think that is advisable because the market place is demanding a private back yard. The private back yards range in size from 300 to 800 square feet. Many of the yards are a large size; some of them have direct access to the street.. They tell it was a good trade oft to propose an optimum size recreation open area and it more than meets the intent of the plan. Staff reworded the proposal as shown on Page 7 of the staff report and they found the wording to be acceptable. It'sclearer and easier to read. Staff eliminated the portion where you have private patios and balconies, you can reduce the criteria per unit by 50 square feet. They also Tind that acceptable. Since they asked that a private yard, 100 square feet or greater, be added to the cumulative total to meet the open space requirement, staff apparently felt they should take that 50 Toot reduction clause out of the report. That was acceptable to the applicants. It was also acceptable to not allow areas with an average grade exceeding 5% to be counted towards the open space. Commissioner Smith asked where the closest park was located?Mr. Mickelson said there was a community park called Belmont Park, located 900-1200 feet west of the Terraces. They should be allowed to change the open space calculations because the Pacific Ridge Partners did dedicate the park and improve it as part of the overall plan. Mike White, Standard Pacific, said the park has been developed. They will turn it over to the City in mid- November. It's fenced oft right now to establish the landscape. When it is turned over, they will install the picnic tables, benches, etc. The City will then move to Phase 2 improvements. The park is 2-3 acres in Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1994 Chairman Bosch wanted to know if the garages were to include Torced air units? Mr. Mickelson said the forced air units would be inside the units -- not the garages.The public hearing was Gosed.Commissioner Walters thought the storage area in the garages was sufficient for most houses. He was concerned about the possibility of encouraging cars to park on the street in guest parking areas. The guest parking implied to him parking on the street was not allowed. Is there parking space for residents outside the garages?Chris Carnes, Planning staff, responded there were several on-street parking spaces; he pointed out the spaces on the map. Most of the private driveways leading to the garages do not have parking spaces. Chairman Bosch would want to add language to indicate washers, dryers, hot water heaters and forced air units, etc. are not to be located in the garage to help mitigate the loss of the foot on the double garages. As permits are pulled, there should be no electrical or plumbing connections in the garages. In the proposed language on Page 8, under Garages, it should be revised to state that "Single car garages shall have a minimum interior dimension clear of walls and supports of 10 feet wide (rather than 9.5 feet), 20 feet long, and 7 feet high." And add, "Two car private garages shall be no less than 19 feet wide, minimum interior dimension, clear of walls and supports, and shall not include the washer, dryer, hot water heater and forced air unit." Open space was a key concern, but it was out of the Commission's purview. The park sites were approved by the City Council with regard to a higher number of units on a number of sites. The gray area was the line between usable, private open space vs. usable, common open space. Mr. Mickelson stated the common open space works as shown, without crediting back the minimum private open space. So, the key is how much do you need to make usable common open space after the private yards have been increased above the minimum size. He concurred with the idea of not looking for large grounds of open space. He looked for a variety of open space opportunities for the common use of a planned unit development, rather than a single large one. Commissioner Smith was also concerned about the open space -- she wanted both; big back yards for the houses and common open space. She asked where the common open space was on the map and where were the private back yards?Mr. Mickelson pointed out the common areas on the map: private patios, private areas/yardsand the pool area. They do meet the criteria for open space.Commissioner Smith wanted clarification --the larger open space that was on the first proposal has been traded over to the private open space?Chairman Bosch understood it that way. The original proposal didn't have large, fenced, private yards.Theywere decks that were open to the common areas. po the common areas closely encroached the units. Mr. Jones said staff'sevaluation of the 5 foot yard area was really almost unusable and that forces you to use more open space. Part of the trade off is that the rear yard areas are much more usable.Chairman Bosch thought this plan was a substantial improvement over the existing approved scheme.Commissioner Smith did not have a problem of reducing the garages by one foot (six inches on either side). She liked the fact the open space became a part of the back yard, which would be used on a daily basis. Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1994 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to note the project was categorically exempt from CEQA; and to recommend to the City Council to approve Zone Change 1171-94, including modifications to the Planned Community text indicated by staff, with revision to the Recreation, Leisure Area requirements as stipulated by the applicant, to add "#6 areas with an average grade exceeding 5% shall not be counted toward the open space requirement." Under Section 2. B.Garages, change the wording to state "A private garage space required by this ordinance shall have minimum interior dimensions clear of walls and supports of 10 feet wide for single car garages and 19 feet wide Tor double car garages, and that no washers, dryers, hot water heaters, or forced air units shall be allowed in the garages."AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cathcart, Pruett MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Pruett returned to the meeting.IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2064-94 - JERRY GREUBEL A request to allow the construction and operation of a "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 west 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 August 1, 1994 hearing.)The hearing was continued for the purpose of allowing the applicant time to consider concerns raised by the Planning Commission aster public input and review of staff's and Commission's analysis at the last hearing. The Commission has received letters from Terri Sargeant, dated September 15; from Russell and Lori Miura, dated September 19; and from Mary Haupt, dated September 15.The public hearing was re-opened.ADOlicant Jerry Greubel, 19681 Vista Del Vaya, Santa Ana, reported Adele Chang, his architect, was not present.He explained the changes to their plan regarding the height, limiting the four stories on the back building,and added recreation space between the area that was the open space prior to that. He believes they were down to 91 units; staff counted 92 units. He liked the way the recreation area worked out. That area is elevated above the pool so it is terraced. They increased the parking, but not by adding parking spaces -- by eliminating density. They dropped the entry grade from 11% to 10%. That number conforms with all standards and is consistent for streets. They also decreased the elevation of the buildings by another two feet to make the elevation change work. They now have 136 feet of frontage which makes the entry more comfortable and safer. The ADA requirement for handicap ramps worked mathematically, but the drawing was not completed. The trash container has been fixed at a spot up the slope, towards the right of the plan. They will need to add a retaining wall for the trash enclosure. The crib wall was increased by two feet. He tell the issues were traffic, height, general use and conformance in the neighborhood, lighting and grading. He attended another association meeting, High Horse Trails,where they had a candid discussion of the property and proposed use. One person at that meeting was unaware the site was zoned for commercial use. Residents realize their property values are going to be affected. He believed the proposed use, as a senior citizen residential use, will be more compatible for the area than a commercial use with more trafTic and lighting. They are proposing a larger unit - 650 square feet -and the minimum is 550 square feet. They want to have a quality project. They previously had three multi-purpose rooms spread out throughout the project. They brought those into one room with an entry area ahd green area. It will be a better community area for the residents. They are among the lowest in density for a seniors project in Orange. In the senior world, they are not a dense Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1994 have achieved as much as they can at this time. They have increased the yardage of dirt to be moved because the site has been lowered by two feet. Commissioner Smith was concerned about the unsafe conditions and not conforming to the ADA requirements outlined in the staff report under Access, Page 1. Would the developer be willing to bring those things into conformance? Mr. Greubel believed they were in conformance, but if not, he agreed to do so. Commissioner Smith was in error on the requirements. Those were concerns the Commission raised as issues that had not been complied with. Chairman Bosch clarified that was a concern the Commission raised and in reviewing the revised plan, it should still be a concern because a couple of things haven't happened yet. There is a lack of dimensions on the plans for staff and the Commission to ascertain if any of these things work. There are a couple of dimensions relative to setbacks to the crib wall; there are no overall property dimensions, no setback street dimensions, no dimensions or accurate grading to see if the slopes work or not. Looking at the handicap access issue, there appears to be a 3 foot wide or less ramp up io building #2 in front on the parking lot rather than the walk. Commissioner Bosch could not see an access to the rear building. It was unfortunate the architect could not be at the meeting. Commissioner Smith spoke regarding the observation of one recreation room was better than three and she did not agree with that. This is a community where people will live; it doesn't mean they must socialize with the same neighbors. She was disappointed to see the three different rooms disappear into one. It might be difficult to coordinate all of the activities in that one room. Mr. Greubel said there were two rooms; they were down one. Commissioner Walters would love to see one acre homes on this particular lot, but that's not going to happen. The main issue he has a problem with comes down to parking. There is no covered parking so it means the cars will be sitting out all the time. There is no place to store anything. Covered garages have the locked cabinets for storing personal items. That's a real flaw. This type of project cannot have less than one parking space per unit, especially when there are only six parking spots for 91 units. He suggested thought be given to where storage could be built for the residents. Mr. Greubel agreed with the concern. They don't have any problems with parking in their current projects. However, the storage problem is always an issue. They try to provide walk-in closets in the units. The finished plan will address storage areas in the sloped areas within the hillside --there could be some potential for storage space there.Commissioner Walters suggested eliminating a few units; then there would be plenty of room.Mr. Greubel thought this was a far greater project with the trade offs, but also realized there is always room for improvement. He must also consider the economics of the project. He felt the storage problem was a sleeper issue. He still did not believe there would be a parking problem.Those soeaking in opposition Bob Hahn, 7620 East Briarcrest Lane, doesn't believe three stories will be aesthetically compatible with the area. On-site parking has not been addressed. Visitor parking of six spaces is not enough. Where will the people park? The traffic patterns have not been addressed either. There are some dangerous situations that currently exist. Excavation of the hillside is not proper and he was very concerned. The proposed project does not fit in with the community.Terri Sargeant, 137 North Cobblestone, sent the Commission aone-page letter and she bristly read her concerns. She saw a clear direction that 83 units were to be looked at -- that hasn't happened. Parking of one stall per unit, as per the Senior Code, would be more acceptable -- that hasn't happened. Six parking spaces were inadequate for guests -- that hasn't changed. The slopes should be less than 10% --it' s10% now, not less than. Handicapped ramps were not up to standard. She heard direction that the horse trail liability issue should be resolved -- that has not happened. Dial a Ride has been cut back. It may not exist by the time the project is built. The people will not really be near services. Are the parking spaces standard size? The senior code does not allow compact spaces. Senior housing is Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1994 valuable; but this project should be denied. She thought the senior citizens will be the losers and are not being considered. The Cowan Hills Homeowners Association would like to address the horse trail that borders the property -the concrete V-ditch lines that property -the horse trail has fencing on one side; there needs to be fencing on both sides. They would also like a condition that the Cowan Hills Homeowners Association will not incur any costs at such time as the City and/or applicant comes upon the land to alter the landscape easement. They would also like to have input through their homeowners association and management company in case something happens.Russell Miura, 319 North Willow Springs Road, felt the staff report was vague and left open; it was not complete. A crib wall on the hillside will need some type of drainage. Water is going to flow down.There are no plans for a drainage system. All of the water will flow onto his property and impact him.Now the developer is saying there is 110 feet from the edge of his house to their property line: He figured it out to be less than 75 feet from his house. An accurate, correct figure is needed for the hillside span of distance from his house to their building. Is there enough room for a horse trail, walkway and fence where there is 10 feet from the corner of the building to the edge of the property line? Emergency vehicle access has not been addressed or provided for. If there are elevators, they need to be large enough to accommodate a gurney. Horse trails need clear direction and drainage on both sides. He strongly felt the two story height must be adhered to rather than building three stories. Rebuttal Mr. Greubel has read the SCAG report that addresses the need for affordable housing in the City of Orange. In no less than three places does it detail out in order to fulfill senior housing, these types of projects are necessary. They're not making up their own rules; the rules have been modified to bring the protects to the City. This is a20!80 program. They're not asking for a jot of exceptions. They're asking for some reasonable exceptions, and for thatthey're willing to make some trade offs. Services are provided within walking distance. The only exception to the services are churches. They're not looking for Dial a Ride. There is a tour line bus service that comes within a block of the project. That's a great benefit. Regarding traffic, staff does not believe there is a traffic problem. The engineers say the street is meant to handle a commercial project. Most of the arguments heard did not make sense to him. This isn't about open space for a seniors project. This project is going to be an outstanding, viable commercial site at some point in time. That needs to be put on tha table because he believed some people were not aware of that. Their proposed use is compatible for the neighborhood and area. The residential use is far better than a commercial use. Three major developments were built around the owner -- Cowan Hills, Santiago and High Horse Trails. He sits directly in the middle of all that, with 20 homes looking into his back yard. Mr. Greubel believed the silent majority of the people favor the project. Commissioner Smith commented one of the neighbors whose property will be impacted in an extreme way by the project asked that several issues be addressed, and she didn't think he addressed them. It would be important for Mr. Greubel to address Mr. Mirua's questions. She asked Mr. Greubel to make a commitment to address all issues with the neighbors. She was curious about the 10 foot width for a horse trail. She assumed police and fire have looked at emergency access; they're usually quite demanding on their standards. It is questionable whether or not the elevator meets ADA requirements. Commissioner Pruett asked if they were looking at conceptual plans or actual plans? (Conceptual plans --the conditions are the guidelines as to how the bugs are worked out.)Chairman Bosch shared a concern regarding visitor parking. Given the lack of on-street parking, grades on the site and number of units, that in addition to guests, there will be delivery personnel, employees, etc. How do you reconcile six parking spaces as being adequate for the project under those conditions? Mr. Greubel did not have an answer other than they have three now. He has never encountered this exact situation with the constraints on the property. They've never had that much activity at one time. His existing projects are gated properties without dedicated guest parking and they do not have any problems. Chairman Bosch questioned the alignment of Newport Boulevard relative to the property is different from that depicted on the plan? Mr. Greubel said in the beginning the site is accurate. They took that information off of other plans. They know the intersection of the City easement archs at the stairway now. The boundary has been closed to Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1994 satisfy the engineer. They don't know where the City street comes in, but they know it's further south from where it was shown on the plan. Chairman Bosch was concerned because now they have parking within the setback area that may impact the number of guest parking spaces shown. Do they have an alternative that still allows them to meet the code in that regard? There is now 130 feet of property frontage contiguous with the Newport Boulevard right-of-way. There is a minimum landscaped setback from the public right-of-way to parking. It appears,regardless of what is done to the trail, that itimpacts the parking. It's hard to tell because there are no dimensions. He's concerned because they may lose some of the six spaces. Regarding building height, at the last hearing, it was stressed everyone understood how one measured building height in terms of stories. This indicates height has been reduced from tour stories to three. But in effect on the upper building it appeared to him that there is still the same relationship of three stories on the uphill side and three stories on the downhill side, and even on elevations that appears to be windows showing through in the area above the community room, which would be tour stories on the downhill side. The key is it creates three stories on the uphill side as well. The building is only five feet shorter. The developer removed units from the front side (Newport Boulevard side of the building) and redistributed them into the former open space between the rear two buildings. Then, lowering the pad two feet and the roof line by a little bit, it reduced the overall height of the building by five feet. But the majority of the mass is stillthere; it just doesn't have the vertical wall of the former Newport Boulevard side.Commissioner Pruett questioned the 75 spaces for parking. Did that include the guest parking? (Mr. Greubel believed it did.)The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith asked if it was customary to make decisions about a conceptual plan when there was 130 feet difference in the setback? Should the plan be drawn accurately before taking action?Mr. Jones explained the requirements, in terms of plans and dimensions, are generally outlined and it's within the discretion of the Planning Commission to determine whether or not they have enough information tomake good decisions. It's staff's intent to get all of the dimensions and information for a complete understanding, but in this particular case, because of the tight time frame in getting the submittal a little bit later, some of those dimensions were not caught. The Planning Commission can certainly ask for additional information.Commissioner Smith heard it as 135 feet of setback -- 135 feet along the edge of the property; the interface of Newport Boulevard with the property.Commissioner Smith said someone raised the question about the size of the parking spaces. Seventy-five parking spaces has the additional room that allows for handicapped parking. Are they standard car lengths or compact?Mr. Carnes said the parking spaces are typical, full size by today's parking ordinance -- S 1/2 x 18 feet.Whether the handicapped spaces are designated on the plan or not, he was not sure. But it will be reviewed at the time the applicant submits for building permits. Typically, a project of this size, requires four handicapped spaces -- two at the entrance of each building.Commissioner Walters had trouble with the rules for the bonus density of 25% -- that is beins exceeded in this project. Parking is not sufficient and he thought it was a captured territory with no oft-site parking.It's a real flaw. The only place for these active seniors to park is in the shopping center.Commissioner Pruett said parking was also a problem for him. Guest parking was an issue. He realizes not everyone will use a parking space. There needs to be some kind of shuttle service for the senior citizens to deal with the issue. Many senior citizens have hobbies and crafts and need storage units -- that's acritical issue as well. He's very supportive of senior's projects and they are really needed in the community, but he wasn't so sure this project has been designed with the senior in mind. More thought needs to go into the project to make it successful. He's not in a position to support the project as it is proposed. Commissioner Smith was willing to support the project with some conditions. She thought senior housing was drastically needed in all areas of the City. The East end of Orange is deficient in senior housing. It would pencil out to be a beautiful project for the view with accessibility to services, with public Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1994 transportation, and large units, which matches the high end of East Orange. She appreciated the efforts of the developer to work on a difficult site and to provide a building and project with many amenities that are possible in this time period. She would put conditions on the project that included storage for the tenants, there must be assurance for adequate drainage of the crib walls and the neighbors yards must be addressed, and that the issues of trail maintenance be addressed by someone (she was not sure it it were in the Commission's purview to decide who takes on the cost for the revision of the trail, plants, sprinklers, etc.), but definitely the idea of two fences on either side of the trail is something that needs to be required. She was not interested in the economics of this property owner. She was only looking at land use. It's a difficult site that has been addressed in a nice way -- not a Perfect way. She was willing to concede on the parking, which she never does. Her experience with senior housing projects was that the parking lots were never full. She was more in favor of open space for people. Since this was a conceptual plan, she hoped all issues will be addressed.Chairman Bosch thought it was important to address the concerns raised by the neighbors. Frst with regard to anything that happens on the site and trail construction and required construction on adjacent properties, it requires creation of plans, issuance of permits, acquisition of easements from the adjoining property owners before doing any construction. There can be no encroachment without that. With regard to drainage, although it is not listed as a condition, again City ordinances require the development of a grading and drainage plan, with review by the Public Works Department. The City has a fairly strong ordinance with regard to hillside grading and drainage that has to be upheld. In regard to the trail itself,regardless of what goes in this plan, the City has trail standards that were adopted. Plans would need to be reviewed for conformance to the City ordinance. That requires additional safety measures; if the standard doesn't have double sided fencing, that would need to be looked at in order to assure safety.With regard to parking space sizes, these are Orange standard spaces that was developed through revision of the City'sparking ordinance. The larger standard parking spaces were eliminated as well as compact spaces and arrived at the unispace. There are no compact spaces currently in the City of Orange. There have been some reduction in sizes based on limited use. He didn't see any parking being gained by looking at compact spaces. He agreed that storage units were definitely needed; there is a need to look at more weather-proof, safe, accessible storage for the seniors. The developer spent a lot of time selling the argument of the need for seniors housing in this location. There is no doubt that seniors housing is needed in the East Orange area. There is a need to distribute all types of housing in the community. But he disagrees with the argument that comparative density with other portions of the City equates directly to economic viability. You can't compare this project to the one at Palmyra/Glassell. The Commission cares about economics, but they cant look at that when looking at land use. The Commission does not care to know what the land cost is or how deep the pockets are of the developer or owner. What matters is what is best on this piece of land for the community under the conditions as they are perceived today. As stated before, he thought senior housing would be wonderful for the site far better than a commercial use. Parking perse -- he didn't have a problem with the parking ratio when looking only at the parking spaces for the number of units in a senior project with the component of affordable housing. He had a problem with the amount of accessible visitor parking. He didn't believe it was enough. He did have a problem with dimensions not being shown on the plan and he wished the architect were at the meeting. It was very misleading to look at a conceptual plan in this light. The Commission was required to find several things. They were required to find that the project has sound principles of land use involved in it. There's a response to services required by the community. They also have to look at not causing deterioration of bordering land uses or creating special problems for the area. That is a problem because of the bulk, mass and density of the project. That's a concern when measuring height. The building in the back is still a four story building. The number has only to do with code compliance, construction, life safety that you have to do with four stories vs. three. The real impact is the potential on the community with the massive site. Lowering the building two feet and changing the roof line, but only lowering the building five feet is overbearing on the site. He had hoped for a lot more in that regard. He thought the solution before the Commission shows it wasn'tpossible to dramatically reduce the mass of the building on the site. Therefore, he had to determine if that were an acceptable trade off for the benefits the community would gain, and are there problems in deterioration caused for the surrounding uses that are mitigated by the benefits gained in the community. The Commission must look at it all with regard to conditions that preserve the general welfare. He understands the applicant has to meet a bottom line. He didn't think the project, as it has been re-designed, has met the test. The applicant was wise not to invest the money to go as far as accurate dimensions on the plan. He didn't believe the mass and height, circulation problems, the lack of parking and the impact on the neighbors offset the gain for senior housing on the site. He noted staff has proposed a revision to condition 11 with regard to maintenance of the equestrian trail on the revised staff report. He wanted it revised to state, "Dedication of the horse trail shall be made 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1994 prior to occupancy of the project if the responsible parties for the horse trail maintenance and liability are resolved, and a letter of agreement filed with the Department of Community Development." The Commission concurred with the revised condition. Many of the other concerns relative to drainage, easements, access to adjacent properties, with regard to grading and seismic concerns are covered by City ordinances. There should also be a condition which would, if there is any future approval of the project, that requires a precise plan, with dimensions and accurately drawn, be brought back to the Planning Commission for review to assure compliance with all of the conditions of approval and City ordinances -- not just the zoning ordinance. And that it be accompanied by a preliminary grading plan and preliminary landscape plan with regard to the detailed application to the City ordinances. Chairman Bosch proposed that as condition 12.Mr. Jones verified for the record the project was still at 92 units.Chairman Bosch wouldn't have a problem with the 92 units it everything else was taken care of, but he didn' t think it could be done on the site.Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Negative Declaration 1454- 94 and finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment or wildlife resources, subject to full compliance with the mitigation measures indicated by the Environmental Review Board. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith NOES: Commissioner Walters ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to deny Conditional Use Permit 2064-94. The decision is based upon the regwred findings that senior housing on this site fulfills a sound principle of land use and response to services required by the community; however, the constraints of the site with regard to shape, topography, and access constrained mitigate against provisions of the height and mass of the buildings, limitations on parking and construction of number of units proposed in the application which would, if built, cause deterioration of bordering land uses and create special problems for the area and which would have a negative effect on the community and neighborhood plans adopted for properties in the area and immediately adjoining the property. This motion is made with consideration of revised condition 11 per siatPs handout relative to dedication of the horse trail, and the requirement that any application for any development on this property should be accompanied by precise dimensions on the site plan, preliminary grading and landscape plans.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Walters NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Mr. Jones informed the applicant of his right to appeal the Commission's decision.IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Jones noted there was a request from the builder of the property known as Crawford Hills, asking for an opportunity to have a study session with the Planning Commission, in order to be better informed on that particular project.The Commission concurred a study session would be appropriate. Staff and the Commission discussed possible dates for a study session and agreed to meet Monday, October 3, 1994 prior to their Administrative Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: ADJOURNMENT September 19, 1994 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn to a study session on Monday, October 3, 1994, from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss the Crawford Hills proposal. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Smith, Walters NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. sld MOTION CARRIED 10