Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-16-1992 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission November 16,1992 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p. m. PRESENT: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy ABSENT: Commissioner Smith STAFF PRESENT: John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 2, 1992 Moved by Commissioner ,Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve the Minutes of November 2, 1992, as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1930-91 - BUNDY-FINKEL ARCHITECTS A request for modification of a Conditional Use Permit approved by City Council in 1992, which allowed the development of an automotive center consisting of service and repair uses such as tube/oil change, car wash, tire shop, and an existing service station. Proposed is a revised site plan, and a further reduction in code required number of parking spaces. Subject property is located on the northeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Wayfield Street. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative Declaration 1492-91 has been prepared to address the environmental impacts of this project. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 This item was continued from the September 9 and November 2, 1992, Planning Commission Meetings. Mr. Godlewski commented this was a Conditional Use Permit which was previously approved by the Commission. The applicants are now requesting a modification to the car wash tunnel portion of the plan -- a 2-tunnel car wash rather than a 1-tunnel car wash. In order to accommodate the additional square footage, the staff report outlines where there are proposed to be additional parking for the employees associated with the hand wash tunnel, and also, a reduction in square footage in the original retail portion of the project in order to better accommodate the project on site. Staff has had extensive studies done on the traffic situation and whether or not the addition would kick in the requirement for a congestion management plan. After completion of that work it has been determined that it is not a necessary component of the project. The application, therefore, is for an increase in the car wash tunnel and a decrease in the retail space with additional parking on site. Chairman Cathcart noted the Agenda also included Variance 1916-91 for this project. Mr. Godlewski responded that in the process of all revisions, there is no longer a need for a variance. However, it would be helpful for the Commission to get the applicant's concurrence the variance is no longer needed and move to withdraw it from the project. There was no opposition to the project and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Richard Finkel, Bundy-Finkel Architects, 20331 Irvine Avenue #7, Santa Ana Heights, said they were asking for a modification to one portion to a plan which had already been reviewed and approved. That modification is to enlarge the car wash to a double tunnel which in today's economy is a better use of the land and a better application of the car wash. They have, by way of the modification, added parking to the site and improved the site circulation over what they had originally. They have the concurrence of both the Traffic Department and Planning Department. The site is a better functioning site and from 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 the owner's standpoint is a more profitable site. The modification to the car wash lends itself to a more attractive setting. The pubic hearing was closed. Mr. Godlewski clarified it was noted on the plans a proposed ground sign located on the Chapman frontage. Staff had some problems with that location. Planning Commission action taken at this meeting would not approve the location of the sign. Sign approvals are handled separately. Chairman Cathcart commented the last car wash that came before the Commission was accompanied by landscape plans. Final approval is based upon D.R.B. approving landscape plans. It would be helpful to the Planning Commission to see a landscape plan for each project. It would be appropriate for the Commission to be aware of what the overall plan is going to look like. Commissioner Alvarez brought up the issue of Cal Trans' involvement with this project. Is there anything to update the project in terms of impact on the widening of the 55 Freeway? Mr. Godlewski did not have any further information to offer the Commission. Staff can provide that information in a separate form, but it is not, and should not, be a part of the discussion concerning this item. Commissioner Murphy asked if action on the modification re-started the two year clock on the implementation of the Conditional Use Permit as he noticed original approval was back in March, 1991 ? (Yes.) Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to find the amendment to Negative Declaration 1392-91 has been found to be satisfactory by the Environmental Review Board and is approved. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1930-91 with conditions 1-3 in the staff report, adding condition 4 -- This approval does not constitute signage approval. Applicant must submit signage plans to the City for specific approval. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch looked to the applicant for his concurrence to withdraw the original variance in that it is no longer required. Applicant nodded in the affirmative.) Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to withdraw Variance 1916-91. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING Chairman Cathcart excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1985-92, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 92- 25 - AL RICCI A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a two story second unit in the R-2-6 (Residential Duplex, minimum lot size ,6,000 square feet) zone and an administrative adjustment to permit a 6 inch reduction in internal garage width and a 7 inch reduction in required parking back- up area. Subject property is located at 355 North Cleveland Street. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. This item was continued from the October 19, 1992 Meeting. The applicant, after review by the Commission, went back to make some 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 modifications to his plans. Those modifications are detailed in the staff report. For the record, Commissioner Bosch met with Mr. Ricci at the site on October 27, 1992 and Commissioner Alvarez met with Mr. Ricci at his office to review the plans. There was no opposition and the public hearing was opened. Applicant AI Ricci, 1320 North Manzanita, said there was concern about the windows at the last meeting. They reduced the plan by four windows. Two windows were made smaller to minimize any impact on the neighbors. They also made the downstairs bathroom into a powder room, eliminating a shower; changed the family room; put a door through the garage and changed some walls and put a washer and dryer in the garage as opposed to inside the unit. They also redesigned the upstairs bathroom so that access to the bathroom could only be through the bedroom. Only the people occupying the bedrooms could use the bathroom. The project will enhance the area and it meets the Design Review Guidelines. Commissioner Alvarez thanked Mr. Ricci for allowing the Commission to continue his project for a second review. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch was very pleased with the modifications made by the applicant. They are minor, but they have a substantial mitigation of impacts that the proposal had on its neighbors. We have a series of problems that need to be looked at as a larger issue, not relative to this specific lot in terms of the best guidance for land owners and neighbors for development of second units where they are allowed, including C.U.P.'s because of adjacent heights or overlay zones in the Old Towne area. The reduction of windows helps and some interior rearrangements helps to provide increased privacy to the neighbors, as well as the shower reduction on the first floor. Given that and the pleasing conformance of the design of the building to the existing historic unit on the front of the site shows there is a good project. 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 It was noted this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1985-92 and Administrative Adjustment 92-25, with conditions 1-3, based upon the revised plan dated November 3, 1992. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, Murphy NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cathcart, Smith MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Alvarez felt this would establish a precedent for this neighborhood. He's pleased Mr. Ricci took the time to allow the Commission to meet with him and to begin to develop a new standard in the neighborhood for second units. Chairman Cathcart returned to the meeting. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 6-92 -CITY OF ORANGE Proposed amendment to the Orange Municipal Code creating a new chapter (8.26 "Leaf Blowers") regulating the operation of leaf blower machines. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. This item was continued from the October 19, 1992 meeting. Mr. Godlewski reported staff made some modifications to the original proposed ordinance and was submitting it again for their review and comments. There was no opposition and the public hearing was opened/closed. 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 Chairman Cathcart hopes someday they will do away with leaf blowers altogether. He would like to see vacuums be used instead. But this is a step in the right direction. Commissioner Bosch would like to ban them altogether someday as well. He was concerned that OSHA staff was of the opinion that leaf blowers don't generate a large volume of dust to warrant operator protection. They seem to be looking only at the sporadic homeowner use of one rather than the large scale commercial use, which is the principle problem in residential neighborhoods. He noted staff has added another paragraph to the ordinance because staff saw limiting throttles, velocity and limiting decibels to be a restriction that would require certification and some policing by the City. He recognized the difficulty of enforcing or policing this certainly if there weren't fees available for enforcement and it may be a mute point. But, at some point they need to rely on the operators to become more competent and responsive to the public. He doesn't wish to see an additional burden placed on the City budget or staff to try to enforce this specific ordinance. He also noted the staff report indicated currently lawn mowers and edgers are not limited to the decibel amount, but they should be as well. What's the purpose of having a noise ordinance if the principle source of residential noise in the community is totally unregulated? At least this ordinance is a start and he's in favor of it as written except for proposing a modification to Section 8.26.030 B. Insert "at a time" after leaf blower; and to delete G. at this time for certification. He sees a growing trend towards requiring responsible maintenance and operation of the equipment throughout the area. Commissioner Alvarez' first problem was to determine a need. The one thing lacking in the staff report is it does not define why it is before the Commission. The second problem is enforcement. He contacted the Orange County Farm Supply to talk with them on how they would go about meeting the requirements of the ordinance. He felt it was pitting neighbor against neighbor. Leaf blowers probably came about because of the water shortage; it was encouraged at that time. A third problem was creating another government layer; it is not needed at this time. The only thing he could support on the proposed ordinance was the one blower per lot and probably the 8 to 5 time frame that could possibly be enforced. 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 Commissioner Murphy thought the hours of operation should be 8:00 a.m. to dusk from a standpoint of people that do try and work after they get home at night during the summer months. He concurred the ordinance is a good first step in the process for leaf blowers. Commissioner Bosch thought the noise ordinance limited other major commercial activities to 7:00 p.m. and that might be more appropriate than dusk. He doesn't want to create another layer of government either. The role of the City is to try and temper the needs of the residents. Trying to resolve disputes between neighbors could be assisted by having a well thought out approach to what is perceived to be good, community standards that they could refer to and see what is anticipated. They will have a tool with which to speak to their neighbor to arrive at a resolution of the dispute in case there is excessive noise or dirt being blown. The City couldn't enforce it very well, but the neighbors could refer to the ordinance as a tool. Commissioner Murphy concurred and thought the guidance factor was real important. Chairman Cathcart thought this ordinance was good business practice in regulating businesses that come into the City. He did not feel this added another layer of government. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to recommend to the City Council to adopt Ordinance Amendment 6-92 as presented on the last page of the staff report with modifications to the text given to the Commission. In 8.26.030 A. limiting the use of time to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday; and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p. m. Sunday and Federal holidays. In 8.26.030 B. add the words "at a time" after leaf blower. Delete 8.26.030 G. which had proposed a testing and certification process by the City. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy NOES: Commissioner Alvarez ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Alvarez recommended the City Council needs to look at the mitigating problems between neighbors. One way to mitigate that without being a burden to the City is one concern. They also need to 8 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 look at the enforcement issue of the ordinance. The sound and dust issues are going to be very difficult to meet. IN RE: NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1993-92 - BRENT OGDEN, JR. A request for a conditional use permit to allow the shared use of a parking lot to permit the operation of a coin operated laundry facility, located in the C-1 (Limited Business} zone. Subject property is located on the southwest corner of Glassell Street and Katella Avenue, addressed 108 West Katella Avenue. NOTE: This item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. There was no opposition and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Brent Ogden, 4040 MacArthur Blvd. #314, Newport Beach, is the owner of the shopping center and is proposing to utilize two empty suites to put in a laundry mat in the western portion of his center. He made application based on the merits of the shopping center as it stands now. The laundry mat's hours are different than what is in the center at the present time. The main use for laundry facilities are between Friday at noon and Monday at noon. Other than his Taqueria and 7-Eleven, all the other businesses are closed Sunday and their hours are restricted on Saturday. Most of the laundry mat's customers are early morning or late at night and his peak hours during the business day are normally at noon. He looks at this service as a good benefit to the shopping center. The business itself is needed in the area. He will not have any video machines in the business; it will be a family run business. It will be operated and maintained properly. Because he's going to be staffed in the laundry mat at all times, he requested the hours indicated on the staff report, 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., be changed to 6:00 a.m. to 12 midnight. He assured the Commission it would not be a 24-hour business. 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 Commissioner Alvarez wanted to know how the other tenants felt about this new use? Mr. Ogden stated everyone in the shopping center has been supportive. It's more of a convenience oriented business. The new facility will generate more business into the shopping center. The two suites have been vacant for approximately eight months. He feels quite a few people will be interested in the center and this is one way of leasing up vacant space. Business is down approximately 30%. Commissioner Murphy asked if the applicant had read the staff report and conditions of approval? (Yes.) The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Alvarez, seconded by Commissioner Bosch to approve Conditional Use Permit 1993-92, amending condition 2 -that the hours be changed to 6:00 a.m. to 12 midnight (facility shall be closed between the hours of 12 midnight and 6:00 a.m.). Discussion Commissioner Bosch said this was an interesting application of operating hours. They have previously looked at shared parking and peak demand primarily where operating hours didn't coincide/overlap at all. This recognizes that businesses have different peak hours regardless of their business hours. He was worried about setting a precedent or misunderstanding of others that might come in and think that this is based on overlapping business hours simply because the retail applications are somewhat different. He hasn't found a way to tie in some method of making it clear that the specific laundry mat operation really is one that will have off peak hours compared to many other businesses in the center. Commissioner Murphy asked if a condition could be added concerning the request coming back to the Commission should the business use change (for whatever reason)? He's looking for a way to give some control if the C.U.P. request were approved. Chairman Cathcart referred to the staff report. There wasn't the concern over the underparked area. Now there is, making this 10 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 underparked. If this were to conform to the updated parking ordinance, the applicant would have to remove 12 washing machines from the premises. Perhaps the trip mechanism could be a 6-month time period for a report or evaluation from the staff, at which time it could be decided upon whether or not to remove 12 washing machines because of the parking. He doesn't see any other way to hold a business hostage for what could come later in the way of another tenant that would then put him in jeopardy. Commissioner Alvarez said the owner of the center is the tenant and he will be able to mitigate the problem, if there is one. He's also sure the tenants will make it real clear to the owner if the parking problem is impacting other businesses. There is no street parking. If there is a parking problem, the owner will know about it and will have to mitigate it. He would hate to see the Planning Commission act as the owner in that respect. The owner should really be able to resolve the problems without having to come back to the Planning Commission. Chairman Cathcart was concerned that they set a precedent here that not every applicant is going to be the tenant/landlord with the ability to oversee the problem. If it is not the tenant/landlord who is in this position, there may not be an ability to mitigate the problem. The problem may worsen and create another set of problems. Perhaps have staff review the site within a six month interval and bring it back to the Commission for evaluation. Amended Motion Moved by Commissioner Alvarez to review Conditional Use Permit 1993-92 at the end of a six month period and that staff bring back to the Commission a report on what is happening in the parking lot at that time. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Commissioner Murphy suggested adding "and subsequent to the six month review, at any time more than one of the tenants change." Commissioner Alvarez had a problem with the added amendment. It seemed to him they were getting into the landlord business. He would hate to put those restrictions on the landlord. 11 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 Commissioner Bosch unfortunately could not accept the motion and would not second it. He did not think the City was getting into the landlord business; the City attempts to protect the health and welfare of the citizens. There needs to be some way that works for the owner and business operators to protect these things and not cause a negative impact. Commissioner Alvarez asked the applicant about the future use of the center and the possible restriction to future business and how they would impact the Conditional Use Permit? Mr. Ogden has purchased 12 machines and he does the plumbing for them. All 47 machines at one time will not be utilized. They are only utilized at peak hours (Saturday and Sunday afternoons). He doesn't know what to do 6 months from now. How will he get financing on the equipment? How does he utilize the business for future benefits if he can't sell it for what it is going to be worth? If a business leaves his center, any new business coming in has to meet the codes for the parking requirements. The Commission can act to prevent any new business coming into the center. There is also discussion in the Planning Department of redistricting the parking requirements for a laundry mat back to 1 per 200 square feet. His tenants signed five year leases and options. The shopping center was built in 1987. Only two tenants have left; the others have exercised their options. Commissioner Murphy's understanding of the C.U.P. process was that permits were not required as long as they are similar uses to what is there now, or what's allowed in the zoning for the center. His point was centered around a difference in hours change that might impact the parking flows. Mr. Godlewski said that was correct. businesses that could move into the question is whether or not the hours be further controlled and there is no operation. There are a large listing of retail location with no C.U.P. review. The of operation of the businesses can mechanism to control the hours of Commissioner Alvarez would hate to see an owner losing a tenant because of the restrictions on the center. 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 Commissioner Bosch thought a laundry mat at this location would be a good use. The problem becomes the size, as it relates to the current ordinance. His concern still comes back to precedent. He asked what kind of waiver allowance would be given and what leeway would that give the applicant? Mr. Godlewski said they were discussing the difference between 10% or five machines, as opposed to 12 machines. Staff could handle the five machines with an Administrative Adjustment. The request is double that or more and that's why the request was brought to the Commission. In terms of reviewing in 6 months and finding there is a problem and requiring the applicant to take out 12 machines, that may not resolve the problem. It does according to code, but it doesn't resolve the traffic problem. If there is a 6-month review, it was staff's suggestion for the Commission to allow the applicant to work out some other method to reduce the demand on parking or any method, including and up to, removing the machines as a final and last resort. There may be something else that can be done if there is a parking problem. Mr. Godlewski had one other suggestion. If you have a tenant, such as the laundry mat, that would agree to a condition that if there is a parking problem, as deemed by a 6-month review, that a certain portion of that business would be limited during peak hours. That doesn't completely eliminate the business during peak traffic hours as opposed to peak laundry mat hours. That would bring you into compliance with the code requirements for parking and there would be a mutually exclusive use of parking because the need is not generated by the laundry facility during the time of the parking problem. The Commission did not know how that could be policed. It's an unique idea, but there would be a policing problem. Commissioner Alvarez referred to the staff report and Mr. Ogden's statement that the deletion of 12 washing machines would make the project economically unfeasible. He asked Mr. Ogden to address that. Mr. Ogden pointed out he reslurried the parking lot and re-striped it to today's parking codes. Instead of a 4-car variance, he's picking up only a 3-car variance. He picked up an additional stall. He's only asking for a variance of 9 washing machines. He had wider parking stalls in 1987; parking width has been diminished by 6 inches. During peak hours, if 13 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 there are no machines available for the customers, they will not come back during normal business hours. They will go elsewhere. Commissioner Alvarez said given the economic conditions, approval should be given. What they could do is approve the C.U.P. with four or five less machines. Chairman Cathcart said given the fact the Commission could make a 10% administrative adjustment, the request could be approved without setting a precedent (43 washing machines). Mr. Herrick saw no problem with that particular approach. He would have difficulty, however, with the enforceability of trying to monitor tenants over a long period of time. Moved by Commissioner Alvarez, seconded by Commissioner Bosch to approve Conditional Use Permit 1993-92, changing condition 1 to 43 washing machines and changing condition 2 to the hours of 12 midnight and 6:00 a.m. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, Bosch, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith IN RE: NEW HEARING Cathcart, Murphy MOTION CARRIED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14766, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1994-92 - INTERAMERICAN BUILDERS CORPORATION A request for approval of a tentative tract map and a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 162 dwelling unit planned unit development. The proposal will be a mix of single family and multi- family structures. Subject property is located at the northeast corner of White Oak Ridge and Canyon View Avenue. NOTE: The environmental impacts of this project have previously been analyzed by certified Environmental Impact Report 868. Chairman Cathcart met with the applicant, architect, Bob Mickelson and Cora Neumann of the Irvine Company last week in his office; 14 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 Commissioner Alvarez met with the applicant, architect and Bob Mickelson; Commissioner Bosch also met with all parties, including Cora Neumann, on November 10, 1992 to review the documentation received by the Commission; Commissioner Murphy met with one of the applicant's representatives and Mr. Mickelson. Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as there was opposition to this item. The proposal is fora 159 dwelling unit planned unit development. The .implementation of the proposal requires approval of a Tentative Tract Map and a Conditional Use Permit for the planned unit development. The C.U.P. also includes a request to allow the subdivision of lots that do not have direct access to a public street. The project is located in the Santiago Hills Residential Development. The project is covered and regulated by the Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan, which includes that development. Subject site is 11 acres in size and is more specifically located at the northeast corner of Canyon View Avenue and White Oak Ridge Road. The project is unique in that it has two types of residential units within its boundaries. There are 63 single family detached residential structures and 93 stacked lot condos. The 63 units are located in the center of the site and on the east and west sides. The stacked IQt condos are located on the northern and southern portions of the site. The stacked lot condos are located in buildings that contain up to 8 units. The proposed project is within the residential density range permitted by the City's General Plan Land Use Map and the Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan. The project conforms to the Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan and the City's zoning ordinance development standards with the exception of one. The project buildings for the single family detached structures are located a distance of 4 to 15 feet apart. The Specific Plan requires that such structures be located a minimum of 10 feet apart. The applicant is proposing the planned unit development to allow flexibility in the building separations for those structures. The City's zoning ordinance does allow the variation in setback requirements subject to the Commission and Council approving a planned unit development. The intent of the ordinance is to create a residential development better than what could be achieved by conforming to all the development standards. Commissioner Alvarez asked what the Fire Department thought of the 4 foot setbacks? 15 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 Mr. Carnes responded they did not make any positive or negative comments on the proposal. They do allow access around the units. The public hearing was opened. A~,plicant Frank Bauman, 15375 Baranca Parkway#F-106; Irvine, was president of Interamerican Builders. He thanked staff for their cooperation and hard work in bringing their project to the hearing process. They have met with the Commission as well as those who oppose the project. They would accept the conditions of the staff report, but prior to doing that they wanted to be certain that the Commission had a thorough understanding of what they perceive to be an innovative idea in housing. David Smith, 750 Griffith Way, project. He showed a slide project would provide as many site. Those speaking in opposition Laguna Beach, was the architect for the presentation and explained how their housing opportunities as possible at this Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, was opposed to the 3,000 - 5,000 square foot lots. They are too small and too close. The City Council has repeatedly turned down these small lots. He hopes the City will not become a city of small lots.How do we prevent 3,500 square foot lots or less from becoming the norm? The issue is,do we change the Council's policy? Rebuttal Mr. Bauman appreciates where Mr. Bennyhoff was coming from. Looking at the building industry, they must look at the proper type of housing to provide the people living in this area. This is a product that allows all the nice things about a single family detached house and it is plotted on a condominium site. It is not taking a single family detached site and packing the density into it. It is taking an attached product and providing separation that allows for better access and use of the yards. The public hearing was closed. 16 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 Chairman Cathcart commented he appreciated the applicant's and Mr. Bennnyhoff's opinions. The Commission heard this item to look at land use issues and the product itself. He had a couple of concerns. He would like to see the perimeter landscape at Canyon View and White Oak (inside the wall) have a consistent tree landscaped edge. Those yards will be individually maintained and he felt they would wind up as a dirt pile. The other concern is the drainage issue. He's not comfortable with surface drainage when it is fenced off -- it precludes overall control of maintenance of open drainage areas. The staff report discussed garage doors, but only in the architect's presentation was it mentioned about the roll up doors. He would like to see roll up doors be included in the staff report. Has the applicant discussed the trash trucks and routes with Orange Disposal Service? Bob Mickelson, 328 North Glassell, responded yes. Mike Hambarian did look at the plan and noted a couple of places where a trash bin would need to be reversed to make it more functional, but it would work. Chairman Cathcart appreciated the concern and creativity that went into the project. There are areas in which the City will need to be more creative. A detached/attached concept (mixed use) project is a good plan. Commissioner Bosch shared the appreciation for the work the architect has done on the design of the units; it's a remarkable job. He appreciated (on the perimeter units) the attention the developer has requested and the architect has provided to break up the mass of the large stacked flat buildings. He shared Mr. Bennyhoff's concern about what these things are and what they mean in terms of precedent, but it has to be dealt with somehow. This is a multiple family site and it's not smashed together into attached buildings. He felt this was a good product, but had a great deal of hesitancy because of the concern over the precedent it would set. What can be done to mitigate the concern over the small lots elsewhere in the community? There are 6,000 square foot lots in Old Towne with two units on them. It's not two separate lots. There are two units on a 6,000 square foot lot with 15 feet (sometimes less) between the units with 15 foot or 10 foot yards. The same living environment has been judged to be satisfactory in that part of town. What's the difference out in East Orange? The difference is only in how one controls it to avoid it taking over the entire East Orange itself and see it developed as only an appropriate element of the 17 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 comprehensive planned community. What can be done to assure that it is seen as the last lot in a planned community and not as a change to the original development? It's the same zoning, same density involved, a condominium project is still being provided; the only difference is the physical realization of them on the site causes a gap of less 10 feet, but four feet or more to be placed between the units. The project is within the bounds previously approved for a specific element of a major planned community. And, any future proposal by any other developer that tries a similar project, would be judged on the same grounds. Chairman Cathcart wanted to make sure it was in the findings they were discussing multi-family zoning; not single family. The Commission has seen a multitude of multi-family products and there's always the concern of livable space for each unit. The developer has given the City an acceptable product. Commissioner Alvarez asked staff to explain the difference between Mr. Bennyhoff's comments and what staff's conclusion was on the project's evaluation. The lot size was being questioned. Mr. Godlewski responded the 6,000 square foot lot is in relation to a single family detached structure neighborhood. It is where the property owner owns his own lot, owns everything within the borders of that lot and has general control over how that lot is maintained and developed in terms of yard areas. The 6,000 square foot lot falls within the low-density residential dwelling unit category. It is right on the limit of what can be built in aloes-density category. Then, there is the low-medium density category (R-2), which allows two units on a 6,000 square foot lot. Then, you move into more units per acre and an increase in the density. The proposed project is on a medium density residential development. There can be up to 15 units per acre on the property. The applicant has come forward and rather than present a plan that is typically 15 units per acre, there is a relationship of large blocks of building to larger open space area, he has taken that large building and broken it down into individual units that are no longer sharing three or two sides of a unit within another unit. Instead, they are broken down and pushed apart so that the open space now becomes private areas for each individual unit between the two units. In terms of density of the overall project, it falls within the categories and allowable densities that are provided for in the zoning ordinance. 18 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 However, it is his arrangement of these units over the space that is somewhat non-traditional. The planned unit development aspect of the application allows the applicant to ask for something different. If, in the Commission's viewpoint, the product that is offered creates a living environment that is better than what could be attained under the traditional R-3 zoning, then the Commission has the option of approving that. In terms of the strict interpretation of ~ what a less than 6,000 square foot lot is, and whether or not they are trying to circumvent the desires of Council not to have less than 6,000 square foot lots, that is in everyone's personal definition of what is being presented. Commissioner Alvarez asked if there was a history of lots being this small? Mr. Godlewski said the 6,000 square foot lot issue came up in the past when there was a traditional subdivision of 6,000 square foot lots. The developer found that the 6,000 square foot lot actually is not cost beneficial to the product they are trying to promote. Therefore, the applicant tries to reduce the cost of the land and in so doing, reduce the amount of land. The push was then to create a traditional subdivision only by decreasing the size of the lots. As the lots became smaller, the architects became more innovative in bringing forward plans that included things like Z lots. The proposed request is not individual lots, but instead it is coming from the other direction of multiple family housing. They are taking the large unit and breaking it down and spreading it out. In so doing, in order to maintain the density you have increased densities in the attached product and a decreased density in the detached product. However, the overall lot that is being proposed maintains an overall density that is consistent with the plan. Chairman Cathcart commented if the developer just put this together and gave a proposal of a typical meandering open space and each unit would have to fend for themselves with a tiny patio, it would not be before the Commission. They could have built those units because it falls within the guidelines of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Alvarez asked about the traffic problem on White Oak. Will this project add to the problem? Mr. Godlewski stated the traffic analysis that was done with the original Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan envisioned a certain density 19 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 for the proposed project. Although there is a mix of densities proposed, the actual number of units (and that equates to the number of vehicle trips that are being generated by these units) will be identical or a little bit less than what could have been on the property. The number of vehicles actually coming out of the driveways will be the same as what was originally analyzed in the Specific Plan. There is no impact greater than what was originally proposed. Commissioner Bosch thought the scale and grouping of the units becomes the problem. The cluster itself when looking at a typical four unit cluster proposed for the detached/attached houses doesn't have those problems. It's only when they are seen back to back with 4 feet rather than 10 feet. He preferred to look towards a multiple use and mixed types of use. He also hoped to see an increasing move towards mixed use in the commercial areas. This review is based specifically upon the site being an existing site, previously determined within a specific plan adopted by the City as having a specific density, access and relationship to adjoining land uses, and that the only difference seen, other than the waiver of the space between the buildings which is satisfied from the code point of view by firewalls, is that there are mitigations to improving lifestyles in a couple of areas: Presuming that through engineering there could be a way to solve the drainage problem not totally depending upon surface drainage, but supplemented by it from the private yards; that the access to the rear yards is very important for maintenance; the benefits of living in a condominium development by having not a massive open space as they are broad setbacks to gaze at from the car, but in this case there is more usable open space even though it is small that goes with the units; there is a diversity of architectural style by separating the units out and to help break up the apparent massing vs. having a large mass of building. The trade off is close quarters and it is tight. This is an appropriate planned unit project because there isn't a precedent set towards applying this to areas indicated to be low density. This is being specifically applied to an existing low-medium 6 to 15 dwelling units per acre multiple family site previously master planned within a total planned community. If he were to see this appear as a single parcel of land to be independently developed without regard to other aspects of a major planned community or to be a proposed change to a previously approved low-density component of a major planned community plan, he would find that to be totally inappropriate. 20 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 Chairman Cathcart appreciated the fact they were looking at a multi- family P.U.D. that is not asking for the highest number of units that are allowed. They are only asking for 159 units. The product may be a better product than they would have had otherwise. That's something to be taken into consideration. Commissioner Murphy agreed as long as the Commission placed specific requirements on it from the standpoint of a larger project. He had a tough time with this because of some of the trade offs -- the closeness of the project, the mix of densities. He appreciated that they did not ask for density bonuses. He would categorically oppose any attempt at some type of similar arrangement based on a single family dwelling project. Commissioner Bosch recapped his thoughts. The privilege requested to provide the housing type of the detached condominium units specifically offsets any capability of granting the density bonus typically allowed in a planned community. Some of the quality of life issues in addition to the open space are the individual entrance to the unit, direct access from the unit's parking with two enclosed garage parking spaces per unit directly to the dwelling unit, the accessibility for maintenance of the rear yards, the ability to design a housing unit that doesn't have party walls at all, the walls are free to provide adequate light and ventilation, and because of the smaller building size it dictates the articulation of the units architecturally to break up the mass. There is a lower mass and volume for individual dwelling units vs. the major buildings. Those are positive attributes to this type of concept. Commissioner Alvarez said projects of this size usually trigger some sort of handicapped requirements or affordable housing. He asked for staff's comments. Mr. Godlewski said the question about handicapped accessibility has been addressed by the Building Division and will be included as part of plan check for the project. The City has not adopted any program that is triggered by the size of a particular project for affordability. The City encourages affordability by offering density bonuses for affordable units. 21 Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1992 Commissioner Murphy noted the environmental impacts of this project have been previously analyzed by certified Environmental Impact Report 868. Commissioner Bosch believed the project has merit upon the findings made by the Planning Commission. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend to the City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map 14766 and Conditional Use Permit 1994-92 with conditions 1-26, adding condition 27 that all garage doors be sectional, roll-up type doors; adding condition 28 that the revisions with Orange Disposal Service be added to the plans; and noting the plan to be revised for site layout of the two dwelling units with driveways to the private street to cause the driveways to be no less than 20 foot minimum as per the revised sketch plan presented by the applicant. The exact draft of the motion, including the findings, shall be part of the motion and be brought back to the Commission for validation of accuracy in wording. AYES: Commissioners NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Alvarez, Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy Smith MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez, to adjourn to a joint study session with City Council and the Design Review Board on December 2, 1992 at 4:00 p.m. in the Library Community Room. AYES: Commissioners Alvarez, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. sld Bosch, Cathcart, Murphy MOTION CARRIED 22