Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-02-1991 PC MinutesCI-n.; Off 1<, W:~PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ci ty of Or ange Orange, California December 2, 1991 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT:Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT:None STAFF PRESENT:Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 4 AND NOVEMBER 18, 1991INRE: The minutes of November 18, 1991 were continued to the next meeting. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to approve the Minutes of November 4, 1991 as recorded. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED IN RE:ITEM TO BE CONTINUED TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 14549 AND 14593, ZONE CHANGE 1142- 91,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1932-91, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 91-26 -SOUTHRIDGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Request for approval of Tentative Tract Map 14549 to allow subdivision of 25.6 acres into 105 single family parcels;Tentative Tract Map 14593 to subdivide 71.3 acres into 11 lots,of which 4 lots are for a phased development of condominium units and 7 lots are for park or utility purposes; Zone Change 1142-91 to revise the Development Plan text and map for the Southridge Planned Community Area to accommodate the new alignment for Loma Street, to add the land distribution of various densities and product types, and to establish single family detached subdivisions with 5,000 square foot lots, as permitted use in the newly configured Planning Units C and E, and to pre-zone approximately 3 acres to PC (Planned Community) District;Conditional Use Permit 1932-91 to allow development of 37 acres with approximately 537 condominium units; and Administrative Adjustment Permit 91-26 to allow the creation of lots around cul-de-sacs, with lot widths less than the minimum required.A letter from to the next 1991.the applicant was received requesting a Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1991 - Page 2 Moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Master, to continue Tentative Tract Maps 14549 and 14593, Zone Change 1142- 91, Conditional Use Permit 1932-91 and Administrative Adjustment 91-26 to the meeting of December 16, 1991. AYES:NOES: IN RE:Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED ITEM TO BE CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1939- 91 - HANDSHAW A request to allow for the automatic car wash facility District. Subject property is Katella Avenue and Main Street.NOTE: construe tion in the C-l located at the and operation of an Limited Business) southwest corner of In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Negative Declaration 1395-89 has been prepared for this project.Staff received a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance until December 16 or January 6. Staff recommends a continuance to the January 6 meeting to allow them time to put together a report based on the information to be submitted.Moved by continue 6, 1992. AYES:NOES:IN RE:Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Master, to Conditional Use Permit 1939-91 to the meeting of January Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1934- 91, VARIANCE 1918-91 - PRAFUL PATEL A request to adapt two existing signs (for the Colony Motel) to an updated display under the City's sign ordinance and the addition of two new monument signs, which are under five feet in height, approximately 140 feet inside the property from Katella Avenue. Subject property is located at 1930 East Katella Avenue.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from provisions of the California Environmental Quality CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section l530l( g)l5311(a) .the Act and This item was continued from the November 18 meeting. Staff received a memo from the City Attorney indicating there has been no violation of a legal matter which had been looked into1 and the City Attorney felt it was Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1991 - Page 3 A letter from the applicant's representative was also received re- stating the applicant's position on this item. The public hearing was not re- opened.Commissioner Cathcart said the signs as they currently exist are legally non-conforming signs. If they're going to share the same post, can there be a legal conforming sign on the same post with a legally non-conforming sign?Mr. Herrick stated that was possible; it could occur.Commissioner Scott asked if the Shiki sign were removed while the new sign is installed, could it be re- installed? Are there legal ramifications involved?Mr. Herrick believed the ordinance had time periods during which something that is non-conforming can be repaired or replaced.Chairman Bosch construction of approved action to remove it for said a permit would need to be pulled for the the new sign, the demolition would be part of the under the permit; therefore, making it allowable the purpose of replacement.Ms. Wolff said if part of the Commission' s action were to respond to the D.R.B.'s recommended condition of replacing the Shiki sign and encompassing all the signs into one single sign, if you approve the variance to do that, then they both become a conforming legal sign. Commissioner Master thought the applicant that is by itself a difficult situation.meet the City's requirements. There consideration for the variance. has a piece of property His concern is that it is a reason to give Commissioner Murphy said the traffic situation adds to the hardship and there needs to be some thought put into how best to help alleviate that without setting a precedent that could be applied to other areas.Chairman Bosch thought the evidence shows that when the properties were originally proposed for development, it was not seen as being master planned, but a mini master plan combining a number of properties and different uses. More recently, within the last year the gas station came in with a car wash and reconfigure it's use without opposition from the land users behind (Shiki and the motel); there was no opposition. To use that change and blocking their visibility off is an excuse now for saying they need a change in signage is something he can't buy. The City must be careful of people setting up conditions upon themselves that then serve Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1991 - Page 4 variance. It's planning pOlicy.not the intent of the ordinance, nor sound The height of the sign was still a concern.Commissioner Scott stated the Redevelopment Agency -has expended a lot of money to get conforming signs. One could maybe justify the variance to be adequate, but what about the rest of the motels up and down Tustin? He cited the example of Villa Ford's request for a tall sign, which was denied.Moved by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to deny Conditional Use Permit 1934-91 and Variance 1918-91. It appears the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated: and that the special circumstances that apply to the property. and strict application of zoning ordinances, topography and location or surroundings does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by others in classification.the vicinity and under identical zoning AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy Commissioner Scott MOTION CARRIED Ms. Wolff explained the appeal procedure to the applicant.IN RE:CONTINUED HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-9l-B, ZONE CHANGE 1112-89, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1294- 89 - A & A ADVENTURES Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the property from Open Space to Low/Medium Density Residential, 6-15 dwelling units per acre, and a Zone Change to pre-zone the property from County AR 20 Agricultural, Residential, Minimum Lot Size 20,000 square feet)to R- 3 (Residential, Multiple Family) District. Subject property is an undeveloped site, approximately four acres in size located on the east side of Crawford Canyon Road approximately 500 feet south of Chapman Avenue.NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Negative Declaration 1294-89 has been prepared for this project.Originally the application was to re-zone to the R-3 ( Residential MUltiple Family) District: however, a letter has been received and given to the Planning Commission prior to the last hearing requesting a R-2-8 (Residential Duplex) zoning. This item is continued from the October 21, 1991 meeting.Additional input has been received: therefore, it is appropriate to Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1991 - Page 5 Commissioners Master prior meeting, but property and feel project. and Cathcart have read the they are able to did not participate in the material and studied the make a fair decision on this Applicant Philip Anthony, A & A Ventures, 3200 East Frontera Street,Anaheim, submitted a letter from their soils consultant and Planning staff has summarized that in the staff report. They also tried to review the other questions that were raised. They feel that some kind of quality, low density residential was a reasonable use. Looking at the existing condominiums to the west, which is developed on R-3 land in the City led them to their original request for R-3 zoning. That zoning does allow quite a range and there is always the fear that some future owner will come back and request something at the top of the R- 3 range.They never thought that was feasible; however, that's why they changed their request to the R-2-8 zoning. This site was considered as part of the East Orange General Plan some time before they owned it. It has been owned by the Mormon Church for a long period of time. They also owned the land around it, which eventually ended up as the Baldwin tract. Their architect completed a very careful visual survey of the site, flagging the extent of the cut slopes. They are not visible from Chapman Avenue. Another concern was overhanging buildings. They never thought that would be appropriate and would not suggest the development include any type of cantilevered building. Regarding the R-2-8 zoning with a possible maximum of 18 units, there is not enough frontage on the property to build more than 9 duplex lots. They would like a reasonable basic zoning which would allow them to continue with their annexation to the City. They have petitioned LAFCO for annexation and are in the middle of a hearing process with them, but cannot be completed until there is some pre-zoning action by Orange. He thought this property could best be handled through a Planned Unit Development with a C.U.P.as discussed in one of the ordinances. They have not tried to present a final plan. Another issue is the traffic. They did a thorough traffic study on a worse case basis. The traffic study indicates that even with 60 units, this project would have less than 1% impact on the peak hour traffic along Crawford Canyon Road. It is the traffic consultant's conclusion the actual traffic impact is not significant.Chairman Bosch stated the Commission has received communication from the East Orange County Water District with regard to the 16 inch water main and the need for an easement, preferably near the south property line. (Mr. Anthony was aware of the letter and has worked Planning commission Minutes December 2, 1991 - Page 6 Those speaking in opposition Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acresl Neil Harkleroad, 10562 Mira Vista, Santa Ana, speaking on behalf of the Foothill Communities Associationl Paul Evans, 242 Crawford Canyon Road f19, President of the Stonehenge Homeowners Associationl Francine Pace, 1772 Sirrine Drive, Santa Anal and Ralph Provost, 12301 Vista Panorama, Santa Ana, was a member of the Panorama Heights Advisory Committee Their objections are that the project does not fit the area. The hillside will be torn up. This particular property is part of the open space of the Baldwin tract because of the steep hillside. Other issues involve traffic and drainage. The visibility from the Panorama Heights area would be impacted. The Negative Declaration was questioned because of the negative impacts. The proposed density is inconsistent with the surrounding zoning. The development would require the use of 1:1 slopes, which is not appropriate for the area.Rebuttal Mr. Anthony did not think this development would be an eyesore.This will be a high quality, carefully designed project that would be blended into the hill scape both with the design of the grading and landscaping. The property is surrounded on three sides by the City of Orange and is a few feet from one of the busiest streets. One side of the street is medium density,multi- family residentiall the other side is commercial. This property is not prime open spacel it's a long strip of land next to a busy street. This is not natural wilderness open space and it was never given to anybody by the previous owners in exchange for what Baldwin did. They propose a carefully designed grading and landscaping plan to bring the street out to its full width and do a reasonable 2:1 slope in front of the buildings with a 1:1 slope partly behind the buildings to create a nice, attractive setting and to provide high quality view townhomes. There is a legitimate traffic concern, but this project has an opportunity to help solve it not make it worse. They're requesting basic zoning to proceed with annexation and some serious design of development. The logical development method for this property because of its situation is the Planned Unit Development approach with a C.U.P. That would give the City total control over what is done with the property. Bruce Jordan, architect, 15375 Barranca Parkway, Irvine, spoke about the slope faces. They wanted to demonstrate the geotechnical stability of the slopes. They have tried to set up the 2:1 slopes that abut Crawford Canyon and to confine most of their planting to that area and to the areas that are terraced Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1991 - Page 7 between the buildings. Twenty percent of the site that remains behind the buildings are not visible. There are a couple of options they could pursue: terraces, planting_ areas on the hills, hydroseed ground covers and consolidate behind the buildings groups of trees to hide the hill. He expressed a willingness to work with the City through the specific approval phase to arrive at a workable solution.The public hearing was closed.Chairman Bosch asked staff if this parcel was separate from the Baldwin tract?Ms. the owner plan. that. Wolff understands this parcel is separate. It is shown in East Orange General Plan Amendment as being the same property and it is not distinguished as a separate parcel in that But as far as the development project, it was not part of Chairman Bosch asked how this item was advertised with regard to the action the Planning Commission can take?Ms. Wolff stated it was advertised as a requested R-3 zoning or other designation determined appropriate by the Planning Commission. The Commission does have latitude in making a determination that another zoning and General Plan designation would be more appropriate. Commissioner Scott asked if there was a possibility of doing an intent to pre-zone rather than giving a blanket zone change?Ms. Wolff responded it has been done before, but State law very clearly states that zone changes are unconditional. Cities cannot place conditions on zone changes, which is what an intent to re-zone is. It's a conditional zone change approval subject to approval of a site plan.Commissioner Murphy recognizes the rights of the landowners to try and put together an appropriate and economically viable development; however, he had trouble with the density even at an 18 unit type of complex. He envisions the amount of movement of earth required to even get in an 18 unit complex to be challenging. The R-2-8 or R-3 zoning is not the right option.Commissioner Cathcart wrestled with the density and environmental concerns. A 1:1 rocky slope really bothered him. It would be quite difficult to make sure anything would grow there. He would personally like to see something less than 18 units at this site. An 8 unit concept would be better than 18, but he's not positive that' Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1991 - Page 8 Commissioner Scott liked the intent to re-zone where the City had some control. Commissioner proposed is questionable. Master shared beyond a the good same concerns. reason. The The density topography is Chairman Bosch commented the adjacent development was approved as a P.U.D. but in the R-1-20 zone. He's sure the current density proposed by the applicant without controls of the pre- zone or P.U.D. application at this time, are ones that could give us a potentially horrendous development despite their good intent. He doesn't see a physical relationship to Stonehenge across the street. He's more concerned with the impacts on the street and the living environment of the people beyond the site. There is nothing in this proposal to guarantee a quality environment and assurance of a reasonable development on the site. He feels the City has an obligation to study the area, neighborhood, context of the zoning, the impacts on the neighbors and recommend what might be appropriate zoning for the site. He felt R-1-20 zoning would be more appropriate. It's a difficult piece of property to develop. He found the Negative Declaration doesn't address the environmental impacts to the residents of the site.Moved accept Negative by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to not the findings of the Environmental Review Board regarding Declaration 1294-89; it is found to be inadequate.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED Moved by recommend 3-91-B and Chairman Bosch, seconded to the City Council to Zone Change 1112-89 for the by Commissioner Scott, to deny General Plan Amendment reasons previously stated. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED Ms. Wolff said this item will automatically be forwarded to the City Council because of the General Plan Amendment.IN RE:CONTINUED HEARING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14577, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1940-91,NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1394-91 - THOMAS A. WILLIAMS A request for approval of a tentative tract map and a conditional use permit for condominium purposes, to allow the consolidation of property and the construction of approximately 10 dwelling units under the revised plan in the R-3 (Multi- Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1991 - Page 9 of Lincoln Street, and East Lincoln Avenue, approximately 970 feet east of Glassell 400 feet west of Cottonwood Street, addressed 341 Avenue. NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA), Negative Declaration 1394-89 has been prepared for this project. This item was continued from the November 4, 1991 meeting to allow the applicant to reconsider the site plan in relation to the comments of the Planning Commission. The public hearing was re- opened. Applicant Robert Colin, 1247 North Glassell, believes they have met the Commission's concerns in their revised site plan. They have reduced the number of units from 11 to 10; reduced the number of bedrooms from 11 3-bedrooms to 6 3-bedrooms and 4 2-bedrooms for a total reduction from 33 to 26 bedrooms. The parking turnaround has been moved closer to the guest parking. Guest parking has been increased from 2 to 6 spaces, with an optional 7th space.They have provided access to the front doors by way of a secured open space area, accessible from the guest parking area. The minimum setback has been increased from 5 feet to 10 feet for a typical setback. The units have been alternated to break up the elevation and the roof line. They propose private decks for all units on the second floor. Commissioner Scott Lincoln Avenue.walkway which is recollected the property was to drain towards On .the tentative tract map it shows an access also used for drainage.Mr. Colin said the drainage would be on either side of the walkway.Mr. Johnson said he didn't have the final site plan in their file. However, that wouldn't be something they would approve.They would have to provide a swale that would only be used for drains. They were looking at this plan as a conceptual plan; a precise grading plan would be required at the time of permits.Chairman Bosch asked if the applicant had considered eliminating one of the northerly units, keeping the private yards or even providing additional private yards for units closer to the front and getting the turnaround to the rear of the site while maintaining the joint use recreation area and getting sidewalk access to one fewer unit without the sidewalk access?Mr. Colin did look at other alternatives, but encountered problems with security or Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1991 - Page 10 The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Master could not accept this alternate plan. There were no private areas. The applicant is trying to do too much with too many units for the property.Commissioner Scott concurred there were too many units on the parcel. The lifestyle would suffer.Commissioner Cathcart commented the layout of the initial plan andthemovingoftheunitstogivealittlerelieftoboththedrive side and patio side is something he thought was positive.Thealternativeofstraightlinegaragesandunitsisnotacceptable. He would like to see the removal of more than one unit under the original plan. He personally would like to see private yards and one or two units having to arrive through the drive, as opposed to the new plan.Commissioner Murphy questioned the issue of parking. Even though theapplicantiswithintheguidelinesoftheordinance, whether or not there is enough parking on the facility, it gets back to the density issue again based on the fact that there will be no on- street parking. Chairman Bosch shares the Commission's concerns. The property is zoned R-3 which allows development of an apartment complex and the reason it's before the Commission is because it is a condominium project. Although the concerns expressed by the Commission at the last meeting were addressed by the plan, they weren't addressed to benefit. They did not become assets to improve the plan; they became detrimental to the plan.Moved by accept the Negative inadequate. environment.Commissioner Scott, seconded by Chairman Bosch, to not findings of the Environmental Review Board regarding Declaration 1394-91 in that it is found to be The project does not create a positive living AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner recommend to the City Tract Map 14577 and Commission' s comments.Scott, seconded by Chairman Bosch, to Council to deny without prejudice Tentative Conditional Use Permit 1940-91 based on the AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Cathcart would hate to see this project turned into a full blown, high density apartment complex. He would like to see the designer, who has shown the ability to do some good quality designs, do something on the order of a condominium project but Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1991 - Page 11 Ms. Wolff stated this item will be forwarded to the City Council.IN RE:NEW HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1937-91 - THIBAULT A request to allow the expansion of an existing residential accessory structure in the C-l (Limited Business District) zone. Subject property is located at 603 East Palm Avenue. NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from provisions of the California Environmental Quality CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301. the Act Ms. Wolff presented the complete staff report. This property is developed as a single family residence in Old Towne. It is zoned C-l, but is in the midst of a residential neighborhood. The property contains a single family residence plus a detached accessory structure. The accessory structure contains a two car garage with a second story recreation room above. The applicant is proposing with this application to enclose the second story deck area of the accessory structure and to increase the size of the existing recreation room. The addition would be approximately 130 square feet and would be used by the occupants of the existing residence. Due to the City's zoning and parking requirements, the expansion cannot be used for either commercial,office or second living unit. A conditional use permit is required for any expansion of a residential use in the commercial zone. Additionally, the accessory unit is considered non-conforming with respect to the City's rear yard setback requirements because two story structures in the C-l district have a 10 foot setback requirement and this building is situated directly on the property line. The C.U. P. consideration must,therefore, also address the expansion of a non-conforming structure.The public hearing was opened.Greg Thibault, 603 East Palm Avenue, appreciated the time to explain his views on what he is trying to do. He believes it is in conjunction with the City's General Plan and also the Old Towne mixed use pOlicy, which would encourage the use of residential development that is allowed in conjunction with a commercial business or as a separate free standing land use. The room as originally proposed was 75% larger than their final plan.This is the third plan he has submitted to Design Review before being approved. He doesn't believe it will be detrimental to any of the neighboring houses. He disagrees with staff to encumber the deed by restricting it to be u sed only as an auxi 1 iary use to the single family residence, and not to be used as a separate dwelling unit Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1991 - Page 12 Those speaking in favor John Vocca, 365 North Cleveland, considers Mr. _ Thibault an honorable man and a diligent, hard worker. Be thinks the proposal is legitimate. He's opposed to Old Towne. Any type of regulation that imposes a second class distinction is contrary to the principles of our government. To be subject to further regulatory ideas is an infringement on his personal liberty. He read an article from the Register dated Friday, November 29, 1991 regarding land grants.Those speaking in opposition Dale Rahn, 350 North Harwood, said his major concern is the C-l property is continuing to be expanded. Some day in the future Mr. Thibault or some other owner could use the property as office or business within the residential neighborhood. There is no parking on site. He suggested a zone change to R-2 that would allow Mr. Thibault to use his property in a different means rather than keeping it as C-l property. It's spot zoning and inconsistent.Rebuttal Mr. Thibault does not want to change the zoning on his property;he has no reason to want to. He's not asking for a business license. He's lived there for 16 years and doesn't intend to change the use of a personal residence. He has a twocargaragewhichis100% more garage space than when he moved to the property. Most of the houses have single car garages. The parking problems are visual and are accepted.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Cathcart thought the Commission has reflected on spot zoning that exists, but has no control over it at this time.He's disappointed the applicant does not feel that the deed restriction is something he can live with. That's an important part of making this decision. Without this condition, there will be another "wrong" in the neighborhood if he were to sell or to move from the area. He would like the Old Towne area to be looked at on an individual basis rather than going through and re-zoning every single thing.Commissioner Master commented the property is non-conforming now.Chairman Bosch wonders how the original project was approved, but it is there and it must be dealt with on an individual basis.He's only willing to consider this as an appropriate use as an accessory to the structure as per Condition 3. A future owner could readily convert the structure into a second unit with a second family living on site without the proposed condition.There is some control with Planning Commission Minutes Dooombar 2, 1991 - Page 13 Moved by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1937-91 with conditions 1- 4. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott None MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Scott pointed out the final building elevation would be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board.IN RE:NEW HEARING CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION VIA TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 91-281 - TAKETA A request for approval of Tentative Parcel Map 91-281 to allow the conversion of two detached dwelling units located on an R-2-6 Residential Duplex) property into condominium units. Subject property is located on the southwest corner of Culver Avenue and Grand Street, addressed 228 East Culver Avenue and 404 South Grand Street.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from provisions of the California Environmental Quality CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301.the Act Barbara Gander, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.The subject property is approximately 6,100 square feet in size and is located within Old Towne. It is zoned R-2-6 wherein one unit per 3,000 square feet of lot area is permitted. The property contains two detached dwelling units: a bungalow style residence constructed in 1906 and a modern style residence constructed in 1981. The request is to allow a single parcel condominium conversion of two detached dwelling units via the tentative parcel map procedure. The condominium concept allows for the individual ownership of each dwelling unit with a common ownership of open space and parking. The site's development plays a crucial role in the requested conversion. The parcel is divided by a 6' high fence creating two separate areas: one slightly under 3,000 square feet in size; the other slightly over 3,000 square feet. Each area is developed with one detached dwelling unit. One unit faces Grand Street; the other faces Culver Avenue. The site currently does not conform to the on-site parking requirements of two parking spaces per unit, one of which to be enclosed. The site provides only two enclosed parking spaces which are attached to the Culver unit. As part of this request, the applicant proposes to construct an additional single car garage to be located adjacent to the Grand unit. It would also be possible to develop an open parking space adjacent to the Culver unit; however, staff questions whether this open air space would be used by the Grand unit as it is required given its distance and orientation away from that residence.Furthermore, the development of the open air space would require shared maintenance Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1991 - Page 14 association. Staff questions the effectiveness of a two member homeowner' s association. A similar request was recently reviewed by the Commission and several comments were expressed which seem applicable to this application. Approval could set a precedence for the entire City by allowing for future defacto substandard 3, 000 square foot lots. This could specifically impact the Old Towne where the majority of the R-2 properties are located. Conversions of similar R-2 properties could in turn reduce the availability of duplex properties impacting this unique concept of ownership in that common areas cannot be effectively governed by a homeowner's association consisting of only two members.Staff has received several phone calls in opposition to this application.The public hearing was opened.The applicant was not present at the meeting.Those speaking in opposition Robert Boice, 143 North Pine, spoke as President of Old Towne Preservation Association, felt the staff report covered the major issues. The Association and Mr. Boice are against the creation of substandard lots. It would be a dangerous precedent and he requested the Commission to deny this application.Ron Newcome, 429 South Grand, said this is the most densely built house on the block. Condominiums do not belong in a single family residential neighborhood. An additional driveway does not make sense. The owner originally tried to sell this property,but she couldn't sell it because of the recession. She wants to convert the property to condominiums for an easier sell. This only benefits one person; not the neighborhood or community. It would also lower the sales value of the homes in the area.The public hearing was closed.Chairman Bosch said this request was a bad idea for positive planning. It would set a terrible precedent with regard to the R-2 zoning in Old Towne; it would demolish the concept of home ownership and secondary units for rental. This property is substandard now and the project is overbuilt on the site. It seems to violate the precepts of how to provide good living space outdoors, separation between the units and recognition of neighbors. He finds nothing positive about the application.Moved by Chairman Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Cathcart, to recommend to the City Council to deny the condominium conversion via Tentative Parcel Map 91- 281.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott Planning Commission Minutes Dgcgmh~r 2. 1991 - Pase 15 Commissioner Scott garage be built.should proceed to must adhere to it.referred to the condition recommending a Appropriate staff members (Code Enforcement)notify the owners of this requirement and they Chairman approval, the needs Bosch said in mitigating that violation of the previous thedesignofsaidgaragecouldbeonethatreflectsofthesiteandtheneighborhood.IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to adjourntoajointmeetingwithCityCouncilregardinggrowthmanagementat3:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room; then to adjourn to a 4:30 p.m. joint meeting with City Council in the Weimer Room regardingsignalsatCollinsandShaffer; Collins and Cambridge.AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Master, Murphy, Scott NoneMOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.Isld