Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-18-1995 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission December 18, 1995 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary;Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney, Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: A1INUTES OF DECEMBER 4. 1995 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of December 4, 1995 with the following corcection: On Page 13, the second to last paragraph it discusses Mr. Mickelson's comments regarding the downtown parking committee. Mr. Mickelson's concern was that he didn't want the Commission's action to suggest the applicants would be members of the committee, but working with the committee. Commissioner Pruett added some comments that basically affirmed his concern from the standpoint of indicating the Commission was not suggesting the applicants be members to the committee, but they work very closely with the committee. That statement should be added and be made clear the Commission does not suggest the committee be changed or enlarged in any way, but the Commission is looking for the people in the downtown area to work very closely with the committee to help resolve some of the issues. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2133-95 - CIRCLE K STORES The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license to be upgraded from "Beer & Wine" to "General", which allows the sale of any type of alcoholic beverage for off-site consumption. The site is located at 2650 North Santiago Boulevard.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305.There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived.The public hearing was opened. Aoolicant Hal Brewer, 23672 San Vicente Road #344, Ramona, pointed out they were moving a license that is presently located at 492 Tustin (type 21 license) to another location at 2650 North Santiago. The Walnut and Tustin store is in a high crime area and already has an over concentration of licenses. They're just switching the beer and wine license that is presently at this location to the Santiago Boulevard location.They're not adding any new Planning Commissan Minutes December 18, 1995 Chairman Bosch said the issue before the Commission is with regard to the property on Santiago Boulevard and they must look at just that property. The other site is not on the application. With regard to their findings they must be concerned that a CUP runs with the land and not lust the occupant at the time. They must also make findings with regard to potential impacts on the welfare of the surrounding area, as well as a recommendation with regard to the issue of public convenience and necessity. Could Mr. Brewer explain how he believes the application of the 21 license to the site, immediately adjacent to the freeway, would not cause deterioration? Mr. Brewer said studies have been made showing very little freeway traffic do not make a point of getting off to buy hard liquor. Most hard liquor is always purchased at either a liquor store or supermarkets. There was a USC study made that showed the drunk drivers purchased 7% of alcohol from mini marts. Liquor stores -about 46°k; supermarkets, 24%. Generally, the smaller stores charge more and most drunk drivers come from bars. Chairman Bosch asked if they had seen the recommended conditions of approval? He had a specific question on condition 7. It states all containers of alcoholic beverages that are displayed for sale shat) be secured against public access during the hours that the beverages are not offered for sale. His contain would be for the non-refrigerated beverages on display. How would the operators intend to be certain those non-refrigerated beverages would be secured against public access?Mr. Brewer had not reviewed all the conditions; he does not work directly for Circle K. He asked that Lynn Dutt speak to that issue because she works directly for Circle K at this location.Lynn Duff, 1341 East Maple Avenue, said they had limited hours at the store. The Police have already called and have given their approval. They have also approved their hours of operation. They are openfrom 6:00 a.m. to midnight Monday through Thursday, and thento 2:00 a.m. on Fnday and Saturday. All alcoholic beverages (hard liquor) will be secured behind the sales counter, within 8 feet of the front door.The counter is to the left of the front door. Their limitation was within 5 feet. The alcohol doors are closed and locked; the store is locked at night. So, there is double security if there is a break in. They also have a security alarm system. There would be no hard liquor on the sales floor where the customer can get at it at any time.Commissioner Prueri said condition 6 indicates that no alcoholic beverages shall be displayed within 5 feel of the front door.Ms. Duff said they also do not post any alcohol on the front doors or windows. There is no signage advertising beer, wine or hard liquor.Those sceakina in favor Sgt. Barry Weinstein, Orange Police Department, stated the police department supports this transfer as it is in the best interest of the City. They have some recommendations to modify the hours to coincide with the State regulations.Commissioner Pruett had a concern of approving a CUP that allows a 21 license at this location, with the understanding that they are going to remove a condition that is unfavorable, and the police department would like to see changed, by transferring a 21 license to the other location. But there is nothing in front of the Commission that is changing the land use conditions on that site to where if no application comes forward, a license can be applied for and ii successful, it doesn't come back to the Commission for review. He believed they were not following appropriate procedures where the Commission is not taking action on both of these at the same time.Ms. Duff explained she applied for a CUP for both locations at the same time; she didn't know she needed one for the other location. She has already filed the ABC paperwork to transfer both licenses.Commissioner Pruett would like to see both CUP's come together or ii the Assistant City Attorney were to allow it, it a condition were placed on this application that basically indicated the other license has to come to the Commission for review and action beTore this one is approved, then he might be able to live with that. He was troubled they were dealing with two separate issues and they are closely linked.Mr. Brewer did not believe a CUP would be required for the store that is being downgraded. But, once the 21 license is transferred out and a 20 is placed in that location (beer and wine license), Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 1995 location is over-concentrated with licenses and is high in crime; therefore, the police would automatically protest any new 21 license gang into that area.Chairman Bosch stated in order to implement what the applicant desires for the site, the other must also occur. He didnt know "rf legally they could make a condition.Mr. Soo-Hoo advised to focus in on this particular property and determine what the land use ramifications are, rather than to add complexity to the issue by trying to assess two properties at the same time.Commissioner Pruett had a serious problem in that the police department was in support of the project because in moving the license from one part of the community that has a crime problem and is over saturated, is saying, "I support moving this license", but they're not correcting the problem of the potential of being right back right where they were six months from now from the standpoint of a license being transferred to that location.Mr. Brewer has done a lot of work for Circle K over the years and they have never brought in a hard liquor license to their stores. They have bought chains that had the licenses and they have kept them.But whenever they open a new store, they have never bought a new hard liquor license. They just put in beer and wine.Chairman Bosch shared Commissioner Pruett's concerns. With all those good intentions, one never knows whether tomorrow or a year from now, a corporation may divest itself of a'location. But the use still stands, regardless of who the owner of the property is. If there were a way to legally provide a condition, he understands they would accept it. (Yes.) That's not the issue. The Commission clearly has to decide on the basis of the property before them; that's their limitation. They have no application before them for the other piece of property.The public hearing was dosed.Chairman Bosch said this raises a tough issue. But again, they must look at the site before them and part of what they are looking at is timing.Commissioner Smith asked what happened to the second application Ms. Duff applied for?To Mr. Jones' knowledge, there was only one CUP application; not two. He believed the other application Ms. Duff referred to was the ABC license applications. He wasnY sure a downgrade at the Walnutlfustin site would actually come back to the Planning Commission for formal review.Chairman Bosch presumed it depends on the ale of the liquor license at the North Tustin sitethat it's either prior to the necessity for a CUP to establish it on the site, or being since that time, would state that it allowed the sale of hard liquor on that site. Wfthout any action on land use, they saw the license downgraded, it still has the land use approval of the CUP to allow hard liquor to be involved. It would be prudent to pursue a modification to that CUP, or at least research it to see ii the CUP is the correct vehicle in place to have the entitlement equal to the license that can be used on that site.Mr. Jones responded staff could research that.Commissioner Pruett would like to sse the applicant take this issue back and submit a conditional use permit that would basically downgrade what they have in terms of the use on the Tustin property. He knows the Commission is to look at each property individually, and they should only be looking at the property before them in making their decision. But he did not feel he could vote and approve a project when there was a recommendation from the police department and staff that is predicated on trying to correct a problem in another part of the City and the problem is not being corrected. He's against the roject as it is right now because it is not compatible with the neighborhood. He felt theywerenotPookingatthetotalscopeof the project.Commissioner Romero agreed with the concerns of Commissioner Pruett.Commissioner Smith said by just viewing this project independently, she did not have a problem with approving it, trusting the good faith of the applicant to follow through with downgrading the Tustin/Walnut site, knowing they would be monitored ii they did not do that. She was willing to support the project as R Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 1995 Chairman Bosch said the strict application of the site was before the Commission, but based upon the information made available to them and the linkage to another action, he requested the applicant to consider a continuance on this item until they get to the bottom of the existing entitlement on the North Tustin site. He encouraged a modification to the CUP on that site to have some linkage and bring it back together. (The applicants conwrred to a continuance) Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Conditional Use Permit 2133-95 - Circle K Stores to the meeting of February 5, 1996. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2064-94 -JERRY GRUEBEL The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow construction of an 87 unit senior housing project. The site is located at 340 South Newport Boulevard. This project was originally denied by the Planning Commission on September 19, 1994 and appealed to the City Council. After the January 24,1995 City Council hearing, the Council referred the project back to the Planning Commission for review after the applicant revised plans to address the concerns of the Council and the community.N TE: Mitigated Negative Declaration 1454-94 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project.Chuck Lau, Associate Planner, presented a staff report as there was opposition to this project -- a senior citizen project on a2.77 acre site. The property is relatively steep and currently contains a single family residence. The project was originally proposed last year with 94 units. The applicant was asked to modify the project because of numerous concerns and to reduce the number of units. Four things were asked of the applicant: Limit the site to 83 units, which calculates out to a 25% density bonus. Provide one parking space per unit. Remove the upper level, the fourth story. And, improve pedestrian access in compliance with handicap requirements. The applicant revised the plans and came back to the Planning Commission with 92 units. There were some improvements made on the number of parking stalls and also the building size was reduced. The Commission made a finding that although senior housing was a good use for this particular site, but because of the various constraints and in the manner in which the property was being proposed, it would cause deterioration of bordering land uses and create problems.The project was denied by the Planning Commission, and appealed to the City Council. The City Council heard the concerns raised related to the project site and directed the applicant to bring the protect back to the Planning Commission after modifying it to address the concerns. There was a list of very specific concerns, which he addressed briefly: Hiring a civil engineer to prepare detailed, dimensionedplans.The applicant has hired a new project architect, Craig Smith, and he has provided a new site plan,building elevations, and a grading plan. The grading plan now shows the location of the geological fault line. The next issue was density. The revised project has been reduced in density from 94 units to 92 to 87 units. The density bonus is at 31% rather than the original 41%. It's still higher than the 25% the Commission asked for, but it is still a reduction. The previous plan on the wall shows the building elevation with the four stories. The revised buildings are three and two stories. The overall height has been reduced from 52 down to about 46 overall. The revised parking plans show a1:1 ratio -- there are 87 units and 87 parking spaces. This includes guest parking as welt. There was a concern about the slope of the driveway. Originally they were at 11 or 12%; the revised plan shows 10%. Retention of appearance of a crib wall -- the previous plan showed the crib wall at 29 1/2feet high. The new plan shows the wall at 16 teat. The fire department specifies a 40 toot turning radius at the cut-de-sac. The revised plan, however, measures to about 32 teat. He talked to the applicant earlier and the reasontheydidnotcatchthatwasbecausetheydidn't get the conditions early enough from the fire department to make those changes. After scaling out the site plan, it looks like they could enlarge the radius a bit to accommodate for fire truck turn around. The neM issue is usable open space. The new plans provide15,522 feet of outdoor open space. There are also two multi-purpose rooms, one ineachbuilding.There are two types of units -- one and two-bedroom units. The one bedroom has 42 square feet of closet storage space and the two bedroom has about 84 square feet. There are no additional storage areas. On-site circulation is rather straight forward. There is one main driveway oft of Newport, about 25 feet wide and it ends in the cut-de-sac. The cul•de-sac serves as a turn around area. Ingress and egress off of Newport Boulevard: there is concern about the safety of access. The revised plans show a 30 foot wide driveway rather than a 25 toot width. There is also a ramp Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 1995 building to the public sidewalk. There are six;handicap parking spaces to comply with Federal and State handicap requirements. Also, all handicap ramps and pathways would have to be no greater than 1:12 slope for accessibility requirements. Another concern was the appearance of the buildings, building height and mass. The applicants have gone from a 4-story building down to a 3-story building, and have reduced the number of units to 87. The project has not gone back to the Design Review Board because as far as the look of the building is concerned, it's really not that radically different than what was previously proposed in terms of material, etc. But, staff has a condition of approval that requires final Design Review Board approval of not only the building, but also the landscape plan as well before a building permit is issued. Another issue that was brought up were the roof mounted mechanical equipment. The City code requires that all root mounted equipment be screened for sound. There was a problem with notification the first time around; this time staff made sure everyone was notified. The final item is the recreational trail. The previous plan had an equestrian trail at the northerly property line,inbetween the shopping center and the proposed site. With the revised plan, the new horse trail is located at the southerly property line. Staff put in a condition to require that whatever easement was established for the previous horse trail be recorded over and record a new easement for the new horse trail. Mitigated Negative Declaration 1454-94 was reviewed and cert'rfied by the Planning Commission ai the previous hearing. Since this prof'ect is very similar to the previous one, but less intense, staff didn't have to do any modifications to the Negative Declaration. There are a number of conditions that were pulled from the previous staff report. It was suggested to modify condition 11 by deleting "Prior to occupancy of project", and insert, "Prior to issuance of building permits "the responsible party for the horse trail maintenance and liability shall be resolved and a Letter of Agreement filed with the Department of Community Development.Mr. Jones read into the record staff received tour letters since packets were sent to the Commission.Two of those letters are from the Cowan Hills Homeowners Association, dated December 14, and December 18 from Bob Koenig and Barry Gold. Another letter is from the adjoining property owners,dated December 18, Russell and Lori Miura. And, a letter dated December 8, from a concerned citizen no name or address).Commissioner Romero stated for the record because he is new on the Commission, he has read through the previous minutes from said hearings and felt he was capable of making a decision at this hearing.The public hearing was opened.Applicant Steve Donley, Architect, 1157 North Red Gum Street, Anaheim, represented the project owner and developer. Their architectural firm inherited the redesign of this project, following the prior submittal which was accomplished by another architect. Following their initial involvement they met with representatives of the City, including Planning and Engineering staff, in an effort to specifically define the character and complexity of the issues needing to be resolved in order to secure the necessary approvals for the project. They also obtained copies of the previously generated staff reports and the Planning Commission and City Council minutes so that each comment arising out of those meetings could be addressed in the revised submittal. They believe the redesigned project successfully addresses each of the concems which were raised during the first review and public comment process. Craig Smith of their office will address the technical issues of each such concern. The revised gradingplanwasengineeredwithgreateremphasisonbalancingthegrading, compared to the previous plan that was submitted. As a consequence, the total export protected in the first submittal, which was approximately 32,250 cubic yards, and deemed acceptable at the time, was reduced to approximately 21,000 cubic yards in this revised submittal. He believed there was a concern among the neighbors about the amount of traffic in and out of the site during the grading operation. This should cut it down significantly. Reduction in the physical dimensions of the building footprints and the use of additional retaining throughout the site have allowed the buildings to be moved forward to the front of the property. This, in turn, has allowed the pads to be lowered approximately one to two feet below the pad elevations originally proposed, as well as allowing the crib wall to be reduced in totalheight from 29.5 feet to approximately 16 feet at its highest point. The access drive has been reduced from the 11% slope shown on the original submittal to a maximum of 10% within transitional landings of tour to five percent. The most significant changes occurred with respect to the buildings themselves. Not only were their footprints reduced in size, but also the total number of units has been reduced from 94 to 8y units. The density sought continues to be supported by the classification of the project as a seniors product and allocation of 25% of the units to low income households. Reduction of the size of the building footprints and moving the pads towards the front of the lot resulted in resolution of one of the concerns expressed by Mr. Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 1995 properly line was originally distanced approximately 18 feet from the southeast corner of the rear building. This distance has now been increased to over 30 feet and the cumulative effect of the proposed project upon his property has been mitigated as a consequence of the additional setback of 30 feet, and a reduction in the rear building height from three stories to two. Another issue of concern to both the City and community related to the tact that the original submittal included four story buildings. The proposal now reflects a reduction in building height to a maximum of three stories; the front building, which is set lowest on the site, will be three stones in height. The rear building will be three stories in the front elevation and two stories, because of the sloping nature of the site, in the rear elevation. It is the rear elevation that faces the residential netghbors. In the original staff report, it was pointed out the project would not have a negative impact on the surrounding area because the site was not highly visible. The staff viewed the site from Santiago Hills, Cowan Heights, High Horse Trail, Orange Park Acres, and Santiago College. The design of the buildings has taken into account the factors associated with the concems of the owners behind the project. In this reggard, the buildings are not expected to infringe upon the views. Additionally, the project's roof tops will be clean and free of mechanical equipment. The equpment will be maintained within the building and out of sight to the residents of the project, as well as the community at large. The proposed project will not create traffic, noise or high impacts upon the site. They believe the project is a vast improvement over the previously approved commercial center for the site and it carries far less traffic, noise and other negative impacts, and balances the interests of the neighbors with those of the project developer and the senior citizens that the project will ultimately house. The developer has read the conditions of approval and will agree to accept those conditions. Additionally, should the Planning Commission impose the condition wncerning the fire turn around, that's one they can also accept. And certainly a revision to condition 11 would be acceptable to the developer as well. Craig Smith, Architect, 1157 North Red Gum Street, Anaheim, explained the technical aspects for the project. It became apparent to them when they took over the project the problems were of the technical nature. Everyone agreed a senior citizen's use was a good one for the site. There were flaws with the last submittal. But they didn't believe they were fatal flaws. They believe they have come up with a better project which truly suits the site. He showed several graphics and explained the project in detail. They wanted to gain control of the site; the first graphic showed the buildings being within the scale of the hill and existing shopping center. They kept the units the same, but the buildings reflect a residential scale. The roots were studied in three dimension. The back building will be two stories above the present contour; the third story will be off cut. This type of generation has allowed them to balance the pads and get rid of some of the excessive grading. They drastically changed the massing of the building. It is two stones in the back; three stories facing the commercial center. The net export of dirt from the site will be between 16,000 and 17,000 cubic yards. They have engineered the site to within six inches. The sidewalks and horse trails do not meet. However, they have solved three of the major problems. The horse trail now goes through and connects to other trails. The ramps meet ADA requirements (1:12) and at the same time pedestrian access does not conflict with the horse trails. The sidewalk is a 4% landing. In grading that down, they were able to bring the driveway down to the landing, rather than add a 10% slope. They have changed the parking so that it is much more straight forward. It has three turn grounds, there is no security gate and they have the i:i parking ratio -- 87 parking spaces and six of those are handicap spaces.Commissioner Romero stated in reading through the prior material some of the concerns have been the density. What is your position on density? What about the storage units? He toured the four senior facilities and found storage to be a problem.Mr. Smith thought the 87 units were reasonable with the density bonus they were seeking. They came down from 94. They are within the parameters of the density bonus agreement. Storage has been provided tor, but it is not noted on the plans. On every floor there will be a laundry room, as well as a storage facility. They have the ability to provide storage lockers on every floor for every tenant. The storage tickers are approximately 1 cubic yard in size and that shouldn'tbe a problem.Chairman Bosch said a key issue that has not been addressed in their presentation is how drainage is being handled with regard to the adjacent properties. The City Engineer has done some research as well. It would be beneficial if they could address how the drainage is intended to be handled and how they intend to dispose of water laterally at the property lines, down to the storm drain system.Mr. Smith said their site does not affect any of the adjacent grades. Their site has been graded and designed to mast all the existing grades. Currently the drains their site provides to the V ditches in the surrounding area will be taken through on-site drainage in much the same way they had to grade the Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 1995 parking bt and get the grade down. That's (he grade the drainage will take. He pointed to the map and explained how the water would drain. The site drains toward the center, down and out of the area. They have proposed to make improvements to both V ditches. They will provide drainage properly into the storm drain, which is directly below them. Chairman Bosch said the V ditches appear to be on the adjacent properties. Are there existing easements or conditions on the adjacent properties and tract maps that allow access or continued use of them? Mr. Smith said they do not require any access to the V ditches. They will be draining down along the drive they have. Chairman Bosch said the upper area, the terraced area behind building 1, appears to have a southerly portion of the terraced area draining to the south, towards the southern extremity of the property. Is that to be picked up by on-site subterranean drainage at the south end slope above the horse trail?Mr. Smith responded they would have to provide on-site drainage for those walls anyway. So they will be going down through their drive.Chairman Bosch asked if the applicants would accept a stipulation that all on-site drainage would be contained and disposed of on the site without utilizing the adjacent V ditches? (Yes.) Trash pick up was another concern. He noted one trash enclosure shown on the site. He was concerned about, given the operation of trash trucks, that it is immediately adjacent to one of the three turn grounds on site, but facing in such a way that the trash truck would have to roll the bins or maneuver otherwise. Have they looked at solving that problem?Mr. Smith said they have looked into the trash issue as tar as the amount provided. Currently their plans are to provide trash enclosures under the recreation pad (in that same area) so they will be hidden from view. ft's noted as T.E. on the plans.Chairman Bosch noted a preliminary landscape plan with a few trees. There was talk in previous discussions of about 90 trees to offset loss and to mitigate the site impacts. There's only about 36 shown and no other plantings at all. He realizes the plans have not gone through even a preliminary Design Review Board approval, but he presumed their intent was to retain a landscape architect and go through the process. (Yes, it does not reflect what their end product will be.) It was stated the intent was that there be no mechanical equipment exposed above the line of the roof shown on the elevation.Correct.) He asked it the applicant would accept a condition prohibiting that? (Yes, that wasn't a problem.) He was interested in outdoor usable recreation space. There was a pool area shown towards the north portion of the site. Easterly of building 1, towards the southerly portion there was also an outdoor recreation area shown, but there was no detail. He presumed from the grading plan that it was intended to be usable area; not just landscaping.Mr. Smith explained it will be usable area. That area went through some change when the problem of the horse trail at the bottom was brought to their attention. It triggered a bit of re-engineering to accommodate the horse trail. As a result, it ended up as flat area and can be used as usable open space.Chairman Bosch said it appears the pool deck level has a three foot grade difference Trom the closest approaching floor elevation to that. So there would be ramps down from the floor elevation to the pool deck. There' s some work there.Mr. Smith said access to the pool area is lower than the lowest adjacent grade ( to accommodate some of the grading issues). That could be ramped down; it's gradual over the back. He thought it could be accommodated within the building, towards the exit area.Chairman Bosch asked what was suppose to happen adjacent to the equestrian trail and at the property lines wfth regard to fencing?Mr. Smith replied as far as the fencing that is required at the equestrian trail, they would follow the City standards -post and rail type fencing. At the other property lines there is no proposal to show any fences, except Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 1995 Commissioner Pruett reterced to the drawing, item 3 regarding the Vditch - to relocate the V ditch drain pipe and connect to existing storm drain. So, you are going to be doing some work there? He wanted clarification to make sure he understood what was being done.Mr. Smith stated that was correct to the eMent that relocation occurs in the City right-of- way.Those soeakina in favor Bob Bennyhott, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, thought this was a good use for that piece of ground. It's a very difficult site. The commercial plan was terrible; this is much better than that. The community has learned to live with change in East Orange and have compromised with the new developments. H would be nice if this piece of land could stay the way ft is forever, but it canR. The people who own it have the right to develop it. He believed the drainage problem could be conditioned; some of the engineering problems could be conditioned. East Orange needs a senior citizen's fadlity like this.Bob Hahn, 7620 Easi Briarcrest Lane, is the president of the Santiago Hills Action Committee. He, too,has watched over the Xears the many projects that have been proposed for this site. He originally opposed Jerry Gruebels project, as well as the commercial use before that. The area desperately needs a senior housing development and if the plans were redesigned, they could support such a project. Mr. Gruebel called him to discuss the revised plans and concerns o1 the community. After reviewing the plans and discussing the issues, he has made major advancements as to making it a prolect that the community could be proud of. He still has some reservations on behalf of the Cowan Hdls Association; there seems to be some problems concerning landscaping and Mr. Miura's property. There are a few problems that still need to be resolved. Traffic is still a concern, as well. They met with the Traffic Commission several months ago. They voted to restripe Newport Boulevard to make it less dangerous than it is now and the contusion over the turn lanes. Unfortunately, this has not been addressed. He doesn't perceive the revised plan to have a negative impact on the community of Santiago Hills and he supports the project.Those soeakina in oooosition Barry Gold, 281 South Willow Springs Road, represented the Cowan Hills Homeowners Association; he was just elected President of their Association. Hedidn't believe Mr. Hahn spoke for them. They Dust had a change in their Board of Directors in the last couple of weeks; they're all new to this. They walked the neighborhood and they're very concerned for many reasons. They believe the proposed project does not fit into their neighborhood; it doesn't match it. They're concerned about the property values and howit's going to affect them. With the number of parking spaces available, on certain days and events, will parking spill over into their streets or on Newport? How much more noise will this create for them? There were concerns about the compatibility with the neighborhood and land usage. It does not aesthetically match their neighborhood. The issue about storage has not been properly addressed.They still feel the number of units is too many. And it was the recommendation of staff that the developer contact the neighbors directly through the Association or management company to discuss the project and none of them have been contacted. They would like to see the project postponed until they were a little more calm about what they tell could be devastating to their neighborhood.Robert Koenig, 265 North Willow Springs Road, spoke on the technical issues, specifically in relation to land use abutting Cowan Hills. Mr. Smith said there were no fatal technical flaws in the proposal. Mr.Bennyhoff thought everything could be conditioned away in the proposal. The one fatal flaw is the proposed grading of the prolect on land that appears to be owned by Cowan Hills or land where a specific easement has been presented to Cowan Hills, and Cowan Hills has maintained that property for a 10 year period or greater. Looking at Tract Map 11713, the shaded blue area is actually Cowan Hills property and the white area is the 30 foot easement that goes back to the widening of Newport Boulevard and it is owned by the City of Orange. But the maintenance is the responsibility of Cowan Hills. The grading plan actually calls Tor grading in the Cowan Hills property that is a technical flaw in the plan. These issues have not been discussed with the Association. Until there is a plan that does not infringe upon Cowan Hills' property without grading on it or some sort of agreement between Cowan Hills and the developer, this plan shouldn't go forward.Chairman Bosch said a number of these issues need to be addressed to the City Engineer with regard to the intertace of the City's easements, right-oi-way and Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 1995 Mr. Johnson directed the Commission's ariention to Tract Map 11713. The City acquired a 70 foot half street easement in 1983 when the tract map recorded. As part of that dedication document, the owner, who was the Lyon Company, dedicated for public street and utility purposes Newport Boulevard. That includes the entire 70 feet. The 70 feet is an extraordinary width; it includes not only the street improvements, but includes the horse trail and the slope. In addition to that dedication, they made further dedication that said they dedicated Newport Boulevard for equestrian trail and landscape purposes. He has read Mr. Koenig's letter and believed the documents he is referencing (March 16, 1984 and May 7, 1984) is subordinate to the easements that were dedicated with the tract map, which was some six months earlier. He thought the intent of this was that there is a very irregular shaped piece of property that exists within Tract 11713 and the City acknowledged that when the tract was developed. The City tried to get the developer and owner of this particular property together and it couldn't be worked out. They recoggnized there would be problems with this piece of property and it was the City's intent to square that ott in some way. They were not able to do that. The elongated triangle is considered to be an interim grade because ft is does not represent the final grade, which would be represented by the widening of the street. Commissioner Pruett asked Mr. Johnson to point out the 70 foot right-of-way that he talked about. He wanted to make sure the line Mr. Johnson was talking about was the same line as shown on the map.The storm drain work that is being done in the public right-of•way is the V ditch work. ( Yes. Mr. Johnson explained the grading and new storm drain.) Is the grading taking place on Cowan Hills property or is it taking place in the 70 footpublic right-oi-way? (It's within the 70 foot right- of-way; not on the Cowan Hills property, as far as he could tell.)Mr. Johnson ex lained the issue is that Cowan Hills was required by the CCBR's to maintain the slope.That was a condition of the tract map.Mr. Koenig said the Cowan Hills Association has maintained part of that property which has been landscaped. It was a condition of the property to maintain it. There are sprinklers under there and irrigation. Ii grading takes place, it will damage the property.Mr. Pruett understood the grading and irrigation that was constructed by the Cowan Hills Association, as related to the maintenance of the area, encroached into that 70 foot right-of-way. There will be conflict if they have encroached into the public right-of-way with their irrigation system. That's the issue and it must be addressed.Jim Kubalik, 127 North Cobblestone Drive, spoke about the safety issues associated with this proposed project. He's also a board member of the Cowan Hills Homeowners Association. He's certified in the practice of safety engineering. In his review of the blueprints and in walking the area he had a couple of concerns. There has been discussion about the driveways, slope area, horse trails and some of the modifications that have been made to facilitate that. His concern was for the young children and elderly adults that frequent the commercial area directly adjacent to the proposed project. All the vehicles coming into the facility are going to be crossing the sidewalk, which the residents use. He thinks the project is going to increase the Level of hazard that the Association is going to be exposed to, as well as members of the general community. He wasnR satisfied with the layout of the project; with the amount of traffic going through the facility. The density of the project will increase the hazard area. It was his understanding the location of the horse trail as proposed will be more adjacent to the V ditch. Ii one of these trails are directly adjacent to the V ditch, that imposes a different level of hazard. They want to make sure the development is compatible with the community. The size of the project is of real concern to them. The developer has not contacted them to discuss some of these issues. He asked the Commission to require submittal of a final plan and meet with the homeowners association to discuss the issues and concems voiced at this hearing.Sandra Fair, 7334 East Morninglory Way, is a member of the Board of Directors for Cowan Hills Homeowners Association. Most of the issues have been addressed by the members of the Board, but she was concerned about some issues that were brought up during the discussion with the architect. One of those is the issue o1 the fire turn around not being large enough. It was addressed the buildings were going to be moved forward, but ii the fire turn around has to be expanded, does that mean the buildings will need to be moved? If that' s the case, will that happen without some kind of prior approval? Also, the density issue...it was requested by the City that it be reduced to 83 units. They're proposing 87 units. If they went to 83, they could lower that back building so that it is one story in the back and they could have two stories in the front; therefore, reducing the density. Then, there could also be additional parking for visitors. She Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 1995 will be very mobile. The height of the binding is a minimal reduction. The developer is making small changes and what was needed ware some biggger changes. The other issue is the earthquake fault - it is running right through the parking bt. She didnR know what that means in relation to if there is an earthquake; what happens io that ground? She was concerned there will be 87 units built on top of an earthquake fault. These rssues need to be discussed and resolved along wfth the cost of grading. That area is Landscaped and irrigated by the homeowners association. No one has talked to them about how that is going to be addressed or how it is going to be paid for.Commissioner Pruett said the issues have come up again in terms of the irrigaton and concem on the part of the Association as to who is going to make the repairs and who is going to pay for it. if there ~s a condition on the project that the developer will make ail the necessary repairs and take responsibility for the repairs -- he d~dnR see them having to maintain the Cowan Hills slope. If the imganon slope encroaches into the 70 foot right-of-way and needs to be repaired because of taking the 70 foot right- of-way and opening it up to public use, does the Association have any problem with this type of condition?Mr. Koenig said "rf the Planning Commission were to consider that type of condition, Cowan Hills would ask that the maintenance responsibilty of that area be transferred to the developer because the developer is putting in a wall. The entire portion for the maintenance of landscaping should be the responsibility of the developer, as well as any responsibiifty for the horse trail in that area.Commissioner Pruett said if the retaining wall were being put in the public right-of- way and not encroaching into the Cowan Hills right-of-way, there is no disturbance. He was trying to deal wnh the issue from the standpointof legal right-of-way. Ii they're not encroaching into the right-of-way, there's no reason for the developer to assume any responsibility for any property Cowan Hills maintains. The key issue he was trying to gat at was in that ssue of basically taking what Cowan Hills may have maintained in the past that is in the public rightot-way, and no bnger having to take responsibility for maintaining that --if there is a cut off of the irrigation system at the Cowan Hills property Ime to where a new irngation system has to be repaired or replaced so that Cowan Hills continues to function properly on the property they do have responsibility for maintaining, do they have a problem with that kind of condftion on the developer to assure they are protected? (No.)Terry Sergeant, 137 North Cobblestone, belabored the retaining wail issue. Somebody is going to have to outline the responsibilities for that at some time. The City told Cowan Hills to maintain that right-of-way. There's also a lot of liability H it is near the horse trail. She didnY believe the City has taken that liability. This will grow into a much larger issue. She sees a lot of concessions made on this plan. And she sees efforts have been made. But she looks at the renderings and thinks it is still too massive.She's trying to say she likes it, but it's really hard to do. The hauimg issue is still a concem as far as safety. She thought it would have been nice to have the graphics and other exhibits prior to the meeting. She felt the developer should be required to present more information and schematics. She requested the hearing be continued until the issuesl~ncems were worked out.Chris Schcenkopf, 307 North Willow Springs Road, asked n the parking including visitor spaces? it every resident has a car, where do the visitors park? Obviously, on the surrounding streets. The other concern is the view from the houses that are adjacent to the property in Cowan Hills; whether it has been taken down sufficiently so it doesn't infringe on the community.Chairman Bosch explained the Cny's ordinance for senior housing was set at one space per unit or apartment. Thai includes all types of parking.Russell Miura, 319 North Willow Springs Road, felt he was still the most impacted because of this project. He tried to meet with Jerry Gruebel, but he refused. Why did Mr. Gruebel refuse to meet with him? The issues are still not resolved. The drainage problem has still not beenresolved. The water will still flow onto his property. He's one of the property owners of the easement. He will lose his view if the project is built.Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Miura if he were to meet with Mr. Gruebel, what would he want to talk about?Mr. Miura said the horse trail is a liability for him (his property is adjacent to the trail) and the Cowan Hills Association. He also wants darification on the drainage from Mr. Galbraith's property {back side) and High Horse Association. Where is the water going io go from the run Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 1995 Bill Burke, 10051 Sunrise Lane, commented orf the street right-ot-way. What's happening across the front of the property is the street right-of-way is changing from a 70 foot to much less, where it comes across the shopping center and Mr. Galbraith's property and then out into the street. He's going to have to dedicate some street right-ol-way. The knuckle on the slope (looking at the map) is where the transition occurs. The radius does not carry through. Thai's what causing some concem about that.Commissioner Pruett pointed out on the map the existing property line. The toe of the slope is not the property line.Chairman Bosch saki the 70 foot rightot-way runs all the way across the face of the Cowan Hills property;ft doesnY currently run across the face of the property in question. That differentiation needs to be made.The other thing that concerned Mr. Burke was the earthquake fault. He hasnY had a chance to review the drawings or compare them to other drawings that show where the earthquake faufl was originally plotted.That fault can vary when the ground is cut because the direction in which the fault falls can vary depending on how deep the cuts are. The front building appears to be quite a bit north and west of where heThought the earthquake fault line was. It's something that needs to be conditioned for the protection of everyone.Commissioner Pruett responded there is a condition in the staff report and it will be a condition that will be adopted indicating a geologist would have to be on site during grading. And, if the fault location was identified to be different, tt would cause the relocation of the buildings and would need to come back for Planning Commission review.Linda Elliott, 7424 East Blackberry Cove, has dealt wish the maintenance of the slope and V ditch. That slope was re-compacted at a cost to the Association. Now, it is proposed to be regraded. She and Terry Sergeant met Chuck Lau and Vem Jones at the site about a month ago and went over ail their issues/contains. She wonders why this has become an issue? For months they have been telling people there is a problem with refirnshing of the development along Newport with the street, sidewalk,and the horse trail. Her concern is that the Association not be financially responsible or legally responsible for any of the changes that need to be made along that street. Landscaping needs to be taken care oi. A lot of plans material has been put in over the last two years to retain the slope so it would not wash down. Mr. Gruebei has never made an attempt to come back to the Association since his project was denied. She Lett he was not interested in being a neighbor. She was also contained as to the horse trails being switched from its present location, which would be a much lesser slope. The V ditch is on the Association's property that is inside the tract boundary line.Rebuttal Mr. Smith spoke to Mr. Miura's property and his contains. The portion of their building which is closest to his property is not 46 feet tall. It is a two story building; it is 26 feet tall from grade to the pitch of the roof. That is set back from their property line 30 feet, much greater than any side setback of any other two-story residences. They moved that building back from 18 to 30 feet and dropped it specifically for those reasons. With regard to the remnant property in the knuckle, therewill be no grading on Cowan Hills property. It's all to be done within the right- of-way. They've come up with a solution that solves problems that have been there from many other developers; things that should have been done, but were never completed. They are going to connect the horse trails, taking the sidewalk and connecting it.Right now, as it stands, it's a hazard. The horses already walk up and down Mr. Galbraith's property.The horse trail is being provided as a benefit to the community and d will be properly graded and have proper fencing. It will increase the safety of the site. They are grading in the right-of-way; it's six feet at its maximum. The retaining wall runs for no longer than 35 feet. As far as density, 83 is the maximum density with the 25% bonus forseniors. However, they have sought a 25% bonus for sow income housing. That's why they feet they are not above the maximum, but they are over the minimum. They're trying to improve the area and resolve the problems.Commissioner Pruett asked about the horse trail fencing -the south easterly portion of the property - is that going to be fenced? (Yes, on both sides to City standards.) Regarding the fire turn around, the applicant agreed to a condition to enlarge that. A question was raised ii that would change the building's pad locations? (It will not change the building locations.) He assumed the developer would be agreeable to Planning Commission Minutes Dec~nber 18, 1995 Mr. Smith explained they will be grading within the City rightof-way. ff it fume out Cowan Hills irrigation is there, they will stipulate to take care of the irrigation system and damage that occurs.Commissioner Smith asked what the developer's reluctance was to meet with the neighbors and what indication can be given, in the future, the neighbors will be inGuded as part of the development, if it were approved?Mr. Gruebel has met with Mr. Miura; he's heard his concerns and they haven4 changed. He thinks they have addressed those concerns. He has also met with Cowan Hills in the very beginning and also met with Orange Park Acres. They have taken their proposal apart and put K back together over the last year.He apologized for not communicating. With respect to the latest Cowan Hills Board, he would be happy to meet with them at any time or any place. This is a C-1 property and enjoys the rights of C-1 development. He felt a senior citizens development (residential, not commergal} would fit in much better and enhances the community. This is a down zone and most people would applaud that. He hopes this approach is what the Planning Commission wanted to see.Commissioner Romero said Cowan Hills' concern is the lack of communication and the grading upon the easement maintenance area within the 70 foot rightof-way. He asked 'd the developer would consider taking over the maintenance of the slope in the future, or be wilkng to accommodate them in that regard?His concern is the number of unfts. What is the possibility of dropping down to the requested number of unfts that were previously requested (83)?Mr. Gruebsi was aware of two issues that complicate this. They're not grading Cowan Hills' property. If they damage the irrigation system, they would repair ft. They would be happy to take that portion of the rightof-way for future maintenance off Cowan Hills' shoulders. The issue of the number of units is twofold. One, the City requires a 500 square foot unit for senior citizen housing. They have pprovided an above standard, 621 square foot unit. In doing so, they have made a higher quality protect. By lowering the density, they wouldnYpick up one thing (i.e., tangible open space}. They started the project with 100 units. They have the bwest densfty senior project proposed in the Ctty of Orange. They have a total of four over the State minimum. The LaVeta andTustin pprrotect has a 120°k density bonus. They have the same amount of open space and the same height. He thought a little bit bigger is a Ifttle bit nicer than the minimum.Commissioner Pruett understood there was the horse trail and sidewalk, and then there was a band of property within the public right-of-way, which Cowan Hills maintains. What is being proposed by Commissioner Romero and Mr. Gruebei agreed io it, is that ha would take care of and maintain the small sliver of property that is within the public rightof-way. What he wants to understand from the Cowan Hills Homeowners' Association is that there will be a different maintenance company maintaining that sliver of land that is going to be a picture of their development. Are they prepared to have a maintenance company maintaining their property and then a different company maintaining the adjoining property that's just a sliver of land? He didnY understand what the big deal was by forcing this on Mr. Gruebel when the Assocation wants io maintain control over ft and how it's maintained.Chairman Bosch said the landscape was very important with regard to the site. Since this is the last remaining parcel to be developed, other than the ocher undeveloped landscape on the housing tract above the project, d strikes him as being very vital to tie the landscaping pallet into the existing planting pallet of the neighborhood. It miti4ates any impacts on the neighborhood. It's a vary good pallet and has weathered well. He was looking for the applicant' s willingness to stipulate to developing a pallet,working with the Design Review Board and a landscape architect that is in harmony with the existing planting pallet as an extension of that of Cowan Hills and the adjacent shopping center? (Yes.)Commissioner Smith said there was an earlier proposal that called for 90 trees, but another proposal came back with only 34. Chairman Bosch stated the drawing they presented only has 36 trees; however,that is a drawing that has not been presented to the Design Review Board.Commissioner Smith asked about fendng along the neighbor' s property line? Tha type of fencing has not been called ou[.Mr. Smith stated there was no fencing there now. Mr. Gruebel said they would look at that and Planning Commission Mirwtes i Chairman Bosch said whatever is proposeb must reviewed by the Design Review Board. December 18, 1995 be within conformance of the City's ordinance, as Commissioner Smith suggested they not landscape out the entire open space and leave some gardening pots for the seniors to put in gardens. Mr. GNebel tipped his hat to the staff for working with him over the last couple of years on this project. tie thanked them for their hard work. Mr. Johnson said the homeowners association has bean concerned about the potential for any maintenance of walls in conjunction with the maintenance of the landscaping. Having the fact this would have to be built wthin dedicated right-of-way, the City is also concerned about that liabiiftybecause it's really being done only as a last resort. if the owners involved could get together, ft could be done without constructing walls. But ft doesnY appear it can be. There should be soma verbiage that says the developer should be responsible for maintatmng the wails he fs going to build.The public hearing was dosed.Commissioner Pruett was looking for something that dealt with the roof equipment.Chairman Bosch said based upon the stipulation of the applicant, and in hisopinion ft's not satisfactory,given the waiver of development standards in return for the provision of the dedication of senior housing and low cost housing, he felt ft was important that ail mechanical equipment be contained within the root lines as presented in the elevation, shielded from exterior view, rather than merely compl 'ng wtth the ordinance. Otherwise, they would end up with roof top enclosures in addition to the height of the building, which also would otter the architectural appearance. The Commission should add a condition that limits that to being inside the root line illustrated.Commissioner Pruett thought the project has significantly improved. He had some concerns and opposed the project the last time around. One of the major issues he had was with the parking. Parking was a real problem and he suggested it be mitigated with some kind of shuttle service. He thought the parking issue has been addressed. He did think, though, the taality will probably end up with some kind of shuttle service because the tenants will eventually demand k. He didnY think tt needed to be a condition of approval at this time. The issue cf traffic that is generated by the project is significantly Tess than what the project might have been under current use. It's insignificant compared to the traffic that would be enerated by a commercial site with one entrance. He was pleased to see the grading plan significantly reduced as wall. He thought a bt of problems ware solved by the repositiornng of the buildings and change in the structure from the standpont of going from a 4-story to 3-story. When they talked earlier about the number of units and what was the preference on the part of the Commission in terms of the number of unts, he could remember that discussion. Where ha was miming from on that,was looking at their existing plan and basically taking out a story and that reduced the number of this and why doesnY it fit. The developer has re-evaluated the whole project and has done a good job of addressing those issues. That' were able to come up with a plan that provided a few more unts than what was talked about and he thought ft was because at the planning and engineering look they gave the tadlity. The numbers were not a con~m to him. The density bonus associated with tt being a senior projed was appropriate. This is not, in his view, an overbuild of the site with a high density from the standpoint tt is not an apartment complex where there are families. It's a senior dtizen's projed and the trips generated from this use would be a lot less than ft ft were an apartment with the same number of units. He was pleased with the work that has been done on the projed. Bringing the building height down by curiing off the fourth story drove a big issue home from the standpoint of any impact chat ~t would have or mitigating the impact tt would have on the adjoining property owners. The adjoining property owners to the back of the property -- this is a two story development. That's no different than a two-story home that sits next door. It's a larger mass, but tt's not a major problem. R arding traffic, ha felt this was a reduced hazard to the communRy given the current approved use there. The grading of the land that is owned by the Cowan Hills Association has been addressed and it's obvious that is not going to take place. The issue of irrigation and maintenance is one he didnY understand. Wanting another party to take over the maintenance of a portion of their slope to where ft is different than the other; he didn't know ft he would approve that, even though Mr. Gruebel agreed to it. He thought the Association would regret that at a later point. He was inclined not to include that in any kind of condition. He questioned staff Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 1995 Mr. Jones responded the height requirements are governed by conditional use permit. So this CUP is a request for the senior housing project and a height to exceed the 32 feet allowed in a commercial zone. Commissioner Smith agreed with Commissioner Pruett's Comments. What she saw left to be added was there needs to be some sort of condition for the hauling of dirt in the grading process. And in a communication from Mr. Koenig, concerns were raised about that issue. She wasn't sure whose responsibility it was to write that plan and maintain it. Are there certain requirements for hauling? That plan should address the six items listed in the letter from Cowan Hills Homeowners Association, including noise, children crossing Newport on the way to school, pedestrian crossing, trucks backed up onto Newport or Chapman, awaiting entry, dirt and noise, damage and dirt on the City streets. Any development in the City impacts everyone; ft increases the traffic and larger trucks on all of the streets. Chairman Bosch said there was a good ordinance now for hauling plans. Also, there is a threshold amount of yardage in that plan. This is such a sensitive site in terms of the limited access and the flow of people in an established neighborhood that the Commission wanted the threshold waived and a hauling plan to be adopted for this project regardless if it is below that threshold in the ordinance as part of the conditions because of the CUP. Commissioner Smith was not going to call for a condition, but she encouraged both parties to communicate better. She believed the developer does bear some burden of responsibility, but as far as she knows the phone goes both ways. She thought the neighbors have a responsibility to voice their concerns to the developer and it they don't do that, they're missing out on the right to make their needs known. She felt the senior citizens project in East Orange would be a real valuable addition to the community. There will be growing pains and some things need to be mitigated and designed for the good of the community, but she would rather see this than a commercial project. She would like to see a condition regarding materials and design of fences as a mitigation for the neighbors. The City Council had a concern about the safe ingress and egress on Newport Boulevard. She didn't hear much discussion about that and didn't know it it were safe or not in the way it is designed. Commissioner Pruett thought that was addressed from the standpoint that they created and graded a level pad as people approach the street. They're not stopping on a downhill, but coming to a level pad. It provides a little easier ingress and egress from the standpoint of safety. That was the intent as he saw it. Commissioner Romero lives in the East Orange area. When he moved in, there were open meadows. But now with development, he has a view of many houses, higgh density apartments and very shortly, a freeway. There are certain things they have no control over. He appreciates Mr. Gruebel's efforts in this project. It will be very difficult to build something on that piece of property that will be suitable for everyone. Ii another shopping center is built in the area, no one would be pleased with that. It's a difficult situation of saying what's good and what's not good. He visited the four senior housing properties in Orange and spent quite a bit of time there. Only one car left the property (out of the four complexes). Many parkingg spaces were left open. One of the managers told him they witnessed a .7 parking. Now, 87 units at .7 per unit relates to 61 parking spaces being utilized. That leaves 26 left over. It will be much better than it looks. He went into a 625 square foot unit and to have a large family visiting the facility he didn't see that to be realistic. He saw it more realistic as "grandma or grandpa" going to visit the kids. He agreed, the telephone works both ways. It was important that both the developer and homeowners work together and communicate with each other. The real concern he had was the number of units, but witnessing the two properties on Glassell, the one on Shaffer and at Almond and Pixley, this property is much nicer. He felt the developer has really listened to everyone's concerns, except for the density. He also approved of this project. Chairman Bosch was in favor of the project as well with conditions that will assure that the major impacts are mitigated. As an architect and planner involved in hundreds of applications over the years, if he's the applicant, he's the guy carrying the load in terms of communication. That's his job. It's very difficult and painful at times, but it always pays off in terms of a better project, it's design, and solutions that save costs and provide better revenue to an applicant. He strongly encouraged communication between the neighbors and developer. Change is painful and difficult, but much of it if done properly is something everyone learns to live with and the gains will be valued by the community. Each project has to be looked at on its own merits. It must be specific to the site and circumstances. This is a difficult piece of property because of the shape, topography, access, ownership history, the chronological development of the surrounding properties, the geological issues, and drainage. Because of those things, the City looked at the bonuses very carefully. They can't grant something that is a hardship imposed by the 14 Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 1995 developer; h has to relate to the land. The land has to have the capability of carrying the project before the Commission. He thought the architect has done a remarkable job in maintaining the above minimum size units and getting that down. He wished it could be less, but they have done a good job and met the major concerns wdh regard to the bulk and height on the site. The impacts upon the neighbors, he thought, had been addressed to a great extent and some of them won't go away. There will be more traffic across the sidewalk and they must be concerned about pedestrian safety. They look to the City Traffic Engineer and the Public Works Department as they review plans for the development of the driveway and for traffic controls to assure that it meets standards that they found over many bcations to benefit them. They also must be concerned about the parking. The City's ordinance of one parking space per dwelling unft is high. K's one of the highest for senior housing around and yet there are quite a bit of empty spaces. They've given reductions as one of the required returns for increased densely on other sites in town because the parking is not utilized. Here, they wont; it's one per unit because of the problems of parking on Newport and desiring to keep it off of there, or impacting the adjacent commercial area or parking in the neighborhood -they donY want that. Again, the developer has indicated there will be no controlled gate on the driveway and that's important. The City has spent a number of years developing horse trail standards and modernizing them. The City has very contemporary standards that will not prevent all accidents or impacts, but they're very good standards; they have stood the test of review against others. He felt good about that. On the issue of the easement, landscape and wall across the front, he concurred with the City Engineer that ii someone builds a retaining wall, they ought to be responsible for R forever. The liability for it, as well as ks maintenance. He was concerned too about the easement being maintained by someone else. Hopefully people will come together and talk a bit more to arrive at a better solution than the wall or a mixed maintenance. Regarding the architectural design, he thought the building for its size was done well. The applicant has not seen the Design Review Board yet. They will have impacts upon this. He looked to adding some more detailing. It has good shadow, good breaking up of masses. When the DRB's review is done, you will see consistency throughout the architecture. And they've proven to be greatly concerned in minimizing mass and bulk impact, particularly from high roof lines on neighbors once they get into the act on these things. The DRB must look at not lust the materials and colors, but the shapes and features as they relate to the adjacent properties in reviewing the design. He encouraged the public to attend the DRB meeting and participate in the hearing to make sure they do a good job. With regard to conditions, there were several expressed. There were 12 conditions listed in their package. The modification to condition 11 is: "Prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the responsible parties for the horse trail maintenance and liability shall be resolved in a Lerier of Agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney and shall be tiled with the Department of Community Development." Condition 13: "All mechanical equipment shall be completely contained within the lines of the building and screened below the root line, as illustrated on the exterior elevations presented with the submirial." Condition 14: Commissioner Smith's comments on the hauling plan adding those concerns expressed in the communication to the Planning Commission where they may be stricter than those in the City ordinance for the hauling requirements, and also removing the minimal thresholds so this project would be required to prepare and have the City Council approve a hauling plan. Condition 15: Property line fencing (materials and design) are subject to DRB approval. Condition 16: Traffic controls at the vehicular entrance driveway shall be in accordance with the requirements of the City Traffic Engineer and Public Works Department. He was thinking about stop signs, sight clearances, warning signs, rumble strips, whatever was necessary in order to maximize the safety concerns. Condition 17: With the stipulation of the developer, the landscape planting pallet for the project, including the rehabilitation of the public right-of-way impacted by modification to horse trail and drainage on the City right-oT-way shall be based on the adjacent existing landscape of the Cowan Hills development, and subject to approval of the Design Review Board, as well as the Community Development Department, for that area in the right-of-way.Condition 18: "The developer shall be responsible for proper design and construction, with approval of the City, of any retaining wall, landscape and irrigation within the City right-of-way that may be impacted by the project in the rews~on to the connection of the horse trail and of the drainage line through the City right-of-way. And, shall be responsible for the connection Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 1995 property and shall be required to restore connection of the irrigation systems of the homeowners association within their areas of responsibility and ownership in the vicinity. And, the developer shall be required to maintain in perpetuity the landscape, irrigation and block wall within the City right-oi- way that they have construded."Condition 19: 'there shall be no vehicular control access gate on the driveway into the projed."Condition 20: "The outdoor recreation area that is induded within the 150 square foot per unit requirement shall be designed for adual occupancy and use by residents for passive recreation at the southerly portion of the site; and adive recreation, including the pool, shall be limited to the recreation area at the northern portion of the site."There are some loose ends that given the review process with the Design Review Board on the site,with Building and Public Works, with Traffic regarding the grading issues and policing of the geotechnical study in its mitigation, and with regard to the impads on the public right-of-way, he felt confident and looked forward to those requirements being applied in accordance with the ordinance to take care of the rough edges. Beyond that, he was appreciative of the patience of everyone. There has been a substantial improvement over previous plans that have been submitted and he believed it would be a great asset to the community.Commissioner Pruett asked to add to condition 18 regarding the landscape and retaining wall by putting in a provision that allows for the association and developar to r@ach an agreement that provides an alternative that is acceptable to both parties and the City (Public Works Department) that could be substituted; then the City shouldnY stand in their way. Chairman Bosch agreed to the addition.Commissioner Pruett had one other comment. The December 8 lerier the Commission received from an interested party -- he didnY have a problem with the letter or issue. But he was dealing with the principle that when somebody comes to speak before the Commission, they must give their name and address.When people write letters, they provide a name and address. He thought when they got an anonymous letter, R should not be part ofthe record. It's a matter of policy and does not have anything to do with what was said in the lerier.The Commission concurred; the letter was excluded from the record Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council to approve Appeal No. 424 regardiny Conditional Use Permit 2064-94 with all of the conditions (1 - 12)listed in the staff report, modifying condition 11, as well as the added conditions 13 - 20, stated by Chairman Bosch and the addition to condition 18 by Commissioner Prueri.AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: PUBLIC COMMENT Bob Bennyhofi, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, suggested a policy for staff to tell the developers they are expected to talk to the neighbors and homeowner associations prior to the public hearings.Mr. Jones responded staff always encourages communication between the developer and community.They had done that in this case as well.IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Pruett commended Chairman Bosch on a tine job. He appreciated the leadership and input he provides on each of the projects and issues that come before the Planning Commission Minutes IN RE: ADJOURNMENT December 18, 1995 Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn to the meeting of January 15, 1996. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cathcart The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. lsld MOTION CARRIED 17