Loading...
2007 - March 19 ~ '500. Gl.;13 Final Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: INRE: INRE: 19 March 2007 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None. Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Mari Burke, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5, 2007 AND FEBRUARY 21, 2007. Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 5, 2007 meeting as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None Commissioner Bonina (due to absenteeism) None MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 21, 2007 meeting as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Minutes 19 March 2007 INRE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: (2) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 200S-248, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 407-05 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1775-06 - WIMBLETON COURT (JOHN C. NGUYEN) A proposal to subdivide a 1.57-acre parcel into four parcels for the future construction of 4 single-family dwellings with access from Wimbleton Road (a private street) to Old Chapman Road (a public street). This item was continued from the December 4, 2006, January 15,2007, February 5, 2007, and March 5, 2007 meetings. LOCATION: The site is located at the north side of Wimbleton Court and 200 feet east of Old Chapman Road. NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1775-06 was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt this document as an adequate and complete assessment of environmental issues related to the potential approval of this project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 27-06 recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-248, Minor Site Plan Review No. 407-05, Variance No. 2165-07, and Negative Declaration No. 1775-06. Commissioner Steiner stated he had an opportunity to review the Negative Declaration report and he noticed a number of internal inconsistencies that caused him some concern. Specific examples cited were: I. Page 17, Section 11, Items (a)-(d) are all marked "No Impact" in the chart; however, the narrative analysis is marked as follows: Item (a) Less than Significant. Item (b) No Less than Significant. Item (c) Less than Significant. Item (d) Less than Significant. II Page 18, Section 12, Item (a), same as above. III. Page 20, Section 14, Item (a), same as above. IV. Page 21, Section 15, Items (a), (b), (e) and (t). V. Page 23, Section 16, Items (a) through (g). VI. Page 25, Section 17, Items (a) and (c). Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz was asked if the internal inconsistencies would render the Commission a problem with moving forward. Mr. Sheatz responded affirmatively and added that Staff should be given an opportunity correct the document presented. Page 2 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 19 March 2007 Commissioner Whitaker stated if the item is being continued he would like to see elevations of the stair-stepped wall. Chair Imboden recalled specifically suggesting a section through the site that would show an elevation of the wall and noted it has not been provided. Commissioner Merino stated a simple site plan that identifies the areas of work to be reviewed versus the grading plan with wall sections in certain locations would be preferable. Commissioner Bonina asked for an understanding of the landscaping plan and perhaps a landscape palette, which would provide clarity as to what, ultimately will be planted on the property. In addition, an overview of which trees will be removed and which ones will be retained would be beneficial. Commissioner Merino asked for clarification as to who would be responsible for maintenance of the landscape until the project is fully developed and all parcels were sold. Assistant Planning Director Ed Knight responded that the CC&R's would be applied and the property owner would be responsible for maintenance until the properties are sold. At the time of sale, the maintenance responsibilities would be relinquished/transferred to the new owners. Chair Imboden made a motion to continue Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-248, Minor Site Plan Review No. 407-05 and Negative Declaration No. 1775-06 to April 16, 2007. Chair Imboden recapped a list of items requested by the Commission as follows: (I) A simple site plan in lieu of the grading plan provided. (2) An elevation view of the wall. This will require a section through the site, north to south with views of the wall in elevation. (3) A preliminary landscaping plan (which includes a color palette), that looks towards the intent and concern as to how the wall can be landscaped to mitigate its size. (4) An understanding of which trees will remain and which trees will be removed. (5) Corrections to the inconsistencies in the Negative Declaration as pointed out by Commissioner Steiner. Chair Imboden asked the applicant ifhe understood the requirements of the Commission and was amenable to a continuance to April 16, 2007. The applicant responded affirmatively to both questions. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED. Page 3 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 19 March 2007 IN RE: NEW BUSINESS: (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2619-07 - ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS A proposal to locate six (6) antennas onto a 62' 0" high stealth monopine wireless communications structure and new ground equipment on the property of a fire station LOCATION: The site is located at 5921 E. Carver Lane. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 14-07 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2619-07. Contract Planner Cathy Johnson provided a project overview during which she advised the existing site consists of three wireless telecommunication facilities-two monopoles and one monopine. She noted the Staff Report incorrectly stated one monopole and two monopines. Chair Imboden noted that this proposal is not meeting the height limits of the Planned Community district and asked Ms. Johnson what is the height limit? Ms. Johnson responded that it would typically be adopted through a specific plan; for residential it is 32' or two stories, so she assumed pending the adoption of any other specific plan for the area it would 32' -35'. All of the Commissioners expressed concern with the visibility of the branches of the existing antenna structure and the applicant was asked to elaborate on how the design of this proposal differs from the existing design. The applicant stated: . Usually it is SCE's policy to not allow co-location of antennas. . SCE will not allow the other carrier's to sub-lease to Royal Street for a co-location. . Due to a lack of equipment space in the existing carrier's compounds, Royal Street is not proposing to co-locate. . Their antennas would be brought in further and have shorter arms. Commissioner Merino asked if it would have made more sense to approach SCE regarding the feasibility of enlarging an area of some of the existing complexes of poles rather than to pursue creation of an entire new area. The applicant responded that SCE doesn't like to do co-locations and they like to handle their sites on an individual basis. Each carrier has a fenced area and there is not enough space in that area for incorporation of the Royal Street equipment. Chair Imboden asked the applicant if Royal Street explored the possibility of building their own equipment space adjacent to SCE's and sharing a common pole. The applicant Page 4 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 19 March 2007 responded that is not possible due to SCE restrictions. Referencing View I of the photo simulations, Commissioner Steiner asked if the new installation would be installed in a similar fashion to the pre-existing monopine antenna. The applicant responded they would bring the antennas in further with shorter arms. He added that sometimes the photo simulations aren't exactly accurate. Commissioner Steiner stated it almost looks worse as a stealth installation due to the unsightliness of a tree with obvious antenna arrays protruding from the top as depicted. He asked the applicant if he was willing to be bound by his representation that the new installation would be more concealed. The applicant responded "absolutely, the arms will be shorter so it will be more natural looking." Commissioner Merino asked if there is a document that could be provided in support of the statement that SCE would not permit co-location. The applicant responded he could provide a letter. Due to the apparent lack of compliance (as depicted in the photo simulations) with what the City is requiring in Condition of Approval #6, Chair Imboden asked the applicant if he understood the wording and requirement of the condition. Chair Imboden stated further, if the application is approved and the condition is not adhered to, the Conditional Use Permit could be revoked. The applicant responded that he understood and they could absolutely accommodate the requirement; it would be easy. Commissioner Bonina asked Staff what the governing document would be to ensure compliance. Mr. Knight responded once the Commission approves the project, all the documents (including the exhibits before the Commission), the final drawings submitted by the applicant and the revised Conditions of Approval would become integral. The final set of governing documents would be reviewed and approved prior to building permit issuance. The Commissioners discussed the preferable methodology for documenting the SCE policy regarding co-location as represented by the applicant. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz advised that rather than inserting it as a Condition of Approval, it could be put in as a recital and the applicant would then provide Staff with the SCE letter. Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the provisions ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to Adopt Resolution No. PC 14-07 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2619-07.with the inclusion of a recital; "The applicant has represented to the Commission and provided proof to the Commission that they have explored co-location with SCE and SCE has refused. " SECOND: Commissioner Merino Chair Imboden requested a modification to the motion as follows: (I) The following wording is added to Condition of Approval #1: "Prior to approval, the applicant shall resubmit plans for Staff review which clearly indicate antenna Page 5 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 19 March 2007 panel/sectors that shall not project beyond the branches of the monopine." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED. (4) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17088-06, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 4S1-06, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4120-06, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1781-06 - ROSEWALK A proposal to demolish 40 existing one-bedroom apartment units (Orange Villa Homes) and construct 47 detached town homes. LOCATION: The site is located at 715-793 North Lemon Street. NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1781-06 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 13-07 recommending City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17088-06, Major Site Plan Review No. 451-06, Design Review Committee No. 4120-06, and Negative Declaration No. 1781-06. Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Commissioner Whitaker noticed the guest parking count was less than one half of the total number of units at the site and asked Staff what the City standards are for parking on private property. Ms. Thakur responded she believed it was .2 times the total number of units. Commissioner Merino stated the Staff Report referenced concerns and conditions of the Staff Review and Design Review Committees (DRC) and asked Staff to share what those concerns were and how they were addressed. Ms. Thakur responded the only conditions that were applied in the process were such things as where the hydrants would be located and the fact that the HOA would maintain the landscaping. The DRC reviewed the project elements presented and whether or not it complied with the Infill Design Guidelines. Commissioner Merino stated in the future if other committee concerns are identified, they should be spelled out in the report to the Commission. Commissioner Merino asked if some of the mitigation measures identified are part of the Conditions of Approval or if they would be part of the development process beyond this point. Ms. Thakur responded that if the Commission is approving the Mitigated Negative Page 6 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 19 March 2007 Declaration then the measures would be included as presented. Commissioner Merino stated one of those measures is a lighting plan reviewed by the Crime Prevention Dept.and he asked if all those concerns were addressed. Ms. Thakur responded that generally the Crime Prevention Dept. is represented in the Staff Review Committee and there is a general condition that states a requirement to follow the standards of the City. She added that when it enters plan check is when Crime Prevention ensures the lighting is in compliance. Commissioner Merino stated that due to the configurations and the number of places to hide by the front doors, lighting is going to be critical. Ms. Thakur referenced Condition of Approval #46 as where the lighting was being addressed. Commissioner Merino referenced Page 68 of the Environmental Analysis that states the parking requirement is for 118 spaces which is for residents and visitors and he asked Staff to confirm there is no basis for asking the applicant to provide additional parking. Ms. Thakur responded that was correct. Commissioner Merino referenced a comment on Page C-2 regarding on-site traffic, where signage and striping are the only mitigation measures and he asked Ms. Thakur if the traffic issues potentially generated by the project could be resolved through just signage and striping. Ms. Thakur responded that those were the options presented and the increase in trips generated per day was not seen as a significant. Commissioner Steiner referenced Page 44 in the Environment Analysis, Section Band asked if the reference to mitigation Measures 5 and 6 to reduce the potential impacts to a level "Less than Significant" should be corrected to read Measures 6 and 7. Ms. Thakur responded, "I believe so." For the benefit of the broad audience Commissioner Steiner asked Ms. Thakur to explain why a concession was made to have three story units. Ms. Thakur stated the City is required to provide a certain amount of affordable housing so when new developments are proposed, it is an opportunity to gain that housing. She elaborated that the applicant would provide five units: (3) Plan I and (2) Plan 2. Mr. Knight provided additional clarity to the statement made about affordable housing stating: . The City has a housing element that is required to be amended every 5 years or whenever the State of California has the funding to run the RHWA numbers. . The housing element does provide for opportunities to develop affordable housing. . The City is not obligated by ordinance to meet those numbers. . The City of Orange is strongly encouraged by the State through various programs to create and provide for additional affordable housing. Commissioner Steiner asked if there were crime statistics available for the area. Ms. Thakur stated that she did not have that available from the Police Department at the time; however, based on her observations and communication with other City Staff she believed it is an area that had been problematic. Commissioner Bonina asked if there was a density bonus provided. Ms. Thakur responded "there was not". Chair Bonina asked if the condition of affordability was 45 Page 7 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 19 March 2007 years. Ms. Thakur responded affirmatively. Commissioner Merino asked if a CC& R condition could be imposed to prohibit sub- leasing and thereby serve as a preventative measure to safeguard against the potential for the creation of boarding houses. Mr. Sheatz stated he wouldn't recommend it; the City doesn't enforce CC&R's and the applicant would have to comply with the boarding house ordinances anyway. Chair Imboden asked for clarification by plan number of the number of stories. Ms. Thakur responded there was an error in the Staff Report and in fact Plan I is two-story, all others are three-story. Chair Imboden asked for confirmation that of the seven homes across the Lemon Street elevation there are (2) two-story and the remaining (5) are three-story and the applicant was directed to locate the three-story units towards the interior portion of the property. Ms. Thakur responded that she didn't believe the conversation with the Community Development Director was such that any unit on the fringe must be two -stories but overall it should be Plan I (two-stories) in order to minimize the impact. It should not have been interpreted that only the Plan I units would be on the fringe and everything else was limited to being located on the interior. Chair Imboden stated it was his understanding that in R-3 districts there is a requirement to have 127 sq. feet designated storage area. He asked Ms. Thakur if she knew if these proposed plans were compliant with this requirement. Ms. Thakur responded that she was unaware. Commissioner Bonina asked what the common open space minimum requirement would be for this project. Ms. Thakur responded that the open space provided is 11,710 sq. ft. and this complies with the Code; however, she did not know what the R-3 common area open space requirement would be. Commissioners Bonina and Chair Imboden asked City Staff to provide: (I) the definition of what constitutes open space, (2) the common area requirement for open space for 47 units and if it's driven by square footage. Chair Imboden noted guest parking spaces I and 24 inside the front entrance (parallel spaces) are very close to the pedestrian crosswalk and entrance and he asked if the City has an ordinance governing this. Commissioner Merino asked if there was an opportunity for additional parking on the east side of the property line. Ms. Thakur asked if he was referring to the southeastern edge and stated she would defer this question to the applicant. Mr. Sheatz stated he would like to amend a comment that he had made with respect to boarding houses. He acknowledged that this property is zoned R-3 and currently in the Code you can have a boarding house in R-3/R-4 zoned property subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Chair Imboden clarified that this applicant is not applying for a Conditional Use Permit for a boarding house. Ms. Thakur agreed. Page 8 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 19 March 2007 Mr. Knight provided the response to the question posed by Commissioner Bonina with respect to open space stating there is an open space requirement of 250 square feet per unit in an R-3 district. The Code states open space cannot include off-street parking spaces, streets, driveways and turnaround areas. Furthermore, for projects containing 10 or more units there is a common recreational amenity required but the Code doesn't provide a minimum size for it. The recreational area can serve as useable open space. Commissioner Whitaker asked if the landscaped paseo between the units was also considered open space. Mr. Knight responded affirmatively. Chair Imboden asked if the patio space between the houses would also be considered towards the overall open space requirement. Mr. Knight responded he thought it would be included. The applicant, Telford Walker stated: . A partnership purchased this property several years ago. . The architects representative could make a presentation and address some of the questions relating to the open space area. . They are extremely proud of this project. . They loved this piece of property and think this part of Orange could use a development of this nature although they feel like pioneers. . They have followed the other developments (with a great level of interest) that have been approved in Old Towne. . As they proceed through the development of the project he hopes the economy holds out so what they regard as really nice elevations can be built affordably. . These are single family units and they anticipate the price point is going to be less than the average for the City of Orange. . They realize they have to make this a terrific community visually and it has to be run correctly so they can attract the appropriate type of buyer. . They are at a point today where they feel they can move ahead. Commissioner Whitaker stated it appears the proposed project has the bare minimum for parking while the existing property has ample parking. He commented further on the lack of tagging on the existing property and other elements that contribute to keeping the crime problem at a minimum and expressed concern over the density of the proposed project and how that may be directly attributable to a worse problem than is in the area now. Mr. Walker stated there is a reason why they don't contribute to the problem now and that is they are tough managers of rental property and they set the expectations for acceptable behaviors for new tenants. They are really careful about cleanup and manage with pride; however, the property is 50 years old; they have huge turnover and it doesn't run profitably as is. They believe the on-site parking being proposed is .5 which is in excess of the requirement. The eastern side cannot accommodate additional parking as it makes access to the garages less than desirable. Commissioner Bonina stated it is reassuring the property is maintained so well; however, the area is very dense in terms of units, traffic and parking perspectives. He agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Whitaker with respect to the lower density being a deterrent to crime. Mr. Walker interjected that currently the drive is open on Glassell and is used as a thoroughfare; it will be very nice when it is cutoff and is only used as an Page 9 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 19 March 2007 emergency exit. With respect to tagging, he stated they currently do get tagged; however, they clean it off immediately so it is not well known that the problem exists. Commissioner Bonina asked for a breakdown ofthe number of units by bedroom count. The architect responded that currently the planned product mix is: Plan I = 14 units (3 bedrooms and a bonus room) Plan 2 = 7 units (3 bedrooms and a bonus room) Plan 3 = 12 units (3 bedrooms with a bonus room plus an option for a 4th bedroom) Plan 4 = 14 units (3 bedrooms with a bonus room plus an option for a 4th bedroom) Commissioner Bonina asked if they all have a 2-car garage. The architect responded affirmatively. Commissioner Bonina asked if the bedroom count was a driving factor to the parking needs. Mr. Walker responded that not all the occupants would be of driving age although they do expect there would be 2 cars on average throughout. He elaborated that there is no overnight parking onsite for frequent visitors and this would absolutely be covered in the CC&R's. Commissioner Bonina asked if the CC&R's will include any restrictions with respect to use of the garages for storage. Mr. Walker responded he wished they could include a bi- monthly inspection privilege so they could ensure the garages were being kept clean. He stated one of the reasons they designed the project the way they have is today more and more residents have a home office; however, what will be stored in the garages is unpredictable. Mr. Walker offered assurances the CC&R's will be tight and enforced. He was adamant the project needs to be run correctly to be successful. Commissioner Bonina asked how they got to the quantity of units (47). Mr. Walker replied that they started at more and due to a number of factors that had to work (circulation, driveways, etc.) they had to reduce the number of units to prevent having to do an attached product. As it stands he stated they are under what the Code allows by 4-5 units and they felt it was important to not compromise on having a detached product. Commissioner Merino congratulated Mr. Walker on a lovely project and stated his concern was with the density of the project and what could potentially happen if they weren't able to sell them. Mr. Walker responded it is always a step of faith when you put your shovel in the ground and if he isn't able to sell them, he hopes he doesn't build them. Mr. Walker indicated a lot of market research has been done; they will be priced to sell and when the time comes to pull the trigger they will have a high level of certainty these will be saleable. Chair Imboden asked if they could project the price ranges ofthe homes at this time. Mr. Walker responded "not really". Chair Imboden asked who the typical buyer is that they are designing for. Mr. Walker responded there are several: the young professional, young family and because of where the location, potentially it would attract the empty nester. Page 10 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 19 March 2007 Chair Imboden indicated that there are stairs projecting into the garage space in Plans I and 3 and asked how they accomplish the minimum 20'x20' clear space. The architect stated the stair is cantilevered into that space so a car could be parked underneath it. Chair Imboden asked what the clearance is at the landing. The architect responded 4'3"- 4'4". Chair Imboden stated his SUV wouldn't fit under that space. Chair Imboden stated he agreed with the concept of allowing additional height at the option of picking up some affordable housing but his opinion is the Lemon Street elevation doesn't reflect an attempt to minimize the impact on the adjacent residential uses. He asked ifthere was an opportunity to keep the perimeter at the two-story height. Mr. Walker stated the concern of Staff was to mitigate the border specifically to the north and south so that is why they pulled back those two elevations. There is a lot of industrial across Lemon Street; there is nothing in excess of 32' and the borders are less than 32'. He was not ofthe impression that was a concern. Chair Imboden stated it is his concern and he asked if there was a possibility of bring the streetscape down a bit. Mr. Walker responded it would result in a significant reduction of square footage; it is all part of the calculus of affordability, density, etc. and at this stage of the game he didn't know how it could be achieved. Commissioner Bonina asked if the area between the units themselves was included in the open space calculation. Mr. Walker responded affirmatively. Commissioner Bonina stated the plans show 6' exists between the buildings and his understanding was the minimum requirement is 7'. Chair Imboden stated he thought it was apparent confusion exists surrounding the open space requirement and how it was calculated. Mr. Walker responded that he would welcome the opportunity to share the entire calculation; however, he couldn't recall what it was. Commissioner Bonina stated that is why it would have been nice to have them as part of the application so the Commission could make the appropriate determinations. Commissioner Merino stated that in looking at the separation of the units from front door to front door and the areas in between, some of the units are as close as 12' and as high as 32' originally. He asked the applicant if they looked at these ratios in the design phase. The architect responded they looked at several projects in other cities that they felt comfortable with and designed to the same criteria. Chair Imboden asked Staff if they had obtained the answer to the question posed relative to the storage space provided for by the ordinance being included as part of the application. Ms. Thakur responded she did not see the requirement in the plans for 120 cubic feet of storage area that does not include cabinets and closets. Chair Bonina asked if it could be accomplished with the cabinets in the garage. Ms. Thakur responded she wasn't certain due to the cantilevering of the stairs, the overhead clearances (without knowing the dimensions) and how it would impact SUV parking in the garage. Chair Imboden asked if this type of proposal had been approved in the past where an infringement into the parking space has been allowed. Ms. Thakur responded not that she was aware of and that the Building Department would scrutinize this more closely. Commissioner Bonina asked for clarity on the open space calculations specifically: Page II of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 19 March 2007 (I) Is the minimum requirement l' or 10'? (2) Provide confirmation that the 6' area between the buildings is being used in the calculations. (3) Are the 5' areas at the perimeter of the property from the building to the perimeter property line being used in the calculations and if so, doesn't it go afoul of the minimum requirement ofT or IO'? Mr. Knight was asked to read a passage from the ordinance that relates to open space. He prefaced the reading with a statement that the ordinance talks about multifamily developments and therefore it may not be applicable as this is a multifamily zone but not a multifamily development. The discussion ensued as to whether this project should be considered as a single family detached home development or a multifamily development. Mr. Knight responded that the R3 standards are being applied and in a multifamily development where the housing is attached (and in this case it isn't), the patio would probably be towards the front of the unit. The Code requires a lO'xIO' minimum dimension to be counted as open space. In this situation there is a very small porch in the front of the house with most of the usable space being on the side of the house. It doesn't appear that most of the useable open space in those areas meets the minimum dimensions and therefore it shouldn't be used in the open space calculation. Commissioner Merino sought confirmation that even though the owner has indicated they are single family detached homes the Commission is to apply a multifamily standard as far as open space is concerned. Mr. Knight responded they are applying the R3 standard to it now because it is in an R3 district and you can't apply RI standards to a project in an R3 district even though the owner is saying he is going to sell them as RI type units. Commissioner Whitaker asked Mr. Sheatz what zones the boarding house ordinance applies to. Mr. Sheatz replied that it applies in the Rl/R2 zones. Commissioner Whitaker asked if anyone other than the applicant has done a calculation of the open space if you don't count the patio areas because some don't have 10'xI0' dimensions. Ms. Thakur responded "without the patio space, no". Commissioner Whitaker asked if this could be calculated quickly or if it would require some additional time. Chair Imboden inteljected that he would prefer to provide Staff additional time to provide this information ifit was required. Commissioner Bonina asked if there was any thought around the window placement on each unit. Ms. Thakur responded that window placement is something the Design Review Committee (DRC) looked at with respect to privacy. She advised the DRC had looked at this project on two different occasions. Commissioner Merino asked if it was possible to obtain the minutes from those meetings. Ms. Thakur responded affirmatively. Chair Imboden asked if Staff had obtained an answer to the question posed earlier about guest parking spaces I and 24 inside the front entrance being situated close to the pedestrian crosswalk and entrance and if the City had an ordinance governing this. Ms. Thakur responded she believed it should not fall into the required setback and offered to Page 12 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 19 March 2007 look into it further. Commissioners Whitaker and Bonina stated they believed home ownership was definitely better than tenancy and although they both thought there was great project there were too many concerns to be addressed which precluded them from approving the project in its present form. Commissioner Whitaker stated he thought there was probably too much density and too many units. Commissioner Bonina applauded the unique architectural direction being pursued and stated he wasn't sure there was as much crime in the area as some may suggest. He added that historically the Commission was provided a matrix that provides zoning specifics (proposed, existing, alternatives to the zoning); bedroom count; open space, parking etc. and his opinion was it was tremendously helpful. He strongly urged reinstituting that level of detail in the Staff Reports. Commissioner Merino stated he absolutely supported the applicant's right to develop their property as they see fit; however, the units have some opposing issues that need to be addressed. He stated that to move forward the Commission needs a little more information and he was confident the applicant wanted to provide it. Commissioner Steiner stated he thought it was a very well organized, top notch project. He added that a really nice development in this type of area is really what is needed to help the area and is what the City really wants to see. He encouraged the applicant to stick with it and stated he hoped at some point in the near future they would be successful. Chair Imboden stated he agreed with most of the Commissioners; however, with all due respect he didn't agree it was a nice project. His opinion was the intention was great but it was a project not even designed to the absolute minimum. He stated the applicant was trying to put far too much on the property and in the end he didn't think it would be a nice development. He credited the applicant for their architectural approach which shows a high level of design and quality; however, he thought everything that comes along with this type of project was not being accounted for. Chair Imboden stated if the project was continued he would like to have two things provided for the Commission: (I) The Design Review minutes are brought forward. (2) The matrix mentioned by Commissioner Bonina. Commissioner Merino asked if Staff could: (3) Simplify how the project is being characterized and what requirements are made applicable to it i.e. the open space requirement should be explained and how that objective is being met. Chair Imboden asked the applicant if he was amenable to a continuance to enable him to address the issues presented by the Commission. Mr. Walker replied this has been an interactive process for the last two years and he saw no reason why it should stop now as ultimately they will get to a place where it works or doesn't work. He offered to provide the calculations made with respect to the open space and parking requirements. He stated they would revisit all of the floor plans and they would respect the Commissions wishes Page 13 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 19 March 2007 if they were given an opportunity to continue the project. Commissioner Bonina asked the applicant if this was a Planned Unit Development. Mr. Walker responded "absolutely, all the Infill Projects end up being that". Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to continue Tentative Tract Map No. 17088-06, Major Site Plan Review No. 451-06, Design Review Committee No. 4120-06, and Negative Declaration No. 1781-06 to a date certain. The applicant agreed to April 16, 2007. A recap of the direction to Staff and the requirements of the Commission was collectively provided as follows: (I) Provide the open space calculations. (2) Provide the matrix referred to by Chair Imboden and Commissioner Bonina. (3) Provide a list of requirements coinciding with the designation Staff deems appropriate with the project. (This may be included in the matrix.) (4) Address the very serious concerns about the proposed bulk of this project in terms of size and numbers in relationship to parking, open space and all other things that go with it. (5) Address the Lemon Street elevation. (6) Provide the appropriate Design Review Committee minutes. (7) If this is a Planned Unit Development, a preview of the CC&R's would be helpful to provide guidance from an operational perspective. (8) Address the storage requirements. (This may be included in the matrix.) SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Bonina made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday, April 2, 2007. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED @ 9:40 p.m. Page 14 of 14 Pages