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ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.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