Loading...
2003 - February 3 C;? JCJ()' &.,? J. MINUTES 'CITY OF ORANGE CIT'( CLERK February 3, 2003 Mond~IJ3~~PI'll AM 9: 26 Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith Commissioner Brandman Jeffry Rice, Planning Manager/Secretary Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary IN RE: ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRMAN: MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina and seconded by Commissioner Smith to continue the election to the February 19,2003 Planning Commission meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None Commissioner Brandman MOTION CARRIED IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: 3. ORDINANCE NO. 04-03 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposed Ordinance of the City Council amending Sections 17.04, 17.10, and 17.18 of the Orange Municipal Code in order to provide definitions and procedures for the establishment of amusement arcades or similar commercial gathering places where electronic games are played, including, but not limited to, video, computer, or Internet related games. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution No. PC 24-02 recommending to the City Council the approval of Ordinance No. 4-03. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue this hearing to the March 3, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None Commissioner Brandman MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes February 3. 2003 IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 6, 2003 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina and seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve the minutes from the January 6, 2003 meeting with the following changes. Page 4: The fifth paragraph should read, "Commissioner Bonina stated that the other project addressed the structural condition of the garage; he asked if this garage had been evaluated for its structural condition also." The ninth paragraph should read, "Commissioner Bonina asked if the concrete driveway was accessible. .." Paragraph ten should state, "Janet Crenshaw. OTPA". Paragraph eleven should read, "COMMENTS INCLUDED: . The precedence has already been set for this kind of project." Page 5: The second paragraph should read, "Commissioner Bonina asked what the standard required size is for a single garage" and the ninth paragraph should state, "Commissioner Bonina wanted to clarify whether Mr. Rice is saying that there is more benefit in preserving. . . " AYES; NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero None Commissioner Smith Commissioner Brandman MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS 2. ORDINANCE NO. 3-03; AMENDING TITLES 16 AND 17 OF THE ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE DELETING THE STAFF REVIEW COMMITTEE AND SUBSTITUTING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AS THE INITIAL REVIEWING BODY FOR VARIOUS LAND USE APPLICATIONS. An ordinance amendment to eliminate the formal Staff Review Committee (SRC) to allow for more efficient review of proposed subdivision and development plans. In place of the formal SRC process, all the affected departments will still review plans internally and comprehensive comments will be shared with applicants, however, formal decisions on minor site plans and recommendations on other applications will come from the Community Development Director. To ensure that the input of each affected department is considered, an Administrative Policy will be adopted to establish the membership and role of an informal staff review committee. This item was continued from the January 6, 2003 meeting. NOTE: The proposed Ordinance amending the Municipal Code does not meet the definition of project per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21065. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution No. PC 04-03 recommending the City Council approve Ordinance No. 3-03. Jeff Rice introduced the item, which was a continued item from the January 6, 2003 meeting. Alice Angus, Community Development Director, gave a brief overview of the modification to the report and the information requested by the Commission. A draft of the administrative policy, which would establish the informal staff review committee, had been given to the Commission. It explained the noticing procedure. If there is an item going to another formal body such as the DRC, PC or Council, the site is posted giving residents 10 days advance notice of the decision to be made on the site allowing them 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2003 to contact staff and give any input. Also there is a proposal to list the projects on the City's internet site. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending approval to the City Council. Chair Smith asked if this would add more work for Ms. Angus. Ms. Angus answered it was a trade off and overall it won't impact the staffs ability to get the work done. Commissioner Bonina confirmed that the projects would be posted on the website and they would be posted 10 days prior to the staff review committee meeting. Ms. Angus stated the Staff Review Committee meetings are currently public meetings and the intention of this ordinance is to no longer have the meetings open to the public. They would be informal staff meetings only. The public could meet with the project planner and come in and look at the plans if they have questions. The current participants of the SRC include various department heads or their representatives. SRC currently is the decision- making body on minor projects such as minor site plan reviews. Though this ordinance, these would be projects Ms. Angus would make a decision on based on the committee's recommendations. A notice of the decision would be posted on the website. They also would make written recommendations that would move on to another level of decision making such as the DRC and these recommendations would be incorporated into a staff report. The appeal period would remain 15 days and anyone can appeal the decision. Commissioner Romero asked how this compares with other cities. Ms. Angus replied that the staff is not aware of any other city that has a formal SRC but most have an internal staff review committee. Chair Smith stated she did not see the noticing process in the ordinance. Ms. Angus said no changes were made in the ordinance but there is a table that shows the different types of notices that are required and that would remain the same. The website is not listed in the ordinance but it's an additional tool staff is looking to employ. Since an agenda will no longer be used, the website would list all the projects 10 days prior to the informal SRC making their recommendation. The website is listed in the administrative policy. Commissioner Pruett asked that if tentative parcel maps are going to be referred to the Community Development Director, why is it being submitted to Public Works. Ms. Angus stated that there is a very technical aspect that occurs in regard to map numbering which is assigned by the County engineer. Commissioner Pruett suggested on page 10 of Ordinance No. 3-03, section 17.44.060, Final Review of the Application, that the last sentence be changed from "distributed to" to "forwarded to". Commissioner Bonina asked if on page 2 of Ordinance No. 3-03, under the second B, should it read "Within 50 days of the submittal of the tentative tract map to the Community Development Director". Ms. Angus said that could be changed to Director. The public hearing was opened. Shirlev Grindle, address on file. She was concerned that the public would no longer be involved or even invited to observe the staff review committee meetings. Ms. Angus responded that the main thing they are trying to accomplish is to take this review body out of the requirement that makes it subject to the Brown Act. According to the City Attorney, this is the best way to address this issue. Chair Smith asked what the capacity was for public input. Ms. Angus eXplained that the staff is seeking early public input by talking to the case planner and other departments that are involved with the project. 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 3,2003 Commissioner Romero asked if it is stated in the Brown Act that the public cannot be involved in the SRC meetings. Ms. Angus stated that they are trying to make this an informal group. The meetings would stay the same time and same day but there would not be posted agendas. Commissioner Bonina asked Mr. Sheatz would this satisfy the Brown Act by having meetings that the public wouldn't participate in. Mr. Sheatz stated that one of the key issues is defining a formal vs. informal body. When the public is invited in, it becomes a legislative body and the meeting would be subject to the Brown Act. Ms. Angus explained issues are resolved currently by discussion and representatives from each department bringing forward any concerns or issues they have. At the end of the discussion, many times written conditions are submitted to the Planning staff to pass on to the decision making body. She explained that currently formal minutes are not kept for the SRC. A compilation of conditions come from each of the departments and there is review of those during the meeting to make sure they do not conflict with other departments. A summary of what has happened then goes into the Planning Commission staff report. Commissioner Bonina asked if there was a site this information could be posted for those who do not have internet access. Ms. Angus said that was an option even though it had not been proposed yet. She stated it could be added as a suggestion or condition as part of the recommendation to the City Council. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pruett stated how an organizational concept was being put together that would be efficient and also provide the public the opportunity to participate. He felt the public was not being cut out of the process. This is allowing the departments within the City to discuss issues with a greater freedom. If the project is so complicated and such a big project that it requires a workshop on the part of the public, then maybe the Planning Commissioners should be going to the staffreview committee meetings. If it's an important project, then workshops can be held. He doesn't think they are cutting out the public but empowering the staff to do good work and work through issues and get good staff reports. If it is necessary to have some type of input from the public because of the nature of the project, then workshops should be held. The only correction would be on page 10 of Ordinance No. 3-03 where it should be changed from "distributed" to "forwarded" which is consistent with the wording on page 2. Commissioner Bonina agreed that the opportunity for staff to get together as a body and discuss projects and not necessarily be subjected to the outside entities is a good process. He believed the noticing to the public relative to the 10 days via the website and elsewhere needs to be as detailed as possible. After the SRC meeting, the results of the meeting should be posted in a fairly detailed fashion so the public has the opportunity to review it in detail, understanding the project and what was discussed. Also on page 2 he noted that the Development Department should be changed to Development Director on Ordinance No. 3-03. Commissioner Romero stated that during the years he has seen the public put forth a lot of positive information on the applications the Planning Commission has reviewed. He also has seen the public, at times, lengthen the time that it took for a decision making process. Chair Smith wanted to recognize that this is the initial reviewing process for various land use applications and following this process there is a lot of public review that follows by the DRC, Planning Commission and the City Council. She would like to give this process a try. She would like to see it stated somewhere that the information would go on a website, that there would be options for public workshops as needed, that staff always remain open for meetings with members of the community, assurance that if 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2003 comments are given to staff that they will be forwarded at the staff meeting and that written comments from the public are welcome and the results of the meetings be posted as well as the appeal process. Commissioner Bonina asked if there were comments in writing submitted by the public is there a formal process of responding to that. Mr. Rice explained it depends on the situation. If a letter comes in, you get a response, ifit's a comment on a project then typically there is no response. Staff does try to response as much as possible to the public. Commissioner Pruett made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 3-03 with the changes on pages 2 and 10 with the understanding that the comments that Chair Smith raised be included in the process and forwarded to City Council. Commissioner Bonina would like posted a fairly expansive description of what the results of the SRC meetings were and have it posted on the website or somewhere else for those without internet access. Chair Smith tries to keep in mind when making decisions like this that it's easy to make a decision when you know the people who are involved today but an ordinance goes with the City regardless of who the staff members may be in the future. This as proposed with good people working it will let the public be involved. Also she thought if the process doesn't work, the City would be back to say it's not working and something else needs to be tried. Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Smith to adopt Resolution No. PC 04-03 and recommend to the City Council to approve Ordinance No. 3-03. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Brandman MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2427-02 - RICIDE'S NEIGHBORHOOD PIZZERIA A request for an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 License (On-Sale Beer and Wine - Eating Place) for an existing restaurant located at 20 City Boulevard West, Unit J, F-IO (The Block at Orange). NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class I, Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 09-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2427-02. No one was opposed to the proj ect and a full reading of the staff report was waived. Mr. Rice introduced the project. The applicant was requesting a 41 type alcohol license for on-site sale of beer and wine for an eating establishment. On November 2, 1998 the Planning Commission approved a CUP to allow an alcoholic beverage license at Mulberry Street Pizzeria at this location. The applicant never executed the CUP and it expired. The new applicant is requesting to reactivate the CUP. The Police Department reviewed the application and found it to be an appropriate location for this type of restaurant. He would like to make a modification to conditions I and 2. On Condition I the clause "seven days a week" should be deleted and Condition 2 should read "sales, service, consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only from II :00 a.m. to one hour before closing." 5 PlalU1ing Commission Minutes February 3, 2003 Adam Burnhart. 8811 Alden Drive. Los Angeles, representing the applicant. He explained that they were approved four years ago but they wanted to wait before they started selling beer and wine. Now they would like to offer this as a service to their customers. Commissioner Romero asked Mr. Bumhart ifhe had read the conditions and if they were acceptable. Mr. Burnhart was agreeable. No one from the public wanted to address this application. Chairperson Smith asked Mr. Burnhart about some of the crime that has occurred at the Block. Mr. Burnhart stated that within the last nine months to a year, the clientele is a little bit older and the police have done a good job of patrolling the young people. The pubic hearing was closed. Commissioner Romero made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2427-02 and noted it was categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Commissioner Bonina asked if there was a cap to the number of ABC licenses that could be issued at the Block. Mr. Rice responded that the State of California has an over concentration standard based on the number of licenses within a census tract and when a new application breaks that threshold then a finding of public convenience or necessity is required. Commissioner Pruett noted that the police report does not break it down as to whether the crimes are alcohol related. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to adopt Resolution No. PC 09-03 and approve Conditional Use Permit 2427-02. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Brandman MOTION CARRIED 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2432-02 AND VARIANCE NO. 2110-02 - MUKESH AND NITA PATEL A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installations of full interior plumbing facilities to include a bathroom, shower and bar sink within a newly constructed 1,150 sq. ft. detached exercise/game room on property that contains an existing single family residence. The Variance request is to allow the exercise/game room to exceed the maximum 640 sq. ft. limitation required by code. The site is located at 6304 E. Abbeywood Road. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution No. PC 10-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2432-02 and Variance No. 2110-02. 6 Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2003 No one was opposed to the application. Mr. Rice introduced the project. He clarified the code requirements. He stated that no interior plumbing would be permitted unless it's under 150 square feet in which it could contain a y, bath. If over 150 square feet or contains more than a y, bath, then a CUP is required and the interior plumbing has to satisfy the requirements of code section 17.14.060 which are the standards for an accessory second units. The accessory structure in this case is an exercise room and it can only exceed 640 square feet with a variance. The CUP is to add plumbing to the facility and the total size ofthis structure is 1,150 square feet. Commissioner Bonina asked if the 640 sq. ft. requirement was applicable to both an accessory second housing unit and an accessory building. Mr. Rice explained that that standard applies to accessory second units and accessory structures with plumbing, which would require a CUP. Commissioner Romero wanted to know if staff checked Parkridge CC&Rs and if adding a second residence was allowed. Mr. Rice said no because enforcement of the CC&Rs is not a zoning function. Mukesh and Nita Patel. 6304 E. Abbevwood Road, the applicants. Mr. Patel eXplained that the intention of adding this structure was for an exercise room. They had to go to the association first and all their neighbors have seen their plans and they have approved it. After that it went to the architect committee and they have fully approved it. They will utilize this only as an exercise room. Chair Smith noted that the development standards of Parkridge Hills Planned Community district are primarily the same as the developmental standards in the Orange Municipal Code. She noted also that there is a restriction that the applicant is not able to rent this unit or offer it as housing. They also have enough parking on their property with three spaces. Shirley Grindle. address on file. She had no objection to using this facility for a game room but she was concerned that it was not spelled out that it could not be used as a second living unit under any condition. Terry Sherry. 6319 E. Abbevwood. He had no problem with what they are doing and none of the neighbors have any concerns with the project. Chairperson Smith stated that one of the limits to ensure that an accessory second unit with plumbing is not used as housing units is by not allowing any kitchen facilities to be installed. She asked Mr. Rice if these conditions are binding enough to ensure that this is not used as a rental or living facility. Mr. Rice eXplained that the Commission could add another condition to further clarify that the structure shall not be used as a second unit whether rent is collected or not. The recordation of conditions put on notice subsequent owners when they do the title search that they are not buying a second unit. As any other condition of approval, the City just needs to keep an eye on things. Commissioner Pruett wondered if maybe there should be something in the condition of approval basically providing some recognition that the association has reviewed and approved the project. He'd like to avoid the concept that a project approved by the Planning Commission would override the CC&R's that are placed on a property. Mr. Rice explained that generally the concept of CC&R's and zoning are two different elements of the bundle of rights called property ownership and generally they are not mutually exclusive events but need to be read together. The only area the Commission has to enforce is the zoning area. Commissioner Pruett felt that future projects should include something in the staff report in which the applicant understands how these two things work together because it looks like they are approving something completely separate from that. 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2003 Commissioner Romero commented that even with CC&R's requirements set by a homeowner's association, based upon state and federal law, it could be overridden. The applicant came forward for closing remarks. The public hearing was closed. Chair Smith felt a condition should be added that states the building shall not be used as a second living unit. Commissioner Romero made a motion to approve CUP 2432-02 and Variance 2110-02 noting the application was exempt under provisions of CEQA with the addition of condition #7 that this new construction is not to be used as a second unit for residential purposes. Commissioner Bonina felt these conditions need to be conveyed to the homeowner's association. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Commissioner Pruett to adopt Resolution No. PC 10- 03 and approve Conditional Use Permit 2432-02 and Variance No. 2110-02. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Brandman MOTION CARRIED 6. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16454 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 38-03 CENTEX HOMES A proposal for a 121 dwelling unit condominium development arranged in courtyard patio homes. NOTE: The environmental impacts of the proposal have been reviewed per approved Final Environmental Impact Report 1305. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution No. PC 08-03 recommending to the City Council the approval of Tentative Tract Map 16454 and Administrative Adjustment 38-03. No one was opposed to the application. Mr. Rice, Planning Manager, introduced the project. Mr. Chris Carnes, Senior Planner, further eXplained the staff recommendations. The project is to include 121 detached single family homes and it's a clustered development with most of the vehicle access coming off of the interior courtyard with a spine street. The units are mostly two stories and the applicant is proposing to allow, as an option, a third story loft type development. The Serrano Heights Specific Plan does allow a third story subject to being a certain distance from single family zones. The project includes an administrative adjustment request to allow 80% of the side yard setbacks for the residential structures to have some portion of the required side yard setback less than five feet and a minimum of four feet from the adjacent property line. With the exception of the administrative adjustment request, staff found it was in conformance with the development standards. The Staff Review Committee has reviewed the proposal and recommended approval of the TIM and administrative adjustment. The Design Review Committee also reviewed the proposal and found it an interesting design and unique type 8 Planning Conunission Minutes February 3, 2003 of development. One condition of approval recommended that the final landscaping, building and site plan return to the DRC in order to review the building elevations along the spine street. Commissioner Bonina asked for a historical perspective of the project and where it fits into the overall Serrano Heights residential development. Mr. Carnes explained it was approved originally in 1987. At that time it was approved for 1800 dwelling units to be developed on what is included within the entire project area of 720 acres with 250 acres being developed residentially with various densities. This particular site is designated for high density at 15-24 dwelling units per acre. The development agreement that was created originally between the City and the original property owner established specific criteria on the development standards and also the financing of the improvements including the creation of a maintenance district. The applicant at that time did work out an agreement regarding the school fees with the school district. In lieu of paying park fees, the proposal did include the dedication and improvement of a 4.4 acre park site that is presently in the design review process and should begin construction some time soon. It did include the creation of a municipal facilities district to pay for the improvements in that area including Serrano Avenue. Chair Smith asked who owns the property. Mr. Carnes replied that Sun-Cal is the owner and confirmed that Edison has no interest in the property now. She also wondered why the specified five foot setback couldn't be honored. Mr. Carnes explained that if it was strictly applied, they would not be able to fit as many units on the property. He also confirmed that there would be 20 off-street parking spaces as well as additional on-street parking. He explained that the minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet and the tract map subdivides that into four lots. He stated that the lot lines are defined by air space rights and not specific lines on the ground. Commissioner Bonina asked if each unit has two covered parking areas and room for two on the driveway. Mr. Carnes stated the units do have two car garages but that most of the units do not have space for a driveway approach in front of the garages. Mr. Rice stated that staff, in reviewing the original resolution, identified several of the general conditions that are null and void because of prior agreements through the Specific Plan and the development agreement with the developer. Also there were several duplicate conditions, so those were deleted. The issue of fire protection was clarified and the ability of the applicant to obtain alternative means of protection from the fire chief. Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates. 18101 Von Karmen. Irvine. He stated they have an entitlement to build 335 multiple family homes on that parcel. Their proposal is to build 121 condominium homes. He eXplained that this project has been around for quite awhile and they are trying to fine-tune it to meet the needs of the community and the residents who live within the project. He stated that over 75% of the project has been occupied. They have built less but bigger homes and have provided more open space. The request tonight and deleting the conditions is nothing new or concerning since these were conditions that were not included in prior requests made before the Commission and City Council. He explained how this project provides sufficient parking and it actually has more parking than required by the code. Chair Smith wanted it clarified that she was not the Chair of the Commission in 1999. Scott Adams. 2031 Orchard Drive. Newport Beach, architect for the project. He stated how proud they are of the community design and the architecture. They have created designs that increase the livability of these homes and work to the benefit of the perspective residents. They have a clear organizational value to their site plan. These are the real homes people in the community are looking for. There are 64 parking spaces on the spine road as well as 23 additional spaces making the overall parking site ratio 3 to 1. The eight-foot separation is more common for clustered condominiums than the older R-l side yard setbacks, which are typically five feet each for a total of ten feet. This is not a reduction in privacy based 9 PlaMing Commission Minutes February 3, 2003 upon the integrated design of the floor plans and where the window patterns are placed. The primary bedroom windows are either looking out to an open space or an opposing blank wall. Commissioner Romero indicated that the plans do not show how the trash receptacles will be covered or hidden. Mr. Adams explained that pads will be provided and they are willing to work with the trash authority for this jurisdiction. Chair Smith did not get a 3 to 1 parking ratio as stated previously with 329 totals spaces being less than the needed 363 spaces for a 3 to I ratio. Mr. Adams admitted to a mathematical error and so it's actnally 2Y:. spaces per unit. Chair Smith was also concerned with the four foot separation and the building over hang, the eaves, the roof overhang that comes very close and she is worried about fire. Mr. Adams eXplained that there will be a six-foot air space separation and pulling a foot out of each plan would compromise their livability. Chair Smith asked if they kept the 5-foot setback how many units would they lose. Mr. Adams would have to get back with a definite answer. Commissioner Bonina asked for the details of the lighting plan. Mr. Adams eXplained that the green lights on the plans are not the large scale street standard or a light pole but it's a reduced height light pole, which allows the spread of light to occur on the common driveways. Mr. Rice eXplained the layering and hierarchy of the lighting created an aesthetic effect throughout the community. Chair Smith asked Mr. Adams to speak to the proposal of the third story on some of the units and how many that will include. Mr. Adams stated there would be an occasional third story loft volume on Plan I and this was an accessory space and is less than 500 square feet. They are not a story but a mezzanine type of a volume. Approximately half the units on Plan I would have this third story loft. The height is a 7 foot plate and is found in the middle of the home's envelope. Chair Smith asked if this gave a third story view of the neighbor's yard. Mr. Adams said that it would not due to the window patterns. Mr. Elfend clarified that the current Serrano Heights Specific Plan in this development area does permit a multi-family structnre and three stories is a permitted use. The sale of the property between Sun-Cal and Centex will occur sometime in the near future and there are certain conditions attached that deal with this sale as it relates to a recordation of the final map. He wanted to clarify that there is a recorded final map on this tract already and a recorded final map already approved on this site. The public hearing was opened. Michael Caoalotto. 2695 Promontory Avenue. He had concerns about home values; the higher density of this project which would increase traffic and congestion on a single street; the placement of trash cans and how they would be emptied; parking density and the possibility of using Kendra for extra parking; and the possibility of the development behind this project having their views blocked with the three story units. Eric Messenger. 8379 E. Norfolk. Villa Park. He was concerned with reducing the setback from 5 to 4 feet and he'd like to see them further reduce the density. Mr. Elfend stated this project was offering something better than what was permitted. He further explained that the Serrano Height project was approved for 1800 homes and half of those were to be multi-family homes. Approximately 1100-1200 units will actually be built in the project area. The neighbors should be favorable to the fact that they are permitted to build these higher density homes but they are not building them. The project does allow for three stories in this location. The traffic generation rates from this project are much less than what were expected when the 1800 homes were approved. He has talked with waste management and based upon the plan the Commission has, they have found the location of the trash receptacles acceptable. 10 Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2003 Commissioner Bonina asked what the potential value of these units are. Mr. Elfend was hesitant to estimate that number because the housing market and prices are accelerating. Commissioner Bonina was told the range could be between $300,000-$800,000. He was also told construction would probably start in the third or fourth quarter of this year. The property is pretty much already graded. Chair Smith wanted to know the number of properties with loft units and she was told 25 of the 50 on Plan 1. Kevin Karami. 2031 Orchard Drive. Newport Beach, project designer. He eXplained that the architecture is all spanish and monterey in which brickwork would be introduced along with the stucco, woodwork and rod iron. Commissioner Bonina asked how the third loft units would affect the views of the properties above it. Mr. Elfend said this proposal would minimize the three-story view impact as opposed to what could have been built per the development agreement. Mr. Elfend confirmed that there was a slope facing the Pulte development and it's between 25-50 feet. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pruett stated that even though there might be some concern on the part of some of the neighboring residences as to the density, he thought this proposal to lower the density addressed many of the issues and concerns that had been expressed in terms of traffic, building height and parking. He felt that the way the project is laid out, it creates value. He liked the courtyard approach, the different styles on each of the residences and he thought the Centex homes are very attractive. He did feel that the trash issue was a problem but it's a problem that is faced in every neighborhood. Many of his concerns have been addressed in the proposal put before them. He noted on addendum A on item 17 it should say "all lots" and not "all lost". Commissioner Romero mentioned when he first looked at the project he didn't like it because of the density but then he remembered what had been approved in the past and he was pleased to see a far superior decrease in the amount of units. He didn't have a problem with the assumption that the value of these homes would be far in excess of a $300,000 to $350,000 value. The character of the construction is much better than a stucco box. He was willing to allow the administrative adjustment because of the downsizing of the density. Commissioner Bonina found the project very creative and he thought the market place was going to be very receptive to the product. One benefit overall to the entire Serrano Heights area was the reduction in density and increased value would be realized. The land planning and architecture was very creative on this project. Chair Smith stated she approved of the design concept of this project and the architecture was beautiful and she appreciated the decrease in density. However, she was not in favor of the administrative adjustment because it does compromise the privacy and quality of life of the residents and it's a loss of two feet for each residents. She was concerned with the architectural features that are so close together that privacy would be compromised. Chair Smith recommended to the City Council that they adopt Resolution No. PC 08-03 recommending the approval of the TIM 16454 with the conditions and findings as listed in the current staff report. Commissioner Bonina wanted to know if they could approve a tract map as it's laid out there with the understanding that in the body of the tract map it has an administrative adjustment already plotted on it. Mr. Sheatz replied yes. 11 Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2003 Chair Smith noted that the environmental impacts of the proposal have been reviewed and are contained in Environmental Impact Report 1305. Commissioner Pruett asked for approval of Administrative Adjustment 38-03 and Commissioner Romero seconded. Chair Smith repeated her opposition to the administrative adjustment reducing the 5-foot setback to 4 feet because it compromises the privacy and quality of life for the residents. The buildings are too close for comfort and for the price of these homes they should meet the code. MOTION Moved by Chair Smith and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to recommend to the City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map 16454. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Brandman MOTION CARRIED MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Romero to recommend to the City Council to approve Administrative Adjustment 38-03. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: INRE: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero Commissioner Smith Commissioner Brandman MOTION CARRIED ADJOURNMENT MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina and seconded by Commissioner Romero to adjourn to the Planning Commission regular meeting on Wednesday, February 19,2003 at 6:30 p.m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Brandman MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 10:26 pm. 12