2003-0495 - Classic Communities [Applicant] California Water Services Company [Owner] - Application for related proposals on a 1.17-acre vacant lot located at Crescent Avenue in an R-2/PD (Low-Medium Density Residential/Planned Development) Zoning District. (Old APN: 211-37-021) (Negative Declaration)
- Special Development Permit to allow 17 townhomes; and,
- Tentative Map to allow subdivision of one lot into 17 lots and one common lot.
Ryan Kuchenig, Project Planner, presented the staff report. He provided a summary of the proposed application highlighting the use, site layout, parking, landscaping, circulation, density, architecture and open space. He noted the setback and parking deviations from the codes proposed by the application. He noted that there were three outreach meetings conducted with the neighborhood and the concerns expressed by the Sunset Oaks - density, parking and improving the aesthetics and landscaping design. He noted two corrections to the staff report that page 5, paragraph 1 should state "two" and not "one" Below Market Rate units and page 2, the map should indicate that two parcels are not affected by the application. Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended approval of the Special Development Permit and Tentative Map.
Chair Babcock asked for clarification whether the proposal to be considered is only the 17 townhomes as presented in the staff report and not the single-family homes which was presented at the Study Session. Staff clarified that the proposal to be considered is the 17 townhomes.
Chair Babcock opened the public hearing.
Scott Ward, applicant/Classic Communities, urged the Commission to support the proposed application or consider the plan for single-family homes that was presented at the Study Session. He noted that they conducted three meetings with Sunset Oaks Homeowners' Association, which includes the full board, during its general membership meeting as well as individual and groups of residents. He commented that while there has not been any agreement, the conversation has been open and amicable. He stated that the site does not have an open space land use designation; this designation is R-2/PD. He noted that the absence of the development is the owner’s choice and that the owner did not make a written or verbal agreement that the property would remain open space. He stated that he considered the comments received from Sunset Oaks residents as well as staff recommendations. He noted the deviations and changes from the earlier proposal of single-family homes. He also noted the floor area, the number of bedrooms of the proposed homes and the elimination of the tandem garage. Overall, he commented that the revised plan is more consistent with the development standards and more conforming. He stated that he is comfortable with the Conditions of Approval including staff's recommendation to relocate the master bedroom windows. He added that he is also comfortable with the earlier proposal of 13 single-family homes and urged the Commission to consider the plan. He further added that he is more comfortable with the 13 single-family home plan than the 17 townhomes. He stated that the application is consistent with density, building type, landscaping, coverage and no mitigation is necessary. Overall, he stated that the project is high quality and a good addition to the neighborhood.
Comm. Swegles asked Chair Babcock whether the Commission is only considering the 17 townhomes. Chair Babcock said yes and confirmed with the applicant. Mr. Ward agreed.
Comm. Swegles asked Mr. Ward if he is willing to comply with the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Ward responded that he is comfortable and that he has reviewed and could comply with the Conditions of Approval.
Susan Bracken, resident, who lives at the southwest corner and about five feet from the proposed fence, stated that she would be extremely affected by the development. First is the dramatic change to her bedroom window view of open space of which she paid a premium that she would never be able to recoup. The other effect is the close proximity to the construction zone. In addition, she stated that she was not able to review in depth the 17 townhomes being presented nor discuss the increased setback, blocked views and sunlight. She asked that the application be continued to October 27.
Comm. Simons asked staff whether in the past, a fence has been conditioned to be built prior to commencement of construction for sound attenuation. Ms. Ryan responded that she is not aware of any fence required prior to construction as it makes it difficult to move around during construction site.
Vice Chair Moylan asked the speaker whether the request for continuance is to have more time to review the proposed 17 townhomes. Ms. Bracken responded yes.
Based on a comment from the Planning Commission, Ms. Ryan clarified that the item is not going to City Council unless appealed.
Comm. Lee asked staff how the October 27, 2003 Planning Commission Agenda looks. Ms. Ryan responded that the agenda is rather full and noted that the November 10, 2003 agenda is not as full.
Sidney Bonte, resident, is also one of the residences that is dramatically affected. He requested the Commission to continue the item to whenever appropriate and feasible. He stated that he was just notified of the change from 13 single-family homes to 17 townhomes proposal. He stated that the association had more time to discuss the single family homes plan but did not have the same opportunity to review the townhomes with the developer. He commented that the townhomes would result in having two large buildings side by side, which is inconceivable. He wanted to have more dialogue with the developer.
Susan Walker, resident, expressed her concerns about the traffic impact, parking and effect to property values. She asked the Commission to deny the townhomes as it is not in the best interest of the neighborhood. She prefers to have single family homes, which would provide a lovely mix of housing and would help increase their property value. She concluded that the townhomes proposal would not balance the housing mix.
Harriette Rowe, resident, stated that she did not have enough time and opportunity to review the 17 townhomes. She commented that she was told that the land would never be sold. She also commented that she understands the need to develop Below Market Rate housing but the issue is the design. She would prefer to review the new plans prior to Planning Commission consideration. She stated that Classic Communities is capable of providing a better design than what is being proposed. She asked that the item be continued.
Carol Molyski, resident, stated that she would prefer the single-family home plan and that she did not have the opportunity to review and discuss the proposed townhomes. She stated that the design is not acceptable and felt that Classic Communities could do a better design. She urged to have the item be continued to allow discussion with the developer to achieve a palatable design.
Comm. Swegles asked staff if the Conditions of Approval were made available to the Sunset Oaks Homeowners' Association. Staff responded yes and was available Friday before the hearing.
Comm. Simons asked staff whether this is common where the design is changed after Study Session. Ms. Ryan responded that change is common, but the degree of change from single family to townhomes is rather rare. She added changes to the application depend on how quickly the applicant can address the changes.
Scott Ward, applicant, addressed the comments pointing out that the initial meetings discussed the range of building, types and densities appropriate for the site. He added that small lots for single family homes were not exactly contemplated by the zoning. He added that the fence issue was raised during the meeting and that he is committed to constructing the fence prior to construction. He deferred the concerns about the availability of the site for development to the property owner. He noted that building the townhomes fits into the City's guidelines.
Mr. Ward asked Senior Assistant City Attorney Borger whether the full range of development options would be opened should the project be approved and appealed. Ms. Borger responded that the Planning Commission could only consider the proposed 17 townhomes and if approved and appealed to City Council, the Council only consider the same project. However, she added that the Commission and City Council could modify the conditions. Mr. Ward commented that he is willing to continue with the proposed 17 townhomes.
Vice Chair Moylan commented that continuance is usually at the request of the applicant and asked Mr. Ward if he is willing to continue the item and go with his original proposal of 13 single family homes. Mr. Ward responded that he prefers to go with the proposed 17 townhomes as submitted.
Comm. Lee asked Mr. Ward if he is willing to continue the item to October 27 to allow dialogue with the neighborhood. Mr. Ward responded that he prefers to the Commission call for the questions.
Ms. Ryan made a correction to Condition of Approval #27 that the word "not" should be added to state "not located in front of the garages shall be labeled as "guest parking."
Vice Chair Moylan commented that during his site visit, it appears that the property lines are non-conforming. Ms. Ryan responded that it is possible that the original Sunset Oaks development through the Special Development Permit it was approved as legal non-conforming.
Comm. Simons offered a friendly amendment to Condition of Approval #21 that the fencing design shall be constructed with concrete or masonry for sound attenuation and be built prior to construction. Accepted by the maker and second.
Ms. Ryan commented that concrete and masonry is only required when there is a grade differential and that a fence usually is made of wood or metal.
Comm. Simons recommended that the fence shall be made with sound attenuation material subject to review and approval of the Director of Community Development. Accepted by the maker and the second.
Comm. Simons offered another friendly amendment that Condition of Approval #20j shall include consideration of large tree species appropriate for the site. Accepted by the maker and the second.
Vice Chair Moylan commented that there is no option to consider the 13 single family homes but to proceed with the proposed 17 townhomes. He was happy with the added setback. He added that while a mix of housing is desirable, the townhomes are more compatible with the goals of the General Plan. He urged his fellow Commissioners to approve the plan as submitted.
Comm. Lee disagreed with Vice Chair Moylan and that it is also important to listen to the concerns expressed by the public. He heard that the neighborhood prefers to continue the item to afford them further review of the proposed townhomes. He stated that he would prefer to wait as 13 single family is not much less than 17 townhomes.
Comm. Simons commented that he has concern about the setbacks and he agrees that the architecture of the single-family homes looked better overall. However, he stated that the increased number of units is not going to have significant traffic impact to the community. He added that the setback is a major improvement and would benefit the community overall. He urged the developer to be sensitive to the construction noise affecting the neighborhood.
Chair Babcock supported the motion. She noted that the applicant has the legal right to be heard and listen to public testimony. She added that the applicant chose to move forward and not continue the item. She urged the applicant to continue the dialogue with Sunset Oaks Homeowners' Association.
FINAL MOTION: