PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 11/24/03

2003-0536 - Classic Communities [Applicant] Koreski Family Trust [Owner] - Application for related proposal on a 2.87-acre site located at 637 East Arques Avenue in an MS/ITR/R-3 (Industrial and Service/Industrial to Residential/Medium Density Residential) Zoning District.  (APN: 205-30-005 and 230-30-008) (Negative Declaration) SL (Continued indefinitely from the Planning Commission of October 27, 2003)

·        Special Development Permit to allow construction of 54 townhomes, and

·        Tentative Map to subdivide two lots into 54 lots and one common lot.

Steve Lynch, presented the staff report. He summarized the application highlighting the use, site layout, access, architecture, landscaping, parking, circulation and potential environmental impacts. He noted the applicant conducted a noise study at the request of staff as staff.  As a result, the noise concerns could be mitigated with construction techniques. Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended approval of the Special Development Permit and Tentative Map as conditioned.

Comm. Simons asked about the Initial Study and public services impacts noting less than significant impact to parks.  Staff responded there is a slight impact to city’s existing parks. 

Chair Babcock opened the public hearing.

Scott Ward, applicant, concurred with staff recommendation and that he accepts most of the Conditions of Approval with the exception of the tandem parking. He noted that the project is consistent with the district, provides housing development and is an economic contribution to the city.  He noted that the neighborhood is pleased with the project and has addressed the expressed concerns by the Commission as well as the neighborhood.  He further noted that the project would provide seven below market housing units.  He felt that as he understands the code tandem parking is allowed. He added that it would be difficult to comply with the condition and that it would require reduction of housing units. He asked the Commission to delete that tandem parking condition. He added that the design would encourage tenants to use the common open space and an opportunity to meet with their neighbors. He urged the Commission to approve this project as it is consistent with the General Plan, complies with residential use with 47 attainably priced owner occupied housing and seven Below Market Rate housing and supports the vision of residential development for the district and a project that has been consistently supported by the Commission.

Comm. Lee asked staff about the city’s tandem parking policy.  Ms. Ryan responded by reading the code and the definition of a “townhouse” and the relatively required parking, dimensions, access and exceptions.  Staff does not support tandem parking in an enclosed situation as it does not meet the definition of the code and creates insufficient parking on a property. 

Mr. Ward commented that there are space gap between each of the units and would be sold as single-family townhouse and not as condominiums; therefore, does not meet the test.  He added that the project exceeds the standard for R-3 zoning district and that there is adequate parking.  Further, he noted that there is  precedence of tandem parking.

Ms. Ryan agreed that there is precedence of tandem parking in the City; however, she reminded the Commission that should the project be considered as single family then there is a need to consider granting deviations for side yard setbacks.

Vice Chair Moylan asked Mr. Ward which conditions is he asking to be deleted.  Chair Babcock clarified that it is Condition of Approval #13.

Chair Babcock asked staff how many developments in the city have allowed tandem parking.  Ms. Ryan responded that she does not have the exact number of developments; however, she added that the experience is not good and that the garage has been used primarily as storage and does not provide the parking required as a result.

Vice Chair Moylan clarified with the applicant whether “tandem parking” is one car in front of another.  Mr. Ward said yes.

Further, Vice Chair Moylan asked the applicant to clarify what he meant by “being unacceptable” and whether should the Condition of Approval remains, the project would not be developed. Mr. Ward responded that he doesn’t share staff interpretation of the code and felt that the condition is inappropriate for the site and should be looked at as a whole.

Comm. Chu confirmed with staff whether the minimum requirement is 400 square feet for R-0, R-1 and the proposed plan is averaging 350 square feet.  Ms. Ryan responded that the minimum requirement for single family two-car garage is 400 and the minimum dimension is 17 x 18.

Mr. Ward added that there is also precedence for deviations and that the proposed application falls short below 400 sf.

Comm. Chu asked Mr. Ward whether the homes requiring tandem parking are those in the back row.  Mr. Ward said yes and that six of the 14 units along the back row have two car side by side parking and two car aprons.

Comm. Chu further asked Mr. Ward if he is amenable to accept a condition to add in the CC&Rs limiting the percentage of rental occupancy in the complex.  Mr. Ward responded that it would be difficult as it would have economic impacts, home buying ability and management monitoring.  Ms. Ryan added that it should not be added in the conditions.

Comm. Chu cited a circumstance where the rental percentage is higher than owner occupancy making it difficult to obtain buyer financing.  Vice Chair Moylan concurred with Comm. Chu that higher rental occupancy makes it difficult to obtain mortgage financing; however this is discriminatory therefore illegal.

In response to the applicant’s comment, Comm. Simons commented that since there is air space between units it should be treated as single family.  Ms. Ryan responded that application was evaluated as a townhouse development and not  single family. 

Comm. Simons further asked staff that since there is a separation and could be considered as single family how would this be handled in the CC&Rs.  Staff responded that the air space is inaccessible and actually should be treated as common wall. 

Mr. Ward responded that there are two walls instead of one wall independent of each other for seismic purposes and the roofs are separate therefore maintained separately.

Comm. Simons then asked whether the units would be maintained individually or by the Homeowners’ Association.  Mr. Ward responded that it would be maintained individually with restrictions accordingly.

Comm. Simons expressed concerns about the separation of maintenance noting the design appears to be common and should be maintained by the association.  Mr. Ward responded this is not unusual and that there are a number of developments with this similar set-up where maintenance is handled individually.

Ms. Ryan commented that the staff analyzed the proposal as townhouse and if the application is going to considered as single family, then it would require a two car garage and two parking spaces in the driveway.

Mr. Ward added that he understands that townhouse historically meant owning the land beneath the house. 

Comm. Hungerford asked Mr. Ward whether the homes are physically separated.  Mr. Ward stated that there are two walls with two inches of space separation.  Comm. Hungerford expressed concerns with the maintenance of the exterior walls.  Mr. Ward responded that it is protected by construction design and there would be no issue.

Vice Chair Moylan shared his experience about that it is common but it does not work well to have separate maintenance responsibility.

Comm. Swegles asked what is the benefit for having the separation and whether this approach is new.  Mr. Ward responded that it is not relatively new and potentially decrease lawsuits.

Harriette Rowe, resident, urged the Commission to listen to staff and recommended defining “tandem parking” to avoid challenge.  She expressed concerns that there are no facilities such as recreational area, no pool, no clubhouse where occupants could meet socially.  She also shared her definition of townhouse and that their complex has shared party walls of about one inch of space and they are not considered single family homes but rather townhouse. She commented that rental occupancy requirement could be imposed by the association contrary to Vice Chair Moylan’s experience and urged the Commission to explore this possibility and review the common interest law now being reviewed by the State.

Cameron Colson, neighbor, commented that the proposal is a bad idea overall and that the developer is designing a project that should not be done.

Mike Brugge, neighbor, expressed concerns 1) the eight-foot high fence that could be allowed by the city abutting their properties therefore he asked to consider some type of screening by using trees between properties.  2) noise - the sound study that was recently conducted where their production time is low and that noise report may not be accurate. He asked the consultant to return to ensure an accurate report but he did not come back to do another sound analysis.

Comm. Swegles asked Mr. Brugge when was the last time a sound analysis was done as to the loudness of their equipment.  Mr. Brugge stated that last analysis was conducted when the apartment complex was built farther to the east of their property where all equipment and a compressor were running.  However, since there is a creek, it gave provided a little cushion with the average decibel at 75.

Comm. Swegles asked staff if considered this type of sound analysis. Staff responded that there are certain peak levels that are allowed and that the analysis is an average of day and night operation and must meet the allowable noise level.

Mr. Brugge shared his concerns that the noise level of their operations may not have been addressed fully and that residents may find the noise level unacceptable.

Comm. Simons asked staff whether it is prudent to insulate the complex to address the noise concerns when the operation is at its peak level.  Staff responded that this is a concern and is noted in the staff report.   Staff added that there are codes where allowable noise level is acceptable for industrial/commercial properties abutting residential and if the speaker feels that the noise level is not meeting the existing code that they need to be in compliance. 

Comm. Simons commented that with the proposed application, the speaker is forced to make amendments to meet the code.  Ms. Ryan responded that the site is zoned ITR and therefore this is a not a new requirement.  However, since there is now a potential residential neighbor that could be affected, then the operation must comply with the code.

Comm. Simons then asked if there could a condition to address this potential noise concern to require more installation.  Ms. Ryan responded that it would be difficult to set a standard since there is an unknown noise level.

Ms. Ryan commented that this is one of the tricky parts for transition for the industrial businesses that there is a noise standard that will be enforced where in the past there is an absence of properties that could potentially complain about the noise levels.

Mr. Brugge commented that he brought up this issue because he wants to be a good neighbor and that this concern should be addressed at the beginning.

Jason Duty, applicant’s noise consultant, clarified that the 45 dbl is the standard for interior noise level meeting Title 24 and it is an average over the 24-hour period.  He added that the City code also calls for allowable maximum level at the property line. He concurred with staff that now there are going to be neighbors who could potentially call to complain.

Cameron Colson, neighbor, asked if there would be additional cost to the City with the added complaints.  He noted that the EIR should be updated referring to a National Priority List for Corp Yard.  He noted that it is prudent to review whether this site is still developable and what is the proper land use.

Mr. Ward commented that the project is a townhome development as legally defined and therefore as the code stipulates, the project would be inconsistent.  He requested that the Commission eliminate Condition of Approval #13 and grant a deviation to the 8 tandem garage units.  He added that he may have to reduce the development by two units and noted a potential reduction of guest parking, therefore willing to reduce to 6 tandem units. He commented on there is a generous open space area to be used as common area and a meeting place for the neighbors.  He added that Fair Oaks Park is nearby.  He also commented that he is receptive to build an 8 foot high fence to address the noise but would not be willing to build a 10 foot high fence to prevent a towering effect.  He is also willing to plant trees for visual effect.  He also noted that units will have sound graded windows and mechanical ventilation to address the noise level.  He concluded that they have done an extended land analysis, ground and soil data and have been reviewed by staff and regulatory agencies and was determined to be appropriate for residential use.

Vice Chair Moylan confirmed with Mr. Ward that there is no indoor common area.  Mr. Ward said yes and suggested using the Community Center or the neighboring parks for association’s meeting.

Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.

Vice Chair Moylan made a motion on Item #2003-0536 to adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the Special Development Permit and Tentative Map with modification to delete Condition of Approval #5.  Comm. Simons seconded.

Comm. Simons offered a friendly amendment to add Condition of Approval #24F to include a variety of large tree specie.  The amendment was accepted by the maker.

Vice Chair Moylan stated that the driving force of the project is the improvement of job/housing ratio.  He was content that Condition of Approval #9 would address the noise issue, agreed that Condition of Approval #13 should remain; that tandem parking is not a good design; that the landscaping design would adequately address the visual screening requested and that the absence of a common building is acceptable.  Overall, he commented that the project is good.

Comm. Simons asked Vice Chair Moylan if it is necessary to make a condition to require a common building.  Vice Chair Moylan responded that it does not need to be defined as it could change overtime and that it should not be considered by the Planning Commission.

FINAL MOTION:

Vice Chair Moylan made a motion on Item #2003-0536 to adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the Special Development Permit and Tentative Map with modifications 1) to delete Condition of Approval #5 and to add Condition of Approval #24F to include a variety of large tree specie.  Comm. Simons seconded.

Motion carried unanimously 7-0.

Ms. Ryan stated that the item is final unless appealed to City Council within the 15-day appeal period.