PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 01/12/04

2003-0788 – Classic Communities [Applicant] Mark Dividovich [Owner] – Application for related proposals on a 1-acre site located at West Washington Avenue & South Mary Avenue in an R-3/PD (Medium Density Residential/Planned Development) Zoning District. (APN: 161-36-027) (Mitigated Negative Declaration) CC

·         Special Development Permit to allow 18 three-story townhomes on an existing vacant lot, and

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

Christine Cannizzo, Project Planner, presented that staff report.  She summarized the proposed application highlighting the use, site layout, architecture, landscaping, usable open space, parking, circulation, solid waste collection, easements and undergrounding.  She noted several deviations the application is requesting - lot size, lockable storage, building height, setbacks, usable open space and driveway aisle width.  Staff was able to support most of the deviations which are consistent with similar townhouse developments.  Staff was unable to support the usable open space and centralized solid waste collection as presented by the applicant. Staff recommended conditions to mitigate these deviations and a re-design to meet the requirements. She reported that staff received five calls from the neighborhood expressing concerns with the building height and traffic along Mary Avenue.  Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended adopting the Negative Declaration and approve the Special Development Permit and Tentative Map with recommended Conditions of Approval.

Comm. Simons asked staff whether it is common to exclude the requirement for a storage unit from the garage.  Ms. Ryan responded that it is not unusual when there is a full size garage as it meets the intent of the storage.

Comm. Simons further asked if there is any need to modify the requirement to address the storage unit for future projects.   Ms. Ryan responded that there is an opportunity to look at the code in the future.

Comm. Hungerford expressed concerns with the number of deviations and confirmed with staff whether achieving a more single-family type home with more units results in these deviations, rather than have an unbroken row of houses with fewer deviations.  Staff said yes.

Comm. Hungerford further clarified whether the compromise is to have the duplex 12 feet apart to allow more open space and to address the trash collection.  Staff said yes.

Chair Babcock asked staff how much reconfiguration would be required to deliver staff’s recommendation to accommodate the required open space and trash enclosure. Staff responded that it is possible but might require a significant re-design.

Chair Babcock opened the public hearing.

Scott Ward, Classic Communities, congratulated the new Planning Commissioners.  He appreciated staff’s work and recommendation supporting the development. He gave the history of the development process. He addressed some of the issues brought up at the Study Session.  He noted some factors that are critical in the design of the development requiring the deviations in order to deliver quality housing units while addressing the concerns of the neighborhood. He stated that the neighborhood prefers to have low-density housing. Because of the lot size, the minimum number of units that could be developed on site is 18 and single-family detached units are not possible.   He also added that there is no curb cut on Mary Avenue and no curb cut on Washington Avenue within 100 feet of the intersection.  He addressed the orientation pattern along Mary and Washington Avenue and the required 40’ vision triangle.  He commented that the ordinance was not designed to address a one-acre site on a corner.  Therefore, these deviations are necessary to meet the city’s housing goals, address the desire of the neighborhood and deliver a quality housing development.  He stated that the project is well above the required standards such as the open space.  He asked that Condition of Approval #7 should be deleted as the project is in compliance with open space.  He also asked to delete Condition of Approval #8.  He stated that the proposed solid waste collection is to maintain the single-family character of the development. The turning radii would accommodate the solid waste truck and would not present a challenge to collect from each home.  He commented that these requirements were not imposed to recently approved projects with even higher density housing.  He appreciated staff’s support and understanding of the difficulty and complexity of balancing the objectives while delivering quality single-family housing. He urged the Commission to approve the Special Development Permit and Tentative Map.

Leon Jacobson, resident, urged the Commission to deny the project as presented. He stated that there is room for reconfiguration. He expressed concerns with the negative impacts of the projects 1) significant shadows, north and west buildings.  The building height is too high; 2) management and maintenance is not defined in the design, assuming that it is a condo arrangement; 3) white elephant would be created due to failure of the management to impose necessary maintenance and fiscal responsibilities; 4) limited parking for 18 town homes; 5) the design of the units attracting potential owners who are likely not to care about the units and are mobile; 7) uncontrolled rentals is a possibility. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak.  He concluded that his primary concern is management as it is not defined and how the building maintenance is going to be financed.

Scott Ward, applicant, stated that he understands the speaker’s concerns.  He stated that the development is single-family homes, therefore his concerns about management and maintenance do not apply. The only common area is the driveway. There would be driveway maintenance association and has a requirement to present CC&Rs detailing the responsibilities. The developer hires professional management on behalf of the association which has been effective.  Although moderately priced, the homes are still expensive and that future owners would intend to preserve the value of their investment.  He concurred that buildings are taller and would have some impacts but it is mitigated with the buffer of the municipal water facility.  The parking and the turning movement comply with the ordinance. Fire concerns are addressed as units will be sprinkled and will be readily served from the right of way. He stated that they expect younger households and older households to occupy the homes.

Chair Babcock asked Mr. Ward how much reconfiguration would be required to accommodate Condition of Approval #8.  Mr. Ward responded that he could locate a trash enclosure on units 6 and 11 but the rest would be in a viewable area and the rest of the units would require a fair amount of re-design.

Further she asked if there is room for a car to leave during trash pickup.  Mr. Ward gave the dimension of the street providing plenty of room for the truck and a car to maneuver.

Comm. Hungerford asked Mr. Ward if the truck could turn around between units 12 & 13 and 4 & 5, which are at the end of the alley.  Mr. Ward responded yes and pointed out in the site plan how the truck could turn around such as back and fill of about three fourth turns.

In conclusion, Mr. Ward commented that since there are seven homes that are usable open space deficient, they are able to accept Condition of Approval #7.

Comm. Simons asked staff whether it is consistent that front yards are excluded in the open space calculation.  Ms. Ryan responded that the definition of usable open space precludes the front yard as they are not considered usable. She added that there is no requirement that each unit have in itself 400 square feet. There has been a combination of private and general shared usable open space used in previously approved projects.

Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.

Ms. Ryan was pleased that the applicant has a strong confidence for the trash vehicle drivers.  Ms. Ryan commented that trash vehicle configurations change and that there would be considerable backing up required with the proposed design.  Staff was not comfortable with the backing up of trash vehicles. She also noted that when the trash toters are out on the street, there would be limited room. 

Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.

Comm.  Hungerford asked staff whether consolidating the trash would mean that a couple of units would be subjected to a view of the enclosure. Ms. Ryan said yes.

Chair Moylan did not agree that townhouses are bad but that not only do they help in the home ownership opportunity but also help meet the job/housing ratio.  He stated that since the Study Session, he expressed concerns with the number of deviations and the applicant failed to provide justifications.  He commented on the General Plan stating that it asks for a balance between the need for housing with other community values.  He expressed his concerns with the setbacks, height and unit size.  He stated that there is a lot that is good about the project but it could be better than presented.  He stated that minimizing the lot size and the number of detachments could fix his concerns.  He was unable to make the required Findings and recommended denial of the project.

Comm. Simons stated that he is more concerned with setback deviations for those units that are already built. He also has concerns with the height deviation.  He looked for a compromise or direction rather than a denial.  He withdrew his second.

Comm. Simons stated that he likes the reasonable sized homes despite competing issues.  He looked forward to home ownership opportunity.

Comm. Hungerford was in favor of breaking up the row of houses into different units and not one wall of townhomes.  The design would make it more compatible with the neighborhood.  He liked the design of the homes.  He stated that since single-family detached homes cannot be developed on site, the project is a reasonable compromise.

Ms. Ryan clarified whether the motion is per staff recommendation as conditioned.  The maker and second said yes.

Chair Babcock offered a friendly amendment to eliminate Condition of Approval #8.  Comm. Simons asked whether it would meant that the trash would be collected at each homes.  Chair Babcock said yes and added that she prefers this plan rather than having one or two houses subjected to huge enclosed trash area.  The amendment was accepted by both the maker and the second.

Chair Babcock supported the motion.  She stated that the project is nice and would be compatible with the neighborhood.  She was thrilled to see an architecture other than Mediterranean.

FINAL MOTION:

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