2004-0852 - Rob Moore [Applicant] Evelyn LLC [Owner]: Application for related proposals on a 1.2-acre site located at 1136-1142 West Evelyn Avenue in an M-S (Industrial and Service) Zoning District. (APN: 161-31-035) JMc

·         Use Permit to allow construction of four condominium units, and

·         Parcel Map to subdivide one lot into four air space condominium units and one common lot.

Jamie McLeod, Project Planner, presented the staff report.  She summarized the proposed application highlighting the use, site layout, architecture, landscaping, and parking.  She noted the character of the surrounding neighborhood.  She also highlighted the recommended conditions addressing the privacy concerns of the residential neighborhood. Staff stated that the applicant is responding to market demand therefore intends to sell the units to be more profitable. Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended approval of the Use Permit and Parcel Map.

Comm. Sulser asked staff to explain the landscaping plan and the existing landscaping.   Staff responded that the applicant has no recommended changes to the existing landscaping and noted that the trees along West Evelyn are street trees and the only landscaping is between Evelyn and the building.  Staff is proposing a small buffer in front of the subject site as well as behind the building.

Comm. Babcock asked staff to clarify whether a tree every 20 or 30 feet as noted in the Condition of Approval. Staff responded it is tree every 30 feet.

Further, she asked about the 10-foot landscaping buffer condition whether there is any recommended specie to be planted in this buffer.  Staff responded that the recommendation is for hedge and trees.  Staff clarified that there are two conditions: one is a ten-foot buffer and the other is to plant hedge and trees within the buffer.  Ms. Ryan added that typically an applicant will provide a landscaping plan and noted that the trees provide additional screening between the residential and non-residential properties and additional shading to the pavement.

Comm. Babcock summarized that the condition has no specification for landscaping as to the specie, height and growth, coverage other than the six-foot fence.  Ms. Ryan confirmed and responded that the Commission could recommend its desire.

Chair Moylan asked staff about Attachment E whether these are the wells.  Staff responded no, it is the treatment equipment/filtration device which is not currently being used.

Chair Moylan commented that the Condition is to remove the barbed wire and suggested that it would make more sense to remove the whole thing since it sticks out and it is not currently being used.  Staff responded that although the wells are not currently being used it is still being tested for continued need.  She clarified that the barbed wire being recommended to be removed is the one along the residential property line.    

Chair Moylan asked that since there is a mandate as to the wells, could the City require that the barbed wire be removed around these wells when the option presents itself.  Ms. Ryan responded that the barbed wire may be tied in with the safety and security of the site.  She suggested that a condition could be placed where at such time as the well is no longer needed, the whole thing could be removed. 

Chair Moylan commented that the residents look at these wells surrounded with barbed wire. 

Ms. Ryan clarified that in response to a comment about ownership all the property and buildings would be owned jointly similar to a residential condominium. 

Chair Moylan opened the public hearing.

Rob Moore, one of the owners, Evelyn LLC, requested approval of the Use Permit with modified conditions. He suggested that with the tradeoff between parking and landscaping, parking is more important to the owners. He stated that the market demands more parking. He stated that the he is able to rent the space, however, it would be advantageous to sell the building as condominium which would attract small businesses in the City.  He recommended the following modifications to the recommended conditions. 1) Condition of Approval #6K to state that “all areas not needed to maintain 60 spaces for parking, driveways or structures shall be landscaped. “He is amenable to a hedge in the front;” 2) Condition of Approval #6A2 – to state “provide a maximum buffer available by maintaining the 60 spaces, and COA 6K but a minimum of 3 feet.  He stated that he is amenable to the recommended conditions with the modifications recommended above.  He commented that if he is unable to get approval for 60 spaces, he would keep the building for lease opportunity as it would not be economically feasible to convert into condominium units.  He urged the Commission to approve his Use Permit with the modified conditions.

Comm. Simons asked Mr. Moore what would be his plan to improve the landscaping and make it aesthetically acceptable. Mr. Moore responded that he addressed the landscaping need by maximizing the landscaping which would provide staff the opportunity to make recommendations. He added that he is willing to make the landscaping attractive such as the additional hedge, plant grass and river rock around the six street trees, plant trees in front of the building where the sidewalk now is and more landscaping next to the building. In the rear of the building, there are some turning islands at the corners which could accommodate trees. He added that there would be a buffer in the rear next to the residential.  He commented that he is willing to have the minimum three feet but if staff requires six feet buffer, he would be amenable provided that he keeps the 60 parking spaces.

Comm. Simons further asked whether he is willing to consider some of the area to be redone using aesthetic pavers which could be counted towards landscaping.  Mr. More responded whether the pavers would hold up with truck traffic since this is an industrial building.  However, he stated that he is willing to work with staff to meet the conditions provided that he is able to keep 60 parking.

Chair Moylan closed the public hearing.

Vice Chair Hungerford asked staff whether the rear buffer  is from the building or towards the residential wall.  Staff responded that the buffer is between the two sites next to the wall and that there would be two feet height differential where the residential would be two feet higher.

Comm. Babcock asked staff whether there is a way to reconfigure the parking  to make the reduction less.  Staff responded that given the location of the existing building it would be difficult limiting the number of spaces to be removed.  Staff considered alternatives to meet the landscaping and parking needs.

Chair Moylan asked staff whether the wall could be removed and keep the landscaping.  Staff responded that the wall is a code requirement.  Ms. Ryan added that the wall provides a noise barrier that a fence may not provide and the landscaping softens the wall including temperature control.

Chair Moylan commented that five spaces could be achieved where the pad of  equipment is situated.

Comm. Sulser understood the desire for more parking in the neighborhood as he noticed during site visits that there are parking deficiencies with the other industrial buildings. He added that with improved landscaping, improved wall adjacent to residential would be a vast improvement to the area.

Chair Moylan offered a friendly amendment to remove the pad and the barbed wire when the opportunity arises.  Accepted by the maker.

Comm. Babcock clarified the motion whether the landscaping and number of trees would be maximized of what remains after the 60 parking and the minimum three-foot landscape buffer in the rear.

Ms. Ryan commented that the motion does not have a minimum number of trees. 

Vice Chair Hungerford pointed out that Condition of Approval #6A1 still remains addressing the trees at 30 feet intervals along the property lines.

Chair Moylan stated that the applicant suggested modification to Condition of Approval #6A2 and #6K only and the remaining conditions stays.

Ms. Ryan commented that staff will have to consider the motion on the floor whether it is doable addressing the buffer, the back up distance and other landscaping and parking requirements.  Ms. Ryan suggested general options and can come back to Planning Commission or provide more criteria.  She added that staff is concerned with achieving the landscaping required and still provide 60 parking spaces. 

Comm. Babcock offered a friendly amendment to eliminate 60 parking stalls, provide trees at a minimum of 30 feet intervals, provide a minimum of three-foot wide landscaping buffer with landscaped islands for the trees which could result in a 57 or 59 spaces to ensure that the area next to residential is adequately addressed. Accepted by the maker.

Comm. Simons clarified whether the revised motion included the maintenance of the parking lot standards.  Comm. Babcock responded that it is included in the friendly amendment.

Comm. Klein offered a friendly amendment to state “a minimum of 50 parking spaces to allow the applicant to work with staff to maximize landscaping.  He commented that it appears that eliminating the six spaces in the rear adjacent to the building would address the backing issue, the outdoor water recycling area which would free up and would increase the barrier. Therefore, it would be ideal is to require a “minimum of 50” and staff to work the details.  Accepted by the maker.

Chair Hungerford asked to clarify the revised motion.  After the clarification, as the second, he accepted the revised motion.

Comm. Simons commented that he would accept the revised motion of the parking performance standards are maintained such as providing large specie to meet the parking canopy requirement.

Staff commented that there is a high power line along the rear properly line on the residential and there may be restrictions or a conflict.

Comm. Simons asked whether it is possible to move the island forward for clearance.  Staff will review this possibility and other options while meeting the requirements.

Vice Chair Hungerford asked whether there is a finite time for the ground monitoring to take place creating a possible parking. Staff responded that it is approximately two years and although there is no sign of contamination, they would like to keep it open.  Ms. Ryan added that if there is a problem within the two years then it could be extended.

Chair Moylan commented that it was pointed out earlier that people are happier to park under the trees.  However, he added that if there is no parking available, people are less happy when there is no parking available.

FINAL MOTION:

Ms. Ryan stated that the decision is final unless to the City Council with a payment of the appeal fee within the 15-day appeal period.