Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 18, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes Meeting — May 18, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL: Present: BARBARA LOMAS, Chairperson TED BLOCKLEY, Vice Chairperson RUSSELLJOHNSON TOM McGINNIS JOHN S. SPENCER Absent: JEFFREY TKAC MURRAY TRAGISH Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Steve Ewing, Staff: Marc Gauthier, Pamela Elisheva, Dana Cornelius 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of April 20, 2006. Commissioner Lomas stated she would like the record to reflect the following change to the previous Minutes: Page 3, paragraph 9 says, "she inquired as to what the bridge at Allen is considered for zoning in that area," and that sentence should address two separate concerns. Number one, I wanted to see where the bridge at Allen Road was factored into the EIR, and number two the zoning along the alignment had changed quite a bit, and I wondered if that would warrant any changes since the inception of the EIR. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the Non-Public Hearing Items on the Consent Calendar, with in the inclusion of the motion to amend. Motion carried by group vote. Planning Commission — May 18, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 2 4.1 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Zone Change 06-0258 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) 4.2b Approval of Zone Change 06-0321 (SunCal Companies) 4.2c Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6788 (San Joaquin Engineering) 4.2d Approval of continuance until June 1, 2006 Vesting Tentative Tract 6813 (The Monarch Affiliates) The public hearing is opened. No one requested removal of an item from the consent calendar. Commissioner Spencer requested removal of consent item 4.2a (Agenda Item 5.2). The public hearing is closed on the consent calendar except for 4.2a and 4.2d. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the public hearing consent calendar items. Motion carried by group vote. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS —Zone Changes 5.1 Zone Change 05-1455 (Lynx Realty& Management) (Continued from April 6 & May 4, 2006). The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Terry Russell stated that he has met with the applicant, and feels that there has been no effort to protect the existing residents' privacy other then through trees. He said he does not like the balcony overlook into his yard when the applicant could turn the buildings around to protect his privacy. Ben Lingo, on behalf of Lynx Realty& Management, stated they have been trying to work with the comments provided to come up with a solution. He stated that they are pleased with the outcome even though they've lost six units. Mr. Lingo pointed out that the neighborhood's goals were 1) maintaining privacy in rear yards, 2) maintaining the quality of the neighborhood, 3) ensuring that the construction would not cause damage to the homes. In response to these concerns, Mr. Lingo stated they agreed to 1)plant mature landscaping and not small trees or skimpy landscaping, 2) have the lighting directed away from the homes, 3) a 7-8' masonry wall will be constructed along the property line, 4) and address the overlook and potential screening. Mr. Lingo further indicated that the building which was 15' from the property line was moved back to 30' off the property line, which will save the existing Eucalyptus trees, and also place 72" and 36" box trees that will complete the Eucalyptus trees, and fill in some of the gaps. He indicated that they are proposing California Pepper Trees in 36" of 72" box, and Australian Willow as well. He indicated that the 72" box tree at planting will be roughly 18-20' in height, and will have a diameter of approximately 10—12', and at five years of growth they will be 75-27' and at 10 years 32-35'. He stated that in looking at putting the road along the easterly property line, they would not be able to maintain the existing trees, and also indicated that the potential small amount of traffic would probably be a bigger nuisance. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Blockley stated he met with Mr. Lingo and Mr. Strong. He stated that he is happy to hear that the trees will be preserved and that the set back on the easterly boundary has been doubled. He stated that he is in support of this project. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he spoke with David Strong. He inquired of Mr. Lingo about their target market, to which Mr. Lingo stated that they are looking at $200,000 for the ground Planning Commission — May 18, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 3 floor units, and the larger units would be around $300,000, with the intention to serve a little different nitch, where the units are more upscale and the yard area and recreation area will be common. Commissioner McGinnis inquired about the 72" box Pepper and Australian trees and if their preliminary designs indicate how many will be put in. Mr. Lingo responded that along the property lines there will be 9 36" box trees and 2 72" box trees. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he appreciates Mr. Lingo's efforts to compromise and the money conceded to the neighborhood to make the project more livable for the existing residents. He further stated that he is in support of the project. Commissioner Johnson stated that he met with a representative for the applicant. He stated that given the situation, he feels that the applicant has done their part in making sure that the overlook ordinance is in compliance. He pointed out that ordinance requires 43 parking spaces, and the applicant is providing 112 spaces which will alleviate some of the concerns of the neighbors. Commissioner Lomas stated that she also met with the applicant. She inquired of the length of the eastern boundary. Staff responded that the length is 466'. Staff indicated that without the road there could be approximately 9 homes on that boundary, and they could have been all two stories. She pointed out that there is nothing in the ordinances that restricts the two-story homes. She further inquired about the proposed block wall, to which Mr. Lingo responded that they are proposing that along the northerly and easterly property lines there will be a block wall, and they are proposing rod iron on the other borders (western and southern). She commended the applicant for mitigating the issues and concerns, and that she will support this project. Staff further clarified that the applicant is required to build a 7' block wall around the site. Mr. Lingo stated that they are willing to build a 7' block wall, however they don't want to have any repercussions due to shadow casts. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from R-1 to PUD on approximately 5 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2 attached, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Lomas NOES:None. 5.2 Zone Change 06-0258 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Anthony Jaquez, with SmithTech, representing Delprada, stated they are in agreement with Staff's recommendations. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Spencer stated he requested the removal of this item off the consent agenda because he would like the zone change to only be developed as a PCD and not a straight C-1 zone. Staff responded that it could be accomplished by referring to this in the motion. Staff further pointed out that Staff does not typically recommend a PCD when there is not an existing neighborhood around a commercial site. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Commissioner Spencer what he is looking for with a PCD that the C-1 wouldn't accomplish. Commissioner Spencer responded that the PCD would regulate entry into the property and clarify the uses, as well as signage and landscaping. He stated that it is planning now, and not later on. Commissioner Blockley inquired of Staff what the PCD would afford over conventional C-1. He indicated that signage is addressed in the sign ordinance. He inquired with respect to the traffic signal on a 15-acre site such as this, if this site would be granted private traffic signals. Staff responded that they could not see having more than the one that is required at Snow and Coffee given the size of this site. Commissioner Blockley further inquired what the speculation would be Planning Commission — May 18, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 4 as to what would be required for the other three corners. Staff responded that with the current decisions made, they would not be recommending any more commercial at this intersection. Commissioner Blockley stated that given the size of this site and the provided ordinances, the ordinances would accomplish Commissioner Spencer's desire for a well planned commercial site without a PCD. Commissioner Lomas inquired if the applicant is in a position to offer an opinion as to a proposed PCD. The applicant responded by stating that as there is no development out there, they are trying to be consistent with the C-1 zoning under the GP, and trying to understand the PCD being consistent with the GP and zone change. Staff pointed out that they do not see anything that needs to be protected over and above what the ordinances already provide. Staff further pointed out that the ordinances do not provide for the potential uses in the development, but are dictated by the Municipal Codes. Mr. Jaquez stated that the applicant would like to stay with a C-1 without a PCD. Commissioner McGinnis reiterated staff's comments of the C-1 versus a PCD. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he does not have any problems with the C-1 zoning as proposed. Commissioner Spencer inquired if with a C-1 zone the property can be subdivided into smaller lot sizes. Staff stated that it could be sub-divided, and that it is very typical on a project like this that you would see a tentative subdivision map come before the Planning Commission, and at that time Staff typically puts conditions on regarding reciprocal parking and access to make sure movement and circulation within the parcel is controlled. Commissioner Spencer stated that his point is that indiscriminate break down of this parcel could occur, and the Planning Commission would not have control to stop it with the current C-1 zoning. Commissioner Blockley stated that in looking to a development further down on the west side of Coffee Road there recently was approved a subdivision of lots which involved straight C zoning of some sort, with a private street and a reciprocal parking. Staff confirmed that that project went through extensive revisions before it was approved, and stated that under the Subdivision Map Act the Planning Commission has the power to attach conditions for orderly development. Commissioner Blockley inquired if there is a recent example of a PCD overlay on a 15 acre project. Staff responded that there was a commercial project with a PCD overlay at the southeast corner of Panama and Stine, however there was an existing neighborhood, and some neighbors had raised some concerns. Staff responded that they cannot recall a recent PCD overlay on this size lot in a vacant area. Commissioner Lomas inquired if a PCD would prohibit subdivision, to which Staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Spencer said he doesn't like the C-1 zoning, with only zoning ordinances for control measures, because this is the time to make a planning decision. Commissioner Blockley pointed out another example of a subdivision with a PCD at Mt. Vernon and Highway 178, which has come back many times for modifications. He pointed out that it has been a huge expense for the applicant, but that he does not see where it is substantially different then it was in its original form. He pointed out that the benefit to the public has been slim, and has cost the developer a lot of money. He stated that he is inclined to go with Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Johnson stated that he does not think a PCD is relevant at this point, and that at the tentative tract map stage they will have appropriate oversight. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approve zone change 06-0258 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Planning Commission — May 18, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 5 AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Lomas NOES:Commissioner: Spencer 5.3 Zone Change 06-0321 (SunCal Companies) Heard on consent calendar. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS —Tentative Tract Maps /Zone Changes 6.1a Vesting Tentative Tract 6799 (McIntosh &Associates) 6.1 b PUD/Zone Change 06-0332 (McIntosh &Associates) Commissioner Blockley recused himself from this item to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest as he represents a client who is an adjacent property owner. The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Frank Tripicco, a resident who lives probably within 500 feet (he did not receive a notice), stated his concerns have to do with air quality, traffic, and open space, although he has not received any information on these issues. He commented that he is familiar with this site and thinks that a 13 acre site that will accommodate 217 units poses a considerable impact on more than just the neighbors that were notified. He stated that he believes prior to following Staff's recommendation the commission needs to consider both the application and the applicant's needs, and also consider the residents' concerns with a project of this magnitude. He stated that perhaps the proposed landscaping is not adequate to suggest that the additional traffic, creating both noise and air pollution, would be minimized or mitigated. Mr. Tripicco stated that the project appears to be a massive use or development of a small parcel, which may well meet the minimum requirements and be in compliance, but believes the bigger picture needs to be considered so that further mitigation can be utilized. Katrina Moore stated she is probably the most impact individual by this project. She stated that she lives at 1606 Calle Hermosa. She indicated that her backyard is the corner of Ming and Gosford in the NE corner. She stated that she has already brought in the police because of the racing at the subject intersection, and believes that if more young people are brought in to the proposed project that it will be an even bigger issue. She stated that she has no enjoyment of life in her backyard because of the noise. She stated that she would like the subject site to not include any house on the far right hand corner. She stated that the only development she could imagine at this site would be a mall, because hopefully when it closed at 10 o'clock at night she could get some rest. She stated she would request that there be no two-story units, and would really prefer a senior community. Roger McIntosh, representing the applicant Castle &Cooke, went through his proposal. He stated that the site is 30 acres and not 13, and has R-2 zoning currently. He stated they are asking for a PUD because they are asking for special improvements and amenities that go above and beyond the minimum standard. He stated that those amenities include street lined trees, paseos between some of the cluster units, a recreational facility, and a couple of pocket parks. He stated that the project is split in two with the north consisting of single family with 46X72 lots, and the south consisting of cluster units which radiate around courtyards. He pointed out that each unit will have a two-car garage plus additional parking in the courtyard. Mr. McIntosh pointed out that they are reducing the number of units that could be built on a 30 acre site (over 500 units). The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he has concerns with the congested intersection. He calculated that 217 units would generate at least 10 times that in trip generation, and almost all of those would have to enter from Gosford based on the entrances. Planning Commission — May 18, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 6 Mr. McIntosh stated that they requested that a signal be put at Gosford Road at the entrance, and due to the synchronization of that corridor, a signal light would not be supported, and therefore they opted to go with right in and right out with decel lanes that meet the city standard to make sure that people have the ability to get off the road. Mr. McIntosh stated that they do not believe that the trips generated will not create a traffic problem because Gosford is an arterial and it can handle a lot of traffic. He further pointed out that the peak hour trips are about a tenth of the peak hour trips, and therefore it will only be about 217 trips in the a.m. and p.m. peak. He estimated that about 60% will go out Ming Avenue and go either eastbound, or make a U-turn and go west, or go north, and that the rest will go southbound on Gosford to wherever they are going to go. He continued to state that they feel they have decent access, especially with the right in, right out. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he did speak with Diane Mulky with Castle &Cooke and she answered a few questions. He stated that it looks like a nice project, but that he is really concerned with the flow of traffic in and out of the project, as well as the high rate of speed in the area. He stated that he wishes they had more information to mitigate some of these things. He stated he is uncomfortable with that right now. Commissioner Johnson inquired of Staff if a minimum 6' block wall along Ming and Gosford would be required, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. He further inquired what the setback is from the street, or from the block wall to the nearest structure along Ming Avenue and Gosford Road. Mr. McIntosh responded that some of the units will be either 10'to the structure, and possible 5'to the patio cover, however they are set back 25'from the roadway. He indicated that the wall is 6'8" in height, which will help attenuate the noise. Commissioner Johnson further inquired how long the decel lanes would be. Mr. McIntosh responded that they will meet the city standards, which would be 200-300 feet. Commissioner Lomas inquired if there is a traffic study, to which Staff responded there was not. She inquired if they could request one without putting a big kink in the project. Staff responded that it is a zone change, and it is within the Planning Commission's power to request a traffic study. Staff pointed out that if the speed limit is 55 there is a good level of service, so there must be some other traffic issue such as egress and ingress. Commissioner Lomas further inquired Staff what the status is with signage for notice on the property. Staff responded that it will go to Council Committee either next week, or the week after. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he would like to see this matter continued so that a traffic study can be obtained. Mr. McIntosh stated that he is puzzled why a traffic study would provide any additional information then what the city already has. He stated that a traffic study would either be a regional study which will look at all the facilities within probably 2-3 mile radius, and a local study would study egress/ingress issues. He further stated that the regional study has already been completed, and it's the 20/30 model that KernCog has developed, and that it takes into account the projected build out of the city, and in this case they would have projected a build out of this property at multi-family with probably 100 more units than what is being proposed. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he is not looking at the regional model, but rather he would like to hear Mr.Walker's input, and also see some records on the number of accidents that have already occurred at the intersection. He stated that one of his duties as a commissioner is health, safety and welfare of the community, and he does not feel comfortable with the traffic concerns raised, and therefore would not feel comfortable voting for the project this evening. Commissioner Lomas stated that she doesn't really see big problems, but is more concerned with the fact that the applicant requested a signal, and was told that because of the synchronization it could not be done. She pointed out that without Mr. Walker's input she is not clear on this issue. (A five minute break was taken.) Planning Commission — May 18, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 7 Mr. McIntosh asked for clarification as to what the Planning Commission is looking for with regard to a traffic study, as the prior project which had an approved signal on Gosford had more units, and they showed that it worked. However, because Staff is more concerned about the free flow of traffic and does not want to add another corridor, the applicant said okay. He stated that he does not know what else will change with a traffic study, as they have access off of Ming, as well as off of Gosford. Commissioner McGinnis responded that he is interested in having Mr. Walker answer some questions, including left turn lanes on westbound Ming and how deep they will extend. He stated he would like to find out why a signal cannot be installed. Commissioner Lomas stated that they may not be hinging on a traffic study, but they have unanswered questions of a traffic nature. She suggested a two week continuance. Staff suggested a continuance to June 1, 2006. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, that this agenda item be continued to the June 1, 2006 meeting in order to get more information regarding traffic, a signal light, as well as allow time for Staff to obtain records from the police department with regard to traffic incidents at this intersection. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Lomas NOES:Commissioner: None. Commissioner Lomas also requested a copy of the Fire Department memo. 6.2 Vesting Tentative Tract 6788 (San Joaquin Engineering) Heard on consent calendar. 6.3 Vesting Tentative Tract 6813 (The Monarch Affiliates) Heard on consent calendar. 7. APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER TO VACANCY ON THE AD HOC PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The remaining commissioners are Commissioners Lomas and Blockley. Commissioner McGinnis has consented to fill the vacancy. 8. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 9. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Johnson advised that at the June 15, 2006 meeting he will possibly be absent. Planning Commission — May 18, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 8 10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Dana Cornelius, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director June 6,2006