Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-24-1996 Planning Commission minutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Murakami called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried Late: None Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Planner Walgren and City Attorney Riback ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES - 1/10/96 January 10, 1996 COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 10, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 8, last paragraph, line 3, replace the word e~~e with ~s~r . - Page 12, first paragraph, line 11 amended to read: "...that retaining the General Plan <.;~:~ ic;:;;;~.,.~;;:,~i would be of benefit to the community as the property is surrounded by a cyclone fence...." THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0-3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, KAPLAN, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: ASFOUR, MURAKAMI, PIERCE; ABSENT: NONE. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 19, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. ~~ • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 2 - PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. GPA-94-003, AZO-94-002 & SD-95-008; TRINITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; 20851 SARATOGA HILLS RD.; Request for General Plan Amendment to allow two parcels totalling 5.1 acres to be reclassified from an Open Space-Outdoor Recreational designation to Residential-Very Low Density and Medium Density. Request includes associated Zoning District amendment to allow the two parcels to be reclassified from an Agricultural designation to R-1-40,000 and R-1-12,500. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval is requested to subdivide the two parcels into nine single-family lots. Tentative cancellation of the properties' Williamson Act agricultural preserve contract is included as part of the project description. This application was heard by the Planning Commission at the 1/10/96 public hearing but failed to pass by a 3-1 vote (Commissioners Asfour, Caldwell and Murakami absent). General Plan amendments require a majority vote of the total membership of the Commission. The proposal was therefore continued to the 1/24/96 meeting for reconsideration of the vote. -------------------------------------------------------------- Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report on this item. He noted that at the January 10, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, there was a 3-1 vote in favor of forwarding to the City Council approval of the general plan amendment. As a general plan amendment requires 4 affirmation votes of the majority of the seated Commissioners. He indicated that there were not four affirmative votes given to carry the motion. Therefore, the Commission continued this item for reconsideration by the full Commission. He indicated that the public testimony portion for the applications has been closed. He indicated that it was his understanding that the two Commissioners who were not present at the January 10, 1996 meeting have since listened to the tapes of that meeting. He recommended that these two Commissioners enter into the record any comments that they may have on the project and that the Commission reconsider the vote taken on the general plan amendment request. He further recommended that the Commission proceed with its discussion and consideration of the zoning ordinance amendment and the tentative subdivision application. Commissioner Asfour indicated that he read the minutes and listened to the tapes from the last meeting and that he was apprised of the situation. He indicated that he was not pleased regarding the manner in which this project came to the Planning Commissioner via the City Council. However, he indicated that he would base his decision on the facts presented. He indicated that development of this site has been before the City for a number of years and that every time the issue comes up, some people want it to become a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 3 - • park. He felt that if the energy that was spent in opposition to this project was spent in raising funds, that the site would have been a public park by now. He noted that the request before the Commission was not for a park. He indicated that he was satisfied with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was prepared and approved for the site and that he would have voted to forward its certification to the City Council had he been present at the last meeting. Regarding the status of the property under the Williamson Act, he stated that when someone enters into a contract, he would like to have the individual(s) live up to the terms of the contract. However, he recognized that in a few years that this site would come out of the Williamson Act and that early release from the contract would not make that much of a difference. If the property is removed from the Williamson Act Contract, he felt that the City would benefit substantially from its removal from the Williamson Act. Therefore, he indicated that he would support forwarding a recommendation to the Council. Chairman Murakami stated that after reading the minutes and participating in all of the study sessions on this item, he had some mixed feelings about the project. However, he understands that this is a unique piece of land and that the location does not lends itself to be a practical place for a park as far as its accessibility to all Saratoga residents. He could not see having the land sit for five years with the hope that someone would come along and help fund this park in the manner that the Friends of Nelson Garden would like to see happen. He stated that the Friends of Nelson Garden have not presented evidence that this could be a possibility. Therefore, he would like to see the request forwarded to the City Council and to see the land improved from its current state. He indicated that at time of design review, the City would make sure that whatever is built is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that he too was satisfied with the EIR. Had he been present at the January 10 meeting, he would have voted to forward its certification to the City Council. Commissioner Kaplan noted that corrections would need to be made to Resolution No. SD.95-008 upon its adoption. Commissioner Abshire indicated that the decision that is made tonight would be a land mark decision. He stated that if the City supports its recently adopted open space element, that the element contains some clauses that specifically states that there is to be an avoidance of pre-cancellation of Williamson Act property. He indicated that he has not seen or heard of a need for expensive, executive homes in Saratoga. He did not believe that this project justifies accelerating the already rapid decline in Saratoga's open space inventory. He felt that the Williamson Act was a very important part of the City's inventory and that fifty percent of Saratoga's open space is covered by the Williamson Act and that it would disappear over the next 10 years because of cancellations • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 4 - • already requested. Commissioner Abshire stated that a well organized teaching demonstration garden would be preferred over executive homes on this property because it could bring to the City many historical amenities and that it would provide for the education of future generations, in addition to preserving open space. He recognized that much has been said about the uncertainty of finding financial support to purchase and to operate the property as a garden. He felt that it should also be acknowledged that the purchase of substitute open space by the City is not a sure thing as the supply of suitable open space in Saratoga is limited and fixed. For the reasons stated, he would vote to deny approval of GPA-94-003. He felt that the Community Foundation may benefit financially by waiting a few years and Saratoga may also benefit if a few more years were made available to find a garden benefactor. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GPA-94-003. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1-1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, MURAKAMI, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE; ABSTAIN: PIERCE; ABSENT: NONE. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/PATRICK MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AZO-94-002. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1-1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, MURAKAMI, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE; ABSTAIN: PIERCE; ABSENT: NONE. Commissioner Kaplan recommended the following amendments to Resolution No. SD-95-008: - Condition 2, last paragraph (page 6 of the staff report), be amended to restrict vehicle parking underneath the trees. - Condition 28, last paragraph, line three (page 12 of the staff report), be amende to read: ..appropriate illustrations, and submitted to the City to die. reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geoteclinical Consultant...." - Condition 34 (page 13 of the staff report) amended to read: "All funds required by the Memorandum of Understanding to be paid to the City of Saratoga ~~ upon the City lure ;.:. granting approval of a final Subdivision Map...." Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the general plan amendment and zoning amendment are recommendations of approval to the City Council. He indicated that normally, on a vesting tentative subdivision map, the Planning Commission would be the reviewing authority as the final decision maker unless the applicant appeals the decision to the City Council. He noted that the EIR was prepared for the general plan amendment, zone change, and the vested tentative map as well as the cancellation of the • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 5 - • Williamson Act contract. He indicated that staff would recommend that the Commission forward a recommendation to approve the subdivision map to the City Council so that all the applications go to the City Council as a packet, along with the certification of the EIR. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SD-95-008, INCORPORATING THE AMENDMENTS AS STATED BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1-1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, MURAKAMI, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE; ABSTAIN: PIERCE; ABSENT: NONE. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission and the public that these applications have been advertised and would be considered by the City Council at its meeting of February 7, 1996. 2. DR-95-051 - BEAM; 18843 MONTEWOOD CT.; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,881 sq. ft. single story house in order to construct a new 5,985 sq. ft. single story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is a 41,075 sq. ft. parcel located within the R-1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the resolution of approval included a condition which would require the use of impervious material for the driveway and whether the city arborist's recommendations regarding paving were included in the resolution of approval? She asked if the interlocking pavers were of impervious material? Planner Walgren clarified that the interlocking pavers were shown on the plan and that the pavers would allow water to permeate and to allow ventilation of the roots. As interlocking pavers were depicted on the plans, this would address Commissioner Kaplan's concern. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Scott Cunningham, project designer, stated his concurrence with the staff report and that he did not find that the arborist's conditions unreasonable. He indicated that the proposal was for a 20 foot, single story residence and that the design matches the adjacent single story, ranch-style properties. He indicated that the floor area was exceeded by 125 feet. He noted that there was a portion of the roof that would be greater than 18 feet in height. He requested that the Commission approve the design of the home and indicated that he would comply with the City arborist's pre- construction and post-construction recommendations and conditions. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 6 - ~ ,, 7:52 P.M COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-95- 051. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 3. DR-95-045 - GLENROCK BUILDERS; 14118 SARATOGA AVENUE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,302 sq. ft. single story residence on a 22,685 sq. ft. parcel located within the R-1-20,000 zoning district. The subject property is the front parcel of a 2-lot subdivision approved in April of 1995. -------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that at time of the approval of the lot split, there was discussion whether the existing residence, listed in the City's Heritage Resource Inventory, could be retained as part of the lot split. Ultimately, it was determined that it could not be retained and that the map was approved with the restriction on the front parcel to limit a large structure. He noted that at time of map approval, the Planning Commission approved a two story home for the rear parcel (parcel 2) He noted that the single story proposed this evening was different in terms of style and massing. He indicated that the design was approved by the City arborist and that tree protection measures have been incorporated in the resolution. The project was also reviewed and supported by the Heritage Preservation Commission with the provisions of additional landscaping. He informed the Commission that staff also required an additional 10 foot landscape easement adjacent to the 10 foot public right-of-way which would provide for a 20 foot permanent landscape parkway. He indicated that Bob Peepari, Chairman of the Heritage Preservation Commission, was present to answer any questions which the Commission may have. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that the minutes of the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting do not indicate whether the design of the home was considered by the Preservation Commission. Bob Peepari, Chairman of the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), indicated that by the time he arrived at the HPC meeting, this item had already been reviewed. He stated that the HPC supported the project but that he did not have knowledge as to the discussion that was undertaken by the HPC. Regarding the landscaping, he noted that the landscape plans called for three coast live oaks and that the HPC requested the planting of two additional coast live oaks. Chairman Murakami asked Mr. Peepari if he would provide the Commission with his opinion on the design of the proposal. Mr. Peepari indicated that his opinion would be his personal opinion and that it would not be related to the Heritage Commission. Commissioner Kaplan asked if Mr. Peepari had an opportunity to • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 7 - review the approved two story home located on parcel 2 and the proposal before the Commission (parcel 1) She indicated that at the time of subdivision approval, it was required that the buildings blend in or look "traditional". She also asked if Mr. Peepari had an opinion to offer. Mr. Peepari indicated that he would prefer to see some wood siding material used on the building. He did not believe that the proposed design would fit in with the character of the historic lane. Had he been present at the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting, he would have inquired about the details of the proposal (i.e., details of the aluminum windows, the color of the stucco). He recommended the a combination of materials be used to make the design fit in (i.e. use of wood shingles or brick). He felt that there were too many plain stucco buildings being built in Saratoga (i.e., Kerwin Ranch). Commissioner Patrick noted that this area has been designated as a heritage lane. She asked if the designation meant anything to the city's architectural style along the heritage lane? Mr. Peepari responded that no standards or regulations exist for designated heritage lane areas but that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviews designs to ensure that they fit in with the existing older buildings. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:08 p.m. Rocke Garcia, Glenrock Builders, informed the Commission that he utilized the same architect for both of the structures. He indicated that he worked closely with staff on the proposal for the front elevations. He indicated that he did not attend the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting. However, the Heritage Preservation Commission voted unanimously to approve the architecture. He indicated that he would be happy to answer any questions which the Commission may have and indicated that he felt that the house meets the heritage criteria. Commissioner Asfour asked Mr. Garcia as to the material of the window framing? Mr. Garcia responded that the window frames are to be made of aluminum but that they would be vinyl coated, giving the appearance of a wood look (softer feel). Commissioner Kaplan asked if the west elevation portrayed a straight, up and down wall or was there some depth to the elevation? Mr. Garcia indicated that a lot of articulation was used in the design of the home. Planner Walgren clarified that the west elevation depicts the pitched gable roof proposed to be at 22 feet in height and noted that the roof design was not a sheer elevation. • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 8 - • Commissioner Kaplan stated that the reason that the Commission requested that the plans for parcel 2 be displayed was to determine if there was compatibility in the look of the two houses in this subdivision. She did not feel that the two homes were compatible and therefore could not support the design. Mr. Garcia stated that the use of stucco would provide for a softer feel. He indicated that he hired architects who have the ability and the knowledge of what would be the appropriate design for the property. He stated his support of the architect's design. It was his belief that there were both wood and stucco homes on heritage lane, with no predominance of one or the other. Chairman Murakami stated that he would prefer the use of wood siding as he did not like the use of stucco and that he would not be prepared to move forward with the design as proposed. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that one would see the articulation of the front of the house in contrast to the longest part of the home. He noted that the north elevation depicts the articulation all the way to the back to the longest part of the home. He stated that he understood the concern of the use of wood siding but that he felt that there was plenty of articulation used and that it would not cause a problem viewing the home from Saratoga Avenue. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. Commissioner Patrick stated that she was not sure whether the design of the home was appropriate for heritage lane. However, she did not believe that the design would fit in with what her understanding of the heritage ambiance was to be. Commissioner Kaplan and Chairman Murakami concurred with Commissioner Patrick's comments. Commissioner Abshire stated that he appreciated what the architect was trying to achieve. However, from the heritage lane stand point, he felt that there should be some break up in the use of stucco (i.e., the use of brick or wood). Commissioner Pierce indicated that he liked the way the lots were laid out (side by side) . He did not believe that the two homes need to be identical. He stated that the heritage preservation of the street has not been explained to him such that the design does not fit in. He indicated that he could support the design unless someone can point out some specific problems with it as far as the heritage preservation lane goes. • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 9 - • Commissioner Siegfried concurred with Commissioner Pierces' comments. In reviewing the plans, he felt that there was a tremendous amount of articulation in the roof. He felt that the views from the heritage lane would not be obtrusive. Whether the material was to be wood siding or stucco would not make that much of a difference. It was his opinion that this was a well designed home. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the approval of parcel 2 reflected the ambiance that the Commission wanted to see along heritage lane . Commissioner Asfour stated that he did not have a problem with the design as requested. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:23 P.M. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASKING THE APPLICANT IF HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS ITEM CONTINUED TO REDESIGN THE PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION'S CONCERNS. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). Mr. Garcia requested that this item be continued to allow the presence of his architect to explain the design of the home. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DR-95-045 TO FEBRUARY 14, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0) . Commissioner Siegfried stated that it would be helpful if the applicant submitted elevation plans that provide a sense of how the house would look from Saratoga Avenue. 4. GPA-94-001, UP-94-001 & DR-94-004 - INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS; 14500 FRUITVALE AVE. The Independent Order of Odd Fellows has submitted a Master Plan application to redevelop their senior care and living facility located at 14500 Fruitvale Ave. The application includes General Plan Text Amendment, Use Permit and Design Review requests to renovate, redevelop and expand the existing facility. Phase I of the proposed Master Plan includes the remodel of the I.O.O.F. Home, the expansion of the Villa apartments and the removal and replacement of the Health Center. Phase II represents Odd Fellows' long term plans for the property, which includes two new apartment structures and 19 single- story duplex cottages. The proposed Master Plan would result in an overall net increase from 170 to 307 housing units and from 68 to 99 nursing beds (cont. from 12/13/95; City review deadline is 3/6/96). -------------------------------------------------------------- Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that the applicant was present this evening to respond to the comments expressed at the January 9, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 10 - r1 U worksession meeting. Some of the issues to be addressed include phasing of the project, site plan, improvements, and ultimate project build out and its timing. At the worksession, the Commission requested that the applicant consider altering the phasing of the project and to provide a guarantee that the project would be built as proposed, if approved. Linda Callon, attorney for the applicant, stated that she has reviewed the issues presented thus far and that the issues to be addressed this evening were as follows: - Phasing of the prof ect : It has been concluded that the project could not be built all at once . She indicated that the design of the 10.6 acre parcel and the phase I approvals would be completed as part of phase one. It is proposed to either construct 11 cottages on the 10.6 acres or to build three cottages near the skilled nursing facilities. She indicated that either of these alternatives could be financed. - Ten year time frame for completion of the project: She indicated that the applicant would be requesting a 10 year time frame for the approval of the project. She indicated that she has spoken to the architect as well as potential construction persons and financing advisors. She indicated that the issue that she has heard from the neighbors was that there would be continuous construction, spread out over a ten year period. She stated that the actual construction for the entire project would be a two to three year period, spread between phase I and phase II approvals. She stated that the reason for the 10 year period to receive all of the approval was for the purpose of orderly construction of the project. She stated that it would take up to two years to receive final design and the rest of the approvals necessary from outside agencies. Once the approvals are in place, there would be a two year down period where nothing would occur. Following that, construction of Phase I which include the cottages which would take a year and a half or more to construct. The skilled nursing facility would take the longest time to construct (12-16 months). She indicated that the second phase should not be as difficult to obtain the approvals necessary for the project in terms of actual construction time. A buffer of time was needed in construction and financing in case the market changes dramatically or interest rates rise. - Occupancv for Saratoga residents: It is planned to have the project open to the general public . The Odd Fellows would agree to offer first choice of the facilities to existing residents. The Odd Fellows would also agree to offer direct marketing efforts to Saratoga with notification to the City, senior organizations, and the local newspaper of the availability of services before the information is released to • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 11 - the general public. - Development Aareement: She indicated that a development agreement could be entered into by the applicant and the City to address the concern of the 10 year approval time-frame. The development agreement would offer to address some of the questions that have been raised ( i . e . , phasing of the project, development on the 10.6 acre site and the cottage units). The development agreement would also address other issues that were not required by the project and that were not addressed as part of the EIR (i.e., landscaping to be installed early on near Crisp Avenue, landscaping of Chester Avenue to occur as part of phase I; recordation of an open space easement at the western boundary of the 10.6 acre parcel, and the recordation of a view protection corridor easement). Ms . Callon requested that the Commission provide her with any final comments that it may have. The comments would be presented in final form to the Commission at its February 14 meeting. It has been requested that a public hearing also be scheduled on February 14 on the development agreement. Final action before the City Council has been scheduled for February 21 with final action to be taken by March 6, 1996. She noted that the last date that the City has to act on the project is March 6, 1996. Commissioner Asfour stated that the Commission has expressed concern that the 11 cottages be built out. Building a portion of the cottages at a time would not resolve the initial concern and that it has been recommended that the majority of the construction be completed at one time. Ms. Callon indicated that it was her understanding that some of the neighbors did not want the property to come back to the city at a later date for a more intense development proposal. She indicated that it was not being stated that the entire 11 cottages would be completed as part of phase I. She stated that the Odd Fellows would propose to construct the 11 cottages as part of phase I or that a portion of the cottages would be built as part of phase I and that it would set the pattern for the development of the rest of the project. Commissioner Siegfried asked if all of the public improvements could be installed up front to address the neighbors' concern, irregardless of the number of cottages that are to be built so that the neighbors and the City would know that only the "in-fill" would need to be constructed. He stated that for 17 years, he has heard from the neighbors that whatever is approved for the site that it be the last approval and that there be no further development intensity possible. Ms. Callon responded that if it was required that all of the public • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 12 - • improvements be installed up front, that the entire project might as well be built out. She noted that a problem that may occur would be the passing of a voter initiative or court challenges. She stated that whatever is agreed to, that it would be requested that the agreement be amended on that portion of the project pertaining to the cottages should they not be allowed to be built. She informed the Commission that the applicant could not install all of the public improvements at one time because it would be costly and that there would be nothing to rent out against that cost. Commissioner Pierce asked if the open space easement would have public access? Ms. Callon responded that no public access is proposed to the open space easement as it is to be a scenic easement only. Commissioner Abshire noted that residents of the existing Odd Fellows facilities were Saratoga residents. He asked if these residents would have priority over other Saratoga citizens? Ms. Callon indicated that the existing residents would have the first opportunity to move into the units that are to be made available. Chairman Murakami requested that there be some assurance or fairness in the process that Saratoga citizens be allowed to reside in the facilities. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he recollected that development adjacent to the church on Saratoga Avenue received a density bonus for a senior housing project. The City required that advertisement be conducted exclusively in Saratoga for the first 60 to 90 day period. He recommended that the same effort be made in the initial marketing period to ensure that the citizens of Saratoga have first opportunity to apply for the facilities. Ms. Callon indicated that Commissioner Siegfried's recommendation was one that the project was willing to offer as part of the development agreement. She also noted that this project would allow the City to meet its Housing Element goals to provide different types of housing opportunities. Commissioner Siegfried asked if the applicant has looked at the question of access (i.e., the parallel road of San Marcos Road and the access road) ? Ms. Callon responded that the studies that were reviewed through the EIR process did not identify Commissioner Siegfried's concern as being a significant impact. She noted that the two roads were private ones. She stated that it was her experience driving down the roads that the right and left turn patterns coming out of San Marcos would not be changing and that the additional development would not be utilizing San Marcos Road. • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 13 - Commissioner Siegfried felt that the apartment units and the houses would create additional right turns coming out of the Odd Fellows' project twenty feet/yards from San Marcos Road. He expressed concern with the fact that there were two streets close together that would result in left and right turn conflicts. Ms . Callon did not believe that the concern would be exacerbated by the fact that the other private street would have any more traffic . She noted that the traffic projected for this project would not be significant as this was a senior project. Commissioner Patrick requested further clarification regarding the construction time frame. Ms. Callon indicated that it would take two to three years to build the two phases (12-16 months for the skilled nursing facility and whatever number of duplex units to be built as part of phase I and 12 months of construction for the second phase of the project). Commissioner Kaplan asked why all of the cottages could not be built at the same time as it has being indicated that there was a market for these type of units? Ms. Callon responded that financing would dictate what portion of the project would be constructed. Commissioner Siegfried asked if phase II would consist of the two apartment buildings and if so, would the two apartment units be built at one time or would they be built in two phases? George Ivelich, project architect, indicated that it was his guess that both apartment buildings would be built at the same time. Commissioner Siegfried asked if phase I would consist of the skilled nursing facility, expanded apartments, the renovation of the old building, and the cottages and whether phase II which would consist of the two apartment buildings, be constructed all at once or would the apartments be built as two phases from a marketing stand point. Mr. Ivelich stated that the apartments would consist of 50 units each. He indicated that it would be nice to have the flexibility to construct according to the market. If the market is strong, than the entire project would be built out. Chairman Murakami asked if a study has been completed regarding the demand for this type of facility. Mr. Ivelich responded that from the publicity that has resulted from the hearings on this project, there seems to be a lot of interest in the project which gives a good feeling that the market is sound enough to construct the entire project. Commissioner Asfour told the applicant that it was his understanding of the comments that have been expressed by the Commission regarding the 10.5 acre site that the landscaping along • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 14 - • the border of the project would need to be installed immediately upon receipt of approval, and that all of the cottages be constructed at the same time. If not, then there needs to be some assurance that what is approved for the project will be constructed. If these concerns were not addressed, he felt that there would be a waste of the time at the February 14 meeting. Commissioner Kaplan asked the City Attorney if the City could require that the applicant complete the construction of the cottages whether they be built all at once or in phases? City Attorney Riback responded that the City could not require that the applicant complete the construction of all the approved cottages. He felt that what was being suggested by the Commission was that the applicant be required to install other improvements concurrently. It was his opinion that physical construction was the only way that one can assure that the entire area is either going to be built out or not. Ms. Callon offered as an alternative that there be an easement recorded that would preclude some other design at a later date instead of having construction restricted. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that an alternative would be to approve the 11 cottage units and that should only a few of the cottage units be built, the remaining part of the site would be reserved as a scenic easement. Ralph Borelli, 19301 Pinnacle Court, indicated that a letter he and Dom Richiuso was included in the Commission's packet. He addressed the issue of restricting land entitlement by means of an irrevocable development agreement. As long as the development agreement is cast in stone and could not be changed, the easement restriction would be acceptable to him. He requested that a landscape buffer be installed along the southwesterly side of the property similar to that being proposed along Crisp and Chester Avenues. He invited the Commission to come into the neighbors yards and look at the specific view corridors in order to make an informed decision. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR GPA-94-001, UP-94-001, AND DR-94-0048 TO ITS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the applicant was proposing a public hearing regarding a development agreement and that it would be advertised for the Planning Commission's February 14 meeting. He stated that the applicant has indicated that there is a March 6, 1996 "drop dead" date in order to meet the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act and that a public hearing has been scheduled for February 21 before the City Council. • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 15 - • Planner Walgren indicated that the applicant would need to submit additional information before this item can be considered on February 14 and that the applicant has been made aware of those items. Commissioner Siegfried requested that the City Engineer provide the Commission with some input as to whether the two parallel streets would create a conflict. Commissioner Asfour further requested that should the two parallel streets be found to be in conflict, that the City Engineer identify proposed solutions. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission as to the upcoming meetings as follows: - Tuesday, February 13, 7:30 p.m. a joint work session with the City Council - Wednesday, February 14, 5:00-7:00 p.m. worksession meeting, adjourning at 7:30 p.m. to a regular meeting (no February 6 worksession meeting) COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioners Abshire, Pierce and Kaplan indicated that they were planning to attend the Planning Commissioners Institute. Community Development Director indicated that he would take care of the arrangements for hotel and transportation accommodations. Chairman Murakami indicated that the Tree Committee Pamphlet was left in tact by the City Council. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 1/3/96 Oral City Council ~~ PLANNING COMMISSIC~IINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 16 - ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, February 13, 1996. Respectfully submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT\PC012496.SAR