Loading...
02/05/2015 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Adopted 03/05/20151 Planning Commission Regular Meeting FEBRUARY 05, 2015 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Fischer called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. II. HONORING OUTGOING PLANNING COMMISSIONER BRAD BANNISTER AND INCOMING PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PAUL KLOECKER AND STEVE ASHFORD Chair Fischer read a proclamation for outgoing Commissioner Bannister and introduced incoming Commissioner Ashford. III. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL Kelsey Heyd reported the agenda was posted on January 30, 2015 at 9:54 a.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioner Steve Ashford; Vice Chair Richard Gullen; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Susan Rodriguez; Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Tom Fischer Staff Present: Kristi Abrams, Community Development Director; Maria Angeles, Development Engineer; David Bischoff, Special Projects Planner; Melissa Durkin, Planner II; Kelsey Heyd, Planning Technician; Jolie Houston, Assistant City Attorney; Sue Martin, Planning Manager; Zinnia Navarro, Office Assistant Community Development; Henry Servin, Senior Civil Engineer IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. December 4, 2014 Motion on Item IV.A. Motion: to approve the minutes of December 4, 2014 Moved by Vice Chair Richard Gullen, seconded by Commissioner Susan Rodrigues Vote: Motion carried 7-0-0-0 Yes: Commissioner Steve Ashford; Vice Chair Richard Gullen; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Susan Rodriguez; Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Tom Fischer 2 No: None Abstain: None Absent: None V. PRESENTATION BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC No comments or presentations were made. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. An Urban Service Area Amendment request for the inclusion of Assessor Parcel Numbers 790-09-006, 008, 009, 010, 011; 790-17-001, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 010, generally located west of Wren Avenue, south of Vickery Avenue, and north and south of Tatum Avenue, into the city of Gilroy Urban Service Area. This request is commonly known as the Wren Investors Urban Service Area Amendment. The property is mostly undeveloped, although some single-family homes and the Gilroy Unified School District Farm Site are included within the subject site. This request proposes a change to the urban service area boundary to include approximately 50 acres, comprising the subject parcels, and does not include any development at this time. An environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared for the proposed project and will also be considered. (USA 12-01 urban service area amendment); Wren Investors, LLC c/o Dick Oliver, Applicant Planner Durkin presented the staff report. Chair Fischer opened the public hearing. Victor Akylas stated he is an owner of a small parcel within the USA and would like to see the application move forward. Chair Fischer closed the public hearing. Motion on Item VI.A. Motion: to table the public hearing for USA 12-01 and agendize for a Planning Commission hearing concurrently with applications USA 14 -01 and USA 14-02. Moved by Vice Chair Richard Gullen, seconded by Commissioner Paul Kloecker Vote: Motion carried 7-0-0-0 Yes: Commissioner Steve Ashford; Vice Chair Richard Gullen; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Susan Rodriguez; Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Tom Fischer No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 3 B. A Residential Development allocation amendment request to amend an approved residential development allocation to eliminate 30 townhouse units from the project commonly known as Country Estates phase IV, generally located north of Hecker Pass Highway (State Route 152) and south of Mantelli Drive, adjacent to the Gilroy Golf Course and consisting of approximately 153 acres (APN 783-47-003 and 783-45-044). (RD 92-29 residential development allocation amendment); Enterprise REI 8, LLC, c/o Brent Lee, Applicant Planner Durkin presented the staff reports for RD 92-29, Z 14-11 and TM 13-05. Vice Chair Gullen commented on the Lessons Learned section of the staff report and asked about the unique characteristics of the project. Planner Durkin stated the primary characteristics of the project are the hillside homes and open space. She stated staff needs to look at each aspect of a project and evaluate unique characteristics of the individual project. Commissioner Sanford asked why the project was originally designed with townhomes. Planner Durkin stated she assumes it was to provide a mix of density and to add points to the project in the RDO process. Commissioner Sanford asked if the city would be liable for damages within the golf course sphere of influence Assistant City Attorney Houston commented that when someone who purchases a home on a golf course should expect something might happen. Each situation would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Lai asked about a letter received from Pete and Linda Musitano. He then asked about access for emergency vehicles. Planner Durkin stated the letter is concerned about an easement for a water and sanitary sewer line. She clarifies that there would be no vehicle access as part of the easement. Also, multiple access roadways lead into the project for emergency vehicles. Chair Fischer opened the public hearing. Skip Spiering thanked Planner Durkin for her presentation and work on the project. He stated that there are many conditions that they are in agreement with. Also, re-design of the project has made it more viable from an ecological and environmental perspective and reduces the number of dwelling units and streets while increasing the open space area to more than 95 acres. Chair Fischer closed the public hearing. 4 Motion on Item VI.B. Motion: to adopt Resolution No. 2015-01 recommending the City Council approve RD 92-29. Moved by Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford, seconded by Vice Chair Richard Gullen Vote: Motion carried 7-0-0-0 Yes: Commissioner Steve Ashford; Vice Chair Richard Gullen; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Susan Rodriguez; Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Tom Fischer No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Second Motion on Item VI.B. Motion: Approve Consider and recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Moved by Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford, seconded by Commissioner Kai Lai Vote: Motion carried 7-0-0-0 Yes: Commissioner Steve Ashford; Vice Chair Richard Gullen; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Susan Rodriguez; Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Tom Fischer No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Third Motion on Item VI.B. Motion: Approve Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2015-02 recommending the City Council approve Z 14-11. Moved by Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford, seconded by Commissioner Paul Kloecker Vote: Motion carried 7-0-0-0 Yes: Commissioner Steve Ashford; Vice Chair Richard Gullen; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Susan Rodriguez; Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Tom Fischer No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Fourth Motion on Item VI.B. Motion: Approve Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2015-03 recommending the City Council approve TM 13-05. Moved by Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford, seconded by Commissioner Susan Rodriguez 5 Vote: Motion carried 7-0-0-0 Yes: Commissioner Steve Ashford; Vice Chair Richard Gullen; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Susan Rodriguez; Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Tom Fischer No: None Abstain: None Absent: None C. A Zone Code amendment proposing minor modifications to the Gilroy City Code pertaining to Chapters 21 and 30, which would be effective citywide. Changes to portions of section 21.39 and 21.41 in Chapter 21 (Subdivisions and Land Development) are proposed with regard to filing and action taken on tentative maps. Under Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance), clarifications are proposed to definitions for "bar", "boarding house", ’freestanding sign", "master plan", "window" and "window sign". The proposed modifications are minor in nature and are exempt from environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. (Z 14 -12 zone code amendment); City of Gilroy, Community Development Department, Applicant Planning Manager Martin presented the staff report. Commissioner Sanford asked about the window definition “Mullion.” She asked if there could be a better term or use instead of “Mullion”. Planning Manager Martin stated that “Mullion” is a legal term. Chair Fischer opened the public hearing, seeing no comments; he closed the public hearing. Motion on Item VI.C. Motion: Approve Motion to adopt Resolution 2015-04 recommending the City Council approve Z 14-12 Moved by Commissioner Kai Lai, seconded by Commissioner Susan Rodriguez Vote: Motion carried 7-0-0-0 Yes: Commissioner Steve Ashford; Vice Chair Richard Gullen; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Susan Rodriguez; Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Tom Fischer No: None Abstain: None Absent: None D. A Conditional Use Permit request to amend a previously approved conditional use permit (CUP 12-05) to revise the type of activities that will occur on the property and the improvements to be made to it. The property is located at 8385 Monterey Street (APN 790-36-032). The request would eliminate the dispensing of gasoline as an allowable use on the property and allow only minor automobile repair activities. The request 6 would modify the site by eliminating two driveways, increasing the amount of landscaping provided and adding two vehicle doors on the rear elevation of the existing 1,700 square foot building. The proposed project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. (CUP 14-04 conditional use permit); Rolando Barosso, Applicant Planner Bischoff presented the staff report. Commissioner Kloecker asked about the noise study and the status of the tank removal permits. Planning Bischoff stated the noise study found there would be no impact on the resident from the noise due to the roll-up doors. With regard to the underground tanks, no permit has been pulled by the applicant for such removal, to-date. Commissioner Lai stated the applicant should have at least covered up the gasoline sign. Chair Fischer opened the public hearing. Glen Gurries commented the applicant (referring to Mr. Rolando Barosso) is frustrated with the process. He stated the applicant will not remove the tanks unless the project is approved. He stated the applicant has spent a lot of money on the second use permit process, on consultants, designers and others. He stated the applicant wants the shop to remain open but doesn’t want to do a whole lot of landscaping and a whole bunch of other requirements the city wants; that will cost them a pile of money to beautify the city. They just want to operate an automotive shop. Rolando Barosso stated he makes decisions on this business venture and he did not plan or expect this much frustration. He said when the noise study was done and the city failed to give details that the sign needed to be posted for the project they already have. He said they did not know they needed to post the sign because it was not clearly stated and they failed to post it. He stated they intend to keep on working with the city but, there are other details that he needs to consider like closing the driveway and that will cost a lot of money. He stated the only reason the city wants him to close the driveway is so the city can make a U-turn and he should be compensated for doing the driveways. He said removal of the underground tanks should not be discussed until after the next meeting. He stated he is trying to find someone to do the clean-up work and maybe it will be completed a little late, after April. Ron Kirkish stated this must be very difficult issue for the city and the applicant. But, he believes all the problems are on the applicant. He stated the applicant says it cost him money, but if the city takes the applicant to court that will cost him a lot more money. Daniel Barosso spoke on why they have not removed the tanks and the reason is they were told by a third party that responsibility for underground tank removal is the 7 business that installed them. Shell is liable for the removal of the tanks not this applicant. He reiterated they don’t want to spend the money for this work if they don’t have too. Commissioner Kloecker asked the applicant if they had notified the city of their decision to pursue Shell for removal of the underground tanks. Mr. Barosso stated that they had not notified the city. He indicated they just found out this information a week ago, and are still looking into it. He said they work 7-days a weeks and it is over-whelming and he is trying to do his best. Chair Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kloecker asked Mr. Gurries about the statement he made “the applicant does not want to proceed until they know they have a project .” Mr. Gurries stated he had been told by Rolando Barosso that spending all that money on property improvements is ridiculous; they just want to have a functioning auto repair shop. He stated it’s that simple. The applicant already spending money on the use permit process and pulling out the tanks and other things. If they don’t have their project approval they may put the property up for sale. Commissioner Kloecker asked Mr. Gurries to clarify if it is the applicant’s intention to put the property up for sale or not. Mr. Gurries stated that if the applicant doesn’t get the project approved and doesn’t have what he needs to function, then he would need to go somewhere else. Commissioner Kloecker stated he does not see any lack of awareness of what the project expectations are. Mr. Gurries clarified the applicant’s intent at this point, with apologies to the applicant not posting the site in time or moving a little slow, is to receive an approved project. Commissioner Kloecker asked if Mr. Gurries meant “an approved conditional use permit” by his statement. Mr. Gurries confirmed, yes a permit. Motion on Item VI.D. Motion: Approve Motion to continue this public hearing request to the March 5, 2015 regular meeting. Moved by Commissioner Paul Kloecker, seconded by Vice Chair Richard Gullen Vote: Motion carried 7-0-0-0 Yes: Commissioner Steve Ashford; Vice Chair Richard Gullen; Commissioner Kai Lai; 8 Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Susan Rodriguez; Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Tom Fischer No: None Abstain: None Absent: None E. A Zoning Map Amendment, Tentative Map, and Architectural and Site Review request to allow the development of a 23-lot, single family residential subdivision on a 3.36 acre area located on the south side of Royal Way between Filbro and Imperial Drives. (APNs 799-44-093, 094, 095, 096, 097, 098, 101, 109 &110) Residential lots would range from 4,000 to 10,000 square feet in size with the average size being less than 5,000 square feet. All homes in the subdivision would be two stories in height. Access to the subdivision would be from two private cul-de-sacs extending southerly from Royal Way. A 10,000 square foot private park is proposed to be included within the subdivision. A Planned Unit Development overlay is requested to allow for provision of private streets, the private park and residential lots and setbacks that do not meet City minimum standards for the R3 zoning district. Twenty two of the 23 proposed lots are smaller than the minimum 8,000 square foot lot size. All of the houses would be provided with side yards that are narrower than the minimum 12-foot side yard width. Two of the houses would be provided with rear yards that are shallower than the minimum 15-foot rear yard depth. The proposed project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines. (Z 13-09 PUD zoning map amendment, TM 13-07 tentative map, AS 13-14 architectural and site review); Gilroy Construction, Inc., Applicant Planner Bischoff presented the staff report for TM 13-07, Z 13-09 and AS 13-14. Assistant City Attorney Houston explained that the zoning and tentative map final decision is with the Planning Commission and the applicant would have to appeal to the City Council the decision. If the zoning is denied then the tentative map is not consistence with the zoning and that must be denied and then the arch and site would be denied. She stated the Commission needs to start with the zoning then followed by the tentative map and arch and site. Commissioner Lai asked if there is only one street providing access to Princevalle. Planner Bischoff stated there are two existing streets providing access to Princevalle. These are Imperial Way and Filbro Drive. Chair Fischer asked what is the purpose of the access road in the park. Planner Bischoff explained he thinks the applicant believes staff had requested that but, neither police nor fire required a full-width access road. He believes that both police and fire would agree with staff that a pedestrian walkway 8 feet wide would be appropriate and emergency vehicles could access it, if necessary. 9 Planning Manager Martin clarified that this was an item discussed at one of the last meetings staff had with the applicant. Staff indicated a need for vehicular access but did not provide detailed parameters or widths. Vice Chair Gullen asked if the goal was to have the applicant re -design the project. Specifically, would it be better to continue the application or to deny it, and what is the monetary impact if the application is denied. Planner Bischoff stated if the Commission believes the project could be supported in a modified form, then the recommended action would be to continue the request. In a denial situation, it would be very timely and expensive to start the process over. Planning Manager Martin stated should the Commission go in the direction of continuance then staff would request specific direction along with the applicant’s concurrence. Commissioner Rodriguez was wondering why is there disparity between the applicant’s proposal and the City’s requirements. Planner Bischoff commented that this has not been an easy project; the application was submitted in July, 2013 and not determined to be completed until November 2014. Staff received the biological report from the applicant in January 2014 and the funds for peer review until March 2014. In June of last year staff had the discussion with the Council about the expectation of PUDs and what they would like to see in the future. Commissioner Rodriguez asked if the applicant was contacted in regards to the new expectations from the City Council. Planning Manager Martin stated that after the June 2014 Council meeting, the applicant re-submitted, staff reviewed and then circle back to the applicant within a few months. The City Council’s new expectations were clarified at that time. Vice Chair Gullen stated that application fees are presumably to cover staffs time, and asked if the Commission denies a project and the applicant re-designs and re-submits the project is there another submittal fee for the applicant. Planning Manager Martin confirmed is Council policy that staff time be fully reimbursed. Assistant City Attorney Houston stated that if the Commission denies a project, the applicant can appeal to the Council and the Council could take action on the item to approve, deny or re-design the project. Alternately, the Commission can give staff direction for a re-design. If so, then the Commission would need to give staff direction on the issues that were raised in the staff report about street width, lot size, density and other concerns that staff has, and to indicate whether the Commission concurs or doesn’t concur with staff. 10 Vice Chair Gullen asked if it would be too vague for Commission to continue the item and give direction to the applicant to re-design the project to address staff identified concerns. Planning Manager Martin clarifies staff found concurrence with 3 of 9 required PUD findings, but would like to have Commission’s specific direction if different from staff or the other 6 findings. Vice Chair Gullen stated he supports all points by staff as valid issues. Commissioner Kloecker stated he is concerned with the cost to the applicant if the project is continued and that it seems like there is less cost if the project is denied. He is also in general agreement with staff’s opinions on lack of amenities. He stated it is the applicant’s role to present a project to the Planning Commission and City Council that can be supported. Assistant City Attorney Houston commented that if the project is denied, then the applicant can appeal to the City Council. However, if the project is continued the applicant cannot appeal to the City Council. Commissioner Kloecker asked if the applicant could proceed to the Council with expectation to reuse the present design. Planning Manager Martin stated the Commission would have to deny the project, then the applicant can appeal to the City Council. Assistant City Attorney Houston concurred with Planning Manager Martin statement. Chair Fischer opened the public hearing. Michael McDermott, applicant, gave a brief history of the land plan and evolution. He stated he would be happy to remove the vehicle path from the park and add architectural amenities like stone at the entrance. He does not want to go back to re-do the land plan since they have been working on this land plan for almost 2 years. He stated he would like either an approval or denial from the Commission. Commissioner Sanford asked the applicant to clarify the side yard setbacks and his understanding of the minimum standards of the zone district. Mr. McDermott stated the PUD allows establishment of standards that deviate from the code. He said that an R3 property expects 3 or 4 units on one lot. He stated the market place wants single-family units, so they are trying to mirror R1 standards. Commissioner Rodriguez asked about the width of the streets. Mr. McDermott stated the streets are private and City Council changed the PUD 11 expectations but it was after they submitted. The HOA would maintain the private streets. Commissioner Gullen commented that the fire dept. stated that the cul -de-sacs where acceptable only if there is no parking. Mr. McDermott exhibited on the overhead projector a new parking exhibit that just came out the day of the meeting. Assistant City Attorney Houston asked staff about time line of the City Council’s PUD standards and the re-submittal of the project and was the re-submittal after the Council approval of the PUD standards. Planning Manager Martin confirmed the most recent re-submittal was received after the City Council’s direction on PUDs and that re-submittal did change the site layout. Assistant City Attorney Houston stated the Councils direction on the PUD expectations would be applicable if site plan changed. She clarified that if the project was not deemed complete before the June 2014 City Council meeting, then the Council PUD expectations would apply to this project. Mr. McDermott stated as far as he knows there are no adopted PUD amenities. He stated he served on the Committee for 2-years about 4-years ago regarding PUD amenities and to-date nothing has been adopted. Assistant City Attorney Houston clarified that the application was not deemed complete when there were suggested changes for the applicant’s plan. Mr. McDermott disagreed with Assistant City Attorney Houston because staff did not meet the 30-day statue on getting back to him on the submittal of the tentative map and it was deemed complete 31-day out. Assistant City Attorney Houston stated no Mr. McDermott’s statement is not accurate and asked that to be in the record. Planning Manager Martin clarified that there were no PUD amenities or changes as part of the City Council hearing on June 2, 2014. The Council felt adequate tools were in place and directed staff to implement the current ordinance, but to implement it more stringently. That is why there was no change to the ordinance. Vice Chair Gullen asked what the new parking exhibit shows in regards to parking. Mr. McDermott stated the rectangular spaces with the “X’s” through them are the off - street parking and it’s in compliance with the city’s parking ordinance. Vice Chair Gullen asked if new parking exhibit has been submitted to staff for review, 12 and if staff agrees that this configuration complies. Mr McDermott stated the exhibit was done today and he does not believe staff has reviewed it. He does not know if the engineer sent it to staff directly or not. Every house has a 2 car garages, 2 parking spaces not encroaching on the sidewalk, so every house has 4 parking spaces building in and the off street parking. Dale Ramirez spoke about an email she sent to the Commissioners regarding the property right behind her home that will encroach onto her property. Sh e said that there is no room between the homes she is concerned about the wild life and birds that will be displaced with the new development. Also the traffic will become more congested in the area. Randall Ramirez thanked the Commission for maintaining the high standard and not reducing them. He spoke about lots 76, 77, 78 and 100, specifically that construction of 2-story homes with the proposed setback will reduce the natural sunlight for the existing homes behind these 4 lots. The existing homes rely on the sunlight to dry out the lots. Without the sunlight the homes will remain wet creating mold and mildew. He also stated there are various species of birds, owls and bats. He asked the Commission to deny the application. Mae Valentino Pickett spoke about the proposed park by the levee and she feel the park should loop around into the triangle area and leave the water tower in place. Her quality of life will be impacted by construction of the 4 homes behind hers; it will limit her access to the levee and her ability to watch the family o f deer and owls living the in trees. She feels a re-design would be better. Rodney Pickett spoke about his backyard as his sanctuary where he barbecues with views of the mountains and wildlife. All that will be taken away with the proposed 2- story homes, which his privacy will be invaded and his backyard no longer will be his sanctuary. He will have neighbors watching him do yard work, barbecuing, being with his family and he will lose the view of the mountains and the levee. Regina Chambers spoke about losing privacy in her backyard. She spoke about her home prices dropping and parking problems on the cul-de-sac. Existing cul-de-sac (Antonio Ct.) has over flow parking onto Princevalle. She asked the Commission to deny the project and does not support redesign. Renee Filice spoke in support of the project. She likes the design and thinks it would enhance the area. She stated that if this project does not go through , the neighbors might be looking at condos or townhomes that would increase parking and impact on the area. Valerie Filice spoke on the history of the property and she would like the project moved forward. She believes the proposed project would add value to the neighborhood. 13 Chair Fischer closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Gullen asked for comments from staff regarding the number of iterations and number of meeting and the applied insertion that there has been some surprise to the applicant about the city’s current position. They claim they have been misled or have they known all along that there project is not on track. Planning Manager Martin stated she does not honesty remember how many iterations there where. She thinks it was July 2013 when the city reviewed the formal submittal. This is the actual date when the city reviews in depth and analysis as to the requirements and expectations of the PUD. There where changes along the way and in June of 2014, there was direction on how staff was directed to look at PUD projects. In light of making supporting finding for the decision makers. Commissioner Kloecker asked Planning Manager Martin if the criteria for the PUD was specifically transmitted or made available to the applicant. Planning Manager Martin stated the City Council’s consideration and discussion of PUDs was publicized. The outcome of those discussions are posted on the city’s website as a direct link for anyone who has a development interest. The staff report and power point presentation made to the City Council and a very brief synopsis of what the Council’s exceptions for PUDs was posted soon after the June 2014 meeting. Planning Manager Martin reiterated as a follow up to the applicant’s submittal after the June 2014 direction, staff did follow up with the applicant to explain the expectations for the project. Commissioner Kloecker asked if the applicant had specific information regarding Council’s expectations other than the website and posting or the Council meeting that occurred at that time. Planning Manager Martin believes so. At the meeting that Val Filice mentioned in her testimony, staff printed out a list of the 9 PUD findings, which served as the meeting agenda. Staffs concerns with the project re-submittal was discussed using the PUD findings. Although the applicant indicated that they responded to every item that we requested, Planning Manager Martin stated a couple significant items were not addressed. Commissioner Kloecker restated that there seemed to be a difference in opinion between the applicant and staff. Commissioner Sanford commented that the project may have inherited some problems with the new PUD concept. In relaxing some of the standards in exchange for certain amenities, it may be possible to find a balance, but it’s an art, not a science and cannot be exactly measured. She also reminded the Commission that the applicant requested action to either approve or deny the project on its merits. 14 Commissioner Kloecker asked for clarification on 8,000 square feet lot size and R3 zoning. Planning Manager Martin answered the subject property is zoned R3 PUD and R3 development standards calls for minimum lots sizes to be 8,000 square feet. The lot size does not take into account how many units are proposed on it. She stated that the intention of the R3 zoning is for multi-family units. Commissioner Kloecker restated that the 8,000 requirement does not indicate the number of units on such a lot and it can be 3 units. Planning Manager Martin confirmed Commissioner Kloecker’s statement that based on the density allowance an 8,000 sq. ft. lot can have up to 3 units. Chair Fischer stated the applicant is looking for an up or down vote and he cannot support the project as proposed. He thinks there are too many houses in the subdivision and concerned over the lack of parking on Royal Way. He also has an issue with moving the tank house to the park area and putting a fence around it. Kids will be curious and climb over the fence to look what is inside and the park area is too small. He doesn’t understand what the access road is for. The applicant should have meet with the neighbors and received their input regarding their concerns with placing a 2-story house right behind their homes. He cannot make the findings to approve this. Commissioner Kloecker agreed with Chair Fischer on his comments and is also concerned that there is no maintenance agreement for the tank house, and it’s going to sit there and rot away and that will become a liability for the city. He stated that the Commission doesn’t get to many applications that have a negative recommendation from staff and the applicant asked for an up or down vote. The applicant has a right to appeal to the city council and he also cannot support this project. Motion on Item VI.E. Motion: to adopt Resolution 2015-06 recommending the City Council deny Z 13-09 Moved by Commissioner Paul Kloecker, seconded by Commissioner Kai Lai Vote: Motion carried 6-1-0-0 Yes: Vice Chair Richard Gullen; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Susan Rodriguez; Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Tom Fischer No: Commissioner Steve Ashford Abstain: None Absent: None Second Motion on Item VI.E. Motion: to adopt Resolution 2015-05 recommending the denial of TM 13-07 Moved by Commissioner Paul Kloecker, seconded by Vice Chair Richard Gullen Vote: Motion carried 6-1-0-0 15 Yes: Vice Chair Richard Gullen; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Susan Rodriguez; Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Tom Fischer No: Commissioner Steve Ashford Abstain: None Absent: None Third Motion on Item VI.E. Motion: to adopt Resolution 2015-07 recommending the denial of AS 13-14 Moved by Commissioner Paul Kloecker, seconded by Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford Vote: Motion carried 6-1-0-0 Yes: Vice Chair Richard Gullen; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Susan Rodriguez; Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Tom Fischer No: Commissioner Steve Ashford Abstain: None Absent: None VII. OLD BUSINESS None VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Elect Planning Commission Chairperson and Vice Chairperson Motion on Item VIII.A. Motion: to Elect Richard Gullen as Chairperson and Susan Rodriguez as Vice Chairperson for 2015 Moved by Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford, seconded by Commissioner Paul Kloecker Vote: Motion carried 7-0-0-0 Yes: Commissioner Steve Ashford; Vice Chair Richard Gullen; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Susan Rodriguez; Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Tom Fischer No: None Abstain: None Absent: None IX. CORRESPONDENCE None X. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Current Planning Projects 16 B. Planning Staff Approvals C. 2015 Schedule for Planning Commissioner Attendance at City Council Meetings D. 2015 Planning Commission Committee Assignments Planning Manager Martin stated on the 2015 Schedule for Planning Commissioner to attend the City Council meeting the July meeting shows vacant and that will be changed to Commission Ashford. She also stated on the 2015 Planning Commission Committee assignments there are vacancy that need to be filled. Commissioner Kloecker stated he would remove himself from the Historic Heritage Committee and take the Arts & Culture Commission and Development Standards Task Force and he suggested Commissioner Ashford take the Historic Heritage Committee. Commissioner Ashford agreed to take the Historic Heritage Committee assignment. XI. PRESENTATIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Rodriguez invited the Commissioners to the Roll and Shot for disability awareness and she handed out flyers for the event. XII. ORAL REPORTS BY COMMISSION MEMBERS A. City Council Meetings of January 5 & 26, 2015 and February 2, 2015 Commissioner Lai gave a brief summary of the January Council meetings. Vice Chair Gullen gave a brief summary of the February 2, 2015 Council meeting. B. Housing Advisory Committee Vice Chair Gullen stated that there was no meeting. C. Historic Heritage Committee Commissioner Kloecker gave a brief summary of the meeting. D. Arts & Culture Commission Chair Fischer stated that there was no report. E. South County Joint Planning Advisory Committee Commissioner Kloecker stated that there was no meeting 17 F. Street Naming Committee Commissioner Lai gave a brief summary of the meeting. G. Development Standards Task Force Chair Fischer stated that there was no meeting. H. General Plan Advisory Committee Commissioner Sanford gave a brief summary of the meeting. XIII. PLANNING DIVISION MANAGER REPORT Planning Manager Martin stated that she sent out an email for the Planning Commission Academy is in Newport Beach on March 4-6, 2015 and if anyone is interested please let her know. She also stated that there might be a special meeting on April 9 or April 16, 2015 for the General Plan preferred alternatives and initiates the policies discussions. Chair Fischer asked Planning Manager Martin to send out an email regarding the special meeting dates. XIV. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Assistant City Attorney Houston stated she will be speaking at the Planning Commission Academy and hopes to see some of the Commissioners at the conference. She also stated she will report at the next meeting regarding a due process common law conflict case called Woody’s Wharf explaining some of the dos and don’ts on how a project that is denied at Planning Commission and is appealed to the City Council. XV. PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR REPORT Chair Fischer commented on the Planning Commission Academy and how unfortunately the city will only cover the cost of the conference and the other expenses you have to pay for. But, if you have a chance to go, it is a really good conference. He also thanked the Commission and staff for helping him as Chair and he wished the new Chair and Vice Chair the best of luck. XVI. ADJOURNMENT at 9:56 p.m. ____________________________ Susan Johnson, Deputy City Clerk 18