3A Public Hearing 2013 0204 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

(Unapproved) Excerpts from the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes December 20, 2012 Page 2 of 5 Requests for disclosure from American Golf have been incorporated into the conditions of approval, Mr. Penaranda said. He also indicated that while there are exceptions to the RO zoning requested, they are consistent with other planned developments – such as eight and 10-foot setbacks from the north and south property lines. Mr. Penaranda said the applicant has brought on board Dan Cullen, a civil engineer who will ensure that the project meets stormwater requirements. The applicant’s proposal is consistent with what has occurred in the area since the late 1950s, Mr. Penaranda said, as well as going forward. He indicated that although groundbreaking is still several years away, some 50 units appear in a development outlined in the shoreline concept plan about 150 feet from the subject property. Mr. Penaranda reported receiving two voicemail messages in opposition to the proposal. Wendy Lao, a neighbor to the north on Aurora Drive, objected to the two-story design. Ms. Davidson, a property owner who no longer resides in the area, seems to prefer the old character and objects to new development in Mulford Gardens. He said that Karen Werth, another Aurora Drive resident, sent an email of opposition on behalf of the association on the grounds of additional traffic, increased on-street parking demand, possibly more crime and the precedent for higher-density development. Mr. Penaranda said the plan seems well thought-out and the Planning Commission should consider forwarding it to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Chair Collier asked whether some neighboring developments also have two stories. Mr. Penaranda confirmed that yes, there are two-story units next door. Vice Chair Abero asked about the fence that abutted the old driving range. Mr. Penaranda said the applicant is negotiating with the City and American Golf regarding the removal of that fence, which served as a barrier for the driving range, but the driving range has been gone for years. Noting that the conditions of approval call for a development fee for street improvements, Commissioner Hernandez asked how that money would be used. Mr. Penaranda said that it is earmarked specifically for street improvements only, such as road repairs, but not necessarily in that specific area. In response to a fo llow-up question about whether there is also a traffic impact fee, Mr. Penaranda said the DFSI – the Development Fee for Street Improvements – would be the same thing. Vice Chair Abero asked what analysis was used to determine the impact on traffic would be minimal. Mr. Penaranda said based on the width of the street and the proposal submitted, the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer considered the existing infrastructure adequate and therefore saw no need for a traffic study. Steve Fagalde, applicant and one of the Aurora Partners, LLC partners, thanked Mr. Penaranda and the staff, as well as the Planning Commission for the comments made at the work session on September 20, 2012, many of which resulted in positive changes to what they believe is a “fantastic development for the area.” He said he had nothing particular to add to Mr. Penaranda’s remarks, but would be pleased to answer questions. Commissioner Hernandez noted a potential opportunity to open up the site by connecting the turn-around on the subject property to the turn-around or driveway on the adjacent property to the north. The connection would create trough traffic flow instead of two dead-end driveways on each of the properties. Mr. Fagalde said it was a great idea but would have to reach out to the neighboring property owner. If the suggestion Commissioner Hernandez made proves feasible and private driveways provided reciprocal access easements, Commissioner Rennie asked whether the Fire Department still need the hammerhead turnaround that eliminated the two off-street parking spaces. Mr. Penaranda said he’d have to take a look at the layout of the property next door and talk to the Fire Marshal. He said that it might be complicated, in part because that development was done many years ago but also because there is not just one owner next door, but an association of many owners. Commissioner Fitzsimons, speaking as a real estate developer, said financial hardship does not seem to be a compelling rationale for the density proposed. He requested further information. Mr. Fagalde said that the numbers run on the proposed project provide a return of just under 4%, but he stressed that Aurora Partners LLC is not “the typical land property owners” – not trying to flip it. He said they aren’t looking for a long-term