Laserfiche WebLink
Excerpts from the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 20, 2012 <br /> Page 5 of 6 <br />promote street life within the complex. He strongly recommended varying exterior paint <br />colors to minimize the appearance of massing, perhaps using the same trim color <br />throughout to retain a cohesive look. Due to water-retention and drainage issues with <br />stucco, he also recommended plan review by an architect or firm specializing in <br />waterproofing, flashing details and correcting damage related to water intrusion. <br /> Parking: Although parking proposed is more than adequate, he strongly recommended <br />use of permeable paving products. <br /> Site work and landscaping: The very high pavement coverage would burden the <br />stormwater system, so he strongly encouraged permeable surfaces and swales. He also <br />asked about using oil-water separators in vehicle areas, and about tree plantings in terms <br />of the future effects of growing roots on paved surfaces and the leaves and debris that <br />would end up in roof gutters. He also recommended good-neighbor fences around the <br />entire perimeter. <br /> Other: Commissioner Leichner also asked about the owner’s intentions regarding <br />property management and reserves for building and landscape repairs, and any plans for <br />eventual condominium conversion. <br />Addressing some of these points, Mr. Larson said that: <br /> Some of the colors and hues could be varied. <br /> The water issues with stucco that Commissioner Leichner described don’t present a major <br />problem in the type of construction proposed, which also would meet building codes. <br /> He will discuss the possible use of oil-water separators with the civil engineer. <br /> The landscape architect would specify appropriate plantings to avoid the root problems <br />that Commissioner Leichner mentioned. <br />Chair Collier invited public comment. <br />Audrey Albers, 2037 Marina Court, said the proposal would be incompatible with Mulford <br />Gardens and would completely overdevelop the lot with more units than the RO District allows. <br />She also claimed the parcel isn’t 350 feet deep unless the owner has added property in the back, <br />and that pedestrians would be forced to walk around any vehicles parked in driveways. She said <br />it’s “too much, too big, too many,” and a green belt is needed to make more room in the complex. <br />John Manuel, 13122 Neptune Drive, said there’s already an overabundance of rental housing in <br />Mulford Gardens. He claimed most people feel that rentals don’t promote a community the way <br />owner-occupied homes do. As Mr. Manuel put it, the large lots in the neighborhood that bring <br />integrity to the area and allow for open space within the City have been a target of developers and <br />politicians for years. He cited an example of a proposal turned down by the Planning Commission <br />that would have crowded four homes onto 4,000-square-foot lots at the corner of Neptune Drive <br />and Marina Boulevard. Mr. Manuel also expressed concerns about the impact of the proposal on <br />traffic on Aurora Drive and on existing infrastructure. He said the proposal is “way overdone.” <br />As the president of Mulford Gardens Improvement Association (MGIA), Steve Modifer, 2525 <br />West Avenue 130th, said he’s been struggling to pull the community together. Years ago, <br />hundreds of people participated in various events, he said, but rentals have driven participation <br />down, including attendance at MGIA meetings. While he realizes that rentals are important, Mr. <br />Modifer characterized this proposal as focused on putting as many people as can fit into a small <br />space to make as much money as possible. He said if one building can’t be taken out to make the <br />project viable, the project shouldn’t be built. Mr. Modifer also expressed concern about the