|
COUNCIL AGENDA: 05-20-03 ITEM: 11.4 |
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND From: Stephen M. Haase[PL1]
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PDC03-010. PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND PREZONING
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF QUIMBY ROAD, APPROXIMATELY
300-FEET EASTERLY OF MISSION GREENS DRIVE.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Dhillon abstaining) to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed rezoning and prezoning.
BACKGROUND
On May 7, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a Planned Development from R-1-8 Residential Zoning District and County to A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to allow up to 25 single-family detached residences and an existing church.
The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement recommended approval of the proposed .
Prior to the opening of the public hearing for this project, Commissioner Dhillon recused himself from the proceedings. Chairman James informed the Commission that he had consulted with the City Attorney regarding Commissioner Dhillion’s relationship with the property owner. The City Attorney determined that there would not be a conflict of interest if Commissioner Dhillon were to participate in the proceedings. However, Commissioner Dhillon decided to not participate in order to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.
Planning staff gave a brief staff report indicating that staff has been working with Public Works staff and the applicant regarding the possibility of reducing a section of the proposed right-of-way from 52-feet to 48-feet wide provided that appropriate turning radii could be provided to accommodate emergency vehicles. The design would improve front yard landscaping opportunity that with further enhance the appearance of the project. Based on preliminary review by the City, the design seems feasible, therefore Staff recommended that flexibility be included in the zoning to allow this to be fully explored and implemented if appropriate at the Planned Development Permit stage.
Staff also recommended that additional language be added to the General Development Plan notes to allow, per the discretion of the Director of Planning at the PD Permit stage, minor reductions in the required front setback to provide for a varied front streetscape. Staff noted that all minimum required rear setbacks, including perimeter setbacks, would be maintained.
Commissioner Levy asked staff to clarify his understanding that the project dwelling unit density would only conform to the General Plan because the remaining church site was included in the overall acreage. Staff explained that for the purpose of calculating project density to determine General Plan conformance, the entire project land area is utilized including the church property. In accordance with the General Plan methodology, the density is based upon the “net” site land area, which excludes land that is dedicated for purposes of streets, parks or other public uses. Staff further clarified that applying the General Plan methodology over the entire site area could potentially yield up to about 30 units, however, the existing Evergreen Area Development Policy traffic allocation limits the number of units to 25.
Commissioner Levy suggested to staff that the remaining church site, should it be proposed to be converted to residential use, could accommodate much more than five units depending upon the lot size. Staff agreed and noted that the remaining church site could conceivably accommodate as many as 12 equivalent sized lots, however a General Plan Amendment would be required. Staff added that the Two-Acre Rule (Discretionary Alternate Use Policy) is not applicable in the Evergreen Development Policy Area. The Two-Acre Rule is a policy that could allow a property that is two acres or less in size or be developed at the next higher or lower density range.
There were no members of the community present to speak on the project. The Planning Commission then closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Zito asked staff to clarify the issue of the existing “un-approved” building additions to the church and whether or not there would be a project condition to remedy this situation before the residential portion of the project could proceed. Staff indicated that the staff report states that all currently non-permitted structures would be removed prior to the issuance of any Planned Development Permits for the property, with the alternative that the structures be legitimized prior to PD Permit issuance. Staff also assured Commissioner Zito that his concerns would be communicated to the City Council. The applicant understands this requirement.
The Planning Commission then found the project’s environmental review complete and in compliance with CEQA, and recommended approval of the proposed rezoning and prezoning with staff’s additional recommendations.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A notice of the public hearing was distributed to the owners and tenants of all properties located within 500 feet of the project site.
COORDINATION
As standard procedure in the development review process, this project was coordinated with the Department of Public Works, Fire Department, Police Department, Environmental Services Department and the City Attorney.
CEQA
The environmental impacts of the project were addressed in an Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration that was circulated on April 17, 2003.
STEPHEN M. HAASE
Secretary, Planning Commission