CCMIN082013 - Laserfiche WebLink

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS 17. PUD-97, Ponderosa Homes — Consider introduction of an ordinance approving: (1) the rezoning of an approximately 2.1-acre site at 4202 Stanley Blvd from C-F (Freeway Interchange Commercial) District to PUD-MDR/OS-PH&S/WO (Planned Unit Development — Medium Density Residential/Open Space — Public Health and Safety/Wildland Overlay) District; and (2) a PUD Development Plan to retain or demolish the existing residence, to remove the 32 mobile home spaces and related accessory structures, and to construct 12 to 14 detached single-family homes Community Development Director Dolan presented the staff report, stating that the applicant is proposing construction of a 12 to 14 unit single-family home development located at 4202 Stanley Boulevard. The property is bordered by Stanley Boulevard and the Arroyo, as well as residential and commercial land uses, of which some of the latter operate out of converted residential structures. The roughly 2.1 acre site is situated partially in the arroyo, which is designated as Open Space with a Safety-Wildland overlay in the General Plan, leaving 1.84 acres available for development. While the site is zoned Freeway Interchange Commercial, both the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan designations are medium density residential which allow 2 to 8 dwelling units per gross developable acre. The current land use on the site is a mobile home park, although the majority of units are unoccupied or have been removed. The Council is being asked to find that the project is adequately covered in the Housing Element, Climate Action Plan, and Supplemental Environment Impact Report (EIR) to the General Plan EIR, that the proposed PUD rezoning are consistent with the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan, make the PUD findings required to approve a development agreement, and introduce the ordinances to initiate the proposed zoning changes. He noted that the subject site was one of those evaluated for rezoning during the Housing Element process and, while not ultimately selected, the related EIR analysis precludes the need for any additional study related to CEQA. Mr. Dolan provided background on the project. He explained that staff has been working with the applicant for some time and has seen several different iterations of the project, one of which actually proposed up to 15 units. Following a Planning Commission workshop, the applicant ultimately brought forward a formal proposal for 12 new residential lots that retained the site's existing home on its own lot. The proposal did not include any provisions for the home, which the applicant indicated the property owner would likely attempt to sell as a separate lot. At its hearing on July 10, 2013, the Planning Commission expressed its strong support for the project but was uncomfortable approving the project without a specific plan to address the existing home. The Commission unanimously voted to recommend denial of the project, but stressed that its decision was solely on this factor. Since the Planning Commission hearing, staff has worked with the applicant to develop 2 options for the Council's consideration, both of which are based on the original project with some minor variations. Option 1 provides some level of improvement to the existing home in that Ponderosa has committed $30,000 that would otherwise have been spent on the Bernal Park fee towards improvements to the existing home. Condition of approval No. 4 stipulates that these funds should go towards a new roof, exterior paint and landscaping of the site in order to make for a more attractive entrance to the project. Option 1 also includes the possibility to allow limited commercial and personal services or office uses to occur in the home, which would increase its marketability. As proposed, the conditions of approval suggest that it would be the responsibility of Ponderosa or the property owner to initiate the various Specific Plan and General Plan amendments needed to expand the land use potential, however, staff is amenable to direction that they take on this responsibility themselves. Option 2 allows demolition of the existing home, which would be replaced with 2 additional lots and 2 new homes matching the rest of the proposed project. Aside from removal of the existing home, Option 2 is problematic in that it provides less on street guest parking than Option 1. He explained that parking is an issue in this neighborhood which the project will likely exacerbate further. He also explained that City Council Minutes Page 3 of 10 August 20,2013