PC 11/29/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Iserson stated that staff feels the HDR designation is appropriate. If this project does not get approved and another high density residential project came forward, it would have to be approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Also, if this project does not go forward, the City could change the General Plan back to its original land use designation. Mr. Iserson then described the site plan. The issues raised in the first hearing have been resolved. New issues have been raised by the residents to the east. These neighbors have stated the density is too great, and the transition to the higher density is too abrupt. The 10- 20 foot setbacks are not enough with balconies being as close as five feet from the property line. There would be visual, privacy, and view impacts to the properties to the east. A staggered layout (like that used on Division Street) should be used. Noise of the outdoor air conditioning units was a concern as well as insufficient landscaping along the eastern property line. In response to these concerns, the applicant has revised the site plan. The eastern property line setbacks are increased to 22-27 feet and additionallandscaping/larger trees were added along on the east property line. Units 9-16 setbacks remain at the original 10-15 feet. Unit 18 has been reversed so the balcony is further away from the Finn residence. Due to these changes, the courtyards are now narrower. The courtyards are now 11 feet wide instead of 23 feet, and the building separation has been decreased from 35 to 24 feet. The revised site plan does indicate the increased setbacks and increased landscaping. Staff is now concerned about the livability of the project due to the narrow courtyards and the decreased building separations. The setbacks are now generally more than what is required for a single family home (R-6500 zoning). Consequently, there is less outdoor area for the seniors and less available natural lighting. Staff feels the revised site plan is generally acceptable. Staff recommends the Commission keep the setbacks as shown on the plan for the units closest to the Finn residence, however, staff does suggest that 17-22 foot staggered setbacks are sufficient for the rest of the buildings. Regarding the suggestion of a skewed layout, the project architect looked at that suggestion and determined it would result in even narrower courtyards and an inefficient layout. The applicant is hesitant to remove some of the second-story units due to the economics of the project. A visual study was made of the impact to the Del Valle Court residents. Staff feels that once the Glanville development is built, the house heights will screen the site from the eastern side of Del Valle Court, and the landscaping will mitigate any remaining views in between. Staff also noted that a change in the income structure has made more of the units more affordable than previously proposed. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 November 29, 1995