Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/20/1997, 1A&B - A. PD 158-96: APPEALS BY NEIGHBORS OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, ALLOWING A CHANGE IN OCCUPANCY FOR THE BUILDING AT 61 BROAD STREET FROM UNRESTRICTED TO SENIOR HOUSING, AND ALLOWING councilM°fift°� j aGEnaa izEpou �t ,�N�.. AO'g FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Prepared By: Judith Lautner,Associate Planner SUBJECT: A. PD 158-96: Appeals by neighbors of Planning Commission approval of an amendment to an approved Planned Development, allowing a change in occupancy for the building at 61 Broad Street from unrestricted to senior housing, and allowing development of an assisted-care facility on the site of the existing parking lot adjacent to Broad Street. B. MS 157-96: Appeal by a neighbor of Hearing Officer's approval of a parcel map, creating three lots from two, on the same site. CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolutions denying the appeals, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's action approving the planned development amendments, with some modifications to the conditions, and upholding the Hearing Officer's approval of the parcel map. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The applicants want to convert student housing at 61 Broad into housing for seniors ("congregate care"). They also want to build a new 64-unit assisted-care facility in the parking lot next to Broad Street. The Planning Commission approved amendments to the approved planned development on the site, to allow these use changes and new construction. Neighbors of the project, while in support of the use, appealed the Planning Commission's approval because of concerns that the proposed density was too high, the number of parking spaces too low, and the new building too large. The applicants also want to divide the property into four parcels. Each of three parcels would contain a building or set of buildings, while one would contain a parking lot. The Subdivision Hearing Officer approved the subdivision, but limited it to three parcels, each containing a building or buildings, to ensure that the City would be able to retain the ability to say no to any further development of the site. A neighbor appealed this decision because of concerns that the new building might be later sold along with the parking spaces that are on that site, and the number of spaces does not appear adequate for the use. Staff, the Planning Commission, and the Architectural Review Commission are satisfied that the parking and density proposed is appropriate for the site, however it is calculated. To relieve some neighbors' concerns staff is offering conditions that limit the number of occupants and that specify exactly what uses are allowed on the site. The ARC has given specific direction for revisions to the design of the new building, and has indicated that if that direction is followed, Council Agenda Report- PD 158-96 and MS 157-97 appeals 61 Broad Street Page 2 the plans will be approved. Staff therefore recommends denial of the appeals and adoption of resolutions approving the planned development amendments and the parcel map, with or without suggested added conditions. DISCUSSION Situation The Planning Commission approved amendments to the existing planned development for the project site to change the occupancy of the building at 61 Broad Street from unrestricted (all ages allowed)to senior-only occupancy (62 years old or older). Most of the anticipated changes to the building will involve interior modifications, but there will be some minor additions at the entries and a new two-level multi-purpose room. The Commission_ also approved the construction of a new three-level building planned in the parking lot facing Broad Street to provide a 64-unit assisted care facility. The existing tennis courts located on the site near Palomar are to be converted to a parking lot. Four citizens appealed the Planning Commission's action. The City Council first heard the appeals on April 15, 1997, and continued discussion to May 20 to allow the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to review revisions and forward its recommendation to the Council. The Hearing Officer approved a parcel map, allowing division of two existing parcels into three. Each parcel would contain one of the "campus" buildings: The Village (55 Broad), 61 Broad, and The Heritage. One citizen appealed the subdivision. This is the first hearing on that appeal. Data summary Address: 55 & 61 Broad Street Applicant/property owner: Morrison I, LLC Representative: Smith& Company Appellants: William McLennan, Florence Tartaglia, Charlotte E. Moskiman, Jan Scuri Zoning: High Density Residential with the Planned Development overlay (R-4-PD) General Plan: High-Density Residential Environmental Status: Negative Declaration of environmental impact with mitigation adopted by the Planning Commission on March 12, 1997. Project Action Deadline: Action taken; appeals must be heard no later than 45 days after filing (May 2, 1997 for the planned development, May 23 for the subdivision). Action on an appeal may be continued; no state or City law specifies when action on an appeal must be taken. Council Agenda Report-PD 158-96 and MS 157-97 appeals 61 Broad Street Page 3 EVALUATION The Planned Development amendments 1. The Council's focus was on the building's size. At the April 15 hearing, the discussion focused on density, parking, and building scale. It appeared that councilmembers had resolved concerns about density and parking. However, later paragraphs in this report will address these issues, in case there are still questions. Appellants are anxious about parking arrangements. Staff has attempted to address their concerns with additional suggested conditions. The Council continued action on the planned development specifically to allow the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to review.modifications to the plans. The ARC reviewed the changes on April 21. Overall (see minutes, attached), the Commission agreed in concept with the construction of a building for this purpose on this site, and agreed with the architectural style and colors proposed. The Commission found that proposed building setbacks and scale are the major issues to be resolved. To that end, the Commission directed the applicant to redesign the project, with specific direction to: • -set back the building from Broad Street the same distance as the existing buildings at 55 Broad(The Village) and provide significant landscaping in this setback area; • set back the third story 40'further back from the street setback line; • break up the roofline appearance by use of dormers and other features; • maintain a maximum height of 35'. The ARC is expected to review the revisions made in accordance with this direction on May 19. Results of that hearing will be provided to the Council at the May 20 hearing. It is expected that if this direction is followed, the ARC will approve the design. Staff recommends that the Council concur with the ARC's direction. 2. Density revisited. Allowed density was calculated several ways for this development. The Planning commission felt comfortable with the density proposed, based on the staff analysis. The appellants are concerned about the potential for rooms to be doubled up and the "population density"to exceed that allowed for group housing. Density for a project of this type can be calculated in terns of persons per net acre, or in terms of dwelling type. In either case, as explained in the previous report, a density bonus equal in value to at least 25% over the base density must be granted automatically for projects occupied exclusively by seniors. Council Agenda Report-PD 158-96 and MS 157-97 appeals 61 Broad Street Page 4 Persons per net acre: In the R-4 zone, up to 55 persons are allowed per net acre. The minimum 25% density bonus would increase this number to at least 55 + 25% (55) = 68.75 persons per net acre. Parcel 2: 61 Broad Net area: 1.22 acres Density allowed: 1.22 acres X 68.75= 83.88=83 persons Parcel 4:55 Broad Net area: 3.38 acres Density allowed:3.38 acres X 68.75 persons/net acre=232.38=232 persons Parcel 3:The Heritage Net area: .97 acres Density allowed: .97 acres X 68.75= 66.69=67 persons Total allowed on these three lots:83+232+67= 382 persons Alternatively,density can be calculated on the entire site,without regard to individual parcels. The planned development can allow shifting of density from one parcel to another. Using the whole site:(four parcels) 0.78 + 1.22+.97+3.38=6.65 acres 6.65 acres X 68.75=457.19=457 persons allowed Staff has made some assumptions about occupancy to compare the proposed with the allowed. Those assumptions are based on industry standards, and assume that most rooms are occupied by single persons. The assumptions and calculations are attached to this report. The conclusions are that the maximum number of persons expected to live at the site is: 61 Broad: 70 persons 55 Broad(The Village): 164 persons The Heritage: 64 persons Total: 298 persons These numbers meet the density requirements. The appellants are concerned, however, that operators may want to double up all rooms and that the actual occupancy could be much Council Agenda Report-PD 158-96 and MS 157-97 appeals 61 Broad Street Page 5 higher. If the Council shares this concern, it may set an occupancy limit on the project. Staff suggests the following limits, based on the area of the proposed individual lots: 61 Broad: 83 persons 55 Broad: 232 persons The Heritage: 67 persons These numbers reflect a density bonus of no more than 25%. The Council may choose to allow greater occupancy, which would still be consistent with density bonus provisions. Alternatively, a limit could be set on the entire "campus", allowing operators to shift residents from one building to another without affecting the limit. In this case, staff recommends a limit for the entire site of 83 +232 +67=382 persons. If the Council wishes to set an occupancy limit, staff suggests the following condition be added: • Occupancy of the entire site shall be limited to a maximum of 382 residents. The owners and managers shall allow the City to verify occupancy of the buildings by inspection of records or by a visual inspection of the premises. Any inspection shall be scheduled at a reasonable time of day and shall be preceded by a one-hour notice to the management. To be sure that future owners will be aware of this restriction, an agreement must be submitted, for review and approval by the Community Development Director, acknowledging the requirement and setting out means for ensuring that operators of all buildings will cooperate to retain occupancy at or below the limit. Units per net acre: Density can also be calculated based on the number of dwelling units. In the R-4 zone, up to 24 "dwelling units" are allowed per net acre, where a two-bedroom dwelling is one dwelling unit, a one-bedroom is 0.66 unit, and a studio apartment 0.5 unit. With the 25% minimum density bonus, this number increases to at least 30 units per net acre. 61 Broad: Proposed: 56 1-br=56 '0.66=36.96 3 studios=3 ' 0.5= 1.50 Total at 61 Broad=36.96+ 1.5=38.46 dwelling units Allowed: 1.22 acres @ 30 uniWacre= 36.6 dwelling units 55 Broad: Council Agenda Report- PD 158-96 and MS 157-97 appeals 61 Broad Street Page 6 Proposed: 45 2-br= 45.00 83 1-br=83 ' 0.66= 54.78 Total at 55 Broad=45+54.78=99.78 dwelling units Allowed: 3.38 acres @ 30 units/acre=101.40 dwelling units The Heritage: Proposed: 64 studios @ 0.50=32 dwelling units Allowed: .97 acre @ 30 units per net acre=29.1 dwelling units The density proposed,based on unit counts, is under(55 Broad) or slightly above(61 Broad, the Heritage)that allowed with a 25%density bonus. It is therefore consistent with density bonus provisions,because a bonus slightly in excess of 25% is consistent with bonus provisions. 3. Parking concerns. Some neighbors continue to be concerned about the amount of parking on the site. These concerns appear to take two forms: Parking associated with buildings. Some neighbors are worried that if the site is subdivided and some or all of the parcels sold,that only the parking actually on the same parcel as the building will be available for residents, staff, and visitors. The reciprocal easements that will be required of the applicant prior to final map approval will ensure that all parking on the site is available for all uses, regardless of changes in ownership. The easements will be recorded and will not be changeable without permission from the City. Parking some distance from the use. Some residents worry that if many employees park close to the new building that visitors and residents may choose to park on the street. They are concerned that the additional parking on-site is too far from The Heritage for its use to be encouraged. The applicants are willing to designate spaces for employees,primarily in the tennis court site. The Council may want to make this arrangement a condition of approval. Staff suggests, in this case, a condition: • Employees shall be required to park in the lot closest to Palomar,and spaces closest to the buildings shall be designated for visitors and residents,as well as for required emergency access. It appears that, for the most part, neighbors (including the appellants)are less concerned about the number of parking spaces provided on site than about where those spaces are. Some have asked,however, that the occupancy limit be related to the number of spaces provided. There is a difficulty in making a clear correlation between the number of persons on-site, if /�6 Council Agenda Report-PD 158-96 and MS 157-97 appeals 61 Broad Street Page 7 an occupancy limit it imposed, and the number of parking spaces provided,because the only place where such a correlation is made in the zoning regulations is in the "group housing" section(unless the entire project is considered a"convalescent hospital", which is not a particularly good classification, and occupancy is based on the number of beds. Calculations based on this assumption are set forth below.) For group housing uses, such as fraternities or sororities, the parking requirement is 1.5 spaces per bedroom or one parking space per 1.5 residents. The parking requirement for senior housing, however, is based on the number of dwelling units, not on the number of residents: one-half parking space per dwelling unit (as compared to approximately two spaces per dwelling unit for a non-senior housing project). A calculation of parking based on the City's group housing requirement would overstate the requirement. Therefore, it is more appropriate to calculate the parking requirement based on the types of units: 61 Broad: 59 units @ 0.5 spaces per unit = 29.5 spaces guest/staffparking @ 1/5 units = 11.8 spaces 55 Broad: 128 units @ 0.5/unit = 64.0 guest/staffparking @ 1/5 units = 25.6 The Heritage: 32 dwelling units @ 0.5 spaces/unit = 16 spaces guest/staff@ 1/5 units = 6 spaces TOTAL: 153 spaces TOTAL provided: 182 spaces RECOMMENDED: 180 spaces The Convalescent Alternative: An alternative calculation can be made if one assumes that the entire project is a convalescent home, or similar to a convalescent home. The parking requirement for convalescent homes is one space per four beds. If the occupancy limit is assumed to be the number of total beds available,then the parking requirement would be (assuming an occupancy limit of 382 residents for the entire site): 382 /4=95.5 = 96 spaces which is well under the 180 required. The recommended total requirement for 180 spaces exceeds the estimated per-unit requirement by 27 spaces. All of the parking spaces would be available for all of the buildings on site, except that some are proposed to be designated for employee use only. �"7 Council Agenda Report-PD 158-96 and MS 157-97 appeals 61 Broad Street Page 8 Both the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Commission felt the parking would be adequate for the uses proposed. The number of spaces and their locations were not a concern for either Commission. Some of the appellants are concerned that the calculations above will be taken as the parking requirement, rather than the 180 spaces recommended. If this is a concern of the Council's, it may choose to divide the requirement by use. In that case, staff suggests the following modification to recommended condition no. 2: 2. A minimum of 180 parking spaces,9 bicycle spaces,and 9 motorcycle spaces shall be provided on the site at all times. A minimum of 48 spaces are required for the project at 61 Broad, 106 spaces are required for 55 Broad(The Village),and 26 spaces are required for The Heritage. Bike racks must be installed near the entrance of each building(two bicycles per rack).Each building shall provide bike lockers for two bicycles or comparable enclosed and marked spaces, for the use of employees. No charge shall be made to employees for the use of these lockers. The parcel map. 4. The parcel map.A neighbor(William McLennan)appealed the Hearing Officer's action on the parcel map for this site. The applicants wanted to divide two existing parcels into four. The Hearing Officer approved a division into three instead. Mr. McLennan appealed this decision because of his concerns about the possible sale of the new building(The Heritage) on its own lot. See the attached letter of appeal for details. The primary issue appears to be parking. Mr. McLennan believes that if the lot containing the Heritage were sold,then only those parking spaces actually on the site would be available to residents of the facility, and visitors and some staff may be forced to park on the streets nearby. As pointed out in previous reports (and above),the parking on all lots (whether two, three, or four)will be controlled by a recorded easement(see subdivision condition no. 8, attached). The easement will require that all spaces be made available for the use of residents, staff, and visitors of all buildings. If one or all of the parcels is sold,the easement will remain and nothing will change. It will not be possible to amend or eliminate this easement without approval by the City. The applicants wanted to divide the property into four parcels, for financing purposes. The Hearing Officer instead approved the division into three parcels. The Hearing Officer was concerned that if a fourth parcel were created, with no building on it, then that parcel would be automatically conferred development rights. The City would be in a position to define what could be built on the parcel,but would not be able to deny development outright. By approving three parcels, each of which would contain one or more approved buildings,the Hearing Officer reserved the decision on whether further development of this large site is appropriate to a time in the future. This action allows the City to observe and evaluate the effects of the Heritage on parking,before considering any further development plans. Council Agenda Report-PD 158-96 and MS 157-97 appeals 61 Broad Street Page 9 5. Some minor modifications. The appellants have indicated that they are concerned that the project may change from its proposed configuration to some other use in the future. The project application is for an amendment to allow senior housing ("congregate care") and assisted-living, as shown on project plans and specifications. Any change to the physical appearance or to the use itself will require approval of another amendment to the planned development. No specific conditions are necessary, but staff offers the following condition to alleviate concerns by those less familiar with planning process: This approval allows the following uses: • 55 and 61 Broad Street: congregate care for seniors • The Heritage: Assisted-living for seniors as specified in project plans approved through this planned development amendment process, and as approved on building plans to be submitted for these modifications. Any change to the uses or numbers of units will require approval of another amendment to the planned development or approval of a rezoning to eliminate the planned development plus whatever process is required for the type of use proposed. CONCURRENCES Concerns of other departments have been met with design changes. FISCAL IMPACT Approval or denial of the appeal will have no effect on the City's funds. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may approve the appeals,thereby denying the amendments and the parcel map. The building at 61 Broad would continue to be used for student (or all-age) housing. Construction of another building on the site would require approval of an amendment to the Planned Development or modification to the zoning on the site to eliminate the Planned Development overlay. The Council may deny the appeals but modify conditions of approval. Modifications might include a requirement for additional parking spaces, a maximum occupancy for the site, or other changes. The Council may continue action on the project. Direction should be given to the applicants and staff. l—� Council Agenda Report=PD 158-96 and'MS 157=97 appeals 61 Broad Street Page;10 Attachments Draftiesolutions Suggested'added condition"§ Vicinity map Planning Commission report Environmental initial study Miautes.of March 12;.1997 Planning Commission Minutes.of Subdivision hearing April 4, 1997 Director's Action approving subdivision Minutes-of April'21 Architectural Review Commission meeting, Letters of appeal Government code excerpt: Section.65599.50)