09-11-17 PC MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Does the project further the goals of the IAEb1U? No commercial component, but design features wnl activate First Street. > Does the project meet all MEh11.1 development standards? No. setbacks, driveways, and required open Spate areas do not. The applicant has requested incentives/concessions for these items through the Density Bonus Agreement. Conditions and design features will lessen impacts Is the project well -integrated into and will it positively contribute to the surrountling community? The project ndesign is Intended to integrate it as well as possible into the surrounding community through architectural variation and landscaping. > Is the proposed 0.5 -parking space per unit sufficient tot this type of project9 AS 744 allows the applicant to provide lower parking per unit due to the situs adjacency to pubhc transit. The project has been conditioned to require the applicant to enter Into an agreement with a nearby propertyto provide additional guest parking during off-peak hours. where available. Would the project require the incentives/concessions if it contained fewer units? The project could contain more parking and open space if it did not activate the double density bonus. Fewer units would negate the need for some or all of the requested Incentives/concessions. •% Is reducing the publicly -accessible open space supportable? Reducing onsite publicly -accessible open space is generally discouraged unless the projectsite is located nears major public amenity, such as Downtown. No%'ever, the applicant is exercising his rights under the State Density Bonus Law to reduce the required onsite publicly -accessible open space and is increasing the required private open space to compensate. +• Can the project's reduced setbacks be mitigated or will they negatively impact surrountling land uses9 The MEMDs 100 -foot rear setback fora project of this size is more generous then in Santa Ana s other form-basedeode areas. The project has been designed with greater landscaping and bulldmgarticulahon to reduce massing and visual impacts. Based on the State Density Bonus Law and staff analysis, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve (as conditioned): SPR No. 2017-08 DBA No. 2017-01 Mr. Pezeshkpour noted the applicant requested a concession for off-street parking and open space, while meeting the standard provided by state law. A discussion ensued on the parking for the project. Alexis Gevorgian, applicant, spoke in support of the matter and answered questions. Chairman McLoughlin opened the public hearing. There were no additional speakers and the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Adopt Resolution No. 2017-29 approving Site Plan Review No. 2017-08 as conditioned and Density Bonus Agreement Application No. 2017-01 as conditioned with the removal of Condition No. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 SEPTEMBER 11, 2017