Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-27-95 ~INUTES TUSTIN PLi~TNING COIO~ISSION REGULaR MEETING ~RCH 27~ L995 WORKSHOP - The City &ttorne¥ conducted a ~orkshop on the Brown Act at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. CALL TO ORDER: 7:08 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Baker, Kasalek, Lunn, Mitzman and Weil PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission (NO action can be taken off-agenda items unless authorized by law) . IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE SO THAT YOUR REMARKS ON THE TAPE RECORDING OF THE MEETING CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU. WHEN YOU START TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY AT (714) 573-3105. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the March 13, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting. Z. Conditional Use Permit 94-029 Recommendation - Adopt Resolution No. 3345 as submitted. Commissioner Well moved, Kasalek seconded, to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS: 3. Use Interpretation 95-002 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL VILLAGE PROPERTIES ATTN: ROBERT ISACKSON 562 MISSION STREET, STE. 201 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2906 13348 NEWPORT AVENUE RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-1) DISTRICT Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1995 Page 2 STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). TO DETERMINE THAT A PHARMACY WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-i) DISTRICT WITH THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission determine by Minute Motion that a pharmacy with drive-thru service is allowed within the Retail Commercial (C-i) District with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Presentation: Dan Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Mitzman was concerned about the safety issue. Staff stated that through the ability to have a Conditional Use Permit application the Commission would be considering each particular use and/or operator on a case by case basis. Commissioner Weil feels that this is an appropriate use for the C-1 district. Commissioner Baker stated he was comfortable with it also. Commissioner Well moved, Lunn seconded, to approve by Minute Motion that a pharmacy with drive-thru service is allowed within the Retail Commercial (C-1) District with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Status Reports Commissioner Baker asked if the City had a Code Enforcement Officer at the present time. Staff stated that recruitment was continuing for a Code Enforcement Officer and that the code enforcement report was being reformatted to remove Business License violations. Received and filed. PUBLIC HEARINGS: IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM CONSIDERED AT A PUBLIC HEARING IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS AGENDA, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. 0 General Plan Amendment 94-001, Zone Change 94-004, Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement & Tentative Tract Map 15055 (Irvine Company) CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF MARCH 13, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1995 Page 3 APPLICANT/ OWNER LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 SECTORS 2, 6, 8 AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNED COMMUNITY; EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM #5 TO EIR 85-2 HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15164 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-001 RELATED TO LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 AND LOT 6 OF TRACT 12870. 2. ZONE CHANGE 94-004 RELATED TO LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 AND PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 88-315. 3. SECOND AMENDMENT TO EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED TO LOTS 16/17 AND 27 OF TRACT 13627, AND PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 88- 315. 4. EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE LAND USE MAP, SECTOR DESCRIPTIONS TEXT AND STATISTICAL SUMMARIES TO REFLECT REQUESTS 1, 2 AND 3 ABOVE. 5. AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN FOR SECTOR 11 TO REFLECT REQUESTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 ABOVE. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15055 TO SUBDIVIDE A 40 ACRE SITE (PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 88-315) AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF IRVINE BOULEVARD AND TUSTIN RANCH ROAD INTO THREE (3) NUMBERED LOTS AND SEVEN (7) LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 350 FAMILY- ORIENTED APARTMENT UNITS, UP TO 163 SINGLE- FAMILY DETACHED UNITS AND A 5 ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK CONSISTENT WITH REQUESTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 ABOVE. Commissioner Mitzman stepped down due to conflict of interest. Commissioner Lunn stepped down due to conflict of interest. Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Weil stated she had conversation with the Irvine Company about the landscaping and she had requested that they bring additional drawings. She stated the current report reflects the doubling of the guest parking and she believes it will be adequate. Commissioner Baker asked what the actual number of guest parking was. Staff stated in a 350 unit apartment complex with roughly one third of the units being three bedroom, that 25 to 30 additional parking spaces would be anticipated as a result of the changes. The Public Hearing opened at 7:28 p.m. Mike LeBlanc, representing the Irvine Company, stated he appreciated the opportunity to return for the continued hearing and Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1995 Page 4 wanted to reflect on some of the discussion of the last meeting. He asked that people take into consideration that what has been proposed is a development program that is considerably less dense than otherwise could have been the case and with less traffic generation than with a high school. On the question of views, he stated that adjacent property owners had signed Contiguous Area Report Forms so he does not feel that the Irvine Company or anyone else had made any misrepresentations. With respect to parking, he believes that since it is a gate guarded community and there is additional guest space parking there would not be spill-over parking problem. He asked that there be no wholesale parking changes in other portions of the Specific Plan since it effects other properties held by other builders and feels they have not been adequately notified. In regard to building height he agrees to the specific building height for all components along Tustin Ranch Road and 50% of the units along Irvine Boulevard. On the matter of landscaping, they have reviewed the proposal on page 11, paragraph 10, of the staff report and in consultation with their landscape architect have a proposed modification, copies of which he asked to be distributed to the Commission. Rick Vanderwood, EPT Landscape Architecture, for The Irvine Company, stated that it is rare to plant a eucalyptus at 15 gallon, and that the two species they plan to use are camaldulensis and maculata which they feel will provide a good canopy at which time he held up photos of the trees mentioned. He believes that planting them too close will cause a maintenance problem. His proposal is one tree every 17 feet. Mike LeBlanc, believes this landscape proposal will be an increase over typical standards for this site and stated they were also very proud of the building architecture. Regarding the 25% index for the amount of apartments in their community, established in 1986 with the original development agreement, with the high school site no longer reserved things have changed and in order to develop the proposal of full build-out in the Tustin Ranch Community that is where the adjustment to 28.4% comes into play. This means the Company is able to build one more apartment project than originally anticipated. In addition, they are agreeing to more stringent standards than any other parcel in Tustin Ranch, an absolute cap of the number of units below present zoning limits, double the size of the setback along Tustin Ranch Road from 25 to 50 feet, additional parking over and above existing standards, early construction of a 5 acre neighborhood park with over one million dollars in park improvements and commitment to the two story profile as mentioned before. He believes this is an appropriate land use plan, is a quality plan and thinks the Company has been responsive to the comments of the community. Commissioner Kasalek stated she had a conversation with Mr. LeBlanc earlier in the day and asked if Mr. LeBlanc knew the actual height of the apartments. Mike LeBlanc stated that if measured from the sidewalk to the upper plate of the building would be 25 feet, depending on the roof pitch there might be an additional 4-6 feet to that. From the street edge it would be about 30 feet. Michael Nermon, 2460 Kiser, wanted to bring attention to the Lot 6 issue, asking that Lot 6 be precluded from the present application and considered at a later date. E. Gary Smith, 13072 Cortina, wanted to correct Mr. LeBlanc on the point of representations of "view" made by the Irvine Company and Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1995 Page 5 that there were premiums paid for the view, no matter what the legal jargon was, other units of the identical model on the interior of his tract were selling for $10,000 less and he was told that the view was the reason he paid the premium. He feels that the Irvine Company will make more profit without the high school site. He encouraged the Commission to have courage and turn them down in fairness to the homeowners. John Warren, 13112 Cortina, stated he left the Westpark apartments area in Irvine to move to the City of Tustin and as late as February 1994 the City told him there would be a high school site there. He feels Tustin does not need more apartments. John Swancoat, 2300 Pinehurst, purchased his home in December 1993 and one of the big selling points was the high school. He feels that since there was a legal document provided in the first place, should prove that the Irvine Company knew there would be problems. He feels that the master plan for the traffic is not sufficient. Don Hornecker, 2246 Nelson, stated he has been a resident of Tustin for only a month but it sounds like a slam-dunk to him. He is concerned about the "two story" appearance, he also paid a premium for the location and was also told by the City that there would be a school there and feels deceived. He feels there is never enough parking for apartments and is concerned about the traffic in the area. Niles Koines, 18022 Weston Place, stated he read the environment impact report and wanted the Commission to take into account the Lower Peters Canyon area. He feels it is imperative to look at the traffic generations. Concerning the release of the high school site, he disagrees with the statement that the school district changed its mind about the site, he says information that he has points to the fact that the Irvine Company persistently requested the release and he feels that this is not in the best interest of the Mello Roos District since a new high school will be required from the Ranch. This information is taken from a demographic report given to the school district 4-5 months after the release was voted on. James Kincannon, 12060 South Rivera, stated that the Tustin Ranch Contiguous Area Report which was mentioned by Mr. LeBlanc and which he has a copy of indicated a residential use, not "apartments" and he did not realize that 25 units per acre in Tustin was considered medium density since this is higher than anything else anywhere in Tustin. He feels that this apartment use is not compatible with the adjacent area. Mercita McClain, 13082 Cortina, stated that her Homeowners Association has spoken to the Irvine Company in many meetings and the Irvine Company states that they cannot sell single family houses, while she has one, and wants neighbors that are committed to Tustin. She stated that in their discussions the Irvine Company had gone from a 50 foot to a 150 foot setback, so she is concerned that they will again say something different later. Kathy Kellerman, 2510 Calle La Mancha, stated she was a member of the Board of Directors of the Sevilla Homeowners Association, and is opposed to the increase of apartments in Tustin Ranch. She also believes that a lot of apartments in the area are empty now and no more apartments are needed. Jane Anderson, 2475 Via Corella, President of the Sevilla Homeowners Association stated that the residents do not want to see Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1995 Page 6 the cap of 25% raised. The new elementary school in Tustin Ranch is supposed to have a capacity of 600 and busing is already being considered, the density factor defeats the purpose of neighborhood schools and neighborhood parks. Cheryl L. Bell, 10535 Bruno Drive, does not feel a hotel needs to be in a residential area and believes that renters do not have the same attitude as home owners, and do not care about the City. She feels that Irvine has plans for higher density around Peter's Canyon and is concerned about that. Bill Stracker, 13062 Cortina, is concerned with the harmony of the open spaces and feels the golf course and park should be connected. From a regional perspective, apartments are also being proposed in Irvine with higher densities east of Jamboree. He feels that 25% was a goal to be reached, not to go beyond. John Pouk, 12045 South Riviera, feels the issue is the choice of residents, transient lifestyle versus permanent residents. Feels that apartments serve no value to any resident of Tustin Ranch; the only entity that will benefit is the Irvine Company. Mike LeBlanc, wishes to keep Lot 6 rather than having it withdrawn from the application. The Company does not want to camouflage the apartments but will have appropriate landscaping. These apartments, a gate guarded community, will be essentially condominiums, owned and managed by the Irvine Company and rented out. They are proud of their record and noted that basic property rights provide that homeowners can also rent out their homes. He feels that under Irvine Company control the apartments will be a good neighbor. He stated that the Irvine Company did not make the decision as to whether a high school was needed, it was made by the school district. The overall development on site has a cap of 513 units on the 40 acre site and this blend of densities represents a quality plan. The setback requirement is proposed to be 50 feet and it was never suggested to be 150 feet. As for expanding the park, that would impede the recreational function; putting it closer to Irvine Boulevard is not a good idea. Occupancy of rentals continues at about 95%. With respect to the 25% cap, they believe that the percentage is reflective of the land use change. Commissioner Baker asked staff if the figures with respect to density as stated by Mr. LeBlanc were accurate. Staff stated that what was represented when the whole 40 acres is considered is relatively accurate, that it would be about 15.5 units per acre excluding the 5 acre proposed park. Jon Reynolds, 2461, Alister Avenue, went to the map and indicated areas not developed at the time of the photo. Regarding the motivation of the release of the high school site, he believes the release provided the ideal pretext to increase the density which they need to do for financial reasons. To the north of the larger dirt area he pointed to on the map is a high density of apartments that looks like a wall of row houses from the golf course. He stated that the Commission's job was to balance the interests of the homeowners against the economic motivation of the Irvine Company. He stated that regardless of what residents have signed concerning contiguous use, those people paid a premium for their homes based upon the surrounding use. The Public Hearing closed at 8:55 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1995 Page 7 The Director stated that it was not their intention to respond to resident concerns which have been addressed for they have been articulated quite well. Concerning the parking and the statement by Mr. LeBlanc that they did not want to make wholesale changes due to the interests of other developers, staff noted for the record that there was extensive notification of this hearing as well as extensive press coverage. Douq Anderson, City Traffic Engineer, stated that there is a master plan for the entire area and there has been a County master plan for Irvine Boulevard since 1968 to be a major arterial accommodating in excess of 50 thousand vehicles per day. Lower Peters Canyon is currently in for review and will be reviewed with the County Planning Board soon. The impacts of this project have been looked at and modifications required. Commissioner Kasalek asked if there was an underlying density for the school site. Staff stated that when the East Tustin Specific Plan was adopted provision was made for most of the school sites to have an underlying designation of medium density which would allow up to 18 dwelling units per acre. Nothing can happen on the high school site without rezoning the property. Commissioner Weil stated it was interesting listening to the comments both this time and at the last meeting since she was on the Commission when they listened to over 400 residents from North Tustin asking the Commission not to develop East Tustin so as not to disturb their pastoral view and a lot of the same comments were voiced then. Irvine Boulevard will be widened to take care of the traffic. She feels the apartments are an appropriate land use along Irvine Boulevard and they would buffer the single family houses from the noise and also feels that the landscaping needs to be increased and the apartments portrayed as an upscale community. She does feel that the Commission's job was to balance and the amount of units that could be put on the site are a lot more than are being proposed. Commissioner Baker asked staff if they would comment on the landscaping proposal as submitted this evening by Mr. LeBlanc. The Director stated that in making staff recommendation they responded to the request of Commissioner Weil that the landscaping be a comparable ratio as to that of the Kmart site with an upgrade to provide additional canopy treatments. The Irvine Company proposal provides less than what is on the Kmart site. The company is also recommending a 15 gallon size eucalyptus, but staff has found that even after considerable growth, eucalyptus trees do not represent a canopy tree. Commissioner Kasalek, stated that her perception of the Irvine Company is that they have a good reputation and are extremely responsive. However, she feels she must look to the good of the City and to the future and feels it would be irresponsible to move toward higher density. Concerning the percentage of 25% to 28.4% if based on the total build-out and the percentage they want to build as compared to what will actually be built, the percentage is actually closer to 33%. Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1995 Page 8 Commissioner Baker stated that he listens to everything everyone has to say and from his perspective he has seen a lot of change in the area. The world will not stay the way it is and as much as he would like to see the property remain a grassy park it is going to change. He is not excited about apartments on that property but this proposed project is a multifamily, gated community with adequate parking, the property owner has rights to land use and he is in favor of the project. Commissioner Weil moved, Kasalek seconded, to adopt Resolution 3340 as submitted, certifying the Environmental Impact report and Addendum No. 5 and recommending that the City Council certify the EIR. Motion carried 3-0. Commissioner Weil moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution 3341 recommending to the City Council amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement subject to the final approval of the City Attorney with the following modifications; 1) The attached Exhibit A be modified to add a new paragraph 9 to read, "The building height of any future development provided on Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 15055 shall be limited to provide a two story appearance for those buildings located adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road and 50% of those buildings located adjacent to Irvine Boulevard." 2) The attached Exhibit A be modified to add a new paragraph 10 to read, "Lot I of Tentative Tract 15055 Medium High Density Site, Perimeter Landscaping. The perimeter landscaping along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard of any future development provided on Lot i of Tentative Tract 15055 shall be at minimum provided in accordance with the following: Trees: One tree for each (ten) 10 linear feet of street frontage along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard shall be provided. Said trees shall be provided in the following ratios: 45% 4O% 15% 24"-Box trees 36"-Box trees 48"-Box trees Shrubs: Twelve (12) 5-Gallon shrub for each 25 linear feet of street frontage along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard shall be provided. In addition to the eucalyptus and canary island pine identified in the landscape concept plan additional trees with a broad canopy shall be included in the perimeter tree planting palette along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard to provide effective landscape screening subject to final approval of the Community Development Department and Public Works Department. All other landscaping on the subject site shall comply with the City's Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines." Motion carried 2-1. Commissioner Kasalek opposed. Commissioner Weil moved, Baker seconded, to adopt Resolution 3342, recommending to the city Council approval of General Plan Amendment 94-001 as submitted. Motion carried 2-1. Commissioner Kasalek opposed. Commissioner weil moved, Baker seconded, to adopt Resolution 3343 recommending to the City Council approval of the Zone Change 94-04 to change the zoning designation and the East Tustin Specific Plan Land Use Plan as amended. Exhibit D, would include an additional change to Section 3.10.1.C to reflect the parking changes as Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1995 Page 9 requested by Commissioner Weil and identified in Table 5 of the staff report. (See attachment to Action Minutes) Motion carried 2- 1. Commissioner Kasalek opposed. Commissioner Well moved, Baker seconded, to adopt Resolution 3344 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 15055 revised as follows, Page 13. Condition 9.7 shall read, "Building height of any future development of Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 15055 shall be consistent with the height limitations specified in the Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement. Condition 9.8 shall read, "The perimeter landscaping of any future development of Lot i of Tentative Tract 15055 along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard shall be consistent with the perimeter landscaping requirements specified in the second amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement." Motion carried 2-1. Commissioner Kasalek opposed. Commissioner Weil moved, Baker seconded, to adopt Resolution 3346 to conditionally approve an amendment to Sector 11 Conceptual Site Plan of the East Tustin Specific Plan as submitted. Motion carried 2-1. Commissioner Kasalek opposed. Commissioners Lunn and Mitzman returned to the panel. STAFF CONCERNS: 6. Report on Actions taken at March 20, 1995 City Council Meeting Staff reported on the subject agenda. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Lunn - none Commissioner Weil - Welcomed Denny's Restaurant to the City of Tustin. - Asked the status of the Palm Reader sign Staff will follow up and report back to the Commission on the results of the notice and order which has been issued. Commissioner Kasalek - Mentioned that the temperature in the Chamber was extremely cold this evening. Council Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1995 Page 10 Commissioner Mitzman Stated that sidewalk sales appear to be back at Home Depot. Stated that he had received a letter from the Senior Housing Council requesting use of the Senior Center for July 20, 1995. Staff will forward the letter to the Community Services Department for scheduling. Stated he will be on vacation and will not be attending the April 10th meeting of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Baker Asked if work had commenced along the side of the Home Depot building near the car wash. Staff stated that Home Depot will be requesting complete outdoor sales on weekends; have not completed the traffic work and have asked to bring it before the Commission in any case. Stated he would also not be attending the April 10th Planning Commission Meeting due to a prior commitment. Commissioner Weil moved, Lunn seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission is on April 10, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Chair~berson _ ~ v Secretary ATTACHMENT TO MARCH 27, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES #5. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-001, ZONE CHANGE 94-004, SECOND ~MENDMENT TO THE EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP ]5055 (THE iRVINE COMPANY). SEE PAGE 2. TABLE 5 District Section 3.10.1.C entitled "Residential Off-Street read as fo[Lows: Parking Requirements" would need to be amended to Spaces ~ ....... Cr--~-~t for Gp~st.~rpa~qs Required Assigned Guest/ ~[~ .... Spaces/Unit Unassigned On-Street Estate 3 ~ ~ 3 Car Garage 2 per unit 0% Lo__w 1. Sector 8, 9, 10 2 2 Car Garage 2 per unit 0% 2. Sector 2 2 2 Car Garage 2 per unit ~ ~% Medium Low 2 2 Car Garage ~ ~-~ per unit 50X Medium & Medium High 1. Detached 2 2 Car Garage ~ .~ per unit 50% 2. Attached Studio 1.0 1 Carport (1) 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Carport (1) 2 Bedroom 2.0 2 Carports (1) 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Carports (1) 4 Bedroom 2.5 2 Carports (1) 3. MultipLe FamiLy (apartments) Studio 1.0 1 Carport (1) 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Carport (1) 2 Bedroom 2.0 ~ ~ Carport (1) 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Carports (1) 4 Bedroom 2.5 2 Carports (1) 4. Patio Ho~es(2) 1-3 Bedrooms 2.0 2 Car Garage ~ ,,~ per unit 50X Bedrooms 2.5 2 Car Garage ~ ,~ per unit 50% (1) (2) Attached single family and muLtipLe family developments shat[ provide a minimum of ,5 ~4 per unit open unassigned parking spaces for 6 or more clue[ting units, if a two car enclosed private garage is provided, a guest parking standard of i~-5 open unassigned spaces per unit shaLL apply. Required guest parking for Patio Home products must be Located within a 200 foot radius measured from the nearest building frontage facing a street, drive or court of the designated unit which the parking space is intended to serve.