Loading...
2017/07/13 Planning Commission MinutesROHNERT PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2017 The Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park met this date in a regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 130 Avram Avenue, with Chairperson Haydon presiding. Call To Order Chairperson Haydon called the meeting of the regular session to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. with Chairperson Haydon leading the pledge. Roll Call Present: (5) Commissioners: Commissioner Adams, Commissioner Borba, Commissioner Blanquie, Commissioner Giudice and Commissioner Haydon were present. Development Services Director, Mary Grace Pawson, Planning Manager, Jeff Beiswenger, and Recording Secretary, Suzie Azevedo were present. Declaration of None. Abstention Acknowledgement of Chairperson Haydon acknowledged the posting of the Agenda of this meeting in Public Noticing three (3) public places, per the requirements of the Brown Act. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Borba, seconded by Commissioner Adams to approve the minutes of the May 25, 2017 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. The motion passed with a 5-0 vote. (AYES: Adams, Borba, Blanquie, Giudice, Haydon; NOES: None; ABSENT: None.) Unscheduled Public None. Appearances Conditional Use (CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 22, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Permit/Site Plan and Architectural Review Commissioner Borba stated that although he was not present at the last meeting, he did view the video and would, therefore participate in the proceedings this File No. PLSU17-0002 evening. Steven Scarpa Technical Advisor Norm Weisbrod presented the staff report. He stated that this item was scheduled for the June 22, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. At the request of the applicant, it was continued to the July 13, 2017 meeting. On June 22nd, the Commission opened the public hearing and accepted testimony from residents in attendance. Mr. Weisbrod presented the following project specifics: • 50,529 square foot (1.16 acre) parcel at the northeast corner of East Cotati Avenue and Camino Cole io Avenue Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2017 • November 10, 2016 - Planning Commission held a hearing on a conditional use Permit and Site Plan and Architectural Review (PLSU2016-0002) for a project consisting of 31 apartment units and 4,550 square feet of commercial space at this location. A motion to approve the project failed with 2 yes votes, 2 no votes and one Commissioner absent. The applicant appealed the application to the City Council but subsequently withdrew the appeal. This new application is by the owner of the property. A design has been proposed which corrects many of the deficiencies of the previous proposal • Applicant proposes a mixed use project consisting of 31 multi -family units and 4,200 square feet of commercial and office space. • East Cotati Avenue frontage would be developed with two single -story commercial buildings separated by a patio area. • 31 multi -family units will be located along the Camino Colegio frontage of the property with access to the parking from Cala Way. • Parking — The proposed project will be providing 61 new parking spaces including the nine (9) on -street recessed spaces on Camino Colegio. Mr. Weisbrod noted that these nine (9) spaces could not be accommodated without recessing them because of the existing bike lane on Camino Colegio. Based on the shared parking analysis, the project as proposed is expected to experience a peak parking demand for 54 spaces. With a planned supply of 61 spaces, the parking supply will be sufficient to meet peak parking demand. • Other areas discussed: Elevations, Landscaping, Signage Mr. Weisbrod recommended that the Commission adopt Resolution 2017-19 approving the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan and Architectural Review for the mixed-use project at the corner of East Cotati Avenue and Camino Colegio Avenue. Lengthy discussion was held between staff and the Commission. Key discussion topics included: • GG - Use of variance for possible reduction in setbacks and an increase in height that exceeds development standards for the zoning district — Planning Manager, Jeffrey Beiswenger indicated that the findings would not be made for a variance in either case; rezone would be regulatory process for this change. • GG - Stop sign and crosswalk installation process — Development Services Director, Mary Grace Pawson responded that stop signs and crosswalks are subject to warrants that are pre -established based on state regulations/criteria (volume of traffic, accident history etc.) If a request is submitted, staff evaluates based on established warrants. • GG — Restricted parking in M Section; what is process for implementing at this location? Mary Grace Pawson noted that the Municipal Code implements a residential permit parking program; a petition of the majority of residents must be submitted and evaluated. Street parking space striping could also be requested. • DB — Parking Study — noted mention of SMART train; did it address the University student population in the area? Mary Grace Pawson noted that the traffic study is based on the standards as set forth in the zoning ordinance; Rohnert Park standards are very generous. 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2 • DB — Accident history at this location? Application was reviewed by Public Safety with no comment of activity in this area. • JB — Masonry fence — Code allows 6' with 2 feet of privacy lattice? Mr. Weisbrod responded in the affirmative. • JB — Trash enclosure has been moved from prior application, is that correct? Mr. Weisbrod responded in the affirmative. Can trash enclosure be relocated? Mr. Weisbrod responded that parking spaces could be compromised. • SA — Accident history — Did Public Safety look specifically at the history in this area? Mr. Weisbrod responded that the overall design of project was evaluated and did not know specifically if accident history was taken into consideration. • SH — Height limitations, what is regulation for this zoning district? Mr. Weisbrod responded that the proposal is drawn at 25'; development standard for this district is 35'; 31 story could be accommodated. • SA — What has been the interest of uses for this location? Mr. Weisbrod responded 24 hour gas station/car wash was most recent. The applicant, Steven Scarpa and his development team were recognized (Matt Taylor, Architect, Sean Faber, Architect). Mr. Taylor gave a brief background of the proposed development for this site specifically addressing the concerns that surfaced with the first proposal that was ultimately denied. He addressed the redesign and relocation of specific elements in an attempt to cover the most pressing issue that arose which was privacy. Other design elements that were reoriented as a result of the first Planning Commission review included the trash enclosures. Discussion between staff and the applicant continued. Key discussion topics included: • GG - Is the applicant interested in a three (3) story concept? Mr. Taylor responded that due to privacy concerns with the first proposal, the design was left at the two story level and the applicant is not interested in a three (3) story building. • DB — Was there outreach to the surrounding neighborhood? A neighborhood meeting was also held for this proposal and many questions were fielded and answered. The neighborhood again was not enthusiastic about ANY development at this location and cited parking as the major concern. • JB — Fencing — Zoning would allow a 6' fence, with 2' feet privacy lattice, would that be amenable to the applicant? The applicant would be interested in exploring this concept, perhaps with a masonry material. There are height differentials with respect to the elevations/finished grade as it relates to some of the existing homes that would have to be taken into consideration. • JB — Trash enclosure — Could there only be one (1)? The combining of the residential and commercial enclosures could also be looked into with the help of the trash franchise hauler. • SA — Neighborhood meeting — Did they like any aspects of the project? The consensus was that they did not want any development at this location. Mr. Faber noted that this is a model project for a high density smart rail development. 3 Planning Commission Minutes Julv 13, 2017 SA - Management component — Will there be an onsite manager? The applicant responded in the affirmative. SH — Units on Camino Colegio — where are the front doors, city prefers "eyes on the street" concept? All entrances are from the interior courtyard. Design was very thought out given the mixed use (residential/commercial) nature of the project and possesses has a harmonious flow that accommodates both uses. Chairperson Haydon opened the public hearing. Bill Butler — 1188 Cielo Circle — Spoke to parking/traffic problems and issues that currently exist. Encouraged the Commission to deny the project. Joe Drescher — 1220 Cala Way — Spoke to safety and traffic circulation and the need for stop signs and elimination of bike lines to alleviate the dangerous issues that the neighborhood is currently experiencing. Stephanie Derlaway, Cala Way — Not opposed to development; new development, however, needs to work within the existing infrastructure. The neighborhood is currently over burdened with traffic, safety and circulation problems. Ms. Delaway urged the Commission to deny the project. Ms. Maha - 1197 Ciello Circle — Spoke to pre-existing conditions that exist related to parking and congestion that would only intensify if the development were allowed to be constructed. Also spoke to the concept of under floor parking garage. Wes Clausen, 1182 Cielo Circle — Spoke regarding density of population in the area (SSU etc.), parking concerns and traffic issues. Paul, Caridad Court — Commented on location of traffic enclosure; parking concerns with student population; pre-existing conditions. Karen Weinstein - Need for on-site manager and follow up by City to ensure all issues as discussed with respect to parking etc. are adhered to. Provided demonstration/visual regarding the height of the wall on the rear yard abutting Caridad Court and the elevation differential. Chairperson Haydon closed the public hearing. Chairperson Haydon called for a 5 minute recess at 7:45 pm. Meeting called to order at 7:55 pm. A brief discussion was held regarding the "eyes on the street" concept. It was noted that the logistical determination by the design team was made to not locate the front doors at the street level given human nature to park in front of one's residence, only to intensify the over -saturation of street parking that currently exists. Additionally, there is no desire on the applicant's part to re -orient the layout as it is currently proposed including addition of garage/podium parking levels. 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2017 Site Plan and Architectural Review File No. PLSR17-0006 Victoria Benham/Lendlease Final comments from the Commission included: GG - Stop sign at Cala Way crucial; limit parking on Cala Way and Camino Colegio Way; street striping along Cala Way and Camino Colegio also a must as well as installed crosswalks. Housing needs and project as aesthetically designed and proposed are vey desireable. DB — Appreciates applicant's presentation and efforts to work with refuse enclosure relocation as well as the management component and parking efforts; conflicted in regards to public safety and neighborhood concerns; trying to balance interest of applicant, the need for housing versus the overall safety concerns that exist and have been expressed. JB — Concerned that land is just "sitting"; need housing in the community; going with heart given current conditions versus need to look at the needs of the community as a whole; serves a viable need (SMART, housing for SSU students); struck by not trying to disappoint neighborhood but looking at the community needs in hopes that measure can be taken to improve existing concerns. SA — Appreciates that suggested improvements and "take always" from first proposal that was denied have for the most part been addressed; this is an infill project that is long overdue; problems in the area that currently existing need to be addressed by the City and feels some can be mitigated; job is to look at project and determine if it is "right" fit for the community. SH — Concerned about all of the issues brought forward; parking, circulation, safety; concerned there is not a willingness on the applicant's part to make changes that would offer a more comfortable level to approve where these issues are concerned; appreciates and applauds the aesthetics of the design. A motion was made by Commissioner Borba, seconded by Commissioner Adams to adopt Resolution 2017-19 approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan and Architectural Review for a mixed use multi -family and retail commercial project located at the northeast corner of E. Cotati Avenue and Camino Colegio amending Condition 19 to increase the height of the wall to eight (8) feet and adding Condition 20 to state that the refuse enclosure shall be positioned 60 feet from the easer property line. The motion failed with a 2-3 roll call vote (AYES: Adams, Borba; NOES: Blanquie, Giudice, Haydon; ABSENT: None) Mr. Weisbrod presented the staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a study session to provide the applicant and staff with guidance on proposed modifications to the exterior appearance of the KFC building on Commerce Boulevard and provide direction regarding site design components to the site. Mr. Weisbrod stated that Commission comments will assist the applicant in making revisions to the building and site design to be in compliance with the City Design Guidelines, Central Rohnert Park, Priority Development Area Plan, and Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Weisbrod presented the overall site and architectural details of the proposed project. 5 Planning Commission Minutes Julv 13, 2017 Chairperson ecretary Ryan Henderson, representative of the applicant, was recognized. Key discussion points and recommendations between staff, the Commission and the applicant's representative included consensus on the following: • Exterior roof line/tower is okay and acceptable in its current state; • Color scheme inappropriate; one solid color with trim accepts appropriate; • Re -work trash enclosure; • Install bicycle parking; • Landscaping needs to be enhanced; • Outside eating area should be an option; • Existing signage works well; • Enhanced walkability; creating downtown, improvements should be an asset. Matters from Planning None. Commissioners Matters from Planning None. Staff Adjournment There being no further business, Chairperson Haydon adjourned the meeting at 9:00 pm. Chairperson ecretary