|
PUBLIC HEARING – PREZONING FOR ANNEXATION, REZONING, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – SPRING LAKE VILLAGE – 5555 Montgomery Drive – Applications to allow modifications to the Planned Development (PD 0308) Policy Statement and Development Plan, a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Community Care Facility on the subject properties associated with Spring Lake Village, and Prezoning for one parcel associated with Spring Lake Village and five parcels along Brey Road – File Number MNP10-011
Ex-Parte Disclosures:
Commissioner Bañuelos met with applicant, met with the neighbors, and visited the site.
Commissioner Faber visited the site.
Commissioner Poulsen met with applicant, met with the neighbors, and visited the site.
Commissioner Duggan visited the site, met with the applicant, and met with the neighbors.
Commissioner Byrd visited the site and met with the neighbors.
Chair Cisco met with the applicant.
City Planner, Bill Rose gave the staff report.
Applicant Representative, Sharon Muir Director of SLV, gave a presentation.
Project Architect, David Hoagland gave a presentation.
Arborist, John Meserve gave a presentation.
David Hoagland, continued with his presentation.
Civil Engineer, Kevin Moss gave a presentation.
Consultant for the applicant, Michelle Gervais, made clarifying comments about impervious versus pervious with regards to site coverage.
Public Hearing:
- Ken Wells, 360 Brey Rd – also speaks for the Santa Rosa Creek Coalition, would like the applicant to prepare a complete and accurate tree report stating there are errors in the current report as trees 94 and 95 are offsite; the report is based on 2006 inventory; he also would like to see lesser density be proposed; what recourse there is if they are wrong regarding the wells; and, consider zoning the Melita Rd as open space.
- David Wargin, 5376 Sharon Court – spoke of traffic impacts of on Melita Rd and mountain bikers using it as a corridor; further stated 62 units are a lot of addition, and 3-story buildings are too large and unsightly.
- Amy Cooper, Vice President of SLV – stated that the residents were originally concerned but feels their concerns have been addressed and approves of the current project.
- Greg Melick, 2517 Caballo Court, Owner, Ridgeline Roofing – supports the expansion stating they have done a lot of repairs at SLV over the years he is impressed by their desire to use recycled materials, their concerns for the environment and the sense of community that the organization has.
- Jerry Sonosky, resident of SLV – stated that they would like to see an updated expansion.
- Jameanne Owen, 555 Montgomery Drive #31, Resident of SLV – stated her positive experience living there and would like others to have the opportunity to also live there as well; supports the project.
- Daniel Levy, 2464 Pleasant Hill Road, Sebastopol, landscape architect – stated he also has had a positive experience working with SLV that his company of five men are able to be supported through SLV; he also commented on awards they have won for their sustainable landscaping practices.
- Hans Hoogendoorn, 176 Brey Road – doesn’t think all the neighbors have been noticed; opposed to the project.
- Ann Pappas, 332 Brey Road – addressed setback issues for proposed project as her home is adjacent on the north end; feels her view of Spring Lake will be blocked; also stated the trees along her property line are heritage trees and objects to their removal.
- Irma Martin, 350 Brey Rd – does not want buildings next to their property line; also commented it takes away the rural setting and their views.
- Wayne Martin, 350 Brey Rd – is encouraged by SLV reaching out to them; however, feels the project is too large, is concerned with the trees and feels the maps were inaccurate, and the issue of wells is a big concern.
- Margaret Fletcher, resident of SLV – stated a project of 3-stories is a big concern and feels it is incompatible; also has concern of shallow wells.
- P.K. Lindauer, 5537 Kathleen Ct. – stated concerns of flooding and drainage, density issues, the parcel off Melita Rd, doesn’t like the 3-story bldg, and traffic issues.
- Mary Ann McBride, CEO of Council on Aging – addressed the need for housing in Santa Rosa for seniors stating 34 out of 35 housing units for seniors have waiting lists; she further commented on the need for seniors to have a high quality of life.
Public Hearing closed
The applicant responded to the public hearing clarifying the intensity of the development in the area of the cottages which are adjacent to the neighbors borders stated that there are 20 units which is an intensity of about 6-7 units per acre; she also stated there is no intention to use the Brey Road parcel for construction traffic; She further clarified the setbacks between the cottage and neighbors were purposely aligned to allow the most space and also they offered free landscaping to the neighbors property to additional privacy; with regards to the orchard on Melita Road that they do own the property and she is not aware of any comments as to the use of the property when it was purchased from the previous owner, but in the future if they do plan to use it they would have to go through the process of approvals; but at this time there are no plans for the property.
Commissioner Byrd asked the applicant about the Mitigation Monitoring Plan and offsite parking with the applicant responding that it has not been determined as of yet but a church on Hwy 12 allows them to use the parking lot and perhaps an arrangement might be made with Spring Lake Park but there are no plans to use Melita Rd.
Commissioner Duggan asked the architect about the size of the cottages and the scaled down footprints but was concerned the heights have not been reduced; the architect responded that they are just one story.
Commissioner Byrd asked about LEED Design with the applicant responding that they have filed and have completed the design for certification which will be given after construction.
Commissioner Duggan asked the arborist about a comprehensive tree report and if he had personally gone out and done a comprehensive survey; the arborist responded that he had on three difference phases and had done an arborist report which was combined into the updated and expanded document.
Michelle Gervais interjected that the report identifies just trees that they are “required” by the ordinance to report on. When asked about the trees #94 and #95 that Mr. Wells mentioned, she answered that those trees were not a part of the project. #36 is a cluster of oaks and is not large in diameter and is mitigated for; and #34 is being preserved.
Commissioner Byrd commented on the importance of an accurate tree count.
Commissioner Duggan asked staff if it was subject to Design Review and if they had the ability to condition the height; Bill Rose confirmed it would be reviewed by the Design Review Board again.
Commissioner Bañuelos asked about the Statement of Overriding considerations and how long the project is anticipated for construction as she is concerned with noise issues during construction.
Applicant responded that construction on the site has been interior so far as for as the construction period for the new expansion it will be done in phases.
Commissioners discussion ensued:
Commissioner Faber – stated the design team has done an outstanding job; buildings adjacent have large setbacks and also have the ability to build multi-stories; heights are not unusual; quality of materials is excellent; the infrastructure is already in place; feels they have built out sensitively; feels the underground parking is very resourceful; supports the project.
Commissioner Bañuelos – appreciates the outreach to the neighbors; feels they did it in good faith; doesn’t want to stand in the way of the project; feels it would have been good for a community impact report; feels the changes are good but still has some concerns with the tree report and states it is too confusing and needs to be more clear and precise, the maps have not been clear; concerns of noise; transportation aspect is a concern because of the heavily trafficked road; feels the cottages are too massive; is not ready to support.
Commissioner Poulsen – feels it is a very thought-out project and was sensitive to the concerns; feels the developer has given up a lot to further mitigate the neighbors’ concerns such as planting trees in their yards and moving buildings and is very respectful to the neighbors; feels it brings jobs and makes a better place to live; commends the applicant; supports the project.
Commissioner Duggan – read form the General Plan LUL-E4 regarding protecting the rural quality of very low density areas within the urban growth boundary through design and development standards; feels the cottages are still oversized; feels the neighbors are all reasonable; has concern with the tree plan; does not support as is.
Commissioner Byrd – stated concern of plans that were too small; tree report not clear; shallow wells – where are they and will they be mitigated for; the crosswalk being the only traffic mitigation; trees need to be tagged; nesting of protected birds and raptors; setbacks need to be addressed.
Chair Cisco – appreciates all the work that has been done and all the negotiating that has taken place; feels they have done more than is required; feels the tree reports were explained; stated they already have a certified EIR that addressed some of the issues and they have already been mitigated for; also commented that the General Plan Policy that Commissioner is concerned with is subject to interpretation and feels the applicant has been very sensitive to the neighbors’ concerns in keeping with the nature of the neighborhood; feels they have gone far and above and have been responsive to all their comments from the former Planning Commission meeting; supports the project.
Commissioner Byrd asked if the applicant would consider postponing.
Project Manager, Jim Doyle commented that though they want to please they will appeal if not approved as they need to move forward with the project as soon as possible.
Commissioner Poulsen made a motion and Commissioner Faber seconded to approve a RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL TO PREZONE FIVE PARCELS ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF BREY ROAD AND ONE PARCEL ASSOCIATED WITH THE SPRING LAKE VILLAGE EXPANSION LOCATED WITHIN NORTHEAST SANTA ROSA AND RELATED TO ANNEXATION SESR 1-09 TO THE RR-20 AND PD 0308 ZONING DISTRICTS, ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 031-070-033,031-070-034, 031-070-048, 031-070-049, 031-070-069, AND 031-070-041 – FILE NUMBER ANX09-001
The motion failed with the following vote: |