CITY OF
COTATI Approved May 15, 2000
MINUTES for the
Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
DATE OF
MEETING: Monday,
May 1, 2000
TIME OF
MEETING: 7:00
p.m.
PLACE
OF MEETING: Cotati City
Hall, City Council Chambers
201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati,
CA 94931
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairwoman Gilardi called the
meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Van
Dyke, Mulligan, Pagnusat, Moore, Gilardi
Staff Present: Dorch,
Lustig, Brisbine
III. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
IV. ORAL
AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There
were no oral or written communications.
V. MATTERS AT HAND
A. INDUSTRIAL AVENUE
(SANTERO WAY) SPECIFIC PLAN
The City of Cotati Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing
on the Industrial Avenue (Santero Way) Specific Plan and Environmental Impact
Report; make their final recommendations; and officially forward the document
to the City Council.
Director
of Planning Dorch presented the staff report.
Phil
Erickson, Community Design + Architecture, reviewed the history of
the specific plan process to date and his memoranda dated April 17 & 18,
2000, which were a part of the meeting packet.
He discussed changes to the specific plan including:
ú
built-in flexibility to conform with market conditions;
ú
a reduction to the office square footage to provide more
opportunity for live/work;
ú
increased railroad buffer area;
ú
an increase in residential units to 184 including several
live/work opportunities;
ú
an increase in building height to 2.5 stories to
accommodate ground-floor commercial with two floors of residential above;
ú
improved buffer at Rohnert Park border;
ú
design standard flexibility added (shalls to shoulds,
etc.); and,
ú
modified Cottage Industry uses in response to the
concerns from Windmill Farms.
In addition to the above, Mr.
Erickson also discussed parking and the possibilities for providing 80
additional spaces; amended language to
allow the continuation of existing non-conforming uses without expansion;
improvement costs and potential funding sources; cost reductions for public
amenities; and a cost comparison for development with or without a Specific
Plan.
Financing and Implementation
issues will be addressed further after input from the Cotati Redevelopment
Agency and Sonoma County Transit, etc.
Mr. Erickson requested that the Planning Commission provide input in
order to set priorities and then the section will be completed.
In summary, Mr. Erickson stated
that over the past several months, an attempt has been made to review public comment and work towards ways to
address expressed concerns. At the same
time, they have attempted to maintain a balance with clear direction in the
General Plan and the during the planning process of the Specific Plan, to
maintain a mixed-use development that has the pedestrian qualities, character
that fits Cotati, and that has uses and design elements that help the plan to
integrate in a friendly way into the surrounding area.
Nadin
Sponamore, Sponamore Associates, addressed the final EIR.. The approach to the final EIR was to provide
a standard errata sheet and provides some global responses regarding comments
to the draft EIR and Specific Plan. The
final EIR evaluates increased residential density to 249 units and a slightly
revised commercial component. An
increased residential density of 100 units was evaluated. Associated traffic
impacts, impacts to public services and utilities, air quality, etc., were
approximately 6% higher than that of the preferred plan in the Draft Specific
Plan and EIR. Responses were provided
to all comments received
and no new potentially
significant impacts were identified that would require recirculation of the
EIR.
Director
of Planning Dorch reported the results of a meeting today with Bert
Bangsberg, representative for several of the property owners. The discussion resulted in two minor
modifications which staff recommends be approved by the Planning Commission as
follows:
Memo from Phil Erickson dated
April 18, 2000 (Planning Commission Draft Specific Plan Recommendations) – p.
11 & 12 of 17:
Section
6.3.1.1, delete last two sentences (initially
recommended was to delete last sentence;
it was later clarified to include last two sentences) and replace as
follows:
The Design Review Board’s review will also be based upon the design
guidelines and standards within the Specific Plan. Variation from these guidelines and standards would require
amending the Specific Plan, as described in §6.2.5. Variations from Section 3.3, Land Use
District Standards and Guidelines, may be considered by the Design Review
Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council, as long as the modifications
meet the spirit of the Specific Plan.
However, building height and yard setback dimensions shall not be
modified.
Draft Specific Plan, p. 2.23,
§2.2.4, Objective IM-3. Amend as
follows:
Provide
flexibility, such as land use district standards and guidelines and land use mixes, in the Specific Plan to allow future
development to satisfy the changing needs of the real estate market while
meeting the community’s other objectives for the Santero Way neighborhood.
Memo from Phil Erickson dated
April 18, 2000 (Planning Commission Draft Specific Plan Recommendations) – p.
11 of 17:
Revise
§6.2.3 Nonconforming Uses. Add a
definition for non-conforming uses consistent with Cotati Municipal Code
§17.40.280.
Chairwoman
Gilardi opened the PUBLIC HEARING at 7:45 p.m.
Paul
Foti
7883
Old Redwood Highway, suggested the following:
The “Non-Conforming Use”
section should apply to more than just the Smith carwash business and should
also include a provision for the sale of a business.
Truck routing needs to be
evaluated further.
The 50 foot setback with 10
foot of landscaping is excessive for a one acre property and would cause a
difficult situation for on-site truck maneuverability. He suggested that the standard 20 foot
setback apply.
The Plan, in his opinion, is
oriented more towards residential uses than to businesses. He predicted that the future residents will
dictate the activities of the businesses and restrict them to the point of not
being able to grow.
Concerning Plan references to
possible acquisition of property, he pointed out that these properties have
been tied up for two years. He
recommended that language be included in the Plan requiring property
acquisitions be backed up with a deposit and an escrow. The escrow would be established for a specific
length of time, after which time the property would be released to the property
owner to pursue their own plans.
David
Solomon
Northwestern
Pacific Railroad Authority, spoke on behalf of the NWPRR staff and
congratulated the City of Cotati for a plan very well done and expressed
appreciation for responses to Northwestern Pacific Railroad’s comments
regarding the Transportation and Circulation Element. The changes made address not only the future rail transit, but
also improvements related to a bus transit facility. He reported that the Specific Plan was presented today to the NWPR
Board of Directors in San Francisco and was well received and supported.
Ron
Bendorff, Interim Planning Director
City of
Rohnert Park, congratulated
the City of Cotati on a very far-reaching and innovative plan. He also acknowledged that Cotati staff has
addressed a lot of the concerns expressed by the City of Rohnert Park. Particularly, the plan addresses buffering
between these properties and Rohnert Park properties.
One remaining issue is a
potential roundabout at the Santero Way/East Cotati Avenue intersection that
the City of Rohnert Park does not particularly care for. However, he no longer believes that a
roundabout is intended for this location.
He requested that if and when such a traffic-calming measure is
proposed, that an environmental review process take place. Other than that, the City of Rohnert Park
supports the Specific Plan.
Bert
Bangsberg, identified himself as representing 7 of the 9 Santero
Way property owners. Mr. Bangsberg
acknowledged that he met with Planning staff today and that substantial
progress has been made towards reaching an agreement. The property owners, however, would like to see suggested changes
in writing prior to offering support to the Plan. He discussed the following points:
ú
Sharing of Plan-wide costs;
In response to an inquiry from
Mr. Bangsberg, Director of Planning Dorch said that opinions on funding are
being requested of the Planning Commission, but actual decisions are up to the
Cotati City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board.
ú
Flexibility in the design standards; and,
Staff’s suggested language was
acceptable to the property owners.
ú
land use issues and plan details.
The property owners are in
agreement with the added definition for non-conforming uses consistent with
Cotati Municipal Code Section 17.40.280.
Regarding the Scott property,
Mr. Bangsberg referenced Table 6.7 (p. 15 of 17, Phil Erickson memo). The property owner needs information on the
timing of the land acquisition for a Transit Plaza and Village Green. With this land use designation, the
property owner can do nothing with their property.
Director of Planning Dorch
responded that the decision regarding purchase of the property is up to the
City Council and is also dependent on the potential funding sources.
Mr. Bangsberg also mentioned
that the Plan calls for 29,900 square feet of the Bill Smith property being
taken for public open space. However,
there is no timeframe or funding mechanism.
ú
Schollman property.
The property owner is
requesting that the strip at the end of Santero Way (not the residential
portion) be allowed to develop as self-storage. The storage would support the
residential , cottage business, and employment uses. He discussed all of the benefits of integrating this use into the
area (reduces traffic and produces no noise).
General Plan goals were cited that would be met by allowing this use.
Specifically, the request was to include Self-Storage as a permitted use in the
Cottage Business district.
ú
Truck routes.
Comments concerning Figure 4.10
(Parking Lot/Trucking Route) and §4.1.3 (Truck/Emergency Vehicle Accessibility)
of the Draft Specific Plan:
A significant increase in cost
would be incurred by the property owners if they have to provide paving to
accommodate truck traffic along the backs of their properties. In addition, potential damage to private
property because of trucks would have to be dealt with by the property
owners. Their request is that the loop
system be eliminated with truck traffic utilizing only Santero Way.
ú
Park Fees and Required Park Square Footage.
Mr. Bangsberg identified
conflicts in the Plan regarding Park fees.
One section states that the fees are not calculated within the Plan;
another part says that if the demand for public open space is to a certain level,
then the property owners will have to pay park fees. The property owners request clarification on this issue.
Concerning Table 3.4.b (Phil
Erickson Memo) – “Residential High” Build-Out Scenario. Property owners request clarification on the
Required Parks square footage. Does it
translate into a fee?
ú
Public Improvements Cost Estimate – Table 6.6 (Phil
Erickson Memo)
Concerning the $588,195. cost
estimate for Santero Way Improvements, the property owners request
clarification because the figure has changed several times.
ú
“Shalls” to “Shoulds” - (Phil Erickson Memo, p. 8 of 17)
Allow more flexibility in the
design standards and guidelines. This section contains examples of some of the language
changes. The property owners want to
know if there will be others and if so where.
ú
Non-Conforming Uses (Phil Erickson Memo, p.11 of 17)
The section discusses the Roy
and Connie Smith property. The
property owners request that the section also identify the Bill Smith and the
Carl Schollman properties so that they may also rebuild.
Director of Planning Dorch
clarified that the section would apply to all “permitted” uses. To the extent that the use is not permitted
at the present time, or the status is unclear, there is no way that the Planning
Commission or staff can make a determination about that.
Consultant Phil Erickson said
that at their meeting on March 12, 2000, this issue came up. The understanding was at that time that the
Northwest Mitre business (Bill Smith property) is a conditional permitted use under
the Assembly and Light Manufacturing category. He has no information about the current
specific uses on the Carl Schollman property to say how they would be addressed
in the Specific Plan.
ú
Funding Availability
The plan discusses possible
federal funding adminstered by Sonoma County Transit (SCT). The property owners want to know what
happens if this funding is not available.
Will the costs revert to the property owners, or is it possible that
costs would be covered by Redevelopment funds?
ú
Text Changes – Request for Continuation
The property owners request
that all text changes be made available to them prior to the document
proceeding to the City Council. They
request continuation of this matter for two weeks until that text has been received
and they have had an opportunity to review the language with staff.
Chairwoman Gilardi reviewed the
issues identified by Mr. Bangsberg
Jim
Olmstead
Planning
Consultant, reviewed the contents of his correspondence dated March
27, 2000 and May 1, 2000.
He said that the material
reflects the requested land use mixes which some of the property owners desire
(7 of 9 owners, Shamrock excepted).
The correspondence dated March
27, 2000, contains two charts:
ú
Commercial Use – Open Space Comparisons (by Sq. ft)
The property owners request
that Planning Commission recommend the figures shown in column G (Owner’s High)
– 287,800 sq. ft.
ú
Residential Use Comparison (by numbers of units)
The property owners request
that Planning Commission recommend the figure shown in column F (Owner’s High)
– 272 units.
No public open space is shown
in conformance with the Common Sense Plan.
Mr. Olmstead pointed out that the 1998 General Plan Update does show a
proposed public park at this location.
The property owners recommend that if a park is needed to meet the goal
of 1 acre per 200 residents, then they see it as more appropriate to combine it
with the transit plaza site.
An additional 15,000 square
feet of private open space is shown over that depicted in the current
proposal. No reduction in the width of
the improvement of Santero Way is shown.
Mr. Olmstead requested that
Planning Commission give consideration to the last page of his memorandum dated
March 27, 2000, “Notes to the Residential and Commercial Use Charts” (nos. 1-8). He hopes to have the opportunity to review
these points with staff before the next consideration of this matter by the
Planning Commission.
Tom
Ford, Green Belt Alliance, reiterated the support of the Greenbelt Alliance
as stated in their letter dated April 26, 2000. He encouraged Planning Commission support of the Santero Way
Specific Plan on behalf of the Green Belt Alliance, an organization striving to
preserve agricultural and open space space character and amenities that exist
but are threatened in the Bay Area.
They encourage better building patterns on existing, under-utilized land
in Bay Area communities. The Committee
at the Green Belt Alliance that reviewed the Santero Way Specific Plan provided
the following comments in support of the Plan:
ú
The Plan proposes use of existing infrastructure,
particularly roads and utilities, bus lines, and the existing bike path on East
Cotati Avenue;
ú
The Green Belt Alliance is supportive of the Plan area’s
location adjacent to the potential commuter rail station;
ú
It is a balanced plan that creates both housing stock and
local employment opportunities in an area that is already urbanized;
ú
It is a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly, neighborhood that
will foster a unique neighborhood character and opportunities to reduce
automobile dependency;
ú
The Plan presents a mix of housing types and a provision
for affordable housing.
In closing, Mr. Ford stated
that the Greenbelt Alliance is happy to see this Specific Plan process going
forward and urges adoption of the Plan.
Sandy
Elles
121
Flamingo Road, Cotati, said that she sees this specific plan process as
very exciting and is encouraged by the property owners and the City working
together towards a plan that meets the needs of both. It was her opinion that the Specific Plan successfully
strategizes for the transportation needs of the 21st century and
addresses both regional and local concerns.
Ms. Elles referenced a letter
from the North Coast Rail Authority in support of the Specific Plan. The Plan has also received the support of
the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Authority and the Sonoma County
Transportation Authority. She
encouraged the Planning Commission to move forward by recommending the adoption
of the Specific Plan and EIR.
Bill
Kortum identified himself as having drawn the boundaries for the
City of Cotati during the incorporation process in the 60’s. Over the past ten years he said that he has
worked as an advocate of rail and is optimistic that there will be a
transportation issue including rail on the upcoming fall ballot. That, plus possible appropriation of funds
by the Governor for commuter rail, will be what is needed to make rail a
reality. The process of cities and
businesses planning for future rail is occurring in many areas and he predicted
that rail will be a reality in 3-4 years.
He encouraged the Planning Commission to move forward and recommend
adoption of the Specific Plan and EIR.
Susan
Barnes
8236
Windmill Farms Drive, spoke of a poll taken of Windmill Farms
residents that shows a clear position on three points; support residential,
oppose retail on Staley property, and oppose Cottage Industry use.
Windmill Farms is not opposed
to development of the properties, but request sensitivity to existing
residential uses to protect property values as well as quality of life.
She expressed support for the
high residential use, the landscape buffer added to the plan, and the removal
of biotech research from the list of uses under Cottage Industry. They oppose the Cottage Industry use as a
whole in close proximity to residences.
If it remains in the plan, then they request removal of the Assembly and
Light Manufacturing as a conditional use.
The use would involve the use of forklifts, early morning deliveries,
and creates noise. Conditions should be
applied to the use to limit noise and restrict hours of operations and
deliveries. She was supportive of uses
with less impact to the neighbors such as storage.
Ernestine
Belmont
8047
Mason Drive, Rohnert Park, identified herself as a new homeowner in Rohnert
Park and new to this process. She
reiterated the previous speakers recommendations for sensitivity to the
surrounding residential neighbors.
Mike
Karakozoff
525
East Cotati Avenue (business address), stated support for the Plan
and actually said it is a wonderful Plan, but he is concerned with the length
of time (10 – 20 years) before the plan is implemented. He urged the Planning Commission to
encourage staff and the consultants to
continue to work with the property owners to resolve their issues; and to leave
the plan open so that some changes can occur so that something can actually
happen on the properties. As an
example, he said that Cotati Downtown Specific Plan has been in place for several
years and has not been implemented. He
requested some clarification from Mr. Erickson about building heights and the
residential component to the office/mixed use area. Regarding a possible maintenance district for the parks, he would
like further clarification as he has never seen a provision where a public park
was maintained by the property owners.
Public parks are typically maintained by the City. His perspective is as a developer/builder
and he wants to see a realistic plan than can actually be built.
Chairwoman Gilardi provided
with a recap of Mr. Karakozoff’s comments.
Nor
Antonnucci
8508
Lombard Way, Rohnert Park, stated his support for self storage on the
Schollman property as a use compatible with adjoining residences.
Heidi
Hydusik
8588
Lakewood Avenue, expressed her support for moving forward with
the plan and identified herself as an advocate for alternative methods of
transportation.
The
PUBLIC HEARING was closed at 9:55 p.m.
BREAK
The
meeting reconvened at 9:09 p.m.
Chairwoman Gilardi requested
that Director of Planning Dorch go over the list of issues brought forward by
Bert Bangsberg (property owner’s representative). Following is a summary of the responses:
ú
Sharing of costs will be decided at City Council level.
ú
Flexibility of Design Standards – preliminary agreement
with property owners reached on language.
Final product will be presented to the City Council.
ú
Land acquisition (Scott and Smith properties) – to be
decided at City Council level.
ú
Self-storage on Schollman property – is a policy decision
to be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council.
ú
Truck Route –
important feature of plan is secondary access. The question is not necessarily about emergency vehicle access,
but for the routing of trucks through the backs of the properties. Director of Planning Dorch stated his belief
that the matter can be worked out before the City Council’s review.
Phil
Erickson, pointed out that the emergency vehicle access was what made this
level of development acceptable to the Fire District and discussed the intent
of the loop access system. He expressed
his opinion that the cost associated with the intended loop system would not be
much greater than without it.
ú
Park Fees – (Table 3.4b – Land Use Summary, Required Park
square footage). Director of Planning
Dorch stated his belief that the cost of the acquisition is included as part of
the park fee, but what needs to be clarified is how it will be assessed. He proposed that the issue of park fees be
revisited by staff and consultants prior to this issue being considered by the
City Council to determine an appropriate method of allocating the costs in a
reasonable and rational manner.
Phil
Erickson clarified that the park square footage calculations. The park-in-lieu fee would be based on the
difference between what would be required for 184 dwelling units (92,173
sq.ft.) and what is actually provided as public open space in the plan (53,300
sq.ft.). The requirement for park fees
would change with rental units vs. owner-occupied units. That is one of the policy decisions that
will need to be worked out by staff and consultants prior to the issue going to
Council.
ú
Santero Way Improvement Costs – (Table 6.6)
Phil Erickson said that the
$588,195. is the actual cost.
Director of Planning Dorch
pointed out that there is a 25% contingency in some of the budget estimates and
that actual costs could actually be on the high side.
ú
p. 8 of 17 -
Allow more flexibility in design standards . . . shoulds to shalls:
Phil Erickson said that with
direction from the Planning Commission, he will make all of the changes in the
final review document that goes to City Council.
ú
Funding Availability
Director of Planning Dorch said
that transportation related funding is already budgeted. If something happened that it was no longer
available then the issue of funding mechanisms would have to be revisited with
City Council and property owner participation.
ú
Maintenance of Public Parks
Phil Erickson did not recall
text in the Plan that says there “shall” be a landscaping & lighting
assessment district. It was identified
as a potential funding mechanism.
Planning
Commission Questions/Discussion:
Don
VanDyke, regarding Table 3.4.b, requested clarification on the
number of dwelling units. Phil Erickson
stated that the 184 dwelling unit figure represents the maximum number of
dwelling units in the entire Specific Plan area.
Concerning p. 10 of 17,
Commissioner VanDyke asked about funding for property acquisition. Director of Planning Dorch responded that
federal funding through Sonoma County Transit has already been earmarked for
this purpose.
Vice
Chairwoman Moore asked if they need to discuss language to address
impacts related to assembly and light manufacturing uses. Director of Planning Dorch referenced p. 9
of 17 (Phil Erickson memo) where Assembly and light manufacturing has been
removed from Permitted Uses and listed under Conditional Uses. Through the Conditional Use Permit process,
impacts would be evaluated. Also, noise
standards contained within the Cotati General Plan would need to be complied
with.
Vice Chairwoman Moore also
discussed some concern with Bakery as a permitted use. Depending on the size of the operation,
there could be noise or odor impacts.
Following more discussion among
the Commissioners, it was their consensus to recommend that “Bakery” be
relocated to a Conditional Use.
Commissioner
VanDyke, asked about a statement in the Phil Erickson memo on p.
6 of 27 (Ability to Provide City and Other Services). The statement that “impacts to public services and utilities will
be reduced to a level of insignificance” may conflict with the EIR. The Errata (p.A-2) contains additional
language to the EIR page 3.9-1, line 29 regarding a SCWA limit to Cotati’s peak
month usage with possible water conservation during peak summer months. He requested clarification.
Director of Planning Dorch said
that this in an on-going discussion point with the Sonoma County Water
Agency. In terms of the entire system,
the SCWA has contracted for more water delivery than they can provide at the
present time. Certain users in the
system are using more than their contracted amount by using excess capacity
from other jurisdictions. With this
situation, there will be future water allocation issues between the jurisdictions. It appears at this point that water
allocation will not be an allocation problem associated with this project, but
the SCWA is requiring this language on every project in every jurisdiction now
to give some notice that there is a future issue.
Nadin Sponamore clarified that
mitigation has been through a mitigation measure requiring all projects to
provide the City with a “will serve” agreement (p. 3.9 –7, line 32).
Commissioner VanDyke then
inquired about sewer service. P. 3.9
–7, line 35, states that there are 267 hook-ups remaining until the regional
system is online (projected for summer of the year 2001). If the project is delayed sewer allocations
could be restricted.
Nadin Sponamore responded that
the same language and mitigation would apply, that is a “will serve”
agreement. Director of Planning Dorch
added information about what the City of Cotati has done (interceptor line
installation, sewer flow monitoring, and the toilet retrofit program) in an attempt
to extend capacity. There will come a
point in time, however, if the sewer treatment plant is not expanded to allow
for additional capacity, the ability to issue building permits would be
limited.
Commissioner
VanDyke commented that the Specific Plan talks about Sonoma
County Transit (SCT) or Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) funding
(p. 20 of 27), but there is no assurance that those funds will be
available.
Commissioner
VanDyke then asked about public uses designated on private
property. Could language be included to
provide a first right of refusal to the appropriate public agency when the
property owner wants to develop another use.
Director of Planning Dorch
responded that the Specific Plan would have to be amended to designate those
properties for another use, or an amendment would be required if and when the
property owner presented a proposal for another type of project other than
public use. If a project was presented
and the City Council was unwilling to enter into a acquisition process, then
there would be a concern and the Council would have to come up with a policy
that dealt with that situation.
Although Director of Planning Dorch understood the concern, he said that
at this time, federal funds are earmarked for the property acquisition and he
anticipates adoption of the Specific Plan and Council authorization to move
forward.
Commissioner VanDyke requested
that the staff report to City Council discuss this issue and potential
conflicts if funding is not available.
Chairwoman
Gilardi initiated Planning Commission discussion on the
possibility of allowing mini-storage on the Schollman property.
Commissioner
Mulligan expressed support for mini-storage on that property
because it is quiet and would be a good buffer for the bordering residential
properties.
Director of Planning Dorch
clarified that staff’s opposition was related to the fact that the use
generates no tax revenue and does nothing to enhance pedestrian access in that
area. Fencing people out does not fit with
the intent to provide a pedestrian friendly village atmosphere.
Vice
Chairwoman Moore discussed the benefits of having storage
integrated into a residential project and has seen a successful example in
another community. She saw mini-storage
as a benefit to the residents of the project area, not necessarily as drawing
people in from the outside.
Commissioner
Pagnusat recognized that the mini-storage use could provide a
buffer for the adjacent residential uses.
However, strict design standards would be necessary to make the project
fit it.
Commissioner
VanDyke and Chairwoman
Gilardi also stated that they had no problem associated with the
mini-storage use on the Schollman property.
Director
of Planning Dorch requested clarification on whether the use should
be integrated with residential.
Vice
Chairwoman Moore did want to see the use combined with residential
and did not want the project to attract users from outside the project
area.
Phil
Erickson asked for clarification on the extent of land area that
would be suitable to this use.
Also, would mini-storage become
a permitted use in the employment district?
Discussion continued with the
Planning Commission’s ultimate recommendation being that mini-storage would
only be appropriate blended with residential on the 1.6 acres located at the
end of Santero Way, not throughout the project area. The Commission recommended
that the mini-storage be located in two locations at the southeast and
southwest corners of the project area with a residential component between the
two areas. This residential component would be adjacent to the neighborhood
park. Also, design standards would be needed for the mini-storage areas to
ensure that they would successfully blend into the project area.
Concerning design flexibility, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission
was to endorse the amendment to the
language in Section 6.3.1.1 and in
Section 2.2.4, Objective IM-3, which provides maximum design flexibility. The final language can be approved by the
City Council. With this language addition there is no need to changing all of
the “shalls” to “shoulds”.
Concerning housing density, the
Specific Plan high density is 110 units, the low density 94 units. The EIR evaluates 249 residential
units. A third scenario changes the
high density in the Specific Plan to 184 units.
Commissioner Mulligan was
concerned with too high of a density being an uncomfortable place to live. Adequate parking was also identified as a
concern. Also, 2.5 stories adjacent to
the existing single-story residences would not be appropriate. He was concerned with quality of life
issues.
Phil Erickson, concerning the
2.5 stories, clarified that on the railroad side of Santero Way, adjacent to
Windmill Farms, the closest distance between buildings in the Plan area and
Windmill Farms buildings is approximately 230 feet. He suggested that the Planning Commission might want to establish
greater setbacks for 2.5 story buildings on the west side of Santero Way, maybe
40 feet.
In response to an inquiry from
Commissioner Mulligan about how many people would live in the project area with
the high density scenario. Director of
Planning Dorch responded that the zoning ordinance uses 3.1 persons per
dwelling as a standard for a single-family development, or around 520 persons
residing in 184 units. He stated his
belief that this project would generate a much lower density of people per dwelling unit and discussed the
reasons why. After additional
discussion, staff estimated that the
project would probably generate approcimately 300 people.
Vice Chairwoman Moore agreed
with Commissioner Mulligan’s concerns about comfortable living space, but said
that with a well designed projects that include adequate open space, etc., the
density could be accommodated.
It was the consensus of the
Planning Commission (with the exception of Commissioner VanDyke) to recommend a
minimum 40 foot setback for a 2.5 story building. Commissioner VanDyke was concerned how the setback would impact
the ability to build a viable project on the available buildable land.
Concerning the number of
residential units, the Planning Commission discussed the alternatives and
ultimately agreed with Vice Chairwoman Moore’s suggested compromise of 150
units. Chairwoman Gilardi clarified, however,
that she would agree with 150 units, but understands that the property
owners would probably prefer 184 units and that might be a more viable
project. If it means getting the
project built, she would agree with 184 units, but can live with 150 units.
It was moved by Commissioner Pagnusat to recommend to the
City Council certification of the Environmental Impact Report and approval of
the Industrial Avenue (Santero Way) Specific Plan with recommendations as
discussed. Second by Vice Chairwoman
Moore.
Yes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0
VI. REPORTS BY STAFF
There were no reports by staff.
VII. REPORTS BY COMMISSION
Chairwoman Gilardi thanked
everyone for their participation in the Santero Way Specific Plan and EIR
process.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Chairwoman Gilardi adjourned
the meeting at 10:24 p.m.
Submitted by:
Kathleen Brisbine
Administrative Secretary