Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, :00 PM City Council Chambers

Transcription

1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, :00 PM City Council Chambers 1. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Breznikar, Civian, Eddinger, Luks, Petrik, Tracy Commissioners absent: Engler City Staff present: Planning and Building Director Maya DeRosa, City Attorney s Office Debbie Kartiganer, Senior Planner Scott Duiven, Assistant Planner Jeff Fisher, Administrative Specialist Shawn Sumpter 2. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS A. The Commission voted (Engler absent) to approve the August 28, 2018 agenda. B. The Commission voted (Engler absent, Breznikar and Petrik abstain) to approve the July 24, 2018 minutes. C. Acceptance of Communications and Correspondence Item 5B 544 Tucker Street Dunne Hunt M. Cotter Verlander N. Cotter Urick D. Declarations of Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Eddinger declared conflicts for items 5B and 5C. E. Disclosures of Ex Parte Communications Commissioner Civian disclosed communication with the applicant for item 5C Commissioner Luks disclosed communication with the applicant for item 5B 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS None 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Vesna Breznikar and Dan Petrik were introduced and welcomed as new commissioners. Commissioners Luks and Tracy continue having been appointed to an additional term. B. Commissioner Civian was appointed to Chair, and Commissioner Luks was appointed to Vice- Chair on votes (Engler absent). 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Item Description: DR , V , CUP Project Description: Design Review for 5 single-family homes, 3 accessory dwelling units, and one common open space parcel; Variance request related to required setbacks; and a CUP for an over-height fence of 8 Location: 125 Kennedy Lane APN: Applicant: Jim Heid, Properties North, LLC Environmental Determination: The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15322, Class 32, In-fill Exemption.

2 Senior Planner Scott Duiven presented the staff report. Chair Civian asked for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Luks asked if the lot configuration of lot 5 would comply with the Land Use Code if it were considered by itself. Senior Planner Duiven confirmed that given similar public access the proposed configuration of lot 5 would comply with the Land Use Code. Commissioner Eddinger asked about the porch on lot 1. Senior Planner Duiven clarified that the porch deck is wrap around but the porch cover is not. This was done to meet lot coverage standards. Commissioner Eddinger asked about the size of the Accessory Dwelling units (ADU s). Senior Planner Duiven stated that the size of the units was driven by lot coverage limits. Commissioner Petrik asked whether the definition of lot coverage includes hard surface or is only related to building coverage. Senior Planner Duiven confirmed that the land use code defines lot coverage as being related to structures rather than hard surface like driveways. Senior Planner Duiven responded to questions from Commissioners clarifying that the variance requested for lot 2 relates to setbacks and that the kitchen windows will be clear and privacy will be achieved with the use of landscape plantings. Chair Civian invited the applicant to speak. Jim Heid, the applicant described the project and their desire to provide homes with smaller square footage and a connection to each other and the river. He described how the concerns expressed at the previous workshop with the Commission have been addressed. Chair Civian opened the hearing for public input. Karen Neuburger 354 Orchard Street, asked how much the homes would be sold for. Monica Garcia 122 Washington Court, expressed concerns about how the project affects her home and about the width of Kennedy Lane. Stephanie Turk 97 Kennedy Lane Space 1, stated that the changes made to the project are an improvement but she struggles with being supportive. Linda Hennan 200 Presidential Circle, sited the narrow width of Kennedy Lane and said she understands that the applicant is not required to provide parking for the ADU s but feels that the neighborhood parking will be impacted. Holly Hoods Grant Avenue, acknowledged that the neighbors concerns are important. She stated that she is glad to see a cottage court and ADU s proposed as it realizes the objectives discussed at the housing meetings. Mark Decker said that this looks like a very good project with an innovative layout and that the variances seem to be reasonable. He urged the Commission to approve the application. Cheryl Caletti 514 Tucker Street asked if the park was public and who would regulate its use. Johnathan Pearlman Mill Creek Road, opined that this is an extremely well put together project and the variances seem reasonable. He noted that maybe the code needs to change to reflect changing design trends. Bonnie Buckingham 145 Presidential Circle, opined that one less unit would help provide a better buffer from neighbors. PC Minutes 8/28/ of 7

3 Deborah Kravitz, Healdsburg, acknowledged that this is a good project but that she feels that legitimate concerns have been raised by the neighbors. Laura Jordan 116 Washington Court, commented that Kennedy Lane is a narrow street and there are too many people in a small space. There being no further speakers, Chair Civian closed the public input portion of the hearing. Commissioner Civian asked the applicant to address the question about the home prices. Jim Heid stated that at this point he is not sure. It depends on how many units are approved and what the construction and market costs are at the time of buildout. Director DeRosa answered the question about the park area stating that it is a private open space and not a public park. Commissioner Tracy stated that he continues to think that this is a great project that shows an efficient use of space and addresses a lot of issues. The design is comfortable. He noted that the variances have largely been requested to address the concerns of the neighbors. He stated that he likes the look of the attached garages and feels that this type of solution should be allowed when designed appropriately. He acknowledged that infill development can be difficult for neighbors to experience but that this project has done a good job of addressing neighbor concerns. He expressed his support of the project. Commissioner Eddinger stated that although he would not normally be in favor of a project with this many variances he would have been willing to entertain a variance to accommodate an adjustment to lot 5. This design warrants the requested variances. Commissioner Petrik opined that this is a beautiful design that uses the space efficiently. He asked if there was an opportunity to move the south curb line in to provide additional street parking. Jim Heid pointed out that moving the curb would likely cause damage or removal of the large tree in that area and that not having a car there has the added benefit of opening the view to the river. Commissioner Eddinger asked if the applicant had considered flipping the house plan on lot 5. Heid said that they had considered it but that the neighbor did not want living spaces next to their back yard. Commissioner Breznikar asked if the green (park) was required of the project or a design element and asked about parking options. Heid stated that the green is part of the plan concept of the cottage court design. He said that they looked at the possibility of diagonal parking on Kennedy Lane but felt that it was not advisable because people would be backing out on to the street which is not good and other considerations would cause the tree to be removed which is not good. Commissioner Luks stated that some of the concerns expressed tonight were about decisions that were already made during the tentative map hearing. How can we better communicate to the community when and how their voice needs to be heard? Chair Civian commended the applicant on the level of community outreach he provided. He expressed his support for the design and the project. On a motion by Commissioner Eddinger, seconded by Commissioner Tracy the Commission voted (Engler absent) to approve DR , V , and CUP , Design Review for 5 single-family homes, 3 accessory dwelling units, and one common open space parcel; Variance request related to required setbacks; and a CUP for an over-height fence of 8 at 125 Kennedy Lane. PC Minutes 8/28/ of 7

4 Commissioner Eddinger left the dais prior to items 5B and 5C. B. Item Description: MISC Historic Demolition Permit Project Description: Request to approve the demolition of a residence that has been identified as a historic resource pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and certify the Final Environmental Impact Report. Location: 544 Tucker Street APN: Applicant: Jerry and Mary Lou Eddinger Environmental Determination: Environmental Impact Report Contract Planners Olivia Ervin and Lilly Bianco, M-Group, presented the staff report. Chair Civian invited the applicant to speak. Jerry Eddinger the applicant explained the process that brought them to this point. He acknowledged that CEQA is an involved process and expressed appreciation for the work M- Group had done on the project. Mike Miller, stated that he disagrees with portions of the EIR but acknowledged that his concerns were raised by others and answered in the document. Rene Chouteau 422 Tucker Street, noted that this is the loss of a historic building in a historic neighborhood and opined that restoration could be done in conjunction with a larger project on the property. Mary Cotter 307 Tucker Street, read the letter she sent to the Planning Commission. She opined that a replacing the structure is a better option than patching the existing structure. James Schieffer 535 Tucker Street, stated that he is in favor of demolition, stating that the property in its existing condition brings down the value of the neighborhood. Ann VanNoy 539 Tucker Street, expressed her support for the demolition. Cheryl Caletti 512 Tucker Street, described her experience with restoring structures that were considered lost causes. She addressed statements about property value saying that the values are what they are because the homes are historic. She stated that she would like to see the house restored. Eric Ziedrich 303 Burgundy Road, declared that he had worked with Mr. Eddinger to preserve dozens of historic homes, some of which he had to be convinced by Eddinger to restore. He stressed that the decision to demolish this house was not made lightly by the Eddingers. He stated his support for demolition of the house. Richard Burg, opined that it is sad that we are at this point. He stated that he does not think there is the energy to save the house. Andrew Ruggles 477 Hidden Acres Road, stated that once a house is torn down it is gone. He would like to see Healdsburg build on what it has and not tear down. Holly Hoods, stated that as an historian she is not normally in the position of advocating for demolition but in this case renovation would, in effect, be replacement. She stated that history is continuing and involves change. This building does not contain enough of its original material. Chris Chouteau 422 Tucker Street, stated that he is not concerned about transient occupation of the structure if it remains. He stated that he does not see the structure as an eyesore. He PC Minutes 8/28/ of 7

5 stated his concern that allowing demolition may limit the Commission s say in what happens on the property in the future. John Lloyd local business owner reaffirmed that the choice to demolish is out of character for Jerry (Eddinger). It is unfortunate but it looks like it needs to be demolished. Mike Miller Reiterated his experience with historic renovation and opined that if the property was put on the market someone would buy it and restore it. Chair Civian closed the public input portion of the hearing. Commissioner Luks asked if a demo permit could be conditioned to require replacement of a similar style. Director DeRosa stated that the property is in Character Area 1 and will be subject to the provisions of the City Wide Design Guidelines. She expressed her confidence in staff s ability to use the Guidelines to achieve the desired effect. Commissioner Luks agreed that the Design Guidelines will help preserve the neighborhood character. He described his previous concerns regarding the way the EIR addresses cumulative impacts and opined that there is no evidence that homes will deteriorate to demolition as a result of this decision. He stated that repair of this home would result in something that was in effect, a replacement. He opined that this is a one off situation. No one has stepped forward to buy and restore the home. It needs to be demolished. He stated his intention to vote to certify the EIR and approve the demolition. Commissioner Tracy stated that this is a difficult project. He related his experience living in the Tucker Street neighborhood and restoring a home. He expressed his concerns about additional homes in the neighborhood being demolished. He stated that he thinks there is an enforcement issue in the area of property neglect. He stated that he will support the demolition but would like to see steps taken to make sure this does not happen again. Commissioner Petrik stated that he shares Commissioner Tracy s concerns about cumulative impact but will have to support the demolition. Chair Civian opined that it is sad. This is not where we want to be but he supports the certification of the EIR and the demolition permit. He stated that he feels the Design Guidelines will ensure the integrity of the design of the replacement. On a motion by Commissioner Luks, seconded by Commissioner Tracy, the Commission voted (Engler absent, Eddinger abstain) to certify the Final EIR and MISC Historic Demolition Permit for 544 Tucker Street. C. Item Description: DR Project Description: Design Review for a new restaurant and outdoor beer garden Location: 410 Hudson Street APN: Applicant: Eric Ziedrich Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section Class 32 Infill Development; and 15061(b). Assistant Planner Fisher presented the staff report. A general discussion ensued about the location of seating, the year round use of outdoor seating, and the proposed use of shipping containers. PC Minutes 8/28/ of 7

6 Commissioner Civian asked about the hours of operation. Director DeRosa directed the Commission to attachment 2 which describes the hours of operation as Wednesday through Sunday from 11:00 AM to 8:00 PM. In answer to a question from Commissioner Petrik, staff confirmed that there are 5 bicycle parking spaces adjacent to the pedestrian entry. Staff confirmed for Commissioner Breznikar that there will be solar on the roof. Chair Civian invited the applicant to speak. Eric Ziedrich, the project applicant, described this project as one that has been long envisioned by his family. He represented the project as a good use of the site and noted that it adds a much desired dining opportunity to the area. In answer to Commissioner Petrik about the menu price point, he stated that he does not yet have an operator for the business but intends that the use be comparable to The Healdsburger and similar to a brew pub. Commissioners Tracy and Breznikar posed questions about landscaping. Ziedrich responded that there are trees and that landscaping will be used to define the space but that he would like patrons to be able to view the surrounding area. Chair Civian opened the hearing for public input. Alan Cohen 205 Center Street, opined that this is a cool use of an odd parcel and he looks forward to seeing the project move forward. Tim Shippey 521 Westmont Court, described Old Roma Station and the train dream. He described the trials of attracting people to this area of town. He expressed his support of the project as a good use of the space. Richard Burg Fitch Street, stated that it is exciting to see someone activate this area before the train comes to town. Mark Decker stated that this is a great opportunity. Chair Civian closed the public input portion of the hearing. Commissioner Breznikar stated that this is a creative use of an awkward site. She expressed her excitement and her approval of the colors. Commissioner Luks stated that he likes the fact that with Replay renovating a major industrial aspect of the area, this project will serve to preserve and restore that feeling. He described his experience visiting a town where shipping containers were used to restore the commercial heart of an area after a major disaster. Commissioner Tracy expressed his support of the project and opined that the area needs a project like this. He stated that he loves the design. Commissioner Petrik expressed his support describing the project as quirky and creative. Chair Civian expressed his support for the project saying he was not thrilled with the proposed color of the shipping containers but would defer to the rest of the Commission. On a motion by Commissioner Tracy, seconded by Commissioner Luks the Commission voted (Engler absent, Eddinger abstain) to approve DR , Design Review for a new restaurant and outdoor beer garden at 410 Hudson Street. 6. COMMISSIONER AND SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS None PC Minutes 8/28/ of 7

7 7. DIRECTOR S REPORT None The meeting adjourned at 9:42 PM. Maya DeRosa, Secretary Jeff Civian, Chair PC Minutes 8/28/ of 7