HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6.A 1/27/2014 R . awitww#6:
e :
IBS$
DATE: January 27, 2014
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council-through City-Manager
FROM: Heather Hines, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration.of modifications to the Maria Drive Apartment Project(35 Maria
Drive), including Mitigated Negative Declaration,;General Plan.Amendment,
Zoning Map.Amendment, Site Plan and Architectural;Review, and Abandonment
of Public Utility Easement
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the proposed modifications to the project,
conduct a public hearing, and direct staff to prepare appropriate resolutions for adoption at the
February 3`d Council meeting.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission"considered the requested General Plan Amendment to modify the
land use designation from Mixed Use to High Density Residential, Zoning Map Amendment to
modify the Zoning from PUD to R-5, preliminary Site Plan and Architectural Review for a 144-
unit residential projectsand'the associated environmental document-for the project at a noticed
public hearing on August 13, 2013. The Commission approved resolutions recommending the
City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (6-0), approve the General Plan
Amendment (5-1), and,adopt"an Ordinance approving the Zoning Map Amendment (6-0) for the
project.
Af their regular meeting.on.October 21, 2013,;the'City Council considered the Planning
Commission's recommendation:andreceived public comment. After deliberation, the City
Council continued the item to a date uncertain and directed the applicants to modify the project
to reduce'impacts associated with traffic;,privacy, and aesthetics. More specifically, a majority
of the Council requested a reduction in density in order to address negative impacts of increased.
traffic, building macs, and privacy:. The Council also expressed concern that the project was
presented as a luxury apartment project but did not include adequate design features.
A more detailed discussionofthe Couricil.member concernsrare,asifollows:
Agenda Revie
City Attome
Finance Director City Manager v
Density
The majority of the Council indicated that a reduction in density was necessary to address the
range of concerns expressed by the neighboring residents and the Council. A reduction in the
number of apartment units could address privacy concerns by-facilitating•a reduction in massing
and creating a two story development more in keeping with the character-6f existing residential
developmentinkthe area. A reduction in density could also'address traffic,concerns by reducing
the number of vehicle trips that would be generated by the proposed residential development.
Traffic
Traffic was a primary concernpf both the City Council and public comment. The Council
expressed concerns about the potential increase in traffic that the proposed development would
generate compared with current traffic generated by the existing office uses on the property.
Privacy
Council members expressed concerns that the project could result in privacy impacts to
residential properties located north of the project site on the opposite side of Washington Creek.
The Council noted that those impacts could be minimized with building;height reduction,
increased landscaping, elimination of one of the buildings along the north edge of the property,
and an overall reduction in the number of units proposed.
• Design-Changes
The City Council expressed an`.interest:in seeing design modifications•to,improve the project and
address potential impacts. Design suggestions included reduction in overall building heights,
elimination of third-story design,and elimination of windows looking toward the north.
Additionally, elimination of proposed'carports along the north property'line and adjacent to
Washington Creek was discussedas well as an overall discussion of increasing the development
amenities to create a luxury apartment
Public Comment
There was significant neighborhood opposition expressed at the City Council hearing, with
concerns including density, neighborhood compatibility; increased traffic, loss of privacy, and
litter in the creek.
DISCUSSION
On December 9`h,2013, the applicant submitted a writtemresponse and revised plans to address
concerns expressed during public;,comments and direction given by the City Council.
Clarification of anticipated traffic volume within the context of the existing use of the property
was submitted (Attachment 3). Additionally, revised plans,include modifications to decrease
building,heights, reduce the third story elements for"one•side of Building Type A, creation of
pedestrian access points along Maria Drive and Washington Creek Trail, and improvements to
the common areas and.landscaping. Design changes are described in more detail below. The
proposed revisions do not change the requested General Plan Amendment or Zoning Map
Amendment. The request continues to,be.for a modification,in=the.Land Use Designation from
Mined Use•to High Density Residential and a Zoning modification from PUD to R5.
Traffic Clarification
Attachment 3 clarifies the data from the traffic report prepared by Whitlock & Weinberger as
included in the Initial Study for the project. As shown in thes;graph,the existing:medical uses on
the site at current occupancy (50%) generate 673 daily trips: The traffic generated from the
proposed residential development would generate 958 daily trips, which is 285 more daily trips
than existing conditions. However, at "market occupancy"(75%) the existing medial office uses
would generate 1,009 daily trips and full tenancy of the existing development the daily trips
would increase to 1,345. Both of the later scenarios are actually higher than the projected daily
trips for the proposed 144 unit apartment complex.
Reduction in Building Height
Modification to the roof design on all six buildings has brought the overall down from the
previous midpoint of 38 feet to a revised midpoint of 34 feet. This modification has reduced the
top of roof from 47'-7" to 37'=9". The revised midpoint measurement of 34 feet is consistent
with allowable building heights in both R-5 and R-4 zoning district. This change has
significantly reduced the overall massing of the buildings coiinpared to the previous submittal.
Modified Building types
The building types have been modified to create greater variety in the proposed architecture.
There are now four building types proposed, including the following modifications:
Building Type A3
This building type reflects a modification of Building Type A, which includes elimination of 4 of
the third story units on the northiside:of the building. This'building type is used for Building 6
on the site plan, which is the building;that is aligned parallel to the northerly property line. The
reduction of units in this building type allowed elimination;of the third floor and an associated
reduction in building height of approximately 10 feet (as:measured from the midpoint) along the
northern most half of the building. This modification reduces massing and directly addresses
privacy concerns for single;family residences on the opposite side of Washington Creek as raised
at the October 21st City Council hearing.
-ter _ 1 r I c4
I �, v:� 9
tlRtll e,
f euiComO O LEFT areaTim 3;
Building Type Al and A2
These two building types also reflect a modified version of the prior building type A. The
middle stair well has been eliminated in the second and third level to accommodate a total of
nine units each rather than eight units as previously proposed.. This provided the flexibility to
accommodate those units .eliminated from Building Type A3. Type A2 also includes north
facing 3 story windows that have been reduced in size and raised to address privacy concerns
on the opposite side of Washington Creek. Type Al is used for Building'2 and Type A3 is used
for Building 5 on the site plan
Building.Type B
This building•type proposes the same number of-units previously propo"sed. The middle stair
well has been.eliminated for this unit type allowing larger ,units in the 2nd and 3`d levels. In
addition, north facing 3`d story windows have been reduced in sizei.and raised to address privacy
concerns on the opposite side of Washington Creek. Building Type B is represented as
Buildings 1, 3, and 4 on the site plan.vaiTyl s —
t a `'
, f
i � T
,,,„= ,
e. . ' �1) t � �. M ;
u
I
': 4_ 5 ' § ,r s. .� -- tJ 1, ' i3 1;C V
L
4 ,
Asp
N
//> 4
Figure 1. Site Plan
Modified Landscape Plans
The applicant is proposing installation of 24-inch box containers for trees along.Maria Drive and
along the northerly property boundary adjacent to Washington Creek. The 24-inch box will
result in a larger tree.at time of"insta l
lation. It is expected that-the proposed 24-inch box London
plane tree could reach a maturity height of about 20-25-feet within ten years of installation and a
24-inch box Strawberry tree could reach a height of 18-20 feet within ten years of installation
(Sheet L6.0).
The applicant has also,proposed.,an increase in landscaping,along;Maria Drive and along the
northerly property boundary adjacent to Washington Creek:,In,addition, the applicant has stated
that the proposed use-of'drought plants throughout the project would result in irrigation
water use that is approximately 24% of the existing irrigation water use for the site.
Site Amenities
Modifications to the site°plan expand pedestrian connections and common space/recreational
amenities on the site, including the-'following:
• Addition of a cabana with outside fireplace, television, lounge area, and outdoor dining
area;
• Reduction in lawn area,and.addition of more shading around theaounging areas;
• Relocation and reduction in the size of the proposed,kid play,area, and
• Introduction of pedestrian ,connections between the buildings along Maria Drive and.
through the site leading to the Washington Creek trail.
Other Design Changes •
Additional design changes;proposed by the applicant includethe following:
• Addition of craftsman style architectural details such as tapered posts, exposed beams,
and triangular knee brace supports;
• Changes in the color palette to reflect colors from surrounding development, including
darker colors than previously proposed and the introduction of varying shades of tan,
brown, red, and,green;
• Replacement of the"solid wood.balcony with metal railings,
• Increase in the amount of garage parking to 48 spaces where 15 was previously proposed
and an increase in the size Of the garages to allow bicycle parking within the garage
spaces; and
• Redesigned garbage enclosures to include decorative posts and trellis features.
Staff Analysis
The City Council directed the applicant to modify the project by reducing density and addressing
impacts associated with traffic,;privacy, and aesthetics (including building'mass). The revised
submittal from the applicant clearly illustrates that the proposed project would result in a
significant increase in traffic even when compared to the existing 50%,tenancy of the medical
office complex and would actually;represent a.decrease from the trips generated by more fully
tenanted existing office space. Design modifications have decreased building height, improved
project amenities, used.design and landscaping to address privacy concerns,and overall resulted
in a superior project;design. Although the applicant has not proposed a reduction indensity,
Staff believes that the revised submittal,has addressed most of the Council's concerns through
design modifications-and data,clarification and that.the.trip generation data submitted by the
applicant may-address the remaining concern.
If the City Council determines_that the modifiedproject has adequately addressed;their concerns
without a reduction in the number of units, staff recommends that the City Council continue this
item to February 3, 2014, and direct staff to return with resolutions for approval. If the Council
determines that a reduction density is needed to further reduce impacts-of the proposed
project, staff recommends thatthe.Council either continue-the project with further direction to
the applicant or direct staff to return with resolutions for denial.
Vacation.of Public'Utility Easements
The applicant has"requested vacation of public utility easements that run through the property.
The existing public utility easements on the property have been used for City water mains
serving the property, and for r_facilities maintained by other public utilities providing gas, power,
and telecommunications services to the property. The.City received input from the appropriate
utility companies, none of which are opposed to the requested Vacation of PUE.
Environmental Review
An Initial Study-of potential environmental impacts was prepared for this project pursuant to the
requirements of the California .Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Environmental impacts
considered to be"less than significant with mitigation Measures" wer"e identified in the following
categories: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources,.Cultural Resources, Geology & Soils,
Hydrology, Noise, and Traffic. Mitigation measures that will reduce,potential impacts to less
than significant levels have been proposed and agreed to by the applicant. Copies of the Initial
Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring Program were distributed to
Council members prior to the October 21, 2013, City Council' Hearing: However, CEQA does
not apply to projects, that are rejected or disapproved by a public agency (CEQA Section
15061(b)(4)). If the City Council denies this project no action would be taken on the Initial
Study.
Public Comments
Upon receipt of the proposed project/application (October 24; 2012) staff sent a notice of
application (November 11, 20)2) to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the
subject property to inform themdhat the project proposal had been submitted and was available
for review. On February 6;. 2013,the project applicant held a neighborhood meeting at the
McDowell Elementary School-,'.approximately twelve (12) people attended the neighborhood
meeting in addition to planning staff.
A Notice of Intent to Adopt;a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Notice of Public Hearing
was published in the Argus Courier on June 27, 2013 (withta corrected notice posted on July 11,
2013)and mailed to all propertyowners'"and occupants within 500 feet of the subject property.
Additional Notices of Public hearing were posted in the.Argus Courier on October 10, 2013,
prior to the scheduled City Council Hearing held October 21, 2013, and on January 9, 2014 and
January 16,2014 prior'to'the scheduled City Council Hearing.held January 27, 2014.
The City has received both written and verbal comments from neighbors related to potential
increase in traffic, noise;. increased use of the creek path for inappropriate and'illegal activity,
impacts on privacy, and a general opposition to multi-family development near existing single-
family development: Written comments received prior to the October 21, 2013 City Council
hearing were circulated to council members.
Since the October 21's` Council hearing the applicants have met with the Bonne Gaebler from the
City's Housing Department (November 6l'), McDowell .Elementary School Principal 'Maureen
Rudder(November 6th), and Kathleen Garvey and other interested neighbors(November 19`h)
As follow up, the City's housing department staff expressed support of the project based on the
project's ability to fill an existing need for moderate and, above-income rentals to serve the
demographic the City hopes to attract through its ongoing economic development activities.
The current rental vacancy rate:in-Petaluina.is 1.8 percent.
No additional comments have been received as of the writing of this report.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This is a cost recovery project with all costs of processing the application paid by the applicant.
The applicant has paid approximately $80,000 in cost recovery fees to date.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Written Response from Applicant, dated December 9, 2013
2. Daily Trip Comparison
3. Revised Project Plans, dated December 9, 2013
ATTACHMENT 1
WEST
December 9, 2013
City of Petaluma
Planning Department
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Attn: Heather Hines & Alicia Giudice
RE: Maria Drive Apartments - Plan Submittal for City Council
Dear Heather and Alicia,,
In response to the feedback from the neighbors and City Council at the zoning and
general plan hearing on October 21, 2013, and subsequent,feedback from Staff, neighbors
and local stakeholders, modifications have been made to the project,in order to address
privacy, massing, design, landscaping, open space and amenities. In addition,
clarification is provided on traffic, density, adaptability and luxury features. The
proposed modifications will benefit the neighborhood, the City and future apartment
residents while enhancing the overall project.
Post Citv Council Feedback/Outreach:
• 10/29- Met With Staff (Heather Hines & Alicia Giudice) to discuss feedback and
potential revisions
• 11/6-Met with Housing Department(Bonne Gaebler& Scott"Duiven)
• 11/6-Met with McDowell Elementary School Principal(Maureen,Rudder)
• 11/7-Met with Staff.(Alicia Giudice)to review sketches of potential revisions
• 11/19- Met with neighborhood leaders (Kathleen 'Garvey & others) to discuss
feedback and potential revisions
• 11/21- Met with'Staff(Heather Hines &Alicia Giudice)to share draft revisions
• 12/2- Met,withStaff(Heather Hines)to share final revisions
SOS slontgomcryStreet,11'h Floor•San Francisco,C1 94111•ti'wir;jdawestnet 1 ` I
Privacy, Massing,Design,Landscaping& Open.Space:
The changes detailed below ensure privacy for the neighbors across Washington Creek,
address the concerns about massing and size of buildings, and improve the design to be
more elegant and reflective of a high-end;apartment community.
Privacy/Massing:
1. Reduced overall building height by approximately 10 feet on all apartment
buildings, thesequivalent of one story,.in.order`to lessen the overall massing.
Reduction in height is more compatible with surrounding uses, improves
privacy, preserves view corridors„increases natural light, and results in a less
intensive+development for the neighborhood.
2. Eliminated privacy concerns from third floor units along Washington Creek
by stepping down the building parallel,to the creek.from three stories (facing
the central internal courtyard) to two stories facing the creek. The result is a
combined eight reduction of approximately 20 feet nearest to the creek, the
equivalent of two stories. This building is still set back more than 165 feet
from the nearest neighboring property line across the creek.
3. Replaced all third story windows with clerestory windows on the buildings
perpendicular, to the creek to preserve privacy for the neighbors while
continuing,to allow light into the end units.
4. Redesigned roof ends from gable to hip roofs to help lessen the overall
massing and;reduce building heights.
Design
I. Simplified building materials (to plaster, lap siding, board and batten siding,
and stone) and refined the placement of different architectural materials to
complement each other and the overall design aesthetic. These changes
improve the overall quality of the design to reflect a moreelegant, craftsman-
style, luxury community.
2. Engaged well-known colorist, Jill Pilaroscia of Colour'Studio (colorist for
Theatre Square),.to improve the color palate and reflect a more elegant and
traditional craftsman design.
3. Replaced=wood balcony railing with metal railings (consistent with other
comparable luxury apartments) increasing the light and air to the units and
improving the exterior facade.
'565 tiontgomen Street.11th Floor•San Francisco,CA 94,111 •www.jdawest.net 2
4. More than tripled the garagexparkingr(from 15 spaces 4°,48)to further buffer
the,site from the retail, screen more cars from sight,,,and to meet the market
demand for luxury apartment residents. Shared garages have been converted
into individual, private, one-car garages with secure bicycle parking to be
more reflective of a luxury community.
5. Enhanced design of trash enclosures to Ilene-screen the refuse areas and to
be more compatible with the improved craftsman aesthetic.
Landscapiri :
1. Improved quality of landscape design with the addition of larger tree sizes
(increased to.24-inch box) on the northerly boundary all along Washington
Creek and along Maria Drive to provide greater privacy and screening.
2. Increased landscaping on the northerly boundary along creek and along
Maria Drive (including more drought-tolerant landscaping) to provide more
landscaping buffer for neighbors and residents'.
3. Studied tree maturities to ensure Iandscaping,buffer. Provided a tree.maturity
diagram showing approximate tree heights•at various points of maturity.
• Open Space:
I. Provided a wider variety of open space features' including a cabana with
amenities like an outside fireplace, flat-screen television-and lounge area, a
barbecue and outdoor dining area, and additional. landscaped and shaded
sitting areas.
2. Reconfigured.children's play area to include more landscaping and to reduce
noise generated from the project.
3. Provided pedestrian, pathway connections between buildings along Maria
Drive in order to encourage walkability and to reduce vehicular trips.
TrafficiCla rifications:
The existing medical office complex would produce: more traffic than the proposed
apartment project if if were to-lease up to market occupancy rates'. Further, if the medical
office complex were to lease up to full occupancy, it would produce significantly more
traffic.(40% more). See attached bar graph from W-Trans and summary information
below.
505 i'1'lontemnen Street.1 1 s Floor-San Francisco,Ci 941.11.•n a.w..jdawestnet
_ 3.
1. Existing, medical office complex at market occupancy (75%) produces 5% more
traffic (1,009 daily trips) compared to the estimated traffic from the proposed
apartment project (958 daily trips).
2. Existing medical office project at full occupancy, (100%) produces 40% more traffic
(1,345 daily trips) _compared to the estimated traffic from the proposed apartment
project(958 daily trips).
Density Clarifications:
There is:.no°need'to°reduce the proposed density of the project. The proposed density is
appropriate for'.the site; will further the City's planning objectives, and will not result in
any significant environmental impacts. As the. Planning Commission staff report
recognized, high density residential is well suited to the project site, given its close
proximity to "retail shopping centers, park and educational;facilities, and transit routes."
In particular;,the proposed density "would support the existing nearby shopping centers."
In addition, the proposed density is entirely consistent-with City's land use regulations.
Specifically, the proposed density is consistent with the current General Plan designation
(Mixed Use), proposed General Plan designation (High Density Residential), and
proposed Zoning designation (R-5), all of which allow for high density residential
development at up to 30 units per acre. The proposed density of 24.6 units per acre is far
below this limit. The proposed density is also consistent with the City's objective of
providing high;density residential development within the Urban Growth Boundary. The
City's Housing,Department is encouraging a.high density_ In addition, from a revenue
perspective, the City benefits by receiving greater traffic and other impact fees with a
higher-density project. As designed, the project will provide over $5 million in
government fees:including;approximately $1.7 million for traffic projects and $500,000
for schools. Finally, the initial study/mitigated negative declaration for the project
determined that the proposed density would not cause any significant environmental
impacts, including-land use and traffic impacts.
In light of the above, City staff and decision-makers have consistently supported the
project's proposed density. The Planning Commission staff noted that the proposed
density was Jappropriate-for the site, and consistent`With both the existing and proposed
land-use.regulations. In turn, the Planning Commission overwhelmingly supported the
project, without raising any concerns about density. Staff again supported the proposed
density at the project's first City Council hearing, ,:Recently, it has been suggested by
some that the project should consider a reduction in its proposed density in order to
reduce traffic impacts. However, this suggestion is based on a misunderstanding of the
project's traffic impacts._As documented in the W=Trans traffic study, the initial
study/mitigated negative declaration, and the Planning Commission staff report, the
proposed density will not cause any significant traffic impacts under near-term or
cumulative conditions and,locks,in less traffic than if the existing medical office complex
were to lease up to market occupancy rates (see attached graph from W-Trans).
.503 5'tontgomeryStreet,I11D Floor•San Francisco.CA 94111•www.,ldawestnet I I
Therefore;:reducing'the proposed.density would not have any corresponding benefit with
respect to traffic impacts:,
Adaptability Clarification:
Project complies with both ADA and FHA requirements."Consistent with other three
story garden-style apartment projects, all units on the accessible path of travel are
adaptable. There are 48:adaptable units throughout the project site,representing one third
of the total units.
Luxury Featurei Clarifications:
Unit features:
• Granite countertops in kitchens and baths
• Stainless steel appliances
• Crown molding=
• Washers and dryers
• Central heatingand air conditioning
• Walk-in closets
• Open floor plans
• Vaulted ceilings in top floor units
Community amenities:
• Luxurious clubhouse and amenity building
• Common area with fireplace and flat-screen television
• Chef.s kitchen
• State-of-the-art,gym and yoga studio
• Business'"centerand'wifi café
• Game room with-billiards
• Heated pool arid'spa with poolside seating
• Cabana area;inclnding.amenitieslike outside fireplace, flat-screen television and
lounge;area,
•
Outdoor cooking area including barbecue grill and dining area
• Generous landscaped and shaded sitting areas,
• Children's play area
• Enclosed private garages
• Pre-wiring for electric vehicles
• Bicycle parking for 100%of units
• Security'-patrol
• Professional On-site,prbperty management
505 Montgomery Street;11ih Rom •San Francisco,CA 94111 •wam-.jdaw'es[net
•
Please,let us know if you have.any.questions on The.revised plans or any'of"the
information in this letter. We appreciate your feedback throughout this process and we
look forward to working with you to present these improvements to the City Council. We
are confident that these changes, and improvements to the project will benefit the
neighborhood,the City,and our future residents on Maria Drive.
Regards,
oe
Marty Brill
Senior Real Estate Manager
JDA West, LLC
Enclosures: (1)
cc: Judy Davidoff,Sheppard Mullin
Jon Ennis, BDE Architecture
Tom Messervy, JDA West,LLC
505 Montgomery Street,11 a"Floor•San Francisco,CA 94111—:w}vwejdawest.net I (<9
ATTACHMENT 2
Trips Generates at Site
1" N `M N J W A
to o lvl .O N O V1 0
0 O 0.• 0 O O O 0 O
1
, ■ 1 1 l
t '
Existing Project at Time! I 1
of Traffic (4 2%' i 1, i
occupancy) �I
t : I
It t 1
i 1
Existing Project Today ��, l (
(50%occupancy) %+
1
Existing Projectat N r I
a Market Occupancy'(75% °a i f I : 0
occupancy) �a= . 2t°.a , 1 ,¢
:
o m �_•
1111111 - ' i a n
Existing Project atb100% v
En
o
m Existing Project Built out l� 3
w to40kSF(100% ,
g occupancy) 1111111k
Proposed Apartment, Krta-. - ,
�4 I ' ,
Project 1 1
• I
' is
IF :. 11 , 1'MI
Medical Office GP Max ar' w I
637k SF (100% . o
occupancy)
wer Fj
VI o cn
0 0 0 0
O O O O
CID
I General Plan Medical Office Use Trips
a- I