Item Coversheet
  COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 0195
File #: 0400-07 & 0400-08 & 0400-04-17-1 & 0400-03 & 0400-06-02
Title:Appeal of Roseville Old Town Lofts Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Tree Permit, General Plan Amendment
Contact:

  Kinarik Shallow 916-746-1309 kshallow@roseville.ca.us

 

Meeting Date: 8/7/2019

Item #: 8.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL

Based on the June 13, 2019 Planning Commission hearing, staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of certain entitlements related to the Roseville Old Town Lofts project and take the following actions:

 

  1. Adopt a resolution denying the appeal from the June 13, 2019 approvals by the Planning Commission; adopting the four (4) findings of fact and approving the Design Review Permit subject to sixty-nine (69) conditions of approval; adopting the three (3) findings of fact and approving the Tentative Subdivision Map subject to sixty-eight (68) conditions of approval; and adopting the two (2) findings of fact and approving the Tree Permit subject to twenty-one (21) conditions of approval; and

  2. Adopt a resolution adopting the Roseville Old Town Lofts Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and

  3. Adopt a resolution approving text and land use map amendments to the General Plan.


 
BACKGROUND

This Council Communication provides a summary of the project, the Planning Commission hearing and the appeal. A detailed project background and evaluation is provided in the Planning Commission staff report, included as Attachment 1.

The applicant is requesting entitlements to construct 23 for-sale single family dwellings on approximately 0.89 acres.  The dwelling units are designed as three story row houses, with two bedrooms, two and one half bathrooms, a two car garage and rooftop access, with each unit located on an individual lot.  The proposed density of the project is approximately 26 dwelling units per acre.  The project site has a zoning designation of Attached Housing (R3) and a land use designation of Business Professional (BP).  The applicant has requested a General Plan amendment to amend the land use to create consistency with the site’s residential zoning designation. 

The project was heard by the Planning Commission on June 13, 2019.  Prior to the hearing, the City received written comments from 11 neighbors pertaining to the project as well as the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.  Staff provided responses to the comments in a separate memorandum to the Planning Commission, dated May 3, 2019, which is included in the Council Communication as Attachment 2.  A second memorandum to the Planning Commission was prepared, dated June 6, 2019, which included comments received after publication of the staff report (Attachment 3).  The most common neighborhood concerns regarding the project are related to parking, traffic, and density.

At the Planning Commission hearing, a total of 14 members of the neighborhood spoke in opposition to the project.  A variety of concerns were raised, the most prominent being parking, traffic and circulation, noise, and the total number of units proposed for the project.  Several residents felt that the project would negatively impact the quality and character of the neighborhood.  After receiving testimony, the Planning Commission deliberated on the item, and requested the applicant provide additional screening on the rooftop decks of the homes immediately along the north and east sides of the project site (Lots 17-23, Lot 16 and Lot 8), as well as enhanced fencing along the north and east property lines, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division (conditions #3a and #3b of the Design Review Permit). 

The Planning Commission voted to approve the Design Review Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Tree Permit, and voted to recommend the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment, with a vote of 5 aye, 1 nay, 1 absent.  On June 24, 2019, the City received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision (Attachment 3).  The appeal provides two grounds to reject the Planning Commission’s decision:  inadequate traffic evaluation related to the proposed design for Nevada Avenue and the impact of the additional residents produced by the project, and a lack of parking, including the removal of on-street parking on Nevada Avenue. 

This Council Communication responds to the issues raised in the appeal and also includes a response to one of the most prominent issues raised at the Planning Commission hearing, the assertion that the project is too dense.

Traffic Evaluation

The appeal states that the project has an inadequate traffic evaluation.  As discussed in the evaluation section of the staff report and in staff’s response to comments (Attachments 1 and 2), the City’s Engineering Division assessed the long term traffic impacts, which analyzes the project’s cumulative traffic impacts using the City’s Traffic Demand Model (TDM), as well as the short term traffic impacts, which analyzes localized traffic impacts to existing conditions and site access. 

Long term traffic impacts were evaluated using the City’s Traffic Demand Model (TDM) for future buildout.  This evaluation concluded that the proposed project is consistent with the TDM and will generate approximately 12 P.M. peak-hour trips, which is less than the assumed 30 P.M. peak-hour trips assigned to this site.  The proposed project will therefore, create a surplus of approximately 18 P.M. peak-hour trips within the Traffic Area Zone (TAZ) surrounding the project. 

Short term traffic impacts were evaluated using existing traffic data for Average Daily Trips (ADT) and Level of Service on Douglas Boulevard (at the Keehner Avenue intersection).  City staff collected three days of traffic data on Nevada Avenue which yielded information pertaining to ADT, peak-hour trips and the average delays at the Nevada Avenue/Douglas Boulevard intersection.  The evaluation concluded that the amount of existing daily traffic in the vicinity of the proposed project can be categorized as average to below average when compared to similar roadways throughout the City.  The data showed that average peak-hour trips and ADT was slightly below the assumptions included in the City’s Traffic Demand Model (TDM).  The evaluation found that the average delay at the Nevada Avenue/Douglas Boulevard intersection was below 30 seconds, which is considered typical for this type of intersection. 

When adding the trips associated with the proposed project, the short-term traffic evaluation concluded that the proposed project will not substantially increase delays at the Nevada Avenue/Douglas Boulevard intersection.

In addition, the proposed ingress-only driveway on Douglas Boulevard was specifically designed to ensure that the majority of vehicles entering the site do so from Douglas Boulevard instead of the proposed driveway on Nevada Avenue.  This proposed driveway will limit the number of additional trips associated with the proposed project that will impact existing neighborhood streets, including Nevada Avenue. 

Parking

The appeal indicates that the project has a lack of parking and will remove on-street parking.  As discussed in the Design Review Permit evaluation of the staff report (Attachment 1), the Zoning Ordinance parking requirement for single-family dwelling units is two (2) parking spaces per unit.  The project proposes a total of 23 units, resulting in a parking requirement of 46 spaces.  Each unit is designed with a standard two-car garage to satisfy this requirement.  Residents expressed concerns that the garages would be utilized as storage space and would therefore eliminate space for parking.  In response to this concern, staff added a condition of approval to the Design Review Permit which requires all garages be made available for required parking and prohibits personal storage that displaces parking (Condition #5).  This will allow the City’s Code Enforcement Division to take action if complaints regarding parking are received.  The project is also conditioned to include a clause in the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that prohibits storage in the garages that displaces vehicle parking (Condition #50e). 

Guest parking is not required for single-family uses.  It is anticipated guests will utilize the on-street public parking spaces located on Nevada Avenue, which is typical of single-family subdivisions. 

The appeal also indicates the project will remove existing on-street parking.  As part of the project, Nevada Avenue (adjacent to the project site) will be modified to reduce the pavement width from 26 feet to 20 feet and will include space for three (3) parallel parking spaces on the east side of Nevada Avenue, with five-foot wide sidewalks constructed along the limits of the property.  This reduces the amount of on-street parking that currently exists adjacent to the property, from approximately six (6) spaces to three (3) spaces. 

Density

At the Planning Commission hearing and within correspondence received prior to the hearing, a number of neighbors expressed the belief that the project was too dense, that too many dwelling units were being proposed for the site.  The proposed density of the site is approximately 26 dwelling units per acre (23 units on 0.89 acres) and is consistent with the proposed General Plan High Density Residential (HDR) land use designation, the existing R3 zoning, and with many high density sites found throughout Roseville.  The General Plan provides that the “High density residential land use should be applied to lands adjacent to arterial streets, transit linkages, and in close proximity to commercial services”.  The proposed project is located adjacent to an arterial roadway (Douglas Boulevard), within one-half mile of two (2) bus stops and approximately one-quarter of a mile from the Roseville Square shopping center.  The proposed project also meets the City’s adopted Blueprint Implementation Strategies which encourage compact building design and the creation of a range of housing opportunities and choices.  Based on these factors, the proposed land use and density are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding area.


 
FISCAL IMPACT

The project is not anticipated to result in negative impacts to the City's General Fund.  The project is consistent with the City’s Non-Residential Conversion policy (as described in Attachment 1, the Planning Commission Staff Report), which, for the majority of the City requires a fiscal impact analysis to determine potential fiscal impacts to the City.  However, “in order to encourage and emphasize reinvestment and revitalization without creating undue burdens and barriers to development”, the policy does not require a fiscal analysis within the City’s Infill planning area.  The project will replace one (1) single-family dwelling unit with 23 single-family dwelling units, increasing the property tax base for the project site.  In addition, the project has been conditioned to have a Homeowners Association (HOA) that will be responsible for the on-going maintenance of all common areas, including project installed landscaping, which will have no impacts on the City’s General Fund.



ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT / JOBS CREATED

In addition to creating short term construction jobs, a goal of the project is to stimulate future investment and development along the Douglas Boulevard corridor.



ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  The IS/MND was released for a 20-day public review, from April 10, 2019 to April 30, 2019.  As mentioned previously, written comments on the adequacy of the document were received and are included in the memorandum to the Planning Commission, along with staff’s responses to these comments (Attachment 2).  At the June 13, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission considered and adopted the Roseville Old Town Lofts Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.  The IS/MND and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were also appealed and are included as Exhibit A.  Therefore, if the appeal is denied, the City Council will need to re-adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.


 
Respectfully Submitted,

Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner

Mike Isom, Development Services Director 
 


_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager


ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Attachment 1 Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment 2 Memorandum to the Planning Commission, dated May 3, 2019
Attachment 3 Memorandum to the Planning Commission, dated June 6, 2019
Resolution No. 19-339
Attachment 4 Appeal
Attachment 5 Conditions of Approval
Resolution No. 19-340
Exhibit A Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration & Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Resolution 19-341
Exhibit B General Plan Amendment
Exhibit C General Plan Change Pages
Exhibit D Modified R3 Standards
Exhibit E Site Plan
Exhibit F Floor Plans
Exhibit G Elevations
Exhibit H Landscape Plan
Exhibit I Grading & Drainage Plan
Exhibit J Utility Plan
Exhibit K Tentative Subdivision Map
Exhibit L Prelim Lot Layout
Exhibit M Arborist Report
Exhibit N Tree Preservation
Exhibit O Prelim Post Construction
Attachment 6 Correspondence