PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES December 17, 2015 1. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Gordon Huether, Tom Trzesniewski, Paul Kelley, Arthur Roosa, Michael Murray None STAFF: CDD Planning Division Rick Tooker, Ken MacNab, Mike Allen, Kevin Eberle, Scott Klingbeil, Shuree Hansen City Attorney s Office Peter Spoerl 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS Commissioners Trzesniewski and Murray moved and seconded to move item 7.B Stanly Ranch Resort from Public Hearings to Consent Hearings. Huether, Trzesniewski, Kelley, Murray, Roosa 4. PUBLIC COMMENT Harris Nussbaum gave a brief introduction and some background on himself. He provided general comments regarding good and bad decisions made by decisionmakers, the Agricultural Preserve being at risk, the City stretching its resources and the quality of life for the people that work in Napa. Bernhard Krevet, Friends of the Napa River, gave suggestions on extending the lane connecting to the Napa River to allow guests staying at the Stanly Ranch Resort access and enhance the experience of the river. Kevin Teague thanked Commissioner Roosa for his service on the Planning Commission. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Consideration of Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2015. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes for December 17, 2015 Page 1 of 10

Commissioners Roosa and Murray moved and seconded to approve the minutes as submitted. Huether, Trzesniewski, Kelley, Murray, Roosa 6. CONSENT HEARINGS 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS/APPEALS A. PEARL ADDITION 1339 PEARL STREET (File No. PL15-0148) Request for a Design Review Permit to construct a 4,650 square feet three story building addition onto the south side of the existing 5,750 square foot two story commercial building at 1339 Pearl Street. The project also includes exterior modifications to portions of the existing building. The proposed project site is located within the Downtown Mixed Use Specific Plan area and is zoned Downtown Mixed Use: Parking Exempt overlay (DMU:PE) (Eberle) Contract Planner Eberle presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Murray asked for clarification regarding the trash enclosure. Contract Planner Eberle stated there is a condition of approval with specific standards for trash containers. Chair Huether invited the Applicant to speak. Wayne Holland, Project Architect, described the architecture in detail. He spoke regarding the purpose for adding the symmetrically placed windows on the second and third floors. Mr. Holland acknowledged that future buildings could be built on the adjoining properties that would directly abut the south and east façades, and in such a case the windows would likely be filled in. Commissioner discussions ensued. The Commission discussed the following aspects of the project: Windows being the same on all elevations Windows against the property line Fire safety Potential conflicts regarding future building on adjoining properties Michael Rogers, 1530 Polk Street, asked for clarification regarding the parking study. Chair Huether closed Public Comment. Contract Planner Eberle addressed the parking study question raised in Public Comment. This project is located in the Parking Exempt Overlay Zoning District. Mr. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes for December 17, 2015 Page 2 of 10

Eberle mentioned current parking in and around the area and how the Parking Overlay District works. Vice-Chair Trzesniewski stated this project is straightforward and he can make the findings to support it. Commissioner Roosa agreed with Vice-Chair Trzesniewski that it is a good decision to make it a three story building. Commissioner Kelley applauded the Owner and Applicant mentioning that the size of the building could have been a lot bigger. Commissioner Murray stated Mr. Holland did a good job and it will enhance the neighborhood. Commissioners Trzesniewski and Roosa moved and seconded to adopt a resolution approving a Design Review Permit for the Pearl Addition at 1339 Pearl Street. Huether, Trzesniewski, Kelley, Murray, Roosa B. STANLY RANCH RESORT 1201 & 1301 STANLY LANE, 100 & 200 STANLY CROSS ROAD (File No. PL13-0144) Design Review for the Unified Site Development Plan and Phase I hotel development of the Stanly Ranch Resort. Phase I includes the hotel portion of the resort only. The Stanly Ranch Resort site is located on the south side of Stanly Lane approximately 4,000 feet south of State Route 12/121, within the TC-921, Tourist Commercial General Plan designation and the MP, Stanly Ranch Resort Master Plan Zoning District (APN s: 047-230-049, -050, -051, -052) (Allen) Commissioners Murray and Roosa moved and seconded to forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a resolution approving a Unified Site Development Plan and Design Review Permit for Phase I of the Stanly Ranch Resort. Huether, Trzesniewski, Kelley, Murray, Roosa C. PIETRO PLACE 725 & 737 CENTRAL AVE, 2263 & 2269 SOSCOL AVE (File No. PL15-0138) Development application to authorize the construction of a 171 unit condominium development on a 6.71 acre site at 725/737 Central Avenue and 2263/2269 Soscol Avenue. Project approvals include: 1) a Use Permit to authorize the condominium s development standards; 2) Design Review of the site layout and building 3) a Tentative Subdivision Map to divide the property into 171 residential units with a common open space parcel; and 4) a Sign Permit to authorize the monument signs for the development. The project site is located on the south side of Central Avenue Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes for December 17, 2015 Page 3 of 10

approximately 350 feet west of Soscol Avenue within the MFR-090, Multi-Family Residential General Plan Designation and the RM, Multi-Family Residential Zoning District. (APN 044-140-003, 004, 010 & 011) (Klingbeil) Senior Planner Klingbeil presented the Staff Report. Commissioner discussions ensued. The Commission discussed the following aspects of the project: 11 affordable housing units proposed Parking concession on street parking is not included Difference between apartments and condos Commissioner Kelley asked for Staff s feedback on Building D, which is located along Central Avenue frontage. Senior Planner Klingbeil stated Staff is not concerned with the length of the building. Commissioner Kelley stated this project will raise the bar for future developments. Chair Huether invited the Applicant to speak. Wayne O Connell, Van Winden Place LLC, introduced himself and thanked Staff for all their hard work in processing their application. Mr. O Connell presented a PowerPoint presentation. Phil Vandertoolen, Project Landscape Architect, presented a PowerPoint presentation. He gave a general overview of the amenities, described the proposed landscape and streetscape in detail, spoke about the breezeways and entries and reviewed the materials and architecture. Ben Huey, Project Traffic Consultant, presented a PowerPoint presentation. Wayne O Connell spoke regarding their public outreach efforts and the greatest concern received was the speed of traffic on Central Ave. Mr. O Connell then described their traffic measures to deal with the comments received. Commissioner Kelley stated he appreciates the time and effort the Applicant gave in presenting this project, but does have a few concerns regarding traffic and the traffic analysis. Ben Huey responded to Commissioner Kelley s concerns regarding the traffic analysis by describing the process they used and how they followed their ITE trip generation manual and how they did not take any trip reductions. Commissioner discussions ensued. The Commission discussed the following aspects of the project: Architecture Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes for December 17, 2015 Page 4 of 10

Proposed windows Parking Traffic study Units starting as rentals then sold as ownership homes Commissioner Roosa asked for clarification on the main entrance having a right in, right out driveway. Mr. O Connell responded, there will be a concrete barrier on Central Avenue all the way to Terrace. It will not obstruct the movement of vehicles turning right from the site, but it will block anyone coming entering the site while traveling north on Soscol Avenue. Chair Huether opened Public Comment. Paul Heney, 736 Central Avenue, gave an introduction and spoke about the landscaping in the area and the quality in the surrounding community. Mr. Heney thanked Mr. O Connell for seeking the surrounding neighbors input on the development and suggested a different traffic plan. Mr. Heney prefers the ownership character of the proposed housing complex as opposed to the units becoming rentals. Mary McGlothern spoke about her son moving back to Napa and her family being excited about the project and the opportunity to have a nice place for her son to live. Justin Ford stated he has concerns about storage and esthetics. Francisco Zapedo spoke regarding his concerns for his mother s home, which is located closest to the Soscol exit. He expressed concerns with construction, security for the neighborhood and storm water run-off. John Stebbins, 36 Valley West Circle, representing a surrounding homeowners association, voiced his concerns regarding traffic, parking and the proposed three-story buildings. Mr. Stebbins described the current traffic issues on Central Avenue and read a section from the Housing Element. Wayne O Connell responded to the comments raised in Public Comment and introduced his son Preston O Connell. Preston O Connell responded to the comments raised in Public Comment regarding the height of the buildings. The proposed development provides more parking than is required by the State. He also responded to the comments regarding safety, security, and storage. Chair Huether closed Public Comment. Commissioner Roosa stated he likes the design and is impressed with the amount of articulation; however, he believes the traffic analysis is a fantasy relative to the project not increasing delays. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes for December 17, 2015 Page 5 of 10

Commissioner Murray stated the proposed project is very nice looking; however, he doesn t understand how the 11 affordable units can waive so much of the parking requirement. Commissioner Murray also stated that Central Avenue is a poorly constructed street and suggested street improvements and closing off one driveway. He also asked the Applicant about the tenant screening process. Senior Planner Klingbeil described the parking requirements for this development. Wayne O Connell stated they are required to have a homeowners association in place. The tenant process will be a rigorous process and a manager will be onsite. Commissioner Kelley stated he personally is encouraged about this facility being rented for the first 10 years. Jobs are in Napa, but housing is not here to support them. He is hopeful that tenants will take advantage of all the travel amenities like bike paths and bus stop. Commissioner Trzesniewski stated he appreciates the comments from the surrounding neighbors. He commented on the great architecture and amenities and thanked the Applicant for their presentation stating that the project is extremely well done. Commissioner Roosa stated the amenities are part of what makes this project good. Senior Planner Klingbeil stated that if there were any significant changes to the proposed project the Applicant would be required to come back before the Commission. Chair Huether agreed with his fellow Commissioners. This is a poster child for what good development looks like. This is a dream team, one of the best ones they have seen in a long time. He appreciates the Applicant s engagement with the neighbors and suggested that the entrance to the rental office is a great place for public art. He spoke about the art piece and suggested maybe a metal piece for the developments logo Grandpa Pietro. Commissioners Trzesniewski and Roosa moved and seconded to forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a resolution approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopting a resolution approving a Use Permit, Design Review Permit, Tentative Map and Sign Permit for Pietro Place. Huether, Trzesniewski, Kelley, Murray, Roosa D. 1300 MAIN STREET 954 CLINTON STREET (File No. PL14-0120) Application for a Planned Development Zoning Overlay and Design Review Permit to construct a 21,499 square foot, three story commercial building on the 8,100 square foot property at 954 Clinton Street. The property is located on the northeast corner of the Main Street and Clinton Street intersection within the DCC, Downtown Core Commercial General Plan and Zoning designations. (APN 003-142-013) (Klingbeil) Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes for December 17, 2015 Page 6 of 10

Senior Planner Klingbeil presented the Staff Report. Community Development Director Tooker supplemented the Staff Report relating to the purpose and intent of the City s Planned Development standards and parking requirements. Chair Huether invited the Applicant to speak. Scot Hunter, Partner with Wiseman Company, gave an introduction and introduced his team. Derick Dutton, TWM Architects spoke about the proposed design and architecture. He described the materials in detail. Commissioner Kelley stated he is happy with the architecture. He loves the corner element on the building. He explained that this is a challenging lot and the Applicant really listened to Staff and the Commissioner comments during the pre-application process. Commissioner Kelley commented that he would consider this to be a superior architectural project for the Downtown area without taking the parking issues into consideration. Commissioner discussions ensued: The Commission discussed the following aspects of the project: Proposed metal planters Windows on the east elevation Green screen Corner Tower element being considered a special design feature The Commission unanimously likes the architecture. Community Development Director Tooker identified the series of Late Communications. He also commented on the existing parking shortfall and current parking studies done in the Downtown Napa area responding to comments made on these issues. Chair Huether asked for clarification on what the timeframe is for the Commission to receive an update on the parking analysis done from the Walker Parking Study. Director Tooker responded that in the next six months Staff will have a better idea of what the parking need will be once the already approved or newly submitted projects are evaluated. Director Tooker reminded the Commission on the alternatives for approval/denial of the project, which includes the potential to continue consideration of the application rather than recommend to the Council it be approved or denied after the CEQA work is completed. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes for December 17, 2015 Page 7 of 10

Scott Greenwood-Meinert with Dickerson Peatman & Fogarty gave a PowerPoint presentation. He spoke about the voluntary payment of in-lieu parking fees as adequate mitigation for the parking and money the Applicant is putting towards a parking garage. Scot Hunter stated he is extremely grateful that the Commission feels that their project architecture is superior. He commented on the current parking proposal and also presented a PowerPoint presentation. Chair Huether opened Public Comment. Linda Kerr spoke regarding her concerns with the height limit, parking, setbacks and believes the City is letting developers bend the rules to make a profit. She supports denial of the application. Harris Nussbaum stated he appreciates the work Staff has done in processing this application. His concerns include parking and feels the Commission should wait until the current parking problems are solved. The Commission should think about the residents. Ed Tanita, 950 Clinton Street, stated parking is a major issue in the area especially on his side of Clinton. He owns an older parcel which doesn t have a garage; parking on the street is a necessity. He feels the Applicant does not meet the findings to approve this project without parking mitigations. Scot Hunter responded to the comments raised in Public Comment. Chair Huether closed Public Comment. Commissioners provided disclosures. Director Tooker spoke about the Downtown Specific Plan regarding the height requirements and number of stories that could fit into that height with a flat roof, the required FAR, and provided clarification regarding the current parking studies in the area as opposed to earlier versions prepared by the Applicant. Commissioner discussions ensued. The Commission discussed the following aspects of the project: Architecture being attractive Building height as acceptable given the proposed design Parking concerns Commissioner Roosa stated the building is attractive and he is not concerned with the building height. However, he does feel parking is an issue. People want to park as close as they can and the Planning Commission needs to look at this from a planning perspective; the City needs to complete the parking study to see if the building will fit with the current and projected parking needs of the area. He cannot support the project currently and would like to see it continued. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes for December 17, 2015 Page 8 of 10

Commissioner Trzesniewski agrees with continuing the project and reviewing the completed parking study. He cannot support the project as is. Commissioner Kelley agrees with his fellow Commissioners that the building is beautiful. He can make the finding to support the height and believes parking downtown as a whole needs improvement. He understands the current parking situation. The City has a responsibility to review and create some sort of additional parking. He can make the findings to provide an agreement at this time for payment in-lieu of the parking and move forward with the approval. Commissioner Murray stated the rear yard setback is a concern and believes the building is encroaching too far on the east side. He supports the height and believes parking is a dual responsibility between the Applicant and the City. It is up to the City to ensure parking spaces available. Commissioner Murray agrees with Commissioner Kelley that you can t stop a potentially good project and would like to know that if the project is continued that the Commission will be presented within six months a plan for parking in that area. There are a lot of projects coming forward in the future. The Applicant has been asked to provide a parking solution and the Applicant offered to pay for the parking. He supports a continuance. Chair Huether commented on the parking issue. He mentioned that there must be changes in Napa as development comes forward. There are parking issues all over the City, not just in the Downtown. He agrees that the proposed building is handsome and doesn t have an issue with the height. He supports the project, but is disappointed about the number of parking studies needed in order to make a decision. He is sympathetic of the Applicant and would like Staff to evaluate the sufficiency of parking with this and other projects quickly. Director Tooker responded to the parking study comments. He is certain Staff can complete the review within six months and consistent with the Commission s request will provide an update at March 17, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. The Commission discussed the continuance. Scot Hunter stated money is an acceptable mitigation under CEQA. He commented on the study, proposed timeframe and money. If the Commission is inclined to continue the project he would prefer a denial instead. Director Tooker commented that a fee is not mitigation but rather the project that the fee is intended to go toward. It is uncertain whether the City has overcommitted the number of spaces fees will generate compared to what a new garage will yield. He reviewed the process that the project would have to go through whether or not the Commission decided to approve or continue it noting that even with a recommendation for approval the environmental review would have to be completed and the project be brought back to the Commission before it is forwarded to the Council. This was a process that the Applicant pushed for not the Staff. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes for December 17, 2015 Page 9 of 10

Chair Huether stated the Commission supports the project; it will improve the urban landscape downtown. There is a lot of positive with the project and he wants the City to make it a priority to complete the parking evaluation. Commissioners Roosa and Trzesniewski moved and seconded to continue this item to a date uncertain. Huether, Trzesniewski, Murray, Roosa Kelley 8. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 9. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF Planning Manager MacNab thanked Commissioner Roosa for his service on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Roosa stated he has enjoyed his 17 years on City commissions including the CDBG Committee and he won t be missed because everyone will see him around. Planning Manager MacNab reminded the Commission about the January 7 th Planning Commission Meeting. All the Commissioners personally thanked Commissioner Roosa for his time on the Commission and stated it has been a pleasure to work with him. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:41 pm. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for January 7, 2015 at 5:30 pm. Gordon Huether, Chair NAPA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Ken MacNab, Planning Manager NAPA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes for December 17, 2015 Page 10 of 10