3A Public Hearing 2013 0204 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

(Unapproved) Excerpts from the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes December 20, 2012 Page 4 of 5 shadowing, but probably not during the late spring and summer. He said there is no gable on the TF1 roof at the rear of the building, whereas TF6 has a gabled end. In response to a further question from Chair Collier, he said the proposed height of the two-story structure is 21 feet to the ridge, but only 17 feet to the plate line. Referring to an aerial photo, he showed how the gables run east-west, with the pitch going north toward Aurora Greens, where the gables on the first building run north-south. Chair Collier noted that the second-story windows in the proposed development would thus look over the fence line toward Aurora Greens. Carole Rinaldi, Bermuda Avenue resident, spoke in favor of the proposed Aurora Cottages development. She said she’s been a Marina Faire resident for 43 years, and believe this would be a major improvement for Aurora Drive and the surrounding area. She said she travels along Aurora Drive every time she goes downtown, and tonight passed two cars and none parked on the street. She said her children attended Garfield Elementary School, and she never had driving or traffic problems on Aurora Drive. She said Aurora Cottages would be a good development, and it looks nice and clean. Also, as a member of the Shoreline Development Citizens Advisory Committee, she wanted to say that this proposal would help the area when the Mulford -Marina Branch Library location is redeveloped. Motion to close public hearing Abero/Rennie: 6 Aye, 0 No Commissioner Rennie asked about the entitlements being considered. In response, Mr. Penaranda said the entitlement is to rezone, attaching the PD Overlay to the RO, to create an RO(PD) Residential Outer Planned Development Overlay. The actual PD consists of the exhibits presented, plus recommenda tions if the Planning Commission chooses to add any. He said the Planning Commission’s vote would be advisory to the City Council. The Planning Commission could either recommend or deny approval. If denied, it would be final unless appealed to the City Council. Commissioner Hernandez said that if approval is recommended, he would suggest addressing the parking concerns, the colors, access and trash. Mr. Penaranda said staff would work with the applicant and Mr. Larson on colors. He said that he would check to see whether the no-parking signage request would have to go to the Engineering & Transportation Department or Public Works Department. In response to Commissioner Fitzsimons, Mr. Penaranda confirmed that the proposed landscaping and plantings all comply with Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements. Commissioner Rennie said he likes a lot of things about the proposal. Noting that there’s always a tradeoff when seeking greater density, he said it would be nice to have less hardscape. The quality of the project would have a lot to do with how the property is managed, he added, and that involves a leap of faith. In that context, he said the one thing about the proposal that bothers him is the trash. He said what is proposed would not be an asset to the neighborhood. Commissioner Rennie said he understands the applicant’s point about providing an amenity to renters, but still considers trash enclosures for each unit excessive. Practically speaking, he said that he’s concerned about trash making it out to the street for pickup, and he’s concerned about 32 trash containers along a frontage that would normally have maybe six containers. He said he can’t imagine what that street will look like on trash day – a sea of trash cans – and he wouldn’t want to get up in the morning and look at that from across the street. He said that there are ways of dealing with the trash with significantly less visual impact. Vice Chair Abero said that in a residential neighborhood, people aren’t allowed to keep containers in f ront of their homes. They have to be enclosed in the back of the property and not be seen from the street. In this proposal, the enclosures are nice, but they are right in front of the houses. She also said she is concerned about the two-story building looking right into the neighbor’s home and creating unwanted shade. That said, Vice Chair Abero added that she likes the look of the project, that it’s been well -developed, and that it would enhance the area and be a great part of the shoreline development. Commissioner Hernandez said he also likes the project, but would prefer to see trash pickup handled on the property itself rather than on Aurora Drive.