Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 122-09______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 1 of 10 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: JANUARY 26, 2009 CMR: 122:09 REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: Consider Approval of a Site and Design Review for a Mixed Use Commercial and Residential Project, a Tentative Map to Subdivide Three Lots into Separate Parcels and a Record of Land Use Action for a Project Located at 3401, 3415, 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project is a mixed use and residential project located at a vacant shopping center site on a 4.2 acre site on Alma Street, just north of East Meadow Drive. The City Council’s review is limited to the site’s design (Site and Design Review) and the lot configuration (Tentative Subdivision Map) for a Planned Community Zoning (PC 4956) that was approved for the subject site on May 14, 2007. The Planned Community approval controls the allowable land uses, development intensity, and parking requirements for the site, to include: a) an approximately two-story 50,511-sq. ft. mixed use building that consists of 22,857 sq. ft. of commercial space (including 15,000 for a grocery store), 14 second floor below market rate (BMR) units, and 1,757 sq. ft. for a community room; and b) a smaller two-story 5,580-sq. ft. retail building. The remainder of the project consists of a 9,694-sq. ft. public park, private streets and 37 single-family residences. The site layout has been designed to meet the requirements of the approved Planned Community Zoning for the site, including parking, and has been recommended for approval by the staff, the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), and the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The P&TC has recommended denial of the Tentative Subdivision Map as it found that the configuration of the commercial area into two separate parcels (the mixed use building and the second retail building) is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan definition of a Neighborhood Center, and individual P&TC members objected to the limited hours of use for the community room, which is proposed as one of the “public benefits” of the project. Staff believes, however, that the Tentative Map configuration is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Planned Community Zoning Ordinance or the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff has also provided two additional conditions to better assure available parking. Alternatives are also provided for minor expansion of the community room availability. ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 2 of 10 RECOMMENDATIONS This application for a Site and Design and Tentative Map request was the subject of approximately six hearings before the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) between August 8, 2007 and November 19, 2008. The following summarizes the different recommendations from staff, the P&TC and ARB. 1. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed Site and Design request and the Tentative Map, based upon findings and conditions outlined in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A), with the addition of conditions to: 1) require that covenants for the single-family residences include requirements to keep garages clear for maximum parking availability, and 2) specify that the below grade parking spaces dedicated for residential use include only one space restricted to each unit, with other spaces to be shared with the commercial use. Alternatives that are more consistent with the P&TC recommendations are outlined for consideration to: 1) require a modified Map to show all commercial areas within one parcel, and 2) expand the allowable hours of use of the community room. 2. The P&TC recommends that the City Council approve the proposed Site and Design request and deny the Tentative Map, and direct the applicant to revise the Map to include all commercial areas within one parcel. 3. The ARB recommends that the City Council approve the proposed Site and Design request, subject to the relevant findings and conditions outlined in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). Note: The ARB does not have review authority over the Tentative Map. BACKGROUND Development Review Process On May 14, 2007, the City Council adopted a Planned Community (PC) Ordinance (Ordinance 4956) to allow the construction of a mixed use project, including 27,720 sq. feet of retail/commercial (including an approximately 15,000-square foot grocery store) and community room space, 14 below market rate apartments, 37 single family residences and approximately 8,900 square feet of parkland. PC 4956 (Attachment B) set forth land use types, commercial floor area, housing density, and the number and location of below market rate (BMR) units. The PC Ordinance also specified public benefits of the project, including the parkland area to be developed and maintained by the landowner of the mixed use building, provision of a grocery store, the BMR units, green building compliance, and the community room. Following the adoption of the new zoning designation, the applicant submitted a Site and Design application for the construction of the project. The Site and Design application and development plans were reviewed on August 8, 2007 and recommended for approval on September 19, 2007 by the P&TC. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the Site and Design request on February 21 and April 3, 2008, and recommended that City Council approve the application on June 5, 2008. The required findings for Site and Design Review are specified in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 3 of 10 The P&TC considered and recommended denial of the associated Tentative Map for the development on November 19, 2008. Findings for approval or denial of a Tentative Map are outlined in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). A more extensive summary of these public hearings is provided in the “Board and P&TC Hearing/Recommendations” section at the end of this report. Project Description The project consists of a Site and Design and Tentative Map request. The Site and Design application is a proposal to demolish approximately 45,600 square feet of a vacant shopping center and to replace it with 28,437 square feet of commercial uses, 14 Below Market Rate (BMR) units, 37 single family residences, a 1,750-sq. ft. community room and a 9,694-sq. ft. public park. The Tentative Map portion of the application proposes to subdivide three existing commercial lots into one larger residential and commercial mixed use lot, which includes a public park, one smaller commercial lot, 37 single family fee lots, and miscellaneous lots for streets and common area. The applicant also proposes to further subdivide the larger mixed use lot into three condominium spaces. Those spaces consist of one for the commercial, one for the BMR units and the third for the community room. Attachment E provides a detailed project description. DISCUSSION Most of the site design issues for the project were addressed and recommended for approval by the P&TC and the ARB. The P&TC and the public raised three unresolved development issues at the most recent November 19, 2008 public hearing regarding the Tentative Map, however. The three items include 1) the tentative map commercial parcels, 2) the community room hours and 3) parking. Tentative Map Commercial Parcels The scope of the Council’s and P&TC’s review for the purposes of the Tentative Map application is generally limited to the “design” and “improvement” of the proposed subdivision. “Design” and “Improvement” are generally defined in the Subdivision Map Act as the two- dimensional features (streets, utilities, lot lines, etc.) of the development and the Map Act requires approval of the subdivision unless at least one of seven specific findings are made (see findings in Attachment A and discussion in the P&TC’s November 19, 2008 staff report). The design and improvement of the structures to be located within the subdivision, such as buildings and parking, are relevant to the Site and Design review of the project. The purpose of the Tentative Map is to convert the three existing commercial lots to accommodate the new commercial and residential buildings. The map includes: • A 59,031-sq. ft. lot for the mixed use building, some parking, and the public park (Parcel A), • A 12,842-sq. ft. lot for the smaller 5,800-sq. ft. commercial building (Parcel B), • 37 fee simple single family lots, located behind the commercial lots, and • Three lots for public streets and common areas, located within the interior of the site (Parcels C, D, and E). ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 4 of 10 The applicant is also proposing to create three condominium units within the larger mixed use lot. The first condominium unit is for the retail space. The second condominium is for the second floor BMR units. The third condominium is to accommodate the second floor community room. Per Section 66427 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City cannot preclude the creation of airspace condominium parcels. The P&TC has recommended that only one commercial lot be created for the project, stating that the map is in conflict with the first finding in the Map Act requiring consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The basis for the determination was that issues such as maintenance, differing land uses, and control over parking could not be addressed if two owners were involved and that a cohesive Neighborhood Center would not exist. The applicant has indicated that the intent is for both parcels, associated parking, and access to be owned by one party for the long term, and that the purpose of the separate lots is to provide the ability to finance the parcels separately. The applicant also proposes to record a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REA) over both parcels (Attachment F-1). Through this agreement, the owner of the larger mixed use parcel is able to exercise maintenance and repair, land use, and parking control over the owner of the smaller commercial parcel, if there is one in the future. Staff believes that the Tentative Map is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act, as well as the PC Ordinance and the Site and Design plans recommended for approval. The City Attorney has indicated that the P&TC’s determination is not sufficient to deny the map, as there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that limits or prohibits separate commercial parcels in a Neighborhood Center and there is nothing in the Neighborhood Center definition that requires common ownership. The City Attorney has also indicated that the City does not have jurisdiction to determine whether or how the mixed use building is divided into a condominium configuration. Staff also believes that the proposed REA will be sufficient to ensure adequate maintenance of and cohesive management of the site. The Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) includes findings for approval of the Map. If the Council determines that alternative findings, based on Comprehensive Plan inconsistency or other Subdivision Map Act criteria, support requiring the commercial uses to be mapped as a single parcel, a condition requiring that change should be added to the Record of Land Use Action. Council should direct staff to return with revised findings and a final Record of Land Use Action on a future Consent Calendar agenda. Community Room The PC Ordinance for this project required the provision of a community room as one of the public benefits. The development plans include a 1,757-sq. ft. community room on the second floor of the mixed use building. The design and location of the community room was reviewed and recommended for approval by the ARB. The applicant is proposing limited hours to maximize the available parking spaces for the future grocery store, and has provided background information from the PC Zone deliberations (Attachment F-2) indicating that the limited hours for the community room were presented and understood at that time. Specifically, the applicant is proposing that the room be leased to the City (Attachment H) and operated by the Community Services Department (CSD), with group activities prohibited between the hours of 11:00 am and 7:00 pm. The City will otherwise control all access to the community room and will be ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 5 of 10 responsible for its regular maintenance. CSD staff have indicated general support for the lease terms and notes that space needs for programming are greatest in the mornings and evenings. Some members of the public and of the P&TC, however, have objected to the proposed lease terms and feel that the proposed hours are too limited to provide adequate public benefit. Specific P&TC comments on the community room hours are available in the attached minutes of November 19, 2008 (Attachment K-1). Concerns were also raised that no parking is being provided for the community room and was not required by the PC Ordinance. As part of the Site and Design Review, the Council has the authority to determine if the proposal fulfills the public benefit criteria established in the PC Ordinance for the project. Based on use patterns of similar facilities and the location, it is anticipated that this sized facility will be used for small classes (approximately 20-30 attendees) and perhaps for meetings or other activities by the site’s residents or the residents of the immediate neighborhood who would walk to the room. A limited number of classes may be offered, such as: • Yoga class, stretch/fitness warm-up that may be offered before and after work • Genealogy classes • Travel classes • Financial planning • Self-defense and other adult special interest classes • Children’s art exploration and possible studio adult art classes • Nature and environmental It is anticipated that, based on the size of the community room, other typical activities might include: • Private rentals for birthday parties • Neighborhood association meetings • Scout group den meetings, and other small groups. The proposed parameters, including hours, have been reviewed by both Community Services Department (CSD) and Planning staff. Staff has found the proposed hours acceptable. However, staff has evaluated other options to increase the availability of the community room while maintaining the viability of the retail uses. Because the PC Ordinance does not require parking for the community room, increasing access will not trigger a requirement for more parking. Measures to improve the parking condition without the creation of additional spaces are discussed in the following section. The following options may be considered to increase the availability of the community room beyond the applicant’s proposal: • Include a provision for the Director of Community Services to allow the use of the room for smaller functions (less than 20 persons) should there be no other space available between 11:00 am and 7:00 pm, limited to not more than twice per month. • Allow the room to be used by smaller groups (less than 20 persons) between 11:00 am and 3:00 pm but prohibit use during peak store hours between 3:00 pm and 7:00 pm. • Allow residents within walking distance to use the community room between 11:00 am and 3:00 pm, limited to not more than once per week. ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 6 of 10 • Allow use of the community room between the hours of 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm daily (typically non-peak hours). The use of the community room at all times would still be subject to review by CSD and compliance with user fees, insurance, and other restrictions. These options are enumerated as potential conditions in the Alternatives section of the discussion. Parking Another issue identified at the November 19, 2008 P&TC hearing was the number of parking spaces proposed for the project. Members of the public and the P&TC expressed concerns that the site design did not provide adequate parking spaces, and noted that the applicant was limiting community room hours due to potential impacts on parking for the grocery store. The proposal, however, strictly complies with the parking requirements set forth in the PC Ordinance adopted by the City Council. The project would include 37 garage spaces under the larger mixed use building, 95 onsite surface spaces and 74 private garages for the single family residences. The applicant has also provided a new exhibit as part of the Site and Design Review plan set that clarifies the number and location of the parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 206 parking spaces, which is approximately six spaces more than required. The PC Ordinance establishes a specific requirement for the commercial spaces and references the Municipal Code for the residential spaces. The PC Ordinance also specifically outlined that no parking spaces would be required for the community room, based on the applicant’s representation that the use would occur during off-peak hours. A table (Table 1) is provided below to show how the project conforms to the respective parking requirements. Table 1 – Parking Analysis Use Ratio Units/Sq. Ft. Requirement Proposed Ground Floor Retail1 4/1,000 (1/250) per PC Ordinance 23,100 (17,300 Mixed Use Building and 5,800 2nd retail Building) 93 11 garage 82 surface Basement Retail and Storage 1/1,000 per PC Ordinance 3,800 4 4 garage BMR 1 bedroom 1.5 per unit 12 18 18 garage BMR 2 Bedroom 2 per unit 2 4 4 garage Single Family 2 per unit 37 74 74 garages Guest Spaces 1 +10% of units 51 7 13 surface Community Rm None per PC 0 0 0 Total: 200 206 1PC Ordinance established the parking requirements for retail uses and community room. The remainder of the parking requirements is required to be consistent with the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The PC Ordinance did not require any parking for the community room. As indicated in the table above, the project is consistent with the parking requirements as set forth in the PC Ordinance, and exceeds the required parking by six spaces. In addition to onsite ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 7 of 10 spaces, the applicant would also be required to reconfigure the frontage road along Alma Street. The reconfiguration will include replacing 10 parallel parking spaces with a combination of 15 diagonal and parallel parking spaces on a new one lane road, which will add an additional five spaces. These on-street parking spaces will be limited to two-hour parking to encourage turnover for the commercial and medical offices in the area. In addition, staff also notes that the mixed use nature and layout of the parking lot will allow some sharing and turnover of parking between the residential, commercial and community room use, unlike other purely residential developments. In response to P&TC and community concerns regarding parking, staff recommends two modifications that will not require the addition of parking spaces. The first modification would be to require the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the 37 single-family residences to include a provision that requires all future owners to maintain the private garages so that two cars can be parked inside at any times (though the City would not enforce such a restriction). This will better ensure that residents will have the ability to park inside their own garages and guest spaces can be available to guests and visitors. Guest parking spaces shall also not be assigned to maximize flexibility. The second modification is for the mixed use building. The applicant has agreed to reserve one of the BMR parking spaces for each residential unit and allow the second space to be shared by customers of the commercial businesses during business hours. This will increase the number (an additional eight spaces) of retail parking spaces available in the garage. The applicants have indicated agreement with both of these measures and they are incorporated into the conditions of approval in Attachment A. Alternatives In response to public and P&TC comments and recommendations, staff has identified potential alternatives for the Tentative Map and for the Community Room that could be considered by Council and, if approved, incorporated as conditions of approval in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). A. Tentative Map: For the map, if the Council determines that the commercial uses should be maintained as a single parcel, findings should be outlined as to how the two parcels are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or other Subdivision Map Act criteria. Council should direct staff to return with written findings and to add the following condition to the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A): “The two commercial lots shall be combined into one parcel on the Final Map.” B. Community Room: The following options would allow greater flexibility of the community room, but would still limit the frequency and extent of its use. Additional conditions of Site and Design approval could include: 1. “The community room shall be available for City-approved use before 11:00 am and after 7:00 pm. In addition, the Director of the Community Services Department may authorize the use of the room between the hours of 11:00 am and 7:00 pm for functions of less than 20 persons not more than twice monthly, should no other appropriate City facility be available at that time.” ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 8 of 10 2. “The community room shall also be available for use between the hours of 11:00 am to 3:00 pm for functions of not more than 20 persons, not more than once weekly, subject to all requirements of the Community Services Department.” 3. “The community room shall also be available between the hours of 11:00 am to 3:00 pm to residents of the mixed-use building, the residential subdivision, or other residents living within one-quarter mile of the site boundaries, for meetings or events of not more than 20 persons, not more than twice per month, subject to all requirements of the Community Services Department.” 4. “The community room shall also be available for use between the hours of 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm daily.” BOARD/P&TC REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Site and Design Review application was reviewed on August 8, 2007 and recommended for approval by the P&TC on September 19, 2007. The P&TC directed staff and the ARB to focus on several key issues, including the design of the parkland, enhancing pedestrian and bicycle facility design, high quality design for residences and commercial buildings, and circulation. Following the P&TC hearing, the ARB recommended on June 5, 2008 that the City Council approve the Site and Design Review application. The ARB also recommended that, should the project be approved by City Council, it return to an ARB subcommittee to address a few architectural details. Those items include: • Reducing the property line fence at Emerson to seven (7) feet in height. • Redesigning the garage doors to a more simplified design consistent with the building for the single family residences • Decreasing the paseo fence by six (6) inches • Replacing the granite sphere with a more interesting art feature • Improving the façade of the residence on Lot 27 on Ramona Street • Considering a stucco wrap to enhance the recessed windows • Eliminating contrasting color at corner boards/trim for the single family residences • Increasing the gap on the good neighbor fence On November 19, 2008, the P&TC conducted its public hearing for the associated Tentative Map. The P&TC recommended that the City Council deny the Tentative Map because the proposal to create two separate commercial lots would degrade the center to the point where it is no longer viable, which would make it inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s policies to encourage high quality neighborhood centers. Several members of the P&TC expressed significant concerns that allowing the subdivision to create two commercial lots will lead to future sale of the commercial lots to different owners, which may lead to poor maintenance due to ownership conflicts. Details of each P&TC members’ comments are provided in the attached Minutes from the November 19, 2008 hearing (Attachment K-1). Approximately 16 members of the public spoke on the project. The primary concerns were regarding the community room hours and parking. The other primary concern raised by the P&TC, as well as members of the public was the hours of use for the Community Room (which was not part of the Tentative Map). All of the P&TC members stated that the availability of the community room should be expanded in some form. In particular, Commissioner Keller stated that the hours are too limited to provide a public benefit. Vice-Chair Tuma stated that limiting the hours makes the project inconsistent with the ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 9 of 10 Comprehensive Plan Policy L-61 because it will not be available during daytime hours. Policy L-61 directs that the City “promote the use of community and cultural centers, libraries, local schools, parks, and other community facilities as gathering places. Ensure that they are inviting and safe places that can deliver a variety of community services during both daytime and evening hours.” Other P&TC members agreed with those statements. RESOURCE IMPACTS The vacant Alma Plaza site no longer generates revenue for the City. The proposed project would renovate and revitalize the site, generating one-time and ongoing revenues to the General Fund. Specifically, the one-time revenues would include documentary transfer taxes and development impact fees, totaling between $225,000 – 325,000. Additional revenues would include property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user taxes, ranging from $95,000 - $115,000 annually. Actual figures would depend on the sales prices of both the portion of the land to be developed into residential units, and the actual sales prices of the completed units, as well as other factors. On the expenditure side, the project would create 51 new residential units to the City’s housing stock. This will create new demands for City services, such as Community Services, Planning, Police and Fire. The development impact fees are designed to cover the incremental facility needs of the new residents, and service fees in Community Services and Planning are designed to recoup operating expenses associated with the delivery of classes, sports programs, plan reviews, project permits, and other services. Police and Fire services to these additional housing units would be paid by the General Fund and do not trigger the need for additional personnel or equipment. However, the project does contribute incrementally to those public service impacts. The project includes provision of parkland to serve as a local park for both the residents and users of the commercial businesses. Lastly, the processing of the development application is on a cost/recovery basis, and no additional funds are necessary for staffing. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Draft Record of Land Use Action provides the policies and programs listed in the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element that are pertinent to the project and most specifically to Neighborhood Commercial development. The project is a mixed use, compact development intended to support the immediate and surrounding neighborhood with a diverse range of housing, public park, community room and retail services. The project includes the redevelopment and revitalization of an existing neighborhood center. It also increases compatibility, interdependence and support between the center and surrounding new and existing neighborhoods. Attachment G outlines the specific Comprehensive Plan policies and programs supported by the project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved by the City Council for the PC Ordinance and subsequent applications on May 14, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The slight modifications to the site layout do not entail any additional impacts beyond those anticipated and addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The density and intensity of the development has not increased. The access and circulation of the project are substantially the same as the plans reviewed at the time. ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 10 of 10 PREPARED BY: __________________________________ ELENA LEE Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD: __________________________________ CURTIS WILLIAMS Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: __________________________________ JAMES KEENE City Manager ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Record of Land Use Action B. PC Ordinance 4956 C. Site Plan D. Tentative Map Site Plan E. Project Description F. Applicant Letters: (1) Letter from John McNellis, dated January 9, 2009 and (2) Letter from James Baer, dated January 12, 2009 G. Comprehensive Plan Policies H. Draft Community Room agreement I. Tentative Map and Site and Design plan set (Council members only) J. Public Correspondence K. Background Materials (Council members only and available online) K-1 November 19, 2008 P&TC Staff Report and Minutes (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp) K-2 August 8, 2007 and September 19, 2007 P&TC Staff Reports and Minutes (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp) K-3 February 21, April 3, and June 5, 2008 ARB Staff Reports and Minutes (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/architectural.asp) M. Letter from Dan O’Brien, dated January 16, 2009 COURTESY COPIES McNellis Properties Greenbriar Homes James E. Baer, Premier Properties Friends of Alma Plaza Dr. Van Der Wilt