Planning Commission Meeting (2024-09-12)

Page 1 Approved September 26, 2024 APPROVED MINUTES September 12, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, California 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Prior called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Brashears, Jensen, Randolph, Unidad, Haggenjos, Prior Absent: Covington 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Prior led those in attendance in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Prior opened the Public Comment period. Hearing none, Chair Prior closed the Public Comment period. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR 5.1. Minutes of August 8, 2024 Motion by Commissioner Brashears, seconded by Commissioner Randolph, to approve the Consent Calendar. Ayes: Haggenjos, Unidad, Randolph, Brashears, Jensen, Prior Noes: None The Motion passed.

Page 1 Approved September 26, 2024 6. REQUESTS/PRESENTATIONS 6.1. Infill Parcel 13 – Oakleaf Estates Subdivision, 1010 Main St, File # PL23-0198 REQUEST The applicant requests a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide Infill Parcel 13 into 17 residential lots. Additionally, a Tree Permit is requested to allow removal of one-hundred ten (110) native oak trees and encroach within the protected zone of ten (10) native oak trees to accommodate the future subdivision. Associate Planner, Eric Singer, presented the staff report. Commissioner Discussion • A Commissioner asked if the developer plans to keep as many trees as possible. Staff responded that the subdivision plan was designed to maintain as many trees as possible and that the location of the home (which is to remain) at 1010 Main necessitated the road to be located on the western boundary of the property and made it hard to avoid many of the trees. Staff also indicated they will work with the developer during the construction of the project to determine if any additional trees could be maintained. • A Commissioner asked who determines which trees are removed and kept. Staff responded that the arborist reports outline the tree removal plan and that if the Planning Commission approves the tree permit, the applicant would have the authorization to remove the trees identified for removal. Staff reiterated that there would be coordination to determine if additional trees could be maintained. • A Commissioner requested clarification on the grading plan. Staff responded that the proposed pads are set at a lower grade than the existing homes on Treasure Lane and that the water will drain away from the existing homes. • A Commissioner asked about construction noise. Staff responded that the city has a Noise Ordinance that allows construction between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday through Fridays and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays, unless an exception is requested. Chair Prior opened the Public Hearing and invited comments from the applicant and/or audience. Applicant representative, Rick Kraushar, Generation Communities, stated he had received a copy of the staff report and was in agreement with staff’s recommendation. William Hall, Cindy Pringle, Sandy Perez, and Kathy DiCarlo provided public comments: • A commentor indicated that there are current drainage issues with the vacant property. The commentor indicated that if there are no changes to the proposed engineering plans, they would be okay with the proposed project. • A commentor indicated that when their home was purchased, they were told that the adjacent parcel was a protected green belt.

Page 1 Approved September 26, 2024 • A commentor indicated they had no issues with the development of homes but opposed to the number of homes proposed to be built. • A commentor raised concerns with additional traffic that would be generated by the new homes. • A commentor raised concerns with construction noise and the duration of site development (infrastructure and home building). The commentor used the ten-lot subdivision being developed at the corner of Main and Porter Drive as an example of construction impacts. • A commentor raised concerns regarding construction activities including dust generation. The commentor used the ten-lot subdivision being developed at the corner of Main and Porter Drive as an example of construction impacts. • A commentor indicated that as a result of the ten-lot subdivision being developed at the corner of Main and Porter Drive, trees are dying and nesting wildlife are disappearing. • A commentor indicated they has no issue with the development of homes but were against any proposed two-story homes adjacent to existing one-story homes. Chair Prior closed the public comment period. Commissioner Discussion • A Commissioner asked for clarification regarding the Porter Drive subdivision construction hours. Staff responded that the contractor requested a noise exception to allow night work in order to tie underground utilities into the existing mains in Porter Drive. The noise exception was granted in order to avoid potential traffic congestion around Kaseburg School. It was determined that preventing road closures during school hours was an adequate justification for a short-term noise exception. • A Commissioner asked about dust mitigation requirements. This question was in response to the public comment regarding dust from the Porter Drive subdivision. Staff responded that developers are required to reduce dust impacts to the extent feasible, which typically requires a water truck to water exposed dry soils and reduce the potential for dust. Staff will speak with the Engineering Construction Inspector to ensure that measures are being take to mitigate the impact of dust. • A Commissioner asked if the property was zoned Single Family Residential (R1). Staff responded that the property has been zoned R1 since the late 1960’s. • A Commissioner asked if the Planning Commission is be asked to make a determination on the types of homes that can be built. Staff responded that R1 properties are developed with single family homes and the developer will be building 16 new single-family homes. Staff responded that while R1 developments are not subject to City design review, any future homes will have to meet R1 development standards for setbacks, height, front yard landscaping, and all other standards. • A Commissioner asked about the permits needed to develop on the current drainage areas. Staff responded that City Engineering review will need to ensure the drainage plan complies with City standards and that the seasonal drainage features and

Page 1 Approved September 26, 2024 wetlands may need US Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board permits. • A Commissioner asked about the setback requirements. Staff responded that the front and rear setbacks for R1 zoned property is 20 feet and the side yard setbacks are 5 feet. • A Commissioner asked if the lot sizes are comparable to Treasure Lane lots. Staff responded that they are comparable and a little larger. • A Commissioner asked staff to address traffic concerns. Staff responded that the General Plan land use map designates the project site as Low Density Residential and the site has been zoned R1 since the 1960s. The City’s traffic demand model is based on build out of the General Plan land uses and would have contemplated the traffic generated from the proposed 16 additional single-family units. The street and intersection designs for the length of Main Street have been planned in anticipation of this additional traffic. The traffic impacts implied during public comment will not occur due to the relatively low amount of traffic generated by the addition of 16 single family units. • A Commissioner asked staff to describe the project notification process. Staff responded that a notice is posted on the RCONA website, published in the Roseville Press Tribune and is sent to property owners and residents within 300-feet of the proposed project. Chair Prior closed the Public Hearing. Motion by Vice-Chair Haggenjos, seconded by Commission Jensen to: 1. Adopt the Oakleaf Estates Subdivision Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 2. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the Tentative Subdivision Map subject to sixty-five (65) conditions of approval; and 3. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the Tree Permit subject to twenty (20) conditions of approval, with the following revision to conditions (added condition is show in bold text and the language to be removed is show in strikeout text). Tentative Map Conditions 18. The applicant shall construct a City standard minor residential street shown as Court “A” on the Tentative Map. This will include 28’ of total pavement width with 3’ wide curb-gutter and 4’ wide concrete sidewalk. (Engineering) 18. The applicant shall provide 4’ concrete sidewalk at the back of the existing curb for the length of the project along Porter Drive. (Engineering) 19. The applicant shall provide City standard 3’ curb-gutter, 4’ concrete sidewalk and paving along Main Street consistent with the Tentative Map Grading and Site Plan as part of this entitlement. (Engineering)

Page 1 Approved September 26, 2024 Tree Permit Conditions 2. Trees as listed in Exhibit B are approved for removal with this tree permit. All other native oak trees shall remain in place. Trees #2, 5, 6, 7, 129, 195, 206, 214 and 215 are conditional removals and subject to review and approval by the Planning Division prior to construction. Trees to be removed shall be clearly marked in the field and inspected by Planning Staff prior to removal. Removal of the trees shall be performed by or under the supervision of a certified arborist. (Planning) 7. COMMISSIONER / STAFF REPORT Staff Reports • There will be a September 26, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. • There may be items for the October 10, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. • Infill Parcel 198 (100 Stonehouse Court) WellSpace Health Rezone item has been moved to the October 2, 2024, City Council Meeting. Commissioner Reports • A Commissioner expressed their appreciation to residents for participating in tonight’s meeting. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Brashears, seconded by Commissioner Jensen, to adjourn the meeting. The Motion passed at 7:24 p.m. with a voice vote.