Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/18/198629 MINUTES OF A GENERAL PLAN HEARING OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL • NOVEMBER 18, 1986 ~~ ROLL CALL: 7:00 p.m. ~~ PRESENT: Davis, Sobel, Woolsey, Cavanagh, Balshaw, Vice Mayor Tencer, Mayor Mattei ABSENT: None URBAN SEPARATOR At pits meeting of November 6, the City Council discussed the urban separator on the westside and asked staff to bring back language reflecting the Council's conclusions on this issue. The following statements represent what staff considers the Council's consensus on the various segments of the wes~tside separator based on review of notes from the meeting and the videotape record. A . General Policies 1. The Urban Se property Iines. with the Urban Separator, the edge of urban Land Use Map. ~parator designation., where applied, shall follow 'The outermost edge of the separator shall coincide Limit Line. On properties where there is no Urban Urban Limit .Line. shall coincide with the outermost density designations as shown on the General Plan 2. The Urban Separator 'designation shall not apply to properties which develop in the County, under the regulations of the Sonoma County General Plan and Zoning Code (i.e., those properties within the Urban Limit Line, but outside the City Limits.) . ~3. Property owners shall be required to fulfill the requirements of the • -- ~ • Urban Separator designation .as . a condition of approval of a~ of the following,: annexation to the City, extension of City services (water or sewer), or development within City Limits. B . Policies for the various Segments (1-7, see attached map) . 1. Segment #1 - Western Avenue to "D" Street. a) Dedication to City as condition of development approval. b) Maximum 300' width (except where already established at a greater width). C 30 c) Establish public scenic or overlook areas in appropriate location in concert with project design.. d) Details of public access (pathway) along the entire length of the separator segment to, be established during the course of development review process in concert with project design. 2. Segment #2 - "D" Street to the Lavio Property a) No Urban Separator designation. b) A policy shall be added to the text of the General _Plan .' as follows "For Westside properties adjoining the Urban Limit airre,. but not subject to the requirements of the urban separator, it is the intent of the City that projects developed in the, City or requesting p:Cty services shall of limited density (that shown on the General};f,Plan Land Use Map as adopted in 1987) , and desgn:e;d, to preserve the visual and physical openness and preserve 'the aesthetic and natural features of that portion of the property p ~o+~imwta. Frax~xiity to the rural areas outside of the designated ur.,ban limit line. The effect of this policy is to cause a gradual, anel deliberate lessening of development intensity at the urban edge and within. the urban limit line. - 3. Segment #3 -Lavio and Hash Properties a) Dedication to City as a condition of. development approval (unless development. occurs in the County) . b) Variable width separator, up to a+ .:maximum of 300' c) Establish public scenic or overlook area in appropriate location in concert with p"rojectdesign. d) Details of public access ~~(pathway) "I"' Street,, the ,scenic or . overlook areas and the designated neighborhood park on t_he Lavio property established during the course of the development review process, in concert with project design. e) Graphic designation on the General Plan map for these properties will denote the potential variable width of the urban. separator. 4. Segments 4 and 5 - "I" Street to the Golf Course. 1 Same requirements as Segment #2 31 _. ~ 5. Segment #6 -Golf Course. a) Dedication to City as condition of development approval (unless development occurs in the County) . b) Same as "b" of Segment #3. c) Establish public or scenic or overlook areas in appropriate locations in concert with project design. d) Details of public access (-pathway) to be established between public overlook areas in concert with project design . e) Same as "e" in Segment #3. 6. Segment #`7 - Quarry Property to Petaluma Blvd. South. Same requirements as Segment #2 for the Quarry properties; maintain the Urban Separator designation on the freeway right-of-way between the quarry and Petaluma Blvd. South. MAP ISSUE 4 Mixed Use "D" to McNear Reques_ t - Change the Mixed Use designation on properties from "D" Street to McNear Hill between Petaluma Boulevard South (east side) and the Petaluma River . The hearing was opened. Speaker -Bob Stimpson supporting the request. The hearing was closed.. Agree with Planning Commission Recommendation - Leave the Mixed Use designation in those areas now designated as mixed use (the combining areas) on the existing plan; redesignate the properties now designated as industrial on the existing plan as industrial; redesignate the properties now shown as Service Commercial on the existing plan to Thoroughfare Commercial. MAP ISSUE 28 Extend Mixed Use Petaluma Blvd. So. K/St. Request - Extend the depth of the Mixed Use designation on properties on Petaluma Blvd. S. , near "K" Street. Requested by -Art Hagopian, Rodney Anderson (owners, respectively) Both of these properties are approximately 400 feet deep and the. proposed Mixed Use designation covers the first 200 feet back from Petaluma Blvd. S. This depth is consistent with some of the smaller properties in that block of Petaluma Blvd. , where the Mixed Use designation covers the entire property . 32 The back portions of these properties. are proposed for Urban -Standard. which is consistent with the residential designation now placed on .the property by the existing General Plan. The hearing was opened. .. Speaker -Allen Dunham representing `Rodney Anderson one of the property owners, 'supported the .request . The hearing was closed. •, - The .Council agreed with the .Planning Commission recommendation to extend the Mixed Use designation over the entire property. MAP ISSUE 20 - Rebizzo_ Property. - Oak- and -Kentucky Streets Request - Change the - Public. :and Institutional designation- on the property at Oak and Kentucky Streets (Department of Motor Vehicle site.. Requested by -Remo Rebizzo (owner) 33 The subject property is designated Central Urban Commercial on the existing General Plan map; the Public and Institutional designation results from the property's use as the Petaluma office of the State Department of Motor Vehicles. Adjacent properties are designated either Mixed Use (along Petaluma Blvd. N.) or Urban High residential (along Kentucky Street) on the proposed General Plan Land Use map. The. hearing 'was opened. ;; Speaker: Mr. Rebizzo The °hearing was closed. Council concurred with the Planning Commission recommendation to change the designation to Mixed Use which would permit specified :commercial or office uses and could also include residential. MAP ISSUE 21 -Cunico Property, Keller Street near "A" Street Request - Change Urban Diversified designation on property on Keller .. near "A: Street to Office Commercial. Requested by - Crist Cunico (owner) At the time the proposed land use map was being prepared, the site was vacant and the Urban Diversified designation was applied consistent with most of that block, which is primarily residential. In the meantime, Dr. Cunico received approval for and began construction of a new office building on the site. There are office uses already existing immediately north of the property. 1 34 The hearing, was opened; there..was no one wishing to speak. The hearing was closed. 1 The council concurred with the Planning Commission recommendation to change the designation to Office Commercial. MAP ISSUE 22 -Catenaeci Property - N.E. Corner of East Washington and Elv Blvd. Request - Change the Open Space designation on proper"ties located, Ea~'st-~ of the Alderwood Subdivision (vicinity of northeast corner of: `East Washington and Ely) to Urban Standard. ,,, Requested by -John Catenaeci (owner) ~• The hearing was opened; ,there. being no one wishing to speak, ..the= .~he~aring: was closed. ~.• ... The- .Council agreed to the Urban Standard d`esignation~ on the entire parcel (2.1 to 5.0 dwelling units per acre) and to leave the creek in its natural .state . MAP ISSUE :23 Sovel Property Request - Include entire property on Petaluma Blvd. N. (A...P. No. 048-180-1) within Urban Limit. Line and ;change the _designation on the west side of Petaluma Blvd. N. from Rural Residential to :Suburban,. Requested by - William Sovel (owner) The Urban Limit Line along the west side of Petaluma .Blvd. N. from the current City Limit Line (vicinity of Oak Hill North condominiums) ;north to Bailey Avenue was determined by the 60' contour City water service limitation; but where possible proper ty lines were followed to include: all of a particular property. An exception to that occurs where a property extends quite a distance back from the Blvd, as Mr. Sovel's does,., in which case part of the property (up to the 60' contour) is in the ,Urban Limit Line and the remainder is out. All of the properties on the west side of this stretch of the Blvd. , .are designated as Suburban Low Residential (2.0 dwelling units per acre.) on the existing General .Plan Map . The proposed plan designates the area as Rural Residential and Specific Plan Area. The hearing was opened Speaker -Bill Sovel spoke on his request. The hearing was closed. 1 1 35 • . -:,The Council concurred with his. request to place his entire parcel within . -the Specific Plan Line and with a Rural Residential designation.. V The City Council directed that "in all cases" parcels should not be placed into more than one land use. MAP ISSUE 24 -Park - Vicinity of Oak Creek Apartments Request - A neighborhood park on property near the intersection of the Petaluma River and the NWPRR (vicinity of Oak Creek Apartments and Rainier overcrossing) . Requested by, - Chris Barauskas The ° property where the park is proposed is shown as Urban Diversified ,(5.1 to 10.0 dwelling units per acre) with property to the east designated as Urban High (10.1 to 15 dwelling units per acre) . The .request is based on present use of the property (which is vacant) by .nearby residents and the belief that the higher densities will cause the same kind of neighborhood need for park in the area. None is now planned. A portion of the property is located in the Floodway and development is severely restricted. The City has acquired access rights to the Floodway portion of the property which could be used for public purposes such as recreation . The hearing was opened. No one wished to speak; the hearing was closed. The Council concurred with the planning recommendation to provide, through policy and program statements in the text of the plan, for recreational uses in Floodway areas and allow public access at designated points along the Floodway. Designate a portion of the property in question as Public Park. Subject: Access and recreational uses in the Floodway. Background: In response to a request for a park in the vicinity of the Petaluma River, Oak Creek Apartments and the Northwestern Pacific Railroad (Recommendation Work Sheet, p. 24), staff recommended that policy and/or program statements in the plan provide for recreational uses and public access to Floodway designated areas along the river. The Plan- already proposes a policy requiring public access to the river. The Council concurred with the Planning Commission recommendation to add a policy to the Petaluma River chapter (in the appropriate location and format) as follows: 36 "The City shall permit limited recreational uses in Floodway designated. areas along the Petaluma. River where the .City has acquired- the land or an open space easement as long as the proposed activities do no'f interfere with flood handling capacities of. the Floodway. " - .. :. _. ~f~ The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p . m. _t ATTEST: ~.~~~ City Clerk- Patricia E. Bernard 1 1 1