HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/11/2003Planning Commission Minutes - March 11, 2003
p, L U City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
City Hall, 11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778 -4301 /Fax 707/778 -4498
8 5 $ E- Mail plannina(iuci.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page hnp: / / www.ei.petaluma.(,a.us
2
3 Planning Commission Minutes
4 Mauch 1 I, 2003 - 7:00 PM
5
6 Commissioners: Present: Asselmeier, Barrett *, Dargie, Healy, Imm, McAllister, von
7 Raesfeld
8
9 * Chair
10
11 Staff: Mike Moore, Community Development Director
12 George White, Assistant Director, Community Development
13 Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
14
15
16 ROLL CALL:
17 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
18 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of February 11, 2003 were approved as
19 amended. M/S von Raesfeld /Asseslmeier, 4 -0. 3 abstained.
20 PUBLIC COMMENT: None
21 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None
22 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Council Member Healy welcomed Commissioner
23 Irnm.. Chair Barrett asked for a motion to discuss item I1 first. M/S Healy /von Raesfeld.
24 7/0
25 CORRESPONDENCE: EIR was distributed and will be discussed on March 25, 2003.
26 Commissioner Barrett distributed an article from the Press Democrat regarding EIRs.
27 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
28 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
29
30
31 Public hearing began: @ 7:00
32
33 NEW BUSINESS;
34 PUBLIC HEARING:
35
Planning Commission Minutes - March 11, 2003
1 . I. DISCUSSION AND COMMENTS ON THE FEBRUARY 2003 FINAL
2 DRAFT OF THE CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN.
3
4 Council Member Healy: Recused himself — lives within the 500 -foot boundary of CPSP.
5
6 Commissioner McAllister: Recused herself — also lives within the 500 -foot boundary of
7 CPSP.
8
9 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Recused himself because he owns a building within the
10 CPSP.
11
12 Commissioner hnrn: Recused himself since his employer, Clover- Stornetta, is within the
13 CPSP boundary
14
15 Mike Moore: Invoking the rule of necessity. Commissioner drawing the shortest straw
16 will participate
17
18 Commissioner Imm selected the short straw.
19
20 Mike Moore: Presented an overview of the CPSP.
21
22 Laura Hall, Fisher & Hall: Presented the SMART Code.
23
24 Patrick Siegman,'Nelson/Nygaard: Presented parking requirements for the CPSP and the
25 SMART code.
26
27 Break @ 9:15
28
29 Resumed @ 9:25
30
31 Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked that definition of mixed use be more specific — too
32 open ended. How will capital improvements be paid for?
33
34 Mike Moore: A lot of public and private investment is necessary to make the plan work.
35 Discussions have to occur annually.
36
37 Commissioner Imm: Were round about recommendations used a traffic mitigation?
38
39 Mike Moore: Roundabouts were used as an entrance and a calming measure bringing
40 you into the downtown area.
41
42 Commissioner Imm: Ask for clarity on the meaning of fine grained mix.
43
44 Mike Moore: Creates the effect of smaller uses in one building.
45
46 Chair Barrett: Are streets that are drawn in suggested or required, particularly on the
47 Pittler property?
2
Planning Commission Minutes - March 11, 2003
2 Mike Moore: Design is flexible enough to accommodate streets if there is a desire.
3
4 Wayne Miller: Provided more clarification of the above.
5
6 Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked how implementation will take place.
7
8 Mike Moore: Using the SMART code, land use maps, and discretionary review to handle
9 the finer details.
10
11 Chair Barrett: Asked for clarification on the Zoning codes to be applied by the CPSP.
12
13 Mike Moore: Will look at CPSP, River Enhancement plan and possibly the Bike Plan.
14
15 Public hearing opened:
16
17 Jane Hamilton: Three points: emphasized the Citizen's Advisory Committee's time line
18 and enthusiasm for plan; Advisory Committee members available for questions;
19 development waiting for the plan to be adopted.
20
21 Katherine Rinehart: Spoke to the historic preservation section of the plan and submitted
22 written comments and recommendations for the record.
23
24 John Morgan, CPSP Committee Member: Vision of downtown was consensus of the
25 Citizens Advisory Committee. Asked the Commission to focus on the importance of the
26 SMART code. The code creates a much clearer picture for developers. Consider limiting
27 the height to four stories.
28
29 Stephanie McAllister: Would like architectural character descriptions (Chapter 4)
30 considered as well as the SMART code. Would like these descriptions to be more
31 prominent in the document, possibly as Appendix B. Reinforced , the importance of
32 historic preservation.
33 Chapter 1, under sustainability — add more financial incentives, referred to the LEED
34 program.
35 Pg. 3 of architectural guidelines, strike last sentence of I s ` paragraph regarding conflict
36 with guidelines.
37 Area 4 of the guidelines, last paragraph, pg. 8, do not know if this is the appropriate
38 response for this area. Allow more irregularity than allowed in the SMART code. Is in
39 conflict with the historic preservation chapter that needs to be resolved, pg 106.
40 Area 9, pg. 13 look at last paragraph and look at direction that is suggested. Riverfront
41 warehouse district,
42 Area 11 — needs some discussion — retain historic patterns on I s ` Street.
43 Remove "General Provisions" in architectural guidelines — too specific — conflict
44 between Historic Resources chapter and Smart Code. Suggest a flow chart be included
45 on how one would go through the process of an application with the SMART code, the
46 historic preservation and the design guidelines. What kind of applications would trigger
47 a review by the Planning Commission?
3
Planning Commission Minutes - March 11, 2003
1 Comments on the zoning map — north reach area has been expanded — concerned about
2 the historic pattern and the density. Lower reach area — large parcel of land — confused
3 = about how it will be reviewed — a lot of buy in for the community without a lot of
4 information.
5 Urban Standards table — suggested 2- stories maximum in the historic river front district.
6 Who decides the # of stories. In some ,areas 6 stories is too much. Description of
7 districts. Street sections — do not think there should be such specific recommendations
8 for lights.
9
10 Steve von Raesfeld: Four points- cautious supporter of SMART code.
11 1) How can you plot if not regular geometry.
12 2) Do not use SMART code to handicap the SPARC process.
13 3) What about civic buildings?
14 4) Clarify process
15
16 Beth Meredith: SMART code is a win -win situation. Want to take some discretion out
17 the process. A good designer can work creatively within these guidelines. Trust the
18 market in terms of mixed -use. Guarantee the vision of the CPSP through the SMART
19 code. Appreciate the clearly defined guidelines.
20
21 Wayne Miller: Relationship of design guidelines to the SMART code — design
22 guidelines identified character of architecture — SMART code is a relationship of
23 patterns. Suggest that the SMART code will work well in 80% of the CPSP. Does not fit
24 well in the riverfront warehouse area and the northern end of Petaluma Blvd. What
25 weight do you want to give the character designations — how will this work in a practical
26 sense? Make modifications to the SMART code in certain districts. Emphasis on
27 sustainable design — how do we approach this (use LEED checklist or other standard).
28 Want the City to adopt certain sustainable guidelines.
29
30 David Keller, I Street: How do we get what we envisioned. Design guidelines are
31 important in setting limits. Pg. 19 needs to be regulatory. Trying to accomplish
32 something that works for Petaluma. Do not anticipate several 6 -story buildings all in a
33 row — will get a mix of heights. Important role for SPARC — eliminate language limiting
34 scope. This plan speaks to Petaluma — hoping it will have strong support from the
35 Planning Commission, City Council and the Redevelopment Agency.
36
37 Public comment remains open.
38
39 M/S Dargie /Asselmeier to continue to March 25, 2003.
40
41 All in favor:
42
Commissioner Dargie:
Yes
43
Chair Barrett:
Yes
44
Commissioner Asselmeier:
Yes
45
Commissioner Imm:
Yes
46
47
4
Planning Commission Minutes - March 11, 2003
1
2 COMMISSION BUSINESS:
3
4 II. DISCUSSION OF POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR THE
5 INSTALLATION OF STORY POLES.
6
7 Commissioner Asselmeier: What -do we mean by construction and new development?
8 When is it mandatory and when discretionary? Who maintains and checks on the poles?
9 Erect story poles when an item is agendized.
10
11 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Need signage for projects without story poles. Clarify
12 mandatory vs. discretionary.
13
14 .Commissioner McAllister: Difficult to define mandatory. Suggest a preliminary review
15 . regarding placement of story poles on projects. Develop a policy for informational signs .
16 on projects coming up for public review. Presented Cotati's sign policy — the City
17 administers the policy and developer pays a fee.
18
19 Commissioner Dargie: Good first step. Leave to the discretion of the department if story
20 poles are needed, if not adequate the Commission can ask for additional information.
21
22 Council Member Healy: Concurred with comments so far. Rockridge was a good test.
23 Map or signage could indicate where story poles are erected. Need to determine which
24 projects get story poles — error on the side of more rather than less. Concur with
25 paragraph J — requiring signage for anything requiring discretionary approval.
26
27 Commissioner Imm: Story poles are only a modest imposition for a developer. Decision
28 . should come from staff. Support the way it is written.
29
30 Chair Barrett: An infill project that is appealed seems as though it would automatically
31 require story poles. Under III, E — for infill projects, add marking where windows and
32 doors will be. Another trigger might be reconstruction/remodeling in CPSP or a historic
33 district. Separate project signs from story poles. Signage is a good eye catcher. Do not
34 believe 10 days is enough — two weeks would be better as a minimum. SPARC needs to
35 be in agreement.
36
37 Commissioner McAllister: Agree with 14 days instead of 10. Failure to erect story poles
38 may basis for continuance of the item. Suggested verification by a licensed surveyor
39 (paragraph I). Address the removal of story poles — keep until the appeal period is
40 complete.
41
42 George White: Asked for clarity on mandatory or discretionary. Will amend the policy,
43 take to SPARC and then bring back to the Planning Commission.
44
45 Commissioner Asselmeier: Leave to discretion of CDD Director, however, have a set of
46 conditions.
47
5
Planning Commission Minutes - March 11, 2003
1
2
3
.4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Public hearing opened:
David Keller, I Street: Glad the Commission is addressing this issue. Sign could include
a plot plan with x's marking the spot for story poles.
Public hearing closed.
III. LIAISON REPORTS:
a. City Council: None
b. SPARC: Began discussing CPSP and tools public comment, Poultry
Street Preliminary Review, Preliminary review for the Library expansion.
c. Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee: Poultry Street project presented
to the Bike Committee; discussed the Woodbridge Subdivision and public
vs. private access.
d. Tree Advisory Committee: None.
Adjournment: 11:25
SA031103.doc
6