HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/08/2003Planning Commission Minutes - April 8, 2003
1
p, L U City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
City Hall, 11 English Street
l Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax .707/778 -4498
8 5 $ E -Mail plannin2(ii. ci.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page h.ttp: / /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
2
3 Planning Commission Minutes
4 April 8, 2003 - 7:00 PM
5
6 Commissioners: Present: Asselmeier, Barrett*, Dargie, Healy, hnm McAllister, von
7 Raesfeld
8
9 * Chair
10
11 Staff: George White, Assistant Director, Community Development
12 Tiffany Robbe, Associate. Planner
13 Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
14
15
16 ROLL CALL:
17 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
18 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of March 25, 2003 were approved as
19 amended.M /S Imm /Asselmeier, 4 -0, 3 abstained.
20 PUBLIC COMMENT: None
21 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Final SE1R for Chelsea Outlet Mall Expansion was
22" distributed at places.
23 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None
24 CORRESPONDENCE: None
25 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
26 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
27
28
29 Pub`tic hearing began: @ 7:00
30
31 NEW BUSINESS;
32 ' PUBLIC HEARING:
33
34 I. GATTI NURSERY SUBDIVISION, 710 Sonoma Mountain Parkway
35 AP No: 137 - 070 -079
36 File No(s): REZ02003, PUD02002, & TSMO2002
i
Planning Commission Minutes - April 8, 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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planner: Tiffany Robbe
The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a 17 -acre parcel into 50 single -
family lots and 50 townhome lots and to rezone the property to a planned unit
district.
Tiffany Robbe presented the staff report.
Commissioner McAllister: Asked the time -line for the development of the park.
George White: May begin by next spring.
Council Member Healy: Council is moving toward development of the park sooner
rather than later.
Commissioner McAllister: Asked about parking requirements and street widths referred
in Craig Spaulding's letter.
Craig Spaulding: Clarified — 28 feet wide, single - loaded with parking on one side only.
Matt Hudson, Mardell, LLC /Gatti representative: Presented the background of the
project and the project description.
Discussion of the following conditions of approval:
6. Agree except in certain areas, Public road D, Casella Way and along
Yorkshire — asking for 3ft. planting area and 5 ft. sidewalk.
9. Do not want to bear the entire cost of the bridge- prefer to put up bond
rather than build themselves (don't want to be held up).
10. Agree to path from urban separator to the edge of the park instead of to
Sonoma Mountain Parkway. If required, prefer to put up bond rather than
build themselves.
15. If required to make improvements to the pond — do not want it to hold up
entitlement process.
16. Will be at final map approval stage — do not want to have to wait.
19. Do not want to be first asked to maintain urban separator land via LAD.
29. Vehicle barrier — define for applicant.
32. Want to work with Fire Marshall and City Engineer to determine if 3 /4 "
meter will suffice.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked what policy he referred to regarding the townhomes
cannot face the creek. Has the project been revised to meet the needs of neighbors on
Buckingham Way? Would you consider reducing the homes to single- story?
Matt Hudson: No — lots would not provide adequate space to build single story homes.
Homes that back up to Buckingham will be a height of 27 -29 feet with spaces in between
2
Planning Commission Minutes - April 8, 2003
1 Commissioner Asselmeier: Please give consideration to moving those homes forward on
2 lots that are adjacent to Buckingham lots. What ideas do you have for private and public
3 green space for the townhomes.
4
5 Matt Hudson: Concept of townhomes is dense without much open space. Put up an
6 alternate plan and pointed out 20 to 30 foot wide open, green space in Road F.
7
8 . Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked if there was a plan for benches or any other amenities
9 there.
10
11 Matt Hudson: Just landscaping.
12
13 Commissioner McAllister: Asked about alternatives for single- family homes — does
14 density change or do lots become smaller.
15
16 Matt Hudson: Lots become less deep.
17
18 Commission von Raesfeld: Asked for alternate site plan to stay up.
19
20 Al Barella, Architect: Presented the architecture.
21
22 Chair Barrett: Referred to the PUD guidelines and accessory dwelling units for Plan 2.
23 Concerned that these units back up to Buckingham Way.
24
25 Doyle Heaton: Mention of accessory dwellings and garage conversions was an error and
26 will be eliminated.
27
28 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Spaces between units — who would maintain.
29
30 Al Barella: Would be deeded to homeowner.
31
32 Doyle Heaton, Mardell LLC: Gave some background and overview of the project.
33
34 Gary Imm: Asked what the pricing of the homes and townhomes will be.
35
36 Doyle Heaton: Townhomes will start under $400,000 & single - family homes will be
37 typical of neighborhood at $465- $600,000.
38
39 Public hearing opened:
40
41 Dan. Leetz, 1930 Sestri Lane: lives adjacent to the project: Traffic concerns with
42 proposed new Junior High and this development, largest lot is 4,000 square feet, number
43 of homes backing up to Buckingham is 12; concerns about townhomes next to
44 apartments; will be crammed and congested. Density is too high.
45
46 Jim Rose, Dean of S.R. Junior College Petaluma Campus: Provided written comments.
47 Will be expanding Petaluma campus to 3 times the current floor area — will impact the
3
Planning Commission Minutes - April 8, 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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
neighbors. Would like to review design elements at creek because it is a shared
boundary. Setback on Jr. college side is larger — would like the setback mirrored on both
sides for optimal chance of restoration of the creek. Would like to support the project
and be good neighbors.
Commissioner Dargie: Asked what the difference in the setback on Jr. college side.
Jim Rose: Six feet.
Council Member Healy: Does the bridge crossing at Cansella Way fit with the Jr
college's plan.
Jim Rose: Yes.
Council Member Healy: Has there been a discussion as part of this proposal for bridge
across creek at the urban separator.
Jim Rose: Can't speak for board but are planning in that direction.
Council Member Healy: What is JC's proposal adjacent to this project?
Jim Rose: Plan to go from 2,000 to 6,000 students (full time equivalents). Will be
sensitive to the neighbors — will try to put more intense development of campus in the
internal space.
Council Member Healy: Asked about openness adjacent to this property and security
issues.
Jim Rose: Will keep density internally as much as possible. Do not'think there will be
security issues.
Don Weisenfluh, 903 Kensington. Place: Submitted written proposal regarding issues and
problems of the project. Recommended a total density of 90 units.
Sheri Dito, 1934 Buckingham Lane: Submitted written statements. Concerned with
density and configuration. Showed 3 alternative plans — the first was based on her earlier
alternative with the elimination of the two central lots at the creek, the second relocated
lots 1 -12 to abut lots 13, 32, 33, & 50 with Road A behind Buckingham lots, and the third
moved 6 lots into each of the existing lots with Road A behind Buckingham lots.
Larry Kane, 1923 Sestri Lane: Concerned about impact of the project on the
neighborhood. Concerned about the traffic on Sestri, affect on the urban separator and
the new pond, mellow roose tax, did not know anything about the project until two weeks
ago.
Jeri Schubert, 1926 Buckingham Lane: Submitted letter for public record. Will fire and
police be able to handle increased density?
4
Planning Commission Minutes,- April 8, 2003
1
2 Mike Dito, 1934 Buckingham: Concerned because Riesling has already been narrowed —
3 additional traffic will impact the neighborhood.
4
5 Marilyn Sullivan, 2 Berkshire: Retired school teacher. Too many homes without
6 facilities for children — the development is overwhelming. Wants speed limit sign on
7 Riesling. Concerned with truck traffic on Riesling — G &G Market has delivery trucks
8 exiting on Riesling illegally.
9
10 Sheila Weisberg, 2 Sheffield Place: Did not receive notification of project. Traffic is
11 already a nightmare, not a posted speed limit.
12
13 Public hearing closed:
14
15 Break @ 9:00.
16
17 Resumed @ 9:10
18
19 Matt Hudson: Regarding traffic — had a peer review done which showed that traffic will
20 be negligible. Project complies with creek setback requirement — believe we have more
21 setback on project site than the Jr. college site. Will cooperate in restoring the creek and
22 landscaping. Addressed the urban separator and path. No for Mello- roose.
23
24 Council Member Healy: Asked what school district?
25
26 Mat Hudson: Probably Old Adobe. No Mello -Roose on this property. Project will build
27 out site with density less than the Corona -Ely plan allows.
28
29 Chair Barrett: Are you willing to go 6 additional feet for a setback to match the Jr.
30 college?
31
32 Mat Hudson: No.
33
34 Dan Hughes, Civil Engineer: Thinks there is a discrepancy regarding the setback on the
35 creek — thinks the project creek setback is actually more than the JC setback. Will talk
36 with the JC engineer to clarify.
37
38 Doyle Heaton: Propose to either loose 2 lots or look at the alternatives proposed tonight
39 to work with the neighbors on Buckingham Way.
40
41 Council Member Healy: Could the access to the nursery be used to for construction
42 traffic?
43
44 Doyle Heaton: Yes, until the park need the land.
45
46 Commissioner Dargie: Where is stone drain going?
47
5
Planning Commission Minutes - April 8, 2003
1 Dan Hughes: Portion is going toward Yorkshire and Casella Way and the other portion
2 toward Sonoma Mountain Parkway.
3
4 Commissioner Dargie: Anything into the creek?
5
6 Dan Hughes: Not storm drain.
7
8 'Commissioner Dargie: Surface water?
9
10 Dan Hughes: Yes, surface water from about the creek -side path will go into Capri Creek.
11
12 Commissioner Dargie: Asked about a detention pond.
13 .
14 Craig Spaulding: There is not a City policy for detention ponds.
15
16 Commissioner Dargie: Confirmed the regular block pattern of homes on Buckingham.
17
18 Commissioner McAllister: Was Jr. high traffic pattern included in the traffic study?
19
20 Tiffany Robbe: Yes.
21
22 Council Member Healy: Wanted clarification of Mr. Weisenfluh's comments.
23 •
24 George White: The project is under the maximum allowable density.
25
26 Commissioner Imm: Asked about the policy in the Corona Ely plan and backing up to
27 creek.
28
29 George White: Is frowned upon.
30
31 Commission comments:
32
33 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Suggested commenting on townhomes & SFD one at a
34 time.
35
36 Committee comments on townhomes:
37
38 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Before seeing this alternative - concurred with 'SPARC
39 member Lynch regarding "too much asphalt ". Still troubling. Can't support plan as
40 proposed. Alternative Plan is improvement for open space, but seems troublesome too.
41 Supportive of "for sale" units. Middle unit of the 3 -unit set is lost. Space between units
42 needs to be carefully landscaped and fenced. Front yards too homogenous.
43
44 Commissioner Asselmeier: Echo von Raesfeld — alternative is an improvement.
45 Concerned the commission has not had adequate time to look at this alternative relative to
46 the conditions of approval. Want staff to look at alternative and bring back conditions of.
47 approval.
6
Planning Commission Minutes - April 8, 2003
2 Commissioner McAllister: Too much of site is eaten up by circulation — still too much
3 paving and lack of open space. Front yards are incredibly small — not adequate. Believe
4 Alt. plan is a beginning point doesn't go far enough. Still need more individual unit and
5 shared open space - make an open space network. Want the middle open space more
6 useable. Larger cut - through between townhomes — 6ft. between units will not provide
7 much daylight and will be very difficult to landscape with anything but gravel —
8 reconsider this in site plan revision. Possibly need more than one unit type to solve some
9 of these issues. Concerned about the middle unit of the triplexes.
10
11 Council Member Healy: First townhomes for sale - glad to have that. Alternative is
12 better, need more details and staff review before approval. This needs to be a successful
13 project.
14
15 Chair Barrett: Alternative design has the potential to be superior, however, need
16 additional staff input and time to review. Problem was too much asphalt and not enough
17 open space. Potential bridge will now be at a cul -de -sac — do not know if that was the
18 intent. What does JC think? Complying with standard that 10% of architecture be
19 different may solve some problems for you.
20
21 Commission comments on SFD:
22
23 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Supports turning lots at creek regardless. Look at lowering
24 ceiling height of rear garages to reduce total height at rear.
25
26 . Commissioner Asselmeier: Appreciated applicant's offer to meet with the residents on
27 Buckingham Lane. Add condition regulating construction traffic. I am in favor of getting
28 improvements instead of bonding.
29
30 Commissioner Imm: Appreciate the applicant's willingness to work with the neighbors.
31 Unfortunate that it did not happen before now. If there is a hold up in the entitlement
32 process, applicant should be able to bond for the improvements.
33
34 Commissioner McAllister: Glad the neighbors, Mrs. Dito, came up with alternatives.
35
36 Commissioner Dargie: Reiterate what other commissioner said — glad the developer is
37 willing to work with the neighbors. Want the developer to come back with new site plan.
38
39 Council Member Healy: Issue with residents of Buckingham Lane is what needs to be
40 resolved and will look at the project when it returns.
41
42 Chair Barrett: Agree with the other commissioners. Wish the developer could have met
43 with. the neighbors earlier.
44
45 Comments on overall project:
46
7
Planning Commission Minutes - April 8, 2003
1 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Referred to traffic letter pg.12, table 4 Riesling Rd — do not
2 have specifics - expects some mitigation as already poor. Third bullet on pg. 18 — what
3 about Riesling between Sonoma Mt. and Casella. Need conclusions on density.
4 Comments on conditions, #9 -do not know who to fair share with — think the applicant
5 will need to bear the burden. Do think bonding would be ok rather than holding up the
6 project. #15- leave meter issue to City.
7
8 Commissioner Asselmeier: What kinds of improvements are appropriate for the urban
9 separator?
10
11 George White: At a minimum a path would be established.
12
13 Commissioner Asselmeier: Want PBAC recommendations added as conditions middle
14 three bullet points, lines 6, 10 and 15.
15
16 Commissioner Imm: Agree with Commissioner von Raesfeld regarding the fair share —
17 would be nice if JC will bear some expense of bridge.
18
19 Commissioner McAllister: Agree with Asselmeier regarding bike committee
20 recommendations; some type of east /west pedestrianibike connection between the at alley
21 next to Capri Creek Apt; honor condition from the apartments and have a connection.
22 Bike rack at bus shelter is a minor adjustment. Improvements on the bridge and the park
23 need to coincide - need to think about parking for the park. Include the path along the
24 creek - ok to be done by bonding. Do developers fund improvements on an urban
25 separator?
26
27 George White: Are usually minimal, the pond is an unusual predicament in this instance.
28
29 Commissioner Dargie: How much of creek is being replanted.
30
31 Tiffany Robbe: From Casella to Road B. Was the desire of the Parks Director to only
32 condition replanting in the residential area.
33
34 Commissioner Dargie: Support staff's recommendations re: conditions for bridge, path,
35 and pond — feel the developer should assume full burden, bonding is appropriate though.
36 Condition should be crafted so that construction truck traffic (especially heaviest) uses
37 alternative access.
38
39 Council Member Healy: Most points have been addressed. Do think bonding should be
40 an option since the timeline may not be the same. Construction access off existing
41 driveway — agree. Traffic issues are an existing situation, willing to see if we can get
42 more enforcement on Riesling. Variety of routes to the Jr. high school be explored, also
43 the path on the urban separator could be a route to the Jr. high.
44
45 Chair Barrett: Support bonding and the applicant does need to pay, support city on the
46 loose wording on improvement of pond at urban separator, traffic issue — did not seem to
47 take into account future conditions such as the junior high school & JC — would like that
8
Planning Commission Minutes - April 8, 2003
1 more developed. Cannot believe this will not have an impact on water and a 100 -year
2 ' flood issues — need to consider when backing townhomes to the creels.
3
4 Matt Hudson: Asked to have the project approved with two additional conditions
.5 regarding having a road backing up to Buckingham Lane homes and a revised site plan
6 for the townhomes.
7
8 Council Member Healy: Valuable to come back.
9
10 George White: Next available date is May 13, 2003.
11
12 Commissioner Dargie: Clarify the issue of the policy regarding placement of townhomes
13 on the creek.
14
15 Commissioner McAllister: Do not think issues have been resolved — need to have open
16 space be useable — connecting to other open space in the project.
17
18 Commissioner Asselmeier: Feel uncomfortable making a recommendation at this point.
19
20 Requested modifications from the Commission:
21
22 Townhomes
23 m Propose new plan with less asphalt and more private and public open space
24 m Alternative proposed is an improvement but doesn't go far enough
25 m Consider usefulness of linear greenway in alternative plan
26 m Want staff to evaluate alternative plan proposed
27 m Consider larger spacing between buildings (as is, landscaping will be very
28 difficult)
29 m Improve middle unit with regards to front elevation and sunlight
30 Consider another unit type
31
32 Homes
33 m Turn lots to face creek
34 m Meet with neighbors on Buckingham Lane before returning to P.C.
35
36 General
37 0 Provide additional traffic analysis regarding Riesling Road & ensure the SRJC
38 expansion & new junior high are included in future condition analysis
39 a Provide more information about density and respond to letter (staff)
40 m Reconsider or clarify PBAC items regarding Capri Creek Apartment gates, bike
41 rack at Sonoma Mountain Parkway, and bike path at alley /in an east /west
42 direction (applicant & staff)
43 m Look at proximity of roadway to creek (compared to the SRJC and in general)
44 m Talk to JC engineer
45 m How deep is the pond?
46 m Strike garage conversion and accessory dwelling language from PUD guidelines
47
D]
Planning Commission Minutes - April 8, 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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Comments
■ Applicant shall pay for and construct paths, bridge, and pond amenities. It timing
doesn't work for applicant to construct these with project, the City will not hold
up the applicant, but rather accept bonds for the work
■ Leave size of meter to City staff
Add condition requiring that the applicant submit a Construction Vehicle Plan for
approval by the Community Development Department which describes
construction vehicle routes and mandates that they use the Gatti. driveway to the
full extent feasible
M/S von Raesfeld/Dargie to continue to May 13, 2003. 7 -0.
Public hearing closed @ 10:25
II. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
III. LIAISON REPORTS:
a. City Council: Lot of moving parts.
b. SPARC: Discussed the CPSP EIR and the CPSP, will complete
discussion on the CPSP.
c. Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee: Park Place discussed,
concerned neighbors of Paula Lane, Chevron application and In and Out
burger.
d. Tree Advisory Committee: None
Adjournment: 10:35
10