HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/23/2001Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001
2 Planning Commission Minutes
3 January 23 2001 — 7:00 PM
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Broad *, Glass, Monteschio, O'Brien, Vieler, Vouri
6
7 * Chair
8
9 Staff: George White, Planning Manager
10
11 ROLL'CALL
12 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
13 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approved as amended.
14 PUBLIC COMMENT:
15 Wayne. Miller — submitted letter re: Basin Street Property Project/ read letter into record:
16 Need to adopt CPSP in a timely manner. Project raises several unresolved issues — staff
17 needs to use CPSP requirements in review of this project; this project will set precedent;
18 all projects in area must fit together. Concerns with proposal — access to river; parking
19 adequacy; who will pay for parking structures ?. Provide staff to complete CPSP within
20 two months; create committee to finish plan (include one Planning Commissioner);
21 facilitate appropriate and sustainable development; projects within CPSP area should be
22 reviewed by Planning Commission (except those that have passed a rigorous check list).
23 Jeff Cartwright — spoke about the need to move forward on CPSP Spoke of larger
24 issue — Amendment 11 — Water Agreement approved by City Council.
25 John Mills — reiterated Wayne Miller's comments — wanted a small group to work on
26 finalizing CPSP — taking too long.
27 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Planning Workshops to be hosted by Community
28 Development Department - presented by Tom Jacobson. Upcoming seminars by City
29 Attorney.
30 CORRESPONDENCE: League of California Cities Planner's Institute; Letter from
31 Commissioner Vieler regarding Basin Street project.
32 COMMISSIONERS' REPORT:
33 Commissioner Glass: Reminder of Wayne Kipp memorial fund. .
34 . Commissioner O'Brien: Looking forward to working with Planning Commission.
35 Commissioner Vieler: Basin Street Property Project — needs tb be addressed, course of
36 action — if approved at SPARC, subject to no more public review. CPSP is a plan
Pthbing Commission Minutes - January 23, 2001
1 completed two years ago (visioning aspect) was intended to go to the Planning
2 Commission and have specific implementation aspects put into place at that time;
3 Planning department is using existing Zoning Codes and Municipal Codes to judge this
4 project — there are no conflicting land use issues based on the existing codes — that is
5 why it won't come to Planning Commission. Has respect for SPARC, but I know that the
6 public weighs in at the Planning Commission or Council. Sections in CPSP were
7 deliberately left vague. As someone who sat on CPSP, this does not meet the
8 intended use — the site was suggested as an excellent site for a hotel on turning basin that
9 would encourage people to get out of their cars and enjoy river, shopping, etc. There are
to parking problems already. Because of delays in adopting CPSP, the inability of the
11 Planning Commission to say that these are the implementary requirements that we want
12 to see and moving it to City Council for guidance, there is a project that, if put through as
13 suggested, will significantly change the vision of the. CPSP. Community Development
14 staff, Mr. Moore is just doing his job on this, but Planning Commission needs to review
15 any significant project in this area. This project definitely merits Planning Commission
16 and public review — need to get authority from City Council so this does not occur again.
17 Commissioner Monteschio: Agrees with Vieler project needs more review. Public will
18 not be able to review.
19 Chair Broad: Would staff comment on Planning Commission discussing this project
20 tonight?
21 George White: Advised caution; item was not agendized, was not noticed, applicant not
22 aware that any discussion would be held tonight, nor any members of the public. This
23 item not under the preview of Planning Commission. It would be appropriate to discuss
24 process, a plan to present to City Council, but not the specifics of this project.
25 Commissioner .Vieler: Would it be appropriate to give direction to SPARC member?
26 George White: Again, discussing the specific project would not be appropriate.
27 Chair Broad: Concurs with Mr. White, cannot discuss this specific project. Planning
28 Commission concurs that CPSP adoption should be a top priority.
29 Commissioner O'Brien: Asked if Basin Street Project could be agendized by City
30 Council — can Council say that they would like Planning Commission review this
31 project?
32 George White.: Described review process.
33 Commissioner Vouri: Thanked Wayne Miller — saw two issues 1) Sorting out Zoning,
34 Ordinance /General Plan/CPSP process and 2) emergency issue — potential land use
35 decision about to be made without Planning Commission review. Can ask Community
36 Development Director to agendize this project. Can study project on own and agendize
37 in future. Commissioners should go to SPARC meeting.
38 Commissioner Vieler: Spoke of joint session — At the Planning Commission and City
39 Council joint meeting it was determined that the CPSP was to act as guide for projects
4o being developed at this time, i.e., to use draft plan as guide — is anyone surprised that
41 Basin Street Project is not coming to Planning Commission?
42 Chair Broad — (to George White) How familiar are you with the CPSP? Is the CPSP set
43 up for the PC to review development proposals in the Specific Plan?
44 George White: No, the Specific Plan is not set up to send items to the Planning
45 Commission.
46 Commissioner Vieler: My concern is this — the intention with regard to the CPSP is that
47 a project such as this would be before the Planning Commission....
2
Planning Commission Minutes - January 23, 2001
1 Chair Broad: You are contradicting Mr. White.
2 Commissioner Vieler — No Mr. White said there was nothing specific in the CPSP.saying
3 that project of this sort will come before the Planning Commission. My contention is that
4 the City Council in October intended that a project of this sort would come before
5 Planning Commission. Without that clarification being made does not mean that we
6 should just turn our backs on it. Mr. Moore has stated that he does not have the
7 authority to send this item to the Planning Commission. We are in a "gray zone — we
8 can use this opportunity to define which direction Planning Commission wants to go.
9 Chair Broad — (To George White) — What would be the process for the Planning
10 Commission to be able to review this type of project now?
11 George. White — There would have to be an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
12 (through Planning Commission and City Council). The final version of the Specific Plan
13 will include specific regulations — that work will be done, perhaps not fast enough.
14 Commissioner O'Brien — If a project is controversial, does it automatically go to
15 Planning Commission or Council for review?
16 George White — No, does not automatically trigger a review, it may trigger an appeal.
17 Commissioner Barrett: Spoke of tree planting project on 2/24/01.
18 Chair Broad: Spoke of reason they were there tonight: Improvement of public Planning
19 process; very disappointed with Special City Council Meeting process in approving water
20 amendment issue.
21 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
22 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT` Was noted on the agenda.
23
24
25 COMMISSION B USINESS
26
27 I. CONTINUEID COMMISSION /STAFF DISCUSSION:
28 (Continued from January 9, 2001).
29 Chair Broad: Discussed 3/24/00 memo from Community Development Department re:
30 application forms, application materials.
31 Commissioner Vieler: Clarified correspondence.
32 Commissioner Monteschio: Confusing to figure out — gave example. Likes Tiburon
33 application.
34 Commissioner Barrett: Suggested color -coded application forms
35 Staff Reports:
36 Commissioner Vieler: Re: correspondence.
37 Legal liability /litigation.
38 Legal issues /ramification?
39 Check with City Attorney on whether this can work
40 General Plan consistency — predict application of new General Plan element — compare
41 draft to current ply
42 Commissioner Monteschio: Executive Summary — one page for lengthy reports.
43 Chair Broad: Comments from reviewing agency be attached. Wants backgr6otind ire
44 reports, i.e., minutes from previous projects; policy directives, etc. be included.
45 Commissioner Vouri: When will comments be included or implemented. Report on
46 items of interest.
3
Planning Commission Minutes - January 23, 2001
1 Chair Broad: Bring back to next meeting status on items; get updated version of Rules
2 and Regulations to Planning Commission — 1999 changes. Section 104 — Review of
3 Specific Flan and/or General Plan.Want to talk with Pamela Tuft for the Planning
4 Commission re: Scope of General Plan. Pass on need for Zoning Ordinance update to
5 Pamela Tuft/Mike Moore.
6 Commissioner Vouri: Thinks Zoning Ordinance should be updated now or prior to new
7 General Plan update to existing General Plan level and CPSP.
8 Commissioner Broad: Should talks about the Zoning Ordinance be separate "large
9 item ". Arrange time for Pamela Tuft to come to talk to Planning Commission.
10 Commissioner Vieler: Can we do Zoning Ordinance and General Plan at the same time?
11 Infill other items? Example Smith/Price project.
12 Commissioner Broad: May not be consensus on update of Zoning Ordinance now —
13 may need to talk further to decide on priorities — look for sections that need updating —
14 establish work program.
15
16 Agendize for February
17 Discussion of changes to Zoning Ordinance.
18
19 Commissioner Vouri: Sub - committee for Zoning Ordinance update.
20 Commissioner Broad: Subcommittee may slow down the process.
21 Commissioner Vieler: Solicit input from designers and architects — professional help —
22 get changes to the point where staff can finish
23 Commissioner Broad: Agreed to adjourn @ 10:00 p.m.
24 Commissioner Vouri: How to get to all items.: Leave on as a standing item for. future
25 agendas.
26 Commissioner Vouri: Need formal follow -up of discussion i.e., story pole requirement.
27 Commissioner Broad: New Liaisons: Commissioner Barrett will be Council liaison for
28 Planning Commission items for 6 months, Vouri for next 6 months.
29 Commissioner Glass is Park & Recreation liaison — add to Park's roster.
30 Commissioner Glass: interested in fireplace regulation and demolition regulations.
31 Commissioner Broad:
32 ® FAR concept
33 o Need for Hillside regulations
34 ® Design guidelines for in fill projects.
35 Commissioner Vouri's List:
36 ® Community outreach for concerns — how can we reach a greater number of
37 people?
38 0 Build interest in regular meetings with Community outreach programs
39 • Try to predict issue rather than only react to them
40 G Not as formal as public hearings
41 9 Consensus on the idea to try this — don't relate it to projects — post mortem
42 meeting.
43 • Go into neighborhoods to give a glimpse of future — 2 years down the road
44
45
46
47
4
Planning Commission Minutes - January 23, 2001
1
2
3 III. LIAISON REPORTS:
4
5 City Council — None.
6 - SPARC None
7 - Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee — TDA projects $100,000 to
8 spend
9 - Tree Advisory Committee - Commissioner Barrett 6 th Street Tree
10 project; McNear Park Plan
11
12
13 Adjournment: 10:02 SAK- Planning Commission \Minutes1012301.doc