HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/24/1998Planning Commission Minutes - February 24, 1998
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
CITY OF PETALUMA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING February 24, 1998
CITY' COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM
CITY, HALL, PETALUMA, CA
Commissioners Present: Bennett, Broad, Feibusch *, Healy, Torliatt, Thompson
Commissioners Absent: Vieler.
Staff Vincent Smith, Principal Planner
Hans Grunt, Assistant Planner
Craig Spaulding, Associate Civil Engineer
'Cn
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES OF JANUARY 27 and February 10, 1998 were approved with corrections.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Engineering Department representative Craig Spaulding will
be presenting a short discussion of drainage issues at the end of this meeting.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None.
CORRESPONDENCE: None.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS:
PUB><IC HEARINGS:
L McNEAR LANDING PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (PUD) AMENDMENT
AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP; PETALUMA BLVD. SOUTH AT
McNEAR AVE., McNEAR HULL LLC; FILE TSM97004(hg).
Consideration of a minor amendment to the PUD Development Plan and a Tentative
Subdivision Map to subdivide ten approved duplex lots into twenty legally separate
parcels and homes. This proposal will not result in any increase in the approved number
i
Planning Commission Minutes - February 24, 1998
1 of homes in the total project (185), nor result in any significant physical changes to the
2 approved project.
3
4 Associate Planner Grunt presented the staff report.
5
6 The public hearing was opened.
7
8 SPEAKERS:
9
10 Commissioner Torliatt - Why are we seeing this project again?
11 Assistant Planner Grunt - If subdivided, the lots can be sold individually (instead of
12 purchase of two units on one lot).
13 Commissioner Torliatt - Didn't we originally want apartments for this site?
14 Assistant Planner Grunt - In reviewing the files, that wasn't a critical component (i.e., it
15 was not made a condition or used in the findings for project approval).
16 Dan Aguilar - Applicant representative - current developer was not involved at original
17 product design; strong demand for affordable `for -sale' housing now; intent is that
18 attached units will be $10,000 less than detached units; current homeowners have
19 concerns that prospective buyers of duplex units will purchase them for rental units and
20 they may not be maintained; 24 homeowners and prospective buyers indicated preference
21 of separate sale of duplex units; no changes to current design - only change is a demising
22 line to create separate lot for each unit.
23
24 The public hearing was closed.
25
26 Commission Discussion:.
27
28 Commissioner Healy - Supports request.
29 Commissioner Torliatt - Prior land use discussions targeted this area for apartment
30 development; many public improvements were removed by current developer; General
31 Plan indicates high density housing; duplexes and rental type housing should remain.
32 Commissioner Bennett - Familiar with this project since the early 1970's; supports this
33 proposal, but many changes have been made since original approval, will not tolerate any
34 further changes.
35 Commissioner Thompson - Change is insignificant, supports this proposal but will not
36 approve any further changes.
37 Commissioner Broad - Hopes this project will not come back before Commission again;
38 does. not have a feel for whether less expensive attached single family dwelling would be a
39 more attractive investment for rental housing or two units on one lot would; supports
40 proposal; talked to staff regarding riverwalk access - satisfied with stafFs answers.
41 Commissioner Feibusch - Supports request; units can still become rentals if sold
42 separately.
43 Commissioner Healy - Was affordable housing part of equation for bonding provided by
44 City?
45 Principal Planner Smith - Not part of original entitlement process.
2
Planning Commission Minutes - February 24, 1998
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A motion was made by Commissioner Broad and seconded by Commissioner Thompson
to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed amendment to the McNear
Landing Planned Unit Development Plan and Development Standards to recognize twenty
legally separate single - family attached homes and approval of the proposed Tentative
Subdivision map based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed below:
Commissioner Bennett: Yes
Commissioner Broad: Yes
Chairman Feibusch: Yes
Commissioner Healy: Yes
Commissioner Thompson: Yes
Commissioner Torliatt: No
Commissioner Vieler: Absent
FINDINGS FOR AMENDMENT TO THE PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
tj
The McNear Landing PUD Development Plan as amended to recognize the ten
duplex units as twenty legally separate single - family attached homes results in a
more desirable use of the land and a better physical environment than would be
possible under any single zoning district by allowing the construction of a range of
smaller single - family units.
The natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected with adequate available
public and private spaces designated on the McNear Landing PUD Development
Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map.
26
27
28 3
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
The plan for the proposed amendment to the McNear Landing PUD Development
Plan maintains a unified and organized arrangement of buildings which are
appropriate in relation to nearby properties and the remainder of the approved
PUD Development Plan, including approved landscaping and building architecture.
4. The development of the McNear Hill property in the manner proposed by the
applicant, including the amendment to the PUD Development Plan herein granted,
will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interest of the City,
and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the Zoning Regulations
and the General Plan of the City of Petaluma, and applicable plans (River Access
and Enhancement Plan etc.) adopted by the City.
5. The McNear Landing PUD Development Plan, as amended to recognize the ten
duplex units as twenty legally separate single - family attached homes, is proposed
on property which has suitable relationship to one (1) or more thoroughfares that
are adequate to carry traffic generated by the development.
3
Planning Commission Minutes - February 24, 1998
1 6. The proposed amendment to the McNear Landing PUD Development Plan
2 complies with the circulation patterns for vehicles and pedestrians developed
3 within the PUD as well as in the area surrounding the project.
4
5 7. No substantial physical changes or changes in operating characteristics result from
6 this proposed amendment to the McNear Landing PUD Development Plan and
7 respective Tentative Subdivision Map. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the
8 California Environmental Quality Act, the need for additional environmental
9 review is not necessary given the adequacy of previous environmental analysis (an
10 adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, Resolution 96 -27 N.C.S.), therefore no
11 further environmental review is necessary.
12
13 CONDITIONS OF THE PUD D EVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
14
15 1
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
2
All conditions of the Planning Department shall be met, including:
a. A reproducible copy of the amended PUD Development Plan and
Development Standards shall be submitted prior to recordation of the Final
Map.
b. The applicants/developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
City or any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from
any claim, action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission,
agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the
approval of the project when such claim or action is brought within the
time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City
shall promptly notify the applicants/developers of any such claim, action, or
proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in
this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any
claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and
costs, and the City defends the action in good faith.
All conditions of the Fire Marshal's office and the Building Division shall be met,
including:
a. A one -hour fire rated wall shall be constructed with buildings on/adjacent
to each side of the new property lines.
FINDINGS FOR THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
1. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide ten lots within the McNear
Landing development into twenty lots, as conditioned, is in general conformity
with applicable provisions of the General Plan.
2. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide ten lots within McNear
Landing development into twenty lots, as conditioned, is in general conformity
with the intent and provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
4
Planning Commission Minutes - February 24, 1998
1
2 3.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide ten lots within the McNear
Landing development into twenty lots, as conditioned, is in general conformance
with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Petaluma
Municipal Code).
4. ; No substantial physical changes or changes in operating characteristics result from
this proposed Tentative Subdivision Map for ten lots within the McNear Landing
development and respective PUD Development Plan amendment. Pursuant to
Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act, which precludes the
need for additional environmental review given the adequacy of previous
environmental analysis (an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, Resolution
96 -27 N.C.S.), no further environmental review is necessary.
CONDITIONS FOR THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
16
17 1. All conditions of the Planning Department shall be met, including:
18
19 a. A reproducible copy of the Tentative Subdivision Map shall be submitted
20 prior to recordation of the Final Map.
21
22 b. The applicants/developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
23 City or any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from
24 any claim, action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission,
25 agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the
26 approval of the project when such claim or action is brought within the
27 time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City
28 shall promptly notify the applicants/developers of any such claim, action, or
29 proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in
30 this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any
31 claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and
32 costs, and the City defends the action in good faith.
33
34 2. All conditions of the Engineering Department shall be met, including (see letter
35 dated February 5, 1998 attached):
36
37 a. Provide individual water meters for all units.
38 b. The existing sanitary sewer easement as shown on Lot 183 shall remain
39 unchanged.
40 C. The unit on Lot 183 shall not encroach into the existing sanitary sewer
41 easement.
42 d. Lot -to -lot surface drainage shall not be allowed.
43 e. Any underground utilities traversing the proposed parcels shall be
44 relocated, removed of abandoned and sealed to the satisfaction of the
45 Engineering and Public Works Departments.
5
Planning Commission Minutes - February 24, 1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
H. VACATION OF EXCESS RIGHT -OF -WAY; CASA GRANDE ROAD;
CITY OF PETALUMA; FILE ABN97001(ed).
7 Determination of exemption from CEQA and find consistency with General Plan of
8 proposed vacation of excess right -of -way north of Casa Grande Road and west of
9 Lakeville Highway.
10
11 Principal Planner Smith presented the staff report.
12
13 The public hearing was opened.
14
15 SPEAKERS:
16
17 Commissioner Torliatt - Where will the bicycle lane be located?
18 Principal Planner Smith - Described bicycle lane location, dimensions of roadway
19 including sidewalk.
20 Commissioner Healy - Will there still be an undeveloped section for future road
21 widening?
22 Principal Planner Smith - Yes.
23 Associate Civil Engineer Spaulding - Described 52' roadway (face of curb to face of
24 curb) with plenty of space left.
25 Commissioner Broad - Was there 100' of right -of -way originally?
26 Principal Planner Smith - Yes.
27 Del Wilkinson - Applicant - Here to answer questions - will propose to deed one comer
28 of his property at Lakeville and Case Grande Road to City (at no cost to City).
29
30 The public hearing was closed.
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Bennett
33 to find the abandonment of existing right -of -way exempt from CEQA and that such
34 reduction of the right -of -way width is consistent with the General Plan based on the
35 following finding.
36 Commissioner Bennett: Yes
37 Commissioner Broad: Yes
38 Chairman Feibusch: Yes
39 Commissioner Healy: Yes
40 Commissioner Thompson: Yes
41 Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
42 Commissioner Vieler: Absent
43
44
45
46
6
Planning Commission Minutes - February 24, 1998
1 Finding
2
3 1. The remaining right -of -way for Casa Grande Road, excluding that portion to be
4 abandoned, is sufficient to handle the existing and future traffic circulation needs of
5 the City. It is not anticipated that Casa Grande, west of Lakeville Highway, will
6 change from its current arterial street status. Additionally, the right -of -way
7 considered for abandonment is not needed for Casa Grande to accommodate the
8 traffic that uses this street as access to the existing Open Space and Rocky Dog
9 Memorial Park to the west and southwest of Lakeville Highway and Casa Grande.
to
11
12 M. LIAISON REPORTS:
13
14 Commissioner Healy - Saturday morning, 9AM to 1 PM - Central Petaluma Specific
15 Plan work -in- progress will be presented to the public (meeting to be held in the Great
16 Petaluma Mill building, former site of Steamer Gold Cabaret) - full size drawings posted in
17 display window at Couches, Etc. on Kentucky Street.
18
19
20 IV. PROJECT STATUS:
21
22 1. Heritage Subdivision - City Council on March 16.
23 2. Bicycle Advisory Committee Workshop (Council appointment of
24 Councilperson Torliatt to Bicycle Advisory Committee).
25 3. Upcoming Central Petaluma Specific Plan Community Workshop.
26 4. Brief discussion of drainage issues (presented by Assistant Civil Engineer
27 Spaulding):
28
29
Mr. Spaulding distributed copies of Sonoma County Water Agency Flood
30
Control Design Criteria, Petaluma River Watershed Master Design Plan;
31
discussed 10 -25 -100 year flood design.
32
Commissioner Torliatt - Heritage Subdivision area has had a drainage
33
problem in the past - what type of event was that area designed for?
34
Mr. Spaulding - There was a design capacity problem in that area that has
35
been resolved through redesign by City staff in conjunction with Sonoma
36
County Water Agency.
37
Commissioner Torliatt - Was the information you presented to us tonight
38
provided to Mr. and Mrs. Tomrose?
39
Mr. Spaulding - No, but I will make sure they get the information.
40
Commissioner Healy - How old is the flood control document?
41
Mr. Spaulding - Sonoma County Water Agency/Flood Control Design
42
Criteria Manual originally was published in 1966 and revised in 1983;
43
Sonoma County Water Agency/Petaluma River Watershed Master
44
Drainage Plan published in 1986.
7
Planning Commission Minutes - February 24, 1998
1 Commissioner Healy - Is this the best and most current thinking in the
2 field?
3 Mr. Spaulding - Will make sure the City has the most current documents.
4 Commissioner Bennett - Please make sure Commissioner Vieler is given
5 this information.
6
7
8 ADJOURNMENT: 8:05 PM.
mino224 / plan93
8