HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/26/1998City of Petaluma, CA - Planning Commission Minutes - May 26, 1998
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.0
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
I 40
41
(r 42
43
44
45
46
CITY OF PETAL UMA, CA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING May 26, 1998
CITY' COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM
CITY HALL, PETALUMA, CA
Commissioners Present: Bennett, Broad, Feibusch *, Healy, Torliatt, Thompson
Commissioners Absent: Vieler
Staff Pamela A Tuft, Planning Director
Vincent Smith, Principal Planner
Elizabeth Dunn, Assistant Planner
Jane Thomson, Senior Planning Technician
Chairperson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES OF May 12,1998 were approved as printed.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Urban Growth Boundary workshop Saturday May 30, 1998.
Lafferty DEIR distributed today: Joint meeting on June 30, 1998 with Parks and
Recreation.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: None.
CORRESPONDENCE: Letter regarding Woodside Village PUD Amendment.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING
I. CAPRI CREEK APARTMENTS; Southeast corner of Riesling Road; AP No.
137- 070 -075 (ed).
Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Rezoning request to
establish a 100 -unit apartment complex on a 5.2 acre portion of the Gatti property.
City of Petaluma, CA - Planning Commission Minutes - May 26, 1998
1 Elizabeth Dunn presented the staff report.
2
3 The public hearing was opened.
4
5 SPEAKERS:
6 Commissioner Torliatt - Clarification of Transfer of Density Rights.
7 Commissioner Healy - Clarification of TDR's must stay within the Gatti property?
8 (yes); Questions re: density bonus (for below market -rate rentals).
9 Commissioner Thompson - Questions re: density bonus.
10 Vincent Smith - Wanting to inform Commission of all ways of receiving density
11 bonuses.
12 Commissioner Broad - Clarify what happened at City Council re: TDR's.
13 Vincent Smith - City Council did not want to preclude use of TDR's, but wanted chance
14 for future review - City Council's decision specific to this project; wanted opportunity for
15 this project to benefit from TDR's.
16 Commissioner Thompson - City Council labeled this a "deserving project "; how is that
17 defined?
18 Vincent Smith - Consistent with Corona -Ely Specific Plan, high level of design detail,
19 etc.
20 Commissioner Torliatt - Project changed; TDR's were moved around. City Council is
21 trying to allow this and other projects with financial feasibility and flexibility to make
22 this work.
23 Commissioner Torliatt - Page 11, Initial Study and this project's benefit from detention
24 basin to be constructed as part of Heritage.
25 Elizabeth Dunn - Storm drain Impact Fees /final Council decision re: Heritage was not
26 made when Initial Study for this project was written.
27 Vincent Smith - Planning Commission can adjust this mitigation measure.
28 Commissioner Broad - Why did this go to SPARC first?
29 Elizabeth Dunn - Staff is trying to assist applicant with timing; must go back to SPARC
30 if there are any major revisions requested.
31 Commissioner Broad - This project is still in the agricultural zone; staff felt this was
32 proper procedure to go to SPARC first?
33 Vincent Smith - SPARC looks only at Architecture/Landscape planning; not land use
34 appropriateness.
35 Kirby Sack, applicant - Capri Creek Associates - Several years of planning with input
36 from staff and SPARC; rents are Petaluma medium income range. Intent is to build and
37 own this project long -term. Re: drainage issue, still working with new techniques to
38 lower demand of this project for storm water detention.
°39 Commissioner Healy (to Ms. Sack) - Re: parking, do you feel the ratio is adequate?
40 Kirby Sack - One parking space per bedroom seems to work. Green space is maximized;
41 expect, most people will park on -site (not on street).
42 Commissioner Torliatt - How wide are interior sidewalks? (4 feet). Where is bicycle
43 parking?
44 Les Baronian - Plenty of room for bike parking.
2
City of Petaluma, CA - Planning Commission Minutes - May 26, 1998
1 Commissioner Torliatt - Wants bicycle parking added; should have direct access from
2 streets.
3 Kirby Sack - Bike riding within pathways on -site is not permitted for safety reasons.
4 Commissioner Torliatt - Look at adjacent uses; access to SRJC?
5 Pamela Tuft - Concept of building a bridge across Capri Creek has been discussed.
6 Commissioner Torliatt - Where is expansion of SRJC?
7 Pamela Tuft - To the north.
8
9 The public hearing was closed.
to
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
Discussion: Consensus re: TDR's?
Commissioner Healy - Does not make a difference to this project; willing to go along
with this.
Commissioner Broad - Finding should be added, indicating that we are allowing a TDR
of 22 units.
Commissioner Bennett - Has there ever been a written policy on TDR's?
Pamela Tuft - No. Council by consensus struck the Planning Commission's condition -
probability TDR's.
Commissioner Feibusch - Consensus to add condition re: 22 TDR's? Yes. Concerns re:
detention ponds?
Commissioner Torliatt - Participation in detention ponds need to be included.
Commissioner Feibusch - Bike parking?
Commissioner Torliatt - Bike committee may have significant input; should go before
this committee.
Commissioner Broad - These units are "advertised" as being moderate income units.
Some ability to hold applicants to statements re: proposed rent schedules?
Pamela Tuft - These units are not being required to be moderate rate; wouldn't
recommend tying moderate -rate rents to this project.
Commissioner Thompson - Rate of apartment units being discussed in staff report is
misleading, but we do need this type of project.
Commissioner Broad - Optimistic that these units may remain moderate.
Commissioner Bennett - Concerns that this is a need.
Commissioner Torliatt - Some endiblank walls; provide for clustering of vent piping
through the roof (work with design).
Commissioner Healy - This is a reality check on current rents in Petaluma. Re:
steepness of roof slopes, look at making buildings less tall (minimum pitch for tile roofs).
Commissioner Feibusch - In favor of project, try to adhere to moderate rents.
A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Healy
to adopt a Negative Declaration, approve the proposed rezoning and Planned Unit
Development Plan based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed
below
Commissioner Bennett: Yes
3
City of Petaluma, CA - Planning Commission Minutes - May 26, 1998
1 Commissioner Broad: Yes
2 Con ssioner Healy: Yes
3 Commissioner Thompson: Yes
4 Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
5 Commissioner Vieler: Absent
6 Chairman Feibusch: Yes
7
8
9 Findings for Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact:
10
11 1. An Initial Study was prepared, proper notice was provided in accordance with
12 CEQA and local guidelines for the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
13 to establish this use.
14
15 2. Based upon the Initial Study, dated May 6, 1998, and any comments received,
16 there is no substantial evidence that the project as mitigated would have a
17 significant effect upon the environment.
18
19 3. As concluded in the attached Initial Study dated May 6, 1998, the project does not
20 have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the Fish and Game
21 code, either individually or cumulatively.
22
23 4. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
24 compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
25
26 5. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Negative Declaration and considered
27 any and all comments before making a recommendation on the project.
28
29 6. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public
30 review at the City of Petaluma, Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English
31 Street, Petaluma, California.
32
33 Mitigation Measures
34
35 All mitigation measures, as identified in the Initial Study filed May 6, 1998 for the Capri
36 Creek apartment proposal, are herein incorporated (see Attachment 6, Initial Study).
37
38 Findings for the Rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD)
39
40 1. The proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., to classify and
41 rezone a 5.2 gross acre parcel of Assessor's Parcel Number 137- 070 -075, to be
42 known on the Capri Creek Apartments, to Planned Unit Development (PUD) is in
43 general conformity with the Petaluma General Plan and Corona/Ely Specific Plan.
44
4
City of Petaluma, CA - Planning Commission Minutes - Mav 26, 1998
1 2. The public necessity, convenience and general welfare clearly permit and will be
2 furthered by the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, reclassifying and
3 rezoning the Capri Creek Apartments site to PUD.
4
5 3. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been
6 satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
7 Declaration to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential impacts
8 generated by the proposed Capri Creek Apartments PUD.
9
10 Findings for approval of the PUD Development Plan
11
12 1. The proposed Capri Creek Apartments results in amore desirable use of land and
13 a better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning
14 district or combination of zoning districts.
15
16 2. The proposed Capri Creek Apartments development plan is proposed on property
17 which has a suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares (Sonoma Mountain
18 Parkway, Riesling Road, Ferro Street, and Capri Creek Court) and said
19 thoroughfares with the improvements herein required, are adequate to carry any
20 additional traffic generated by the development.
21
22 3. The plan for the proposed Capri Creek Apartment development presents a unified
23 and organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are
24 appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby properties, particularly the existing
25 Americana development, and approved Canterbury and Heritage subdivisions.
26 Adequate landscaping and screening is included to ensure compatibility with
27 surrounding uses. Conditions have been incorporated requiring design and
28 development standards that are compatible with neighboring developments.
29
30 4. Adequate available public and private spaces are designated on the PUD
31 Development Plan. Through mitigation measures and project conditions, adequate
32 building setbacks and other project amenities are provided.
33
34 5. The development of the subject Capri Creek Apartment project in the manner
35 proposed by the applicant, and as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the
36 public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City, and will be in keeping with
37 the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma, with
38 the Petaluma General Plan, and with the Corona/Ely Specific Plan.
39
40 6. The Capri Creek Apartment project will help the City further the objectives,
41 policies and programs of the Housing Element of the General Plan to provide a
42 range of housing types, increase the supply of rental apartments, particularly
43 market rate rental housing.
44
5
City of Petaluma, CA - Planning Commission Minutes - May 26, 1998
1 7. The Capri Creek Apartment project is designed to be compatible with surrounding
2 uses because it is residential in character and will not result in a more intensive
3 use of the land with characteristics that are incompatible with neighboring single
4 family residential uses.
5
6 8. The Capri Creek Apartment proposal incorpo the use of 22 units of Transfer
7 of Development Rights (TDR) from the 7.5 acre Urban Separator site east of the
8 Heritage Subdivision to create 100 apartments units on a 5.2 acre portion of land
9 from the "Remaining Lands of Gatti ". A balance of 8 units is still available and
10 may be used should the developer of the Capri Creek Apartments wish to create
11 additional units at some future date.
12
13 Conditions for PUD Approval
14
15 1. All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with approval of the Mitigated
16 Negative Declaration (Resolution N.C.S.) for the Capri Creek
17 ,Apartments project are incorporated herein by reference as conditions of project
18 approval. The project shall also comply with all applicable mitigations specified
19 for properties within the Corona/Ely Specific Plan Area as contained in
20 Resolution No. 89 -122 N.C.S., which certified, approved and adopted the
21 Environmental Impact Report for the Corona/Ely Specific Plan.
22
23 2. Based upon the final Site Plan and Administrative Review Committee approval of
24 May 14, 1998, the following requirements shall be met and shown on plans
25 submitted for building permit approval:
26
27 a. Minimum building setbacks of 16 feet along "Capri Creek Court". Should
28 "Ferro Street" be aligned further to the north upon approval of the
29 Tentative Parcel Map, the applicant shall move Building #1 closer to the
30 "Ferro Street" by the distance. Carports must have a minimum of a five (5)
31 foot setback along the east and south property lines.
32
33 b. The permitted principal use of each apartment shall be limited to the uses
34 normally associated with residential development as identified under the
35 R -M -G, Garden Apartment Residence Zoning District, including small
36 family day care. Uses not specified under the PUD Zoning regulations or
37 the Zoning Ordinance shall be subject to the Planning Director's
38 determination.
39
40 C. Accessory structures, such as the recreation center and pool, outdoor play
41 areas and carports, and uses shall be subject to applicable provisions of the
42 Zoning Ordinance as they apply to the R -M -G Garden Apartment
43 Residence Zoning District.
44
C
City of Petaluma, CA - Planning Commission Minutes - May 26, 1998
d. Maximum permitted building height shall be 30' measured from finished
2
grade to the average height level between building eaves and the primary
3
ridge of the roofline.
4
5
e.
Minimum off - street parking, with one parking space per bedroom, shall be
6
established. As shown on the plans dated May 1, 1998 and approved by
7
SPARC on May 14, 1998, a minimum of 164 parking spaces must be
8
established.
9
10
f.
A 6 foot tall fence must be installed around the pool. At least one gate
1l
shall be installed which allows residents to access the pool area without
12
having to walk through the recreation center.
13
14
g.
The architectural design standards shown on' the plans approved by
15
SPARC shall be the same as for plans submitted for building permit
16
approval. Any future color schemes that vary from those approved shall be
17
subject to SPARC review.
18
19
h.
The trash enclosures shall be designed with roofs.
20
21
i.
If necessary, the fountain design may return for SPARC for review and
22
approval.
23
24
j.
Should there be changes to the site plan made by the Planning
25
Commission or City Council that alters the plan approved by SPARC, the
26
revised plan must return to SPARC for review and approval.
27
28
k.
A Class II bicycle path shall be established alone the southern side of
29
Riesling Road. It shall continue to the south along "Capri Creek Court".
30
At such time as a bridge is constructed that connects the Capri Creek
31
Apartment site to the Santa Rosa Junior College, the bicycle path shall be
32
established. Additionally, should a loop road be created on the
33
`Remaining Land of Gatti" parcel that connects to the Heritage
34
Subdivision (to the east of the apartment proposal), the bicycle path shall
35
be extended along the loop road. An additional curb cut and pathway shall
36
be created between buildings # 12 and 13 so that riders can gain access to
37
38
the intersection of "Capri Creek Court" and Riesling Road. Bicycle racks
shall be established on the parcel.
39
40 A gate shall be established along the eastern property line, between the
41 two carports that are across from Building #3. Textured pavement shall be
42 established along the southern property line, in front of the uncovered
43 parking spaces that are next to the trash enclosures.
44
II
City of Petaluma, Cif - Planning Commission Minutes - May 26, 1998
1 4. All requirements of the Building Division, Fire Marshal, Engineering, Police
2 Department and Public Works Departments shall be met and reflected on plans
3 submitted for development permit issuance.
4
5 5. This project shall be subject to payment of a fair share contribution toward
6 Sonoma Mountain Parkway benefit assessment district fees as specified under the
7 Corona/Ely Specific Plan, as determined by Finance staff when a building permit
8 for the first residential structure is submitted.
9
io 6. The applicants /developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or
11 any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
12 action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or
13 employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when
14 such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
15 State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the
16 applicants /developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall
17 coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the
18 City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City
19 bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good
20 faith.
21
22
23 II. WOODSIDE VILLAGE; Minor PUD Amendment to the Woodside Village
24 Planned Unit District Landscaping and Fencing Development Standards to allow
25 fencing to be constructed in alternate locations Okt).
26
27 Jane Thomson presented the staff report.
28
29 The public hearing was opened.
30
31 SPEAKERS:
32
33 Commissioner Healy - Clarification of property lines.
34 Commissioner Bennett - Some fences have already been moved? (3) If Commission
35 approves the request, ,will some still be illegal? (Yes).
36 Commissioner Broad - Hoy much square footage will be added to lots if fences can be
37 moved? (Minimal, no exact number was given.)
38 Commissioner Feibusch - Maximum height on fences? (6 ft.).
39 Jane Thomson - Petition response - 2 of the 40 quad lots responded no; 23 of the 40
40 quad lots responded yes (of the 23, 17 are front units, 6 are rear units).
41 Jack Feller, 1431 Woodside Circle - 15 people in front agree; 6 in middle agree.
42 Clarified property lines; wants a little more fenced yard areas. Has photos of his fence
43 (has moved it).
44 Edward Anzore, 1445 Woodside Circle - lives in a rear quad unit - 28 signatures from
45 people living in quads who do not want this to change. 25% of the quad lots cannot move
8
City of Petaluma, CA - Planning Commission Minutes - May 26, 1998
1 their fences. Concerns with aesthetics; safety issues. Front doors will not be able to be
2 seen (20 front doors will be hidden). Concerns with lowering of market rates of homes in
3 back units. "Don't fence us in'. Do not allow this Amendment to ao though. Photos of
4 existing fences; visual distraction.
5 Matt Thomas, 1425 Woodside Circle - Mr. Anzore did not contact him or some of the
6 other neighbors for his petition against fencing movement. As a Petaluma Police Officer,
7 does riot have safety concerns with movement of fencing, is able to see from doors of rear
8 units from street.
9 Rob White, front unit - Did not see a petition other than the applicants.
10 John Kelly, 1419 Woodside (rear unit) - This is clearly advantageous to units in front.
11 Aesthetically, not pleasing for anyone; cuts down on views for units in rear ( against this
12 Amendment).
13 Commissioner Feibusch - Agrees with security issues; height of fence would not allow
14 clear views of many front doors.
15 Commissioner Healy - Agrees that proposal would benefit front units and be a detriment
16 to rear units. Compromise - maybe fences could be more of a front yard type; lower
17 picket`fence type (3 ft. ?). Not as much of a severe change; aesthetic issue.
18 Commissioner Torliatt - The houses need larger yards, cannot support because of
19 aesthetic issues.
20 Commissioner Bennett - No one will be a winner with this decision. Cannot support
21 tonight. Would like neighbors to get together and see if a compromise can be reached
22 and come back to Planning Commission.
23 Commissioner Thompson - Cannot support fences tonight. Neighbors should meet to
24 reach a compromise; maybe lower fences could be allowed.
25 Commissioner Broad - Went to site; dramatic difference where fences had been
26 changed. Too closed in. Landscaping minimal. Front owners should have been aware of
27 what they were buying. Change in appearance dramatic; continue for a few weeks to
28 allow neighbors to discuss a compromise, and return to Planning Commission.
29 Commissioner Feibusch - Does not support moving fencing; believes neighbors can
30 work it out.
31 Vincent Smith - May want to continue to allow neighborhood opportunity to try to solve
32 this problem. Staff can mediate.
33 Commissioner Torliatt - Depends on what goal of fence is, privacy?
34 Commissioner Bennett - If neighborhood cannot agree on a compromise, we will deny.
35 If neighbors can agree, staff can approve administratively.
36 Commissioner Torliatt - Not sure how to get over aesthetic issues. To be continued at
37 Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 1998.
38
39 The public hearing was closed.
40
41
42 COMMISSION BUSINESS
43
44 I1I. PLANNING COMMISSION GOALS:
1
City of Petaluma, CA - Planning Co Minutes - May 26, 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
Commissioner Feibusch - Staff is overwhelmed; does not want to add more.
Commissioner Thompson - Agrees. Review this question in August and come up with
a solid 'date.
Commissioner Torliatt - Would like to see copy of what Planning staff is working on;
should ;discuss. Would like to see a calendar for Planning Commission meetings for next
3 months.
Commissioner Healy - Does not want to add more to staff now. Design Guidelines
(downtown) are also being worked on. Useful to have presentation by Open Space
District (before UGB meeting). Development of projects in watershed of Payran/Leisure
Lake areas; policy should be formalized.
Commissioner Broad - Willing to put off discussion of goals until August (first meeting
in August). Add to list; process ideas and regulatory ideas. Confusion among the public
on planning process. Suggest staff review processes used in other communities. Need
for story poles for some projects. Regulations - SPARC has to "reinvent the wheel" for
each project. Stronger hillside ordinance should be created.
Commissioner Bennett - Look at policies /procedures /processes. Would like to define
this in August. Look at other cities policies. Identify types of things that need to be
defined ,in writing.
Commissioner Torliatt - Made a commitment to find a new site for Petaluma Kitchen.
Planning Commission needs to be really involved. Created matrix to help GP Executive
Team. Get a handle on all projects and how all department's projects effect GP; team
approach.
IV. LIAISON REPORTS: Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting tomorrow night.
V. PROJECT STATUS:
L Redwood Crossroads - Land surrounding Pacific Cinemas site; will get
direction from City Council next week on the method of how staff is to
approach this project from a "master plan" policy standpoint.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 p.m.
min0526 / plan95
El