HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/13/19961
2 City Of Petaluma
3
4 Planning Commission Minutes
5
6 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1996
7 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM
8 CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
9
10 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE_
11
12 Present: Feibusch, Rahman*, Read, Thompson, Torliatt, vonRaesfeld, Wick (left at
13 7:45PM)
14
15 STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
16 James McCann, Principal Planner
17
18 * Chairman
19
20
21 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of January 23 and January 30, 1996 were
22 approved with corrections.
23
24 PUBLIC COMMENT: John Fitzgerald - newly appointed Parks and Recreation member;
"25 spoke in regard to development adjacent to dredge disposal site (now Shollenberger Park)
26 noticed changes in Oakmead/Northbay Industrial Park area; consider
27 landscaping/decorative transition between those buildings and park unrestricted views to
28 park area; encouraged all to visit new Shollenberger Park.
29 Planning Director Tuft - indicated that new Shollenberger Park has not been finished yet -
30 hopefully this spring, dedication and opening will be held.
31 Tom Newton - 10 G Street, San Rafael - Read into record a letter from Leland H. Jordan,
32 Attorney representing owners of property fronting Industrial Avenue - concerns regarding
33 impact fees - Planning Department response to this letter does not address all the issues.
34 Jane Hamilton - Suggestions made by Chelsea and previous speaker for amendments; hope
35 that the Planning Commission forwards the River Plan to the City Council with
36 recommendations to review proposed word changes.
37
-38 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Upcoming agendas through April 1; will provide regular
39 updates in the future.
40
4,1 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Thompson - requested clarification
42 regarding voting on upcoming McNear Landing. Commissioner Wick - contacted by Matt
43 Connolly (Chelsea) and David Keller regarding comments to River Enhancement Plan.
44 Commissioner Torliatt - contacted by David Keller regarding River Enhancement Plan;
45 Economic Plan needs to be implemented including components regarding analysis of new
46 housing fees - sewer, water, Police, Fire, etc., can we afford to support new housing, can
47 we sustain status -quo?; analysis retail square footage / vacancy factor - to determine if
48 more retail space can be supported; should be agendized for future meeting.
49 Commissioner Read - City Council goal - economic feasibility. Commissioner Torliatt -
50 will support City Council.
51
'52 CORRESPONDENCE: None.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
s
9
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
48
49
50
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
I. CROSS CREEK; ELY ROAD AT CASA GRANDE; AP NO. 017 - 050 -001;
(0068 ANX/GPA/PREZ/PTSM 07 -95) 6m/tp).
Continued consideration of a proposed 225 -unit detached single - family subdivision
on 96 acres, and request for comments on the Draft Initial Study. The project
includes applications for: 1) annexation of 96 acres; 2) General Plan Amendment
to expand the Urban Limit Line 'eastward to incorporate 46 additional acres; 3)
General Plan Amendment to designate 46 acres of annexed property as Urban
Separator and redesignate 11.4 acres from Urban Separator to Urban Standard, 4)
Prezoning of 50 acres to PUD and 48.5 acres to Urban Separator; 5) approval of a
Pretentative Subdivision Map to create 225 detached single- fanuly lots on 47.5
acres and one Urban Separator parcel comprising 48.5 acres. (Continued from the
Planning Commission meetings of November 28, 1995 and January 9, 1996.)
This item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1996.
H. WEST VIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION; NORTHBAY CONSTRUCTION;
BODEGA AVENUE BETWEEN NORTH WEBSTER STREET AND RUTH
COURT; AP NO'S 006 - 470 -010, 006 - 480 -003, 005, 011, 012, 016, AND 031.
Consideration of a revised proposal for a 44 -lot detached single - family home
development on 21.63 acres of hillside property in west Petaluma. The project
includes requests for approval of 1) a Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2) Rezoning
of the entire site to PUD; 3) Tentative Subdivision Map to create 43 parcels and
future development potential of one additional lot (Continued from December 5,
1995).
This item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 12, 1996.
OLD BUSINESS
M. CITY OF PETALUMA; PETALUMA RIVER ACCESS AND
ENHANCEMENT PLAN; FILE WRK91034(pt).
Commission consideration of the Mitigation Negative Declaration and Draft River
Access and Enhancement Plan (Public hearing was closed at January 23, 1996
Planning Commission meeting).
(Continued from Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 1996.)
Planning Director Tuft presented the staff report.
2 COMMISSION DISCUSSION
3
4 Commissioner Read - Question regarding staff report (page 6) - need to clarify title of
5 Sonoma':County Convention and Visitor's Bureau, supports staff in findings - constitutes
.6 one developer requesting (without Corona Reach Specific Plan) something specific to
7 them; Chelsea was made aware in 1990/1991 (76 conditions for Factory Outlet) of
s development conditions of approval.
Planning_ Director Tuft - will add into Resolution background information.
10
11 A motion was made by Commissioner Wick and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to
12 recommend to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on
13 the following findings:
-14
=l5 Commissioner Read: Yes
`16 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
17 Commissioner Thompson: Yes
-18 Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
19 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
, 20 Commissioner Wick: Yes
21 Chairman Rahman: Yes
22
-23 Negative Declaration Findings
24
25 1. An expanded Initial Study has been prepared and proper notice provided in
26 accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local
27 guidelines.
28
29 2. Based upon the Initial Study and comments received, potential impacts could be
30 avoided or reduced to a level of ins ignificance by mitigation measures attached as
31 conditions of approval. The expanded Initial Study contains conditions for
32 approval of a Negative Declaration, pages VI -1 through VI -6, which are
33 referenced and incorporated herein. There is no substantial evidence that the
34 project, as conditioned, would have a significant effect on the environment.
35
36 3. The Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan does not create or encourage
37 increased urbanization beyond that envisioned by the adopted General Plan.
38
39 4. Adoption of the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan does not preclude
40 necessary environmental review of individual development applications, when
41 impacts can be best identified and quantified.
42
43 5. The natural environment will be better protected and enhanced if the Petaluma
44 River Access and Enhancement Plan is adopted and implemented;
45
46 6. The adoption of the River Plan does not have potential to affect wildlife resources
47 as defined in the Fish and Game code, either individually or cumulatively.
48
49 7. The properties addressed within the River Plan are not sites listed on any
50 Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of
51 the Government Code.
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
48
49
50
51
52
8. The Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and
considered public comments before making a recommendation on the adoption of
the River Plan.
9. The record of proceedings of the development and public review on the River Plan
is available for public review at the City of Petaluma, Planning Department, City
Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, California.
A motion was made by Commissioner Wick and seconded by Commissioner Torliatt to
recommend to the City Council adoption of the River Access and Enhancement Plan and
the accompanying General Plan Text Amendments based on the findings listed below,
noting that the discussion contained in the staff report adequately responds to all
comments.
Commissioner Read: Yes
Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
Commissioner Thompson: Yes
Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes - This is a very positive step for City of Petaluma.
Commissioner Wick: Yes
Chairman Rahman: Yes
Adoption of River Access and Enhancement Plan findings
1. The City of Petaluma General Plan, as adopted in 1987 and maintained thereafter,
promotes an orderly system of growth and environmental protection within an
Urban Limit Line.
2. The preparation of a River Access and Enhancement Plan is timely and appropriate
given the following facts:
a. The General Plan emphasizes the Petaluma River as a significant cultural,
economic, environmental, and historic resource to be planned and reclaimed.
b. The General Plan includes many river - related goals, objectives, policies,
and programs including directives to prepare a comprehensive plan for the
Petaluma River.
C. The River Plan was prepared to clarify, uphold and implement General Plan
directives, not to alter the Plan's basic tenets.
d. The appointed Citizens Advisory Committee aggressively solicited and
considered public input, especially that of the owners of riverfront property,
Technical Advisory Committee, consultants, and staff while preparing the River
Plan.
e. The committee carefully considered all the issues that comprise the plan,
and crafted the River Plan to maximize agreement among the committeemembers.
f The River Plan was prepared to address specific Petaluma concerns and
respond to specific site conditions.
1
2 51 . The River Plan recommends a certain amount of flexibility in its
3 implementation to best meet directives yet respond to site specific conditions.
4
5 3. The expanded Initial Study contains conditions for approval of a Negative
6 Declaration, pages VI -1 through VI -6, which are referenced and incorporated
7 herein.
8
9 Additional Consideration (General Plan Text Amendments)
10
11 Add Goal 4. Improve the waterfront in a manner consistent with the Petaluma River
12 Access and Enhancement Plan.
13
14 Objectives:
15
16 (c) Create a riverfront route for pedestrians and bicyclists e n b sides e fthefo'e
17 th e dge f its .,hole lengt Petal t f s ibl�
o lAlliCi v���le.e 1LClJ1V . u s recommended in the
18 Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan.
19
20 (f) Develop a riverfront park and cultural facilities (.g., a fly e she! .,djae °at to the
21 fi vef) in dewntewa Petaluu =u . as recommended in the Petaluma River Access and
22 Enhancement Plan.
23
24 (i) Preserve and protect the Petaluma River as open space, resource and habitat as
25 shown in the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan.
26
27 Policy 1: As development and redevelopment occur, the City shall require
28 th P e t a l uma P ft,..,-, the ne es t p s t,- ee t_ an d .,lle ; a �. riverfront improvements
29 and maintenance as specified in the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan.
30 "Development" includes the subdivision of land.
31
32 Policy 2: The City shall enhance the Petaluma River and its banks as a scenic resource
33 consistent with Mater- fel ted Feef eatie the policies and programs of the Petaluma River
34 Access and Enhancement Plan.
35
The City a + a ,.:f;, o a l g the + ho_ e d e e l.. e p
�6 Policy 3: �� � '" o'er �o �� Y
37 fef publie ^+ A p Delete.
us
38
39 Policy 6: The City shall work with the Petaluma Music, Parks and Recreation
40 Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, local school districts, and the Sonoma County
41 Convention and Visitor's Bureau to identify and define the need for an outdoor cultural
42 facility with a downtown riverfront location.
43
44 Add Narrative to Follow Policy 6: The Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan
45 suggests that the Turning Basin should act as a general gathering place to view scenery,
46 people, and activities on the water. Larger gathering places for concerts, speeches, or
47 other cultural events should be located off the Turning Basin, perhaps on McNear
48 Peninsula or other downtown location.
49
50 Program (1): Require dedication of an easement for public access to the river for all new
51 development or redevelopmentb P B ' . a ( f FiF ct an d t h e five
1 as west
2 specified by the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan.
3
4 Program (4): Develop public parks and access to the water adjacent to the Petaluma
5 River as specified in the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan.
6
7 Program 5: . Delete
8
9 Program (7): Acquire land for, and design a riverfront park demon on McNear
10 Peninsula. Develop an e utdeermusi It al c e4 y '* ^' neaf public access,
11 boardwalks, and seating around the turning basin.
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
48
49
50
51
Program (8): Develop a Implement the "River Walk" project.
Program (10): h s h Ce�ttee der Encourage citizen
stewardship of the river.
Amend following paragraph:
r-espeasible fbf: wer-king with City staff te prepafe a compfehensive plan fer- the fivef,
1 .a' th e 1 ., t' f .-L p .a vis The ee mraccee Z wei
.t wa Citizens could help City staff identify desirable recreation opportunities and seek
providers, and . Th nwaittee ^o: =' =' coordinate volunteer work for clean -up of the river
banks.
- - - - - - - - ' .. - - - --
Delete.
Goal 13, page 74, add:
(Commissioner Wick left the meeting.)
OLD BUSINESS
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
IV. STREET STANDARDS; CITY OF PETALUMA; FILE WRK960030cm).
Consideration of and recommendation to City Council on proposed adoption of
revised Street Standards for use City -wide.
(Continued from Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 1996.)
Principal Planner McCann presented the staff report.
I The public hearing was reconvened:
2
3 SPEAKERS:
5 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Suggested that alternative radiuses at intersections be
6 considered for residential areas; does not want to create a pedestrian "unfriendly"
7 environment.
8 Commissioner Feibusch - Will we be discussing hammerhead standards ?; recommends
9 extending driveways as suggested by Mr. Fitzgerald (then it is a viable option).
10 Traffic Engineer Tilton - Answers questions regarding curb radius at intersections; specific
11 designs need to be studied; newest thinking on local minor streets - reducing curb radii.
12 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - If applicant chooses to apply new reduced minor street
13 standards, what will they be told?
14 Traffic Engineer Tilton - If emergency vehicles can be accommodated, design would be
15 acceptable; regarding hammerhead design - approved design in 1987 - main factor is
16 location of driveways; most of Mr. Fitzgerald's design suggestions are supported by City
17 Engineer; driveway length is critical element of design.
18 Commissioner Torliatt - As representative of Bike Committee - question - is there a need
19 for bike lanes on "residential"- streets only reflected on collector and arterial status streets).
20 Traffic Engineer Tilton - Possibly adjacent to parks - would look at alternatives should
21 situation occur.
22 Commissioner Torliatt - Bike Committee has been looking at creation of bike paths in all
23 locations.
24 Commissioner Read - Are there specific projects that these Standards may be included in?
25 Principal Planner McCann - Many of these designs have already been incorporated in
26 Corona/Ely development.
27 Commissioner Rahman - (to Traffic Engineer Tilton) Is staff comfortable with these
28 recommendations being sent on to City Council?
29 Traffic Engineer Tilton - Yes, comfortable with recommendations as submitted including
30 comments.
31 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Streets should be as pedestrian- oriented as possible within
32 safety standards.
33 Principal Planner McCann - Will incorporate radius information into the recommendation
34 to City Council.
35
36 The public hearing was closed.
37
38 A motion was made by Commissioner vonRaesfeld and seconded by Commissioner
39 Thompson to find that this project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA and to
40 recommend to the City Council adoption of the proposed revised Street Standards with
41 the addition of more potential bike lanes, radius discussion and recommendation regarding
42 pedestrian - friendly streetscape.
43
44 Commissioner Read: Yes
45 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
46 Commissioner Thompson: Yes
47 Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
48 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
49 Commissioner Wick: Absent
50 Chairman Rahman: Yes
51
52
I V. FIRST INTERSTATE BANK; 1363 MCDOWELL BLVD.; AP NO. 007 -411-
2 020; PRE96002(hg).
3
4 Discussion of a preliminary plan to construct a temporary 2 +/- sq.ft. bank
5 facility (modular building) on a portion of the Petaluma Cinemas site.
6
7 Principal Planner McCann presented the preliminary plan - master planning effort is being
8 worked on.
9
10 CONMSSION DISCUSSION
11
12 Commissioner Read - Is Wells Fargo or First Interstate Bank proposing this ?, concerns
13 with architecture; needs special treatment; there is a need for a bank in this area; concerns
14 with loss of parking for cinema.
15 Commissioner Torliatt - Will there be other proposals for temporary projects - is this
16 circumventing requirement for master planning?
17 Principal Planner McCann - This type of question is why staff brought this to Planning
18 Commission at this stage.
19 Commissioner Feibusch - I was on SPARC when Cinema project came through; this does
20 not fit on this site.
21 Commissioner Thompson - Concerns with traffic and parking; would like to see proposed
22 lease; proposal too close to street; design very important - proposal is quite weak.
23 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Concerns with design/architecture; two other cases of
24 modular banks -both far back from street - this is right on street concerns regarding
25 parking; parking shown on proposed site plan is not really there.
26 Commissioner Thompson - Would not be m favor of restriping to allow more parking.
27 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Question regarding whether applicant is fully aware of five
28 year time frame.
29 Chairman Rahman - Who is applicant - Wells Fargo or First Interstate?
3o Paul Finwell - Project Architect - Will be First Interstate for a few more months
31 (probably).
32 Chairman Rahman - Feels that this could be adequately handled by staff administratively;
33 this is a needed service in this area - there is nothing else in this area.
34 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Maybe architecture should go to SPARC (full) instead of
35 Administrative SPARC; would like to be on mailing list for this project for any
36 architectural comments.
37 Chairman Rahman - Setback needs to be looked at.
38 Commissioner Torliatt - This site is very different from site of temporary Bank of
39 Petaluma; this site is a gateway; would like to see this project.
40 Chairman Rahman - Even with the knowledge that this is only temporary.
41 Commissioner Feibusch - Five years is not temporary this is the wrong place for this even
42 though there is a need for this service.
43 Commissioners Read and Thompson - Would like this brought back as a CUP to Planning
44 Commission.
45 Consensus to bring this to Planning Commission.
46 Paul Finwell - Project Architect - Bank is under a time constraint, needs to open by April
47 15, has lost existing site.
48 Commissioner Read - Do you have a lease?
49 Paul Finwell - No signed lease yet.
50 Commissioner Torliatt - When this comes before Planning Commission, does not want any
51 other proposed buildings shown on site plan.
52 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Does not think City can make this time frame; bank's
53 timeframe should not cause poor planning on City's part.
I Paul Finwell - Understands timeframe problems; will work with staff.
2 Commissioner Thompson - Enough negative input tonight that a CUP may not even be
3 issued by this body.
4 Planning Director Tuft - Clear direction to return to Planning Commission with this
5 project; up to applicant whether they can/wish to pursue; will talk to applicant.
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
VI. PROJECT STATUS:
1. Gatti retail - received preliminary (SPARC) plans, no formal application -
(Commissioner Thompson wants be sure all concerned (from last meeting)
are notified); Commissioner Torliatt - Maybe we need another public
meeting before Planning Commission. Planning Director Tuft - does not
anticipate large neighborhood turnout, based on major efforts in the past to
involve neighboring residents in the recommendation.
2. Corona Reach Specific Plan - proposals out to 5 firms; recommended
selection to City Council in March.
3. Cleaver Exception (Appeal) - City Council modified Commission action
regarding property line setbacks.
4. Ellwood Center (Appeal) - appeal denied, use allowed.
Planning Director Tuft - Does Commission still want to plan a field trip? Joint
SPARC/Planning Commission meeting will be scheduled for sometime in March.
ADJOURNMENT: At 8:50 PM To Special Planning Commission meeting of
February 27 5PM for proposed West View Estates Field Trip, then regularly
scheduled 7:00 PM Planning Commission meeting.
min0213 / plan65