HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/22/19951
2
3
4
5 City Of Petaluma
6
7 Planning Commission Minutes
8
9 REGULAR MEETING August 22, 1995
10 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.
11 CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
12
13 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
14
15 ROLL CALL: Present: Barlas, Feibusch, Rahman *, Thompson, Torliatt, Wick; Absent.
16 vonRaesfeld
17
18 STAFF:' Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
19 James McCann, Principal Planner
20
21 * Chairman
22
23
24 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of August 8, 1995 were approved as printed.
5
6
7 PUBLIC COMMENT: None:
8
29 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Update on _ Plan Line for Rainier Extension and Interchange
30 (City Council hearing on 9/5); hearing on FEIR and and for Corps River project
31 continued to, 9/5.
32 -.
33 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None.
34
35 CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from Terence Garvey regarding Revised Draft EIR for
36 Wastewater Treatment Facility.
37
38 APPEAL,'-,,STATEMENT: Was read.
39
40 LEGAL RECOURSE.STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
41
42
43 I. C.OMMI'SSION BUSINESS.
44
45 Appointment of SPARC liaison.
46
47 Commissioner Feibusch was appointed to the SPARC Committee.
8
0 Commissioners Torliatt and Thompson will attend SPARC (meeting of 8/24)
view of landscaping at Factory Outlets (around 4 PM).
1
M
1
6
7
8
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
53
54
NEW BUSINESS f PUBLIC HEARING
II. PETALUMA MUNICIPAL CODE; SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT'
APPLICANT /PROPONENT MR. JOHN FITZGERALD; 1 CITY =WIDE
APPLICATION; FILE PMC0181(hg).
Consideration of a :finding for exemption from CEQA. Consideration of a proposal
to ame ri d Section 20.28.020 of the Petaluma: Municipal Code to allow for private lot
a public street by way of a shared easement for Minor- Subdivisions.
access
Current provisions. of said section require direct lot frontage on a public or private
street for access.
Principal Planner James McCann presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Commissioner Barlas Why is Mr. Fitzgerald proposing this option?
Commissioner Feibusch This essentially will °allow the addition of an additional lot?
Commissioner Wick - Are the currently allowed options mandatory or permissive?
Principal `Planner McCann -; This- request will allow an additional option or approach for
the development of smaller subdivisions (primarily 'in -fill development); ;' this - proposed
approach; would allow more homes to gain access via a privatei drive- than now allowed.with
a flag .lot arrangement, current regulations are permissive ('a developer. ;may choose the
des roach
Co mi P ones and staff evaluates /considers it).
Wick - Would staff .still be able to require a different option on a site-
speciffc basis .
Planning irector Tuft - Yes, with good reason (site, specific findings):
Principa Planner McCann City Engineering staff generally does not promote the use of
pprivate streets /easements.
John Fitz eg rald - Applicant - received staff report yesterday; just wants simplification of the
process that private engineers and land developers must follow; described difficulty with
present options and referred to experience with recently approved minor subdivisions (very
cumbersome.) suggested that four flag' lots are not that rare showed several examples of
multi -lot flag lots; this option will not create landlocked .parcels' as Engineerig, staff
suggests; this request is not any different than existing"flag lot requirements it is just easier
from a surve}nng /legal /rilonumentation standpoint; gives greater flexibility for in fill
projects; will save clients money; City will not have to deal with anything different if 'this - is
allowed.
Commissioner Barl'as - requested clarification of differences between graphic options .3 and
4.
p e ions purposes, etc.
John Fitzgerald - clarified ownership of easement for maintenance u
Bryant Mo ihan - 111 Post Street - has done several subdi. P , City in last few years,
ry . Xn
.Engineer's time is expensive: definition of easements on'1'ast ro ect (multiple flag lots), was
very complicated, especially the, easement situation, this proposal would_ have made that
subdivision easier; Planning staff was very supportive; this would help' creative in -fill (a
General' Plan goal); this is a,good idea, not 'a precedent setting idea:
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Torliatt. and seconded' by Commissioner'Feibusch to
.find this request exempt from CEQA and recommend to the City Council the proposed
Municipal Code Amendment based on the following findings:
AE.
1
COMMISSIONER BARLAS: Yes
COMMISSIONER FEIBUSCH: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
5 CHAIRPERSON RAHMAN: Yes
6 COMMISSIONER WICK: Yes
7 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT:, Yes:
8 COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD Absent
9
10 Findings for Amendment:
11
12 1. The proposed amendment` to Title 20, Section 20:28.020 of the Petaluma Municipal
13 Code to allow for access to a public street(s). by - easement for up to four lots in a
14 subdivision and for subdivisions of up to four (4) lots plus, a remainder lot is
15 consistent with the provisions of the circulation and access policies of the General
16 Plan.
17
18 2. Public necessity, convenience -and general welfare of the City of Petaluma clearly
19 permit the adoption of the pproposed amendment to Title 20, Section 20.28.020 of
20 the Petaluma. Municipal Code because it will facilitate more appropriate use of the
21 land.
22
23 3. The.,proposed amendment to Title 20, Section 20:28.020 of the Petaluma Municipal
24 Code will retain and serve as -a - viable alternate form of access to public roads.
25
6 PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CODE -AMENDMENT (amendment in italics)
Access to public streets.
29 20
8 20.28 020'
1 lots or parcels created. by the subdivision of land shall have access to a public
30 street improved to standards hereinafter required. Access to a public street(s) by easement
31 for up to four, lots in a subdivision and for subdivisions of up to four (4) lots plus a remainder
32 lot are rr be permitted. For subdivisions proposing lot access to .a public street by easement,
33' the configuration proposed would' be as follows: Each lot shall have an access and utility
34 easement 'appurtenant to the next up'-street lot; a twenty_ foot wide private driveway shall serve
35 the lots and a single maintenance agreement shall be prepared. and recorded. Private streets
36 shall not! be permitted. except in planned unit development zones. If the Planning
37 Commission finds that the most logical development of the- land requires that lots be
38 created in planned unit development zones which are served by a private street or other
39 means ofl access, and makes such findings in writing with the reasons therefor, then such
40 access may be recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission. The City
4.1 Council may act to approve or disapprove the private street at the time it approves the unit
42 development plan or the tentative map. The subdivider shall submit a development plan
43 showing..ahe alignment, width, grade and material specifications of any proposed private
44 street, the topography and= .means of access to each lot, drainage and sewerage of the lots
45 served y such private street; and a plan satisfactory to the City Council for ownership and
46 maintenance of the street and the liability for taxes thereon. Construction of an approved
47 all- weather private street access. shall 'be completed prior to issuance of any building permit
48 on lots served by -, a private street. (Ord. 1372 B NCS, Sec.2, 1979: Ord. 1046 NCS, Sec.1
49' (part), 1972: prior code, Sec.22.7.300.).
0
1 Commissioner Barlas noted that staff report should have been delivered to applicant
2 earlier. Planning Director Tuft agreed and stated she will look into this particular,
3 circumstance.
.. 3
2
3 Ill. PROJECT STATUS
4
5 1 NESSCO CUP Amendment: - Discussed' neces - necessary content of the required
site u
6 tellan with the applicant, expects. to receive site plan, tomorrow.
-
7 2. Undue Concentration-. `met Legislation. update, - Planning Diredo , I Tuft and
8 Principal Planner I anner McCann `met with several representatives (TAPP,
9 Chamber of Commerce, business owners and Police officers), will.mee again
10 this week.
11 3., Bettrnan Accessory Dwelling received an, application for SPAR( today,
12 notice will be sent out to neighbors.,
13
14 Commissioner Rahman - Is staff working closely with Mr. 'Nessinger, do6s understand
15 what is expected of him now? { Principal Planner WCarift - Yes, 'working closely with him,
16 he understands expectations and requirements).
17 Commissioner Rahman - What is status of the . floating. storage building . at the Petaluma
18 Queen?
19 Planning Director Tuft - In litigation now w waiting forthe, court's decision,
20 Planning Director Tuff - A. special meeting on Wastewater needs to be held either Sept. 20
21 or 21. Concensus of Commission -was 'that the 20th would be preferable.
22 Commissioner Wick -._S on River Plan?
23 Planning'Director Tuft - Back ,to' consultant . for final graphic preparation and Assembly; will
24 be printed and out to public very shortly.
25
26
27 7:45 PM.
2&
29
30 min822 pfan62