Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/28/1992, REGULAR MEETING January 28, 1992 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL PETALUMA,' CA COMMISSIONERS: Present Bennett, Libarle *, Nelson, Parkerson, Rahman,'Tarr Absent Thompson STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner Jennifer Barrett, Associate Planner Hans Grunt, Planning Technician * Chairman Minutes of the January 14, 1992 meeting were approved with corrections to page 5. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None. CORRESPONDENCE: Four letters regarding Draft South Petaluma Boulevard Specific Plan. APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on agenda. 1 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes 1/28/92 63 NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS I. HICKOX, 102 EDITH STREET, AP NO. 007-081-02 FILE NO. CUP91038(hg). 1., Consider project, as a small in -fill structure within an urbanized area, exempt from environmental review. 2: Consideration of Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of a 640 sq.ft. accessory dwelling unit to the rear of the main dwelling. II. H!ICKOX,106 EDITH STREET, AP NO. 007-081-43, FILE NO. CUP91039(hg). c co Li Consider project, as a small in -fill structure within an urbanized area, exempt from environmental review. 2.1 Consideration of Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of a 640 sq.ft. accessory dwelling unit to the rear of the main dwelling. (NOTE: The two items listed above were combined into one discussion and one vote with the same!, findings and conditions.) The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Hans Grunt presented the staff report. Bob Hickox - Applicant - .There are a few items in disagreement with the staff report; does not wantito move one unit forward on lot as recommended by staff - it would infringe on his private yard; roof lines to more closely complement existing homes is unnecessary; is Willing to{ match roof materials to existing units. Pamela Tuft - Explained reasons for design recommendations to SPARC (lack of architectural continuity). Bob Hickox - Regarding the parking requirements - travel distance from parking space to front door would be approximately 150 feet; quoted comparison to apartments within Petaluma, travel distance between parking space and unit as proposed is not unreasonable; off - street; parking requirements per Zoning Ordinance can be met; houses will be sprinklered to allow narrower driveway; street tree requirements might not be practical because there are already several trees planted in this area (described existing landscaping in front yards and one street tree). Commissioner Libarle - you will be sprinklering instead of wider driveways? Bob Hickox Yes. Commissioner Parkerson - During inclement weather, access to the units will be inconvenient (travel distance). Bob Hickox - easement requirement would stigmatize property at 106 Edith Street, I would like to avoid that. The public hearing was closed. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Tarr - too many problems to be considering both of these units. Commissioner Parkerson - 102 doesn't meet our standards; 106 would - we should not approve 1 2 64 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes 1/28/92 Commissioner Bennett - not prepared to take these drawings and try to revise them at this time. Commissioner Nelson - I agree with Commissioner Bennett. Pamela Tuft Applicant doesn't appear to object to conditions for 106 - staff was not aware of applicant's concerns prior to this meeting; recommends approving 106 (feels compromise can be reached at SPARC - the only concern is with roof), and not approving 102. Commissioner Parkerson - in interest of gaining one additional dwelling unit - should approve 106 not 102. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded. by Commissioner Bennett to approve a Conditional Use Permit for 106 Edith and to deny a Conditional. Use Permit for 102' Edith based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions (deletion of 5c and 7) listed below: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMI_SSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Absent COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings 1. The proposed accessory dwelling units at 106 Edith, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, 2. Tlie proposed accessory dwelling units at 106 Edith, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan. 3. The proposed accessory dwelling units at 106 Edith will not constitute a nuisance or be. detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Conditions 1. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met, including: a. Provide access, minimum - twenty (20) feet unobstructed all- weather hard surface thirteen feet - six inches (13'6 ") vertical height clearance (see attached). b. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system may be installed in lieu of access requirement. C. Post address at or near main entry door - minimum two inch letters. d. All roof covering materials applied as exterior wall covering shall have a fire rating of class "B ", treated in accordance with UBC Standard 32 -7, as per Ordinance 1744 City of Petaluma. 2. All requirements of the Chief Building Inspector shall be met, including: a. Certify pad elevations before building slab on grade is poured. 3 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes 1/28/92 b. Show site drainage and grading topography. C. Indicate all utilities on site plan.. d.. Indicate group occupancy, type of construction, square footage. 3. All requirements of the City Engineer shall be met, including: a. Replace all broken or cracked portions of sidewalk fronting &he -F lot prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. Bo f - r th Building footprint shall be held a minimum of 14' from theiespective rear (o property lines. 5. Tle accessory units shall be subject to SPARC review with emphasis on the following issues: a. '; Offset the units to provide some relief between theiF front elevations, beyond ` that required by the Zoning Ordinance relative to coverage of required yard 4 area. b. Re- design the roofs- 443�ot4-uiiits to reflect the respective roof style and pitch of the existing residences. Siding materials, windows, trim and color scheme should also be consistent with the existing residences. e:- ;----- 4 QonWFSi ©r1- € -I afk4- ng- €aF- �F4. -#2 -a*d FeEluire"- eame-adH en4- &4o- pF01Vide- access: I d. ; Review of a revised site /landscape plan that locates and labels (both botanical and common names) all existing and proposed plantings, indicates the type and location of the irrigation system, locations for trash storage, and all existing and proposed fencing. 6. To; assess the impacts, if any, of required storm drains and lines /swales, ..staff recommends a grading and drainage plan be submitted for SPARC review. -------- cFOSS -aveF- access- easement-- rncarFixg -e- k1'= dFieway- sliul€ -b�- Fee ©riled acF ©ss- �Bb- I✓di�i -fit. - A�A1 -00�- 951- 43- �o- inst�e- pe�pettral- access- �d- trxiz- #2- PFto-F -te the- issea:Rc-e -o-€ a- buildiag�eFrFrit subject t ©eta£ rev3e - an�appreval: 8. The following special development fees shall be applicable to4hese- developments: * Sewer connection fee (paid prior to final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy). * Water connection fee (paid prior to final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy). * Community facilities development fee (paid. prior to final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy). * Storm drainage impact fee (paid prior to final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy). 0 65 sww n 66 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes 1/28/92 * Dwelling construction fee (paid prior to the issuance of a building permit). * School facilities fee (this fee is paid directly to the school district prior to the issuance of a building permit) Traffic mitigation fee (paid prior to the issuance of a Certificate of . Occupancy). PLANNING MATTER III. SOUTH PETALUMA BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN Ob). 1. Consideration of the Draft South Petaluma Boulevard Specific .Plan Phase I Report: Preliminary Analysis Findings. a. Presentation by consultants. b. Public forum. (Chairman Libarle abstains - Commissioner Parkerson assumes Chair) The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Kurt Yeiter presented an overview of the State enabling legislation on the content and purpose of a Specific Plan and discussed applicable General Plan policies. He introduced Jennifer barrett as the City's staff planner on this project. Jennifer Barrett presented an overview of the planning process and discussed the purpose of tonight's meeting was to provide a forum for public input and review of the draft Phase I Report. DISCUSSION Jennifer Barrett introduced the Consultant, John Wagstaff. John Wagstaff - Overview of Draft Plan; Petaluma General Plan recognized South Petaluma area as distinctive gateway area; requested by City to design three -phase study; suggested several items that Commission may want to expand upon (i.e. area boundary); is Specific. Plan effort warranted at this time, etc.); brief overview of Draft Specific Plan Phase I Report; Highlights: mixture of uses (quarry, residential, truckstops, vacant, railroad (etc.); identification of assets /detriments; suggestions for improvement of area (roadway surfaces, undergrounding utilities, etc.); development of long -term design standards; Urban Limit Line designation overlap; wetlands status of southern properties (wetlands limitations determination is forthcoming from Army Corps); provisions of Sonoma County Zoning and General Plan designations; feasibility of development dependent on sewer extension and roadway access (County commercial development (without. city services) would be less.intense); Urban Separator Designation now exists along..inner edge of Urban Limit Line which prohibits development; concerns regarding compatibility of existing development; concerns regarding public access to river; historical resources in area should be clearly emphasized'; status of Caltrans plans for widening of 101 from Petaluma to E City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes 1/28/92 Novato; flood potential in area; impacts of expanded water /sewer /fire services on City; description of possible alternatives. Commissioner Rahman - if open space and floodway and wetlands is removed - how much area is left to be developed? John Wagstaff - we haven't really done that kind of arithmetic. Commissioner Tarr - any health problems in area because of septic /water? John Wagstaff no current septic /water problems identified; above /below ground fuel tanks were identified. Commissioner Bennett - could annexation piece -meal be allowed in this area? Kurt Yeiter - conceivable, but issue has not come up. Commissioner Bennett - historic areas (Parker House, Haystack Landing) are they inside the Urban Limit Line? co John. Wa sg taff - Yes - both are inside line. co Kurt Yeiter - in preliminary planning stages - very informal process at this time - may not be able to have exact answers at this time - raise issues at this point.. Bill Root - noted few errors in report (map incorrectly identified as USGS - really U.S. Geodetic Survey); area may have substantial archaelogical and historical significance; described some historical significance of Haystack Landing area. Vincenza: Scarpuci - Meadow Glen Drive - mixed feelings regarding development - this is once in a lifetime opportunity to do something of great significance for Petaluma - considerations regarding expenses should not be taken into account if proper enhancement of area is not undertaken; community should participate in any further development process of this area; River Enhancement Plan will provide community input of primary importance before any annexation decisions are made; negotiate, communicate with CalTrans /Open Space Commission before pursuing this project - do not become isolated, interact. , Bill Kortum -. very high standard to work to - City a delight to come into; openspace and farmland are intermixed next to freeway (very european feeling); low level of emphasis is given to rail which runs through middle of this property, opportunity for emphasis on rail is here; County General Plan does not emphasize this rail service; public will shortly own 157 miles of rail from Ukiah to south of this property; increased rail traffic will dictate types of development in this area; to depend on freeway being improved in the near future might not be a reality; we may have rail sooner than we think; two- county transit district may be a reality; take a look at rail potential on this site; if you put in a park and ride system (like BART) this will be growth- inducing; pedestrian access to rail stations should be given top - priority; public transit should be close enough for people to walk; air quality benefits of rail are obvious. Kurt Yeiter - in your discussions with agencies regarding rail access - how close should stops be? Bill Kortum - if Transit District could be put together this year - a complete Transit Plan could be created; need an overall comprehensive transit plan for these counties; answers are needed now - Golden Gate Bridge District experts do not have answers now. Ed Sousa - 2141 Petaluma Blvd. South - (business owner) - surprised that there are several alternatives already proposed; a road is shown through my property - bye -bye business, is not happy with what is proceeding. Commissioner Tarr - What do you, as a property owner want to see? Ed Sousa I'm not happy that I might be eliminated - I would like to see City grow, but... Pam Torliatt - precedent setting if General Plan is changed - if one person wants to do this, why not the next? Urban Limit is there for a reason; Army Corps report needs to be looked at; ,what percentage is wetlands? City needs to work with Open Space - there will be a meeting at 7PM Thursday at Veterans building; really look at design very carefully; this will be Petaluma - our image; what will be allowed to make this city appealing. Jim Webb - 327 Howard Street - looks like plan is an excellent start - concerns and wishes of all in Petaluma come close to being met in draft plan; encourages City gateway 67 in 68 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes 1/28/92 architectural design plan for cohesiveness; should not be left open to the least expensive design plans; possible image of southend of town could be riverfront town showing cohesiveness; minor correction to Wagstaff report - 1866's was when steamboats began coming to Petaluma. Les Shorter - owns parcels 35 and 36 behind Novato Disposal just south of truck stop - one of nine owners of industrial /commercial properties who brought this plan to City; very beautiful city - wants to see a beautiful gateway; report very good for initial study; Petaluma River only a resource if it is maintained as far as dredging goes; Corps of Engineer dredging criteria becoming stricter and stricter; costs of dredging on local budget devastating; roadways /track crossings - currently an easement between Reinhardt and Novato Disposal - additional footage was set back so that roadway could be created with no disturbance; Alternative 1 took center out of (his) property, also removed new building; Table 13 page 231 - mentions reduction of commercial property - along river, there is some commercial property now - needs to be retained; Alternative 3 - roadway could be built along river, this would be compatible with my property; Alternative 3. leaves most properties fairly intact; everyone is concerned about public access to the river - some commercial uses (cranes, etc.) not compatible with public access. Chris Christensen - Property owner (33 acres) (along with Congressman Riggs) - a few items to share with Commission which might help in recommendation to City Council - when property was first acquired - consulted with City staff; thou ht of shopping center, changed idea to corporate center; staff suggested. EIR (study area; concerns with Urban Limit Line cuts right through property; architectural motif that would be proposed should include the entire area into downtown. Scott Hess - Hasn't heard all of the comments - speaking for Friends of Petaluma - opposed to any expansion until there is an overall comprehensive plan for entire City. Lang Yee - property owner near Haystack Landing - very unhappy about this study - there was supposed to be another meeting after the first one in July; there was a meeting held in City Hall without his knowledge among the property owners who funded this study; most people do not want this. study; how many acres are included? interested. in what is going on; small properties should. have voice -)(my) property could be cut apart; property bought by some property owners (Congressman `Riggs and that group) have power; everyone has to pay for sewer, water, police, fire; my objection is that where we are has no value - we would have to pay our share - $100,000 - where would I get $100;000 - I talked to Mayor - she said sell your property - It's my home, I don't want to be forced to sell my property. John Wagstaff - group contact was at initial meeting with property owners; owners of some of the larger parcels contacted us; where there were specific questions, property owners, were contacted; if this moves to Phase 2 there will be more formal landowner input; report describes annexation process and legal recourse property owners might have who would not be in favor of annexation. Jennifer Barrett - first meeting was in July; second meeting was intended, but was not held because report was delayed. Commissioner Rahman - appreciates well thought -out comments from audience._ Pamela Tuft - This item will be , brought back to regular meeting of February 11 for Commission consideration of options and recommendations. The public hearing was closed BREAK for 5 minutes. Commission Discussion Commissioner Nelson When was Urban Limit Line determined? Jennifer Barrett - Line has been changed very little in the last 20 years (1977). 7 City.of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes 1/28/92 69 Commissioner Nelson - Remark regarding who owns what property - I personally don't care at all who owns which property'- does not want to change Urban Limit Lines, sensitive to changes to lines; in a city where you can b very ungee jump from aballoon -there is great capacity to be creative; Fire Chief did discuss the need for a new fire station in the area - need to look closely at the services that can be impacted. Commissioner Rahman - a few items that are particularly important - re: Urban Limit Line should not be changed while we are so close to an overall General Plan review; many questions; to answer, most important is transit relating to rail;. where will Petaluma put commercial /industrial - north or south; I like how Petaluma looks, I don't particularly want to look out toward the river and see shopping centers, etc. Commissioner Tarr - question on rail - on the General Plan Map - there is a T (for transit terminal) 'near the Marina - we're not sure that we need another transit terminal now? Kurt Yeiter - GP in 1987 - designated several transit terminals throughout town; GP CO anticipated some type of rail use - one out by Redwood Business Park, one downtown, one next to the Marina, etc.; type of transit anticipated - how often will trains stop - once per City? Much more discussion will be needed in coming years. Commissioner Tarr - If there is a Specific Plan - could this area be split up into smaller plan areas? Kurt - I would hesitate to recommend something. Commissioner Bennett - comments on rail - Bill Kortum made a very good presentation on rail, a residential population of about 8,000 is needed in the immediate area of a transit stop to make it work; there were probably some misunderstandings tonight (Friends of Petaluma, 'etc.) stated that we should not be discussing this without a plan - that is what we are deciding tonight - should we continue with developing a. plan. Pamela Tuft - we do have an "overall" plan - the General Plan - which recommends- the area we are discussing tonight should have a Specific Plan. Commissioner Tarr Relationship between City and County in this area has not been perfect; City should become involved to ensure this area becomes an attractive gateway; what chance to comment does the City have when this area is in County? Pamela Tuft - City can comment just like any citizen. Commissioner Tarr - we don't have a gateway at the south now. Commissioner Bennett - concerns for the last 20 years that the south entrance to the City needs an upgrade; these upgrades do not have to happen in the next 4 years; planning is the key - we have to be able to control what will happen out there. through planning, through a Specific Plan; should we go beyond the Urban Limit Line - I think the answer is no. Commissioner Parkerson - necessary for City to have control in this area, some annexation is necessary.; extending the Urban Limit Line is unnecessary at this time; very important to review this area in terms of control /change of thinking to make this more pedestrian, a gateway; wonderful opportunity for City of Petaluma to do this; given control of this area, City gains more persuasive powers with the County around this area; we can continue this to the next meeting for further discussion when we have been able to further study this. Commissioner Tarr - can we work something out with the County on design guidelines other than Specific Plan preparation? Pamela Tuft - staff will pursue options prior to next meeting. Commissioner Rahman - would like to see County options pursued; concerns with preservation of wetlands; comments on rail - alternatives for commuters. Commissioner Bennett - so many agencies protect wetlands already; a Specific Plan will help identify; all wetland areas. Commissioner Rahman - can a shopping center or industrial park be p ut near the wetlands areas without scaring away the ducks? I need more information on the wetlands area. Kurt Yeiter - mixed messages - should wetlands brought into the City limits? If they are, will they be properly protected? John Wagstaff - map in report, shows overview of various wetlands areas - designation was done by very ; professional group; the wetlands are development avoidance areas. ]® City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes 1/28/92 Commissioner Parkerson - wants to clarify - between now and the next meeting, clarifications to items discussed tonight and some final decisions will be made. Pamela Tuft - Yes, options for recommendations to the City Council; staff report will be available on February 6. Kurt Yeiter - Summary of the Plan is available at Planning Department; call if you would like one mailed. ADJOURNMENT 10:20 PM min0128 / pcmin -5 1 I� 01 �� W y . ,-_. ,,. ,.v l: .—.,,.n— ",— --- ' -,.. -, :....- ,...__,. _--- -- - - - --