HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/24/1992103
1
2
3
4
5
M
18
19
20
21
22
23
t6 7
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
8
1
-52
City of Petaluma
Planning Commission Minutes
REGULAR MEETING March 24, 1992
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
COMMISSIONERS: Bennett, Libarle *, Nelson, Parkerson, Rahman, Tarr, Thompson,
STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
Kurt Yeifer, Principal Planner
James McCann, Principal Planner
Hans Grunt, Planning Technician
Chairman
MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 1992 were approved as printed.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Bennett - River Enhancement Committee
update; Commissioner Rahman - Tour or wastewater treatment plant went well - thanked
Chris McAuliffe (EOS).
CORRESPONDENCE: None.
APPEAL 'STATEMENT: (Was read).
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: (Was noted on agenda.)
1 04 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1992
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING
I. ALFRED LIZAK, NORTHWEST CORNER OF McNEAR AVENUE AND
MISSION DRIVE, APN 008- 471 -36, FILE NO. TSM92001(hg).
1. Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. Consideration of a General Plan Land Use Map Amendment to eliminate a
proposed park designation on this site.
3. Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map for the creation of 5 single -
family lots.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Hans Grunt - Presented staff, report.
General Discussion regarding lot layout, landscaping, materials for sound attenuation
fence, setback clarification, all purchasers must be required to sign acknowledgement of
adjacent use (Veteran's Hall), General Plan designation for ossible park site.
Mike James - 89 Mission Drive - Referenced 1989 petition ( presented to the City Council)
which contained 76 signatures from 44 households; concerns with preservation of open
space; concerns with projects in this area - new development will eliminate all possible
park /open space.
Jenette Cozza - 73 Mission Drive - parents in area would like to see parcel kept as open
space; attended all meetings (Parks and Recreation and Planning Commission) for last 3
years; lot is convenient and encourages active /creative play.
Pamela Tuft - suggested that this item be continued and referred to Parks and Recreation
Commission for comment regarding General Plan Amendment for removal of the Park
designation; neighbors apparently were not given opportunity to discuss with Parks and
Recreation Commission prior to their decision to recommend a General Plan Land. Use
Amendment to eliminate park site.
Commissioner Rahman - When this comes back to Planning Commission would like Parks
and. Recreation representation.
Pamela Tuf - Will work with Jim Carr (Parks and Recreation Director) on notification of
neighbors.
Steve Crook - 65 Mission - Much discussion when this was set aside earlier; would like to
see this taken back to Parks and Recreation Commission - many items could be worked
out.
Commissioner Nelson - Should consider this seriously at Parks and Recreation meeting.
Mr. Lizak - Property owner /applicant - This property was auctioned by the County as
surplus land; conferred with Planning, Parks and Recreation, PG &E, etc. prior to purchase
of land; No indication that this parcel was planned for a park; property was purchased since
the zoning was R -1 6,500; Jim Carr of Parks and Recreation did not indicate that there was
talk of, creation of a park; was not informed of any plans for a park; lots that are planned
are generous in size.
Commissioner Libarle - When this item is returned to Planning Commission, would like to
see a timeline reflecting past history of this site.
This item is continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 28 and referred to the
Parks and Recreation Commission.
2
1
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1992
1
2
3 II. CITY OF PETALUMA, CAPRI CREEK EASTERLY OF ELY
4 BOULEVARD /SONOMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY, FILE NO. GPA92001(ky).
5
6 1. Consideration of amendment to General Plan Land Use Map to realign
7 Capri Creek easterly of Ely Boulevard (this project is exempt from CEQA).
8
9 The public hearing was opened.
10
11 SPEAKERS:
12
CD Kurt Yeiter - presented staff report.
j Ron Malone - 909 Ely Road - Would an open space corridor encroach into his property?
Kurt Yeiter - No, Malone property is in the County.
Sue Nelson - Brelje and Race - project engineers for Jr. College District - Answered
questions regarding Jr. College project; architectural plans will be completed within the
next few months; no substantial changes from concept and plans.
The public hearing was closed.
21
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Bennett
23 to recommend to the City Council amendment of the General Plan Land Use Map to
24 center the 200 -foot wide Open Space Corridor along the existing alignment of Capri Creek.
25 .
26 COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes
ko CO MMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes
31 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
32 COMMIS_ SIONER TARR: Yes
33
34
35 III. 'UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, 825 MIDDLEFIELD DRIVE, APN 008 - 471 -07,
36 FILE NO. GPA91004(hg).
37
38 1. Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
39 2. Consideration of a General Plan Land Use Map amendment to change a
40 36,000 sq.ft. portion of the church property from Public and Institutional to
41 Urban Standard.
42
43 The public hearing was opened.
44
45 SPEAKERS:
46
47 Hans Grunt - Presented the staff report.
48 Mike Jones - 89 Mission Drive - opposed to this until the Lizak application has been
49 resolved :through Parks and Recreation, etc.
50 Jenette Cozza - 73 Mission - would like to see resolution of the previous project before this
goes forward.
Steve Crook - 65 Mission - would like to see more discussion prior to any development on
this parcel; would like to explore options with the church.
3
105
..............
' ®6 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1992
Paul Brown - Church member and landscaper /surveyor for project (Adobe Associates);
church would like to sell some surplus property; concerns regarding liability of vacant land;
would like to proceed with General Plan amendment; Planning Department concerns can
be worked. out with church.
Pamela Tuft - No Park designation exists on this site and the parks issue relative to the
Lizak property should not be discussed in conjunction with this project - this project should
be discussed on its own merit.
Commissioner Rahman - Recent discussions between church and neighbors need to
continue.
Commissioner Bennett - There hasn't been a decision by Parks and Recreation to indicate
there should be a park in this area; should act on this project tonight.
Commissioner Thompson - A park site has not been discussed on this parcel.
Commissioner Tarr Should not close the door on this project because of Lizak project.
Commissioner Parkerson - This parcel has not been under discussion as a park previously;
no connection between the two properties.
Commissioner Nelson - Agrees with Commissioner Parkerson.
Commissioner Rahman - Would still like to see creative discussions between church and
neighbors.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner
Thompson to recommend to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated. Negative
Declaration based on the following amended findings:
COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: No
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: No
Findings
This project, with the incorporation of the following mitigations, will have no significant
adverse environmental impacts:
1. An initial study has been conducted by this lead agency, which has evaluated the
potential for this project to cause an effect -- either individually or cumulatively
wildlife resources. For this purpose, wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds,
plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities including the habitat
upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability ".
2. There is no evidence that the proposed project would have any potential for adverse
effect on wildlife resources.
3. Future development plans /grading plans for this site shall incorporate design
features that minimize ading, subject to administrative site plan and architectural
review and approval. FEExamples include: raised foundations, stepped floor plans,
reduce driveway lengths and shared driveways where possible.) Special
consideration shall be incorporated to insure preservation of mature oak on site:
2
... - ..: ...
.„r, .z -eras
..z _. .,. '...,... .�.. .a........ -, . e......._.. .a..i -...,. _. .. _ ... _._ , 7, e T y .., __ __ ^ n. .r.r.+...�..— ........nwe...... . .... .- ..._._ -. -...
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1992
1 4. Establish or arrange building envelopes, as a part of the subsequent parcel map, in a
2 manner that preserves views through the site from Middlefield and Mission Drives,
3 subject to administrative site plan and architectural review and approval.
4
5 5. Future building development plans shall incorporate a low profile design in order to
6 reduce building heights, subject to administrative site plan and architectural review
7 and approval.
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner
10 Thompson to recommend to the. City Council approval of a General Plan Land Use Map
11 Amendment based on the following findings:
12
COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes
AA COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: No - We are.voting prematurely
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: No - we are voting prematurely
21 Findings
22
23 1. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest.
24
25 2. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map amendment is consistent and
26 compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs that
0 7 may be affected.
8
9 3. The potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and have
0 been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.
31
32 4. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable
33 provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental
34 Quality Act (CEQA).
35
36
37 IV. McBAIL, GLEN BROOK NORTH SUBDIVISION, ELY ROAD, AP NO.'S 137 -070-
38 06, 07, 08, 10 AND 11, FILE NO. TSM91010(tp).
39
40 1. Consideration of amendment to Development Agreement.
41 2. Consideration of Rezone from PCD to PUD.
42 3. Consideration of Unit Development Plan.
43 4. Consideration of Tentative Map for 175 detached single - family lots and 8.4
44 acres of high density residential development.
45
46 The public hearing was opened.
47
48 SPEAKERS:
49
50 Pamela Tuft - Presented staff report and advised that, due to a staff error, a required
preliminary review had not been completed prior to formal submission of the project
application. As a consequence, major staff concerns exist with this application including:
lack of architectural diversity, rigid lotting patterns, setback standards, PUD rezoning
intent not addressed; Ely Road treatment (back -on treatment) is inappropriate, etc. Staff
5
107
1®8 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1992
1
2
4
6
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
would like to work with the developer to redesign project or will recommend denial
without prejudice.
Mike Gallagher - McBail - distributed handout of Tentative Map; recommendations and
conditions. are missing; very disappointed to learn that preliminary review was required and
not done; 'McBail met with staff last summer and discussed access and architectural issues,
and felt that verbal communication should constitute the preliminary review.
Commissioner Libarle - Appreciated Mr. Gallagher's attitude regarding recommended
delay and redesign.
Commissioner Nelson - Clarified that McBail was not "giving away" land for low /moderate
housing - In -Lieu Fee is standard fee charged to all developers.
Ron Malone - 909 Ely Road - Likes living in the country, but next to adjacent county uses
(operates a 30 acre cattle /horse ranch); adding more traffic will impact this area and
should be considered before projects are planned; wants to continue using property as it
now is.
Mr. Karp Waugh School District property was given to school district at no cost -- what-
access will the school have near urban separator? what use will urban separator have?
Commissioner Bennett - Santa Rosa Jr. College campus was studied regarding access; an
attractive nuisance will be created with the layout as it is now planned; Adobe Road is fast
becoming a freeway.
This public hearing was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 14, 1992
with direction given to staff to attempt to resolve the issues identified in the staff report.
ADJOURNMENT 9:20 PM
min0324 / pc _
1
CI