Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/10/199077 f • C� REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL April 10, 1990 7:00 P.M. PETALUMA, CA The Planning Commission encourages applicants or their representatives to be available at the meeting to answer questions so that no agenda item need be deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent information. COMMISSIONERS: Balshaw, Bennett *, Doyle (left meeting at 9:00 PM, prior to Item No. 3), L'ibarle, Parkerson, Read, Tarr STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner Gary Broad, Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF March 13, 1990 - Minutes were approved with corrections to pages 9 and 15. PUBLI000MMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENT: Commissioner Tarr wishes to receive list of signalization projects; McNear Hill (sidewalk and signal improvements). DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None. CORRESPONDENCE: Letters regarding Rancho Lindo; letter from D. Simmons regarding Sonoma Mountain Parkway; revised lot layout for 1 block within Cader Farms. APPEAL' STATEMENT 1 [� NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS I. TWO-MINER,. 561 SKYRANCH DRIVE, SUITES D & H, PETALUMA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, FILE NO. 1.667A(pt). 1. Consideration of amendment to existing conditional use permit for general office uses (International Software and Computing, Inc. and Michael Marion) in conjunction with Fixed Base Operator facilities. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: None. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by :Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to direct staff to prepare a Negative Declaration for the granting of an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permits to add two occupancies at Two - Niner, Inc., based on the findings in the staff report: COMMISSIONER BALSHAW: Yes COMMISSIONER -READ: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yes CHAIRMAN BENNETT:Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE :Yes COMMISSIONER TARR:Yes Findings 1. These uses, as conditionally approved, do not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, .threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range' of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate - important— examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 2. These uses, as conditionally approved, do not have the potential to achieve short - term to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals. 3. These uses, as conditionally approved, do not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 4. These uses, as conditionally approved, do not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 5. These uses are consistent with and further promote the objectives, goals, and policies of the General Plan. 2 79 A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Doyle to grant a conditional use permits based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed in the staff report. COMMISSIONER BALSHAW:Yes COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yes CHAIRMAN BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE:Yes COMMISSIONER TARR:Yes Findings:, O 1. The proposed uses, subject to the conditions of approval, conform to the intent and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. U 2. These uses will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community due to the mitigation measures incorporated in the conditions of approval. Conditions 1. All tenant improvements associated with the approved conditional uses shall comply with applicable conditions of SPARC approval for the structure pertaining to mechanical equipment screening, no outdoor storage, sign permits. 2. These uses shall be included in the overall calculation and limitation on general office uses, not to exceed a total of 4,500 square feet, subject to determination by the Airport Commission of consistency with the PCD regulations pertaining to all related activity, prior to issuance of tenant improvement permits. 3. A' sign program shall be developed for the building, to insure consistency and compatibility to the building's architecture, subject to staff review and approval, prior to issuance of any tenant improvement building permits. 4 The occupancy of Site H shall be subject to all use conditions and time restrictions asset forth by the Airport Commission. II. SONOMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY, CORONA /ELY (ky). 1. Consideration of ETQ. 2. Consideration of Plan Line Study.. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner Tom Hargis, City Engineer Jon Anderson, McKay and Somps - Plan Line Engineer Alan Tilton, City Traffic Engineer 3 L Carlos Berguido, 1722 Ca ella Court - presented petition with 310 signatures (77% of Morningstar Homes supporting staff s recommendation on signalization at Cygnus. Jack Kantu, Morningstar Homeowner's Assoc., concerns regarding traffic, parking. Sue Nelson, Brelje and Race, representing SRJC; concerns about local traffic using short loop through Jr. College to u -turn on Sonoma Mountain Parkway; u -turn at north driveway might alleviate this situation. Pat Romero, McDowell Meadows Homeowner's Association; had not been approached for neighborhood meetings; concerned about connection of Maria Drive with Sonoma Mountain Parkway being too proximate to existing houses. Jeff Davis, 1768 Northstar Drive; neighborhood meeting. Gloria Duchnosky - 1765 Northstar Drive; college students will park anywhere; left turns from Cygnus should be allowed. Tom Scott, 389 Corona Road; concerns regarding Sonoma Mountain Parkway adding a lot of traffic onto Corona Road; already too much traffic. Keith McClelland, 1445 Morning Glory; alignment of Sonoma Mountain Parkway in relation to existing homes. - Clyde Thomas, Petaluma Fire Marshal - closing Acadia is not major problem - can use Rainier. Dennis DeWitt - Petaluma Police Chief - Closing Acadia would not be a problem. Commissioner Discussion: Commissioner Tarr - would have liked to see aerials. Commissioner Balshaw - plans were hard to follow. Commissioner Read - Would like 2 more weeks to study options. This was our only opportunity to view Plan Line. Commissioner Parkerson - Good presentation and discussion; concerns on parking by students; interim versus permanent alignments of Corona at Sonoma Mountain Parkway. Commissioner Doyle - Should wait to hear from Brody representative. Commissioner Balshaw - Brody representative has voiced their concerns; will be given further opportunity at City Council hearing. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Libarle to recommend to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the findings in the staff report and to approve the Sonoma Mountain Plan Line with certain modifications: COMMISSIONER BALSHAW:Yes COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yes CHAIRMAN BENNETT:Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE:Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings 1. It is the intent of the City Council to mitigate the loss of trees caused by construction of Sonoma Mountain Parkway by providing more plentiful and diverse vegetation within the right -of -way. This intent shall be monitored by staff during the design and approval of the master design plan for the Sonoma Mountain Parkway corridor. 4 M 2. It is the intent of the City Council to review the historic and cultural significance of the Corona Club building before approving right -of -way acquisition. If at that time a significant loss of historic or cultural hentage is anticipated, appropriate and feasible mitigations will be considered. 3. In view of the Council's stated intent and mitigations incorporated in the Corona /Ely Specific Plan as discussed in the Corona /Ely Specific Plan EIR: a. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the habitat of a Co fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or 0 eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or Q prehistory. U b. The project does not have the potential to achieve short -term to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals. C. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. d. The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. e. The project is consistent with and further promotes the objectives, goals, and policies of the General Plan and Corona /Ely Specific Plan. Modifications to Plan Line 1. North entrance to Junior College to be open and signalized with left turn pocket to allow u- turns. 2 Cygnus to be closed to all left turns and Acadia to allow right turns only by continuation of median island in Sonoma Mountain Parkway. 3. Right -of -way on Corona widened (to stop at eastern City Limits); 2 lane construction preferred 4. Extend Sonoma Mountain Parkway right -of -way to connect with right -of -way for North McDowell Assessment District. III. NIZIBIAN, RANCHO LINIDO ESTATES, 1541 AND 1575 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVENUE, AP NO. 19- 232 -11 AND 18, FILE NO. 6.971,3.406(gb). 1. Consideration of EIQ. 2. . Consideration of prezonin� to Planned Unit District. 3. Consideration of PUD Unit Development Plan. 4. Consideration of pre- tentative map. 5 M The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Gary Broad - Associate Planner - presented staff report. Bonnie Mogel - Mogel Engineering - comments on conditions of approval. Belford Fahrenfeld - 1023 Rancho Lindo Drive - concerns regarding potential impacts associated with extension of Rancho Undo Drive; assurance was given by Joe Nizibian that Rancho Lindo Drive would not be extended: heavy construction on weekends. Pat Marshal .- 1675 Mountain View - open creek, runs full in winter; quality of life changing due to . "progress ". Trees are being removed along top of the ridge; not interested in being in the City. Frank Marshal - 1675 Mountain View - adjacent lot is lower than street. Bob Cherot - 1701 Mountain View - homes in Rancho Lindo development is a plus for neighborhood; however, times are changing; opposes any annexation in the area; particularly south of the project; concern on construction road (dust) what will happen to road eventually? Joe Harn - 700 block of Mountain View Avenue; off -site impacts are not addressed; either Negative Declarations or outdated EIR's; improvements inadequate to handle runoff, cumulative impacts have created real traffic and drainage impacts; Zone 2 funds are being diverted to big river fix; CEQA requires an EIR for this project. Dennis Hansen - 1051 Rancho Lindo (letter attached to staff report). Julie Hauth -. Not opposed to development, but opposes street extension; architectural review committee has conflict of interest when developer is on Committee; need assurances that developer will comply with conditions; wants to avoid center parking islands in cul -de -sacs. Ray Nizibian - Developer; guarantee that temporary construction road, will be kept dust - free; plans to 290' of Mountain View Avenue; doesn't want to do another lot. Pat Marshal - Right -of -way is narrow; inadequate for even temporary use. Len Svinth - 1541 Mountain View; supports subdivision. Joe Nizibian - 5 Troy Court; CC &R's - questions on conditions of approval. Charles Condrotte - 1871 Mountain View; plan is very good; concerns re: construction noise. Cliff King - 1050 Rancho Lindo - sidewalks needed around cul -de -sac; architectural design committee should be made up of existing home owners. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Libarle and seconded by Commissioner Tarr- to— recommend to the City Council approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the findings listed in the staff report. COMMISSIONER BALSHAW:Yes COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Absent CHAIRMAN BENNETT:Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE:Yes COMMISSIONER TARR:Yes T Findings 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City of Petaluma General Plan and its goals, policies and objectives. 2. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the. City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 3. 'Me prezoning prior to . annexation is consistent with applicable State Law (Government Code 35012) and Sonoma County LAFCO requirements. 4. This project, as, conditioned, will not result in any significant land use or (� environmental impacts. 0) A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Libarle to O recommend to the City Council approval of a prezone to PUD based on the findings listed in the staff report. U COMMISSIONER BALSHAW:Yes COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Absent CHAIRMAN BENNETT:Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE :Yes COMMISSIONER TARR:Yes Findin,s 1. This prezoning does not constitute an expansion of the existing Sphere of Influence, Urban Limit Line or water service boundary line. 2. The prezoning. is consistent with the Petaluma General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 3. This liroject will not result in significant. land use or environmental impacts. A negative declaration has been recommended. A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Read to recommend to. the City Council approval of a Unit Development Plan for a 9 lot subdivision based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed in the staff report. --,► COMMISSIONER BALSHAW: Yes COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: No - disagrees with condition requiring temporary construction road COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Absent CHAIRMAN BENNETT: No - does not agree with 9 lots COMMISSIONER LIBARLE: No - does not agree with 9 lots COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes This motion caused a recommendation of denial for this project as proposed. RIM • VA IV. QUAKER MILL DEVELOPMENT; CADER FARMS, ELY BOULEVARD NORTH (SONOMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY) AND RAINIER AVENUE, AP NO.'S 136-120 - 05,18, 21 -23, FILE 'NO. 3.409, 6.980(pt). 1. Consideration of EIQ. 2. Consideration of amendment to Development Agreement. 3. Consideration of request ,to :rezone from PCD (Planned Community District)" to PUD (Planned Unit District), 4. Consideration of PUD Unit Development Plan. 5. Consideration of tentative subdivision map to create 123 detached single - family dwelling lots on 29.7 acres. This item was not presented due to lack of time. PLANNING MATTERS V. DISCUSSION ITEMS. 1. Budget 1990 -91. 2. Full-sized plans vs. reduced plans for Commission packets. 3. Referred from City Council: a. Institute an annual General Plan implementation progress report. b. Improve back -on development treatment on artenals. C. Strengthen ordinances to preserve ridgelines. d. Establish zoning for manufactured housing /mobile home development. These items were not discussed due to lack of time. ADJOURNMENT: 11 :30 PM. min0410 / pcom4 EV